Posts tagged: Courts

On August 6, 2026, the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon granted the Motion for Preliminary Injunction filed by Plaintiffs, including energy trade organizations, environmental organizations, and several wind developers, requiring the Department of Defense to continue reviewing wind energy projects to determine if each project will have an adverse impact on military operations and readiness. 

Before August 2025, the Department of Defense evaluated wind energy projects in accordance with various statutes and regulations, which included a predictable timeline for review.  In August 2025, the Department of Defense stopped reviewing proposed wind energy projects when the Department of Defense refused to countersigning mitigation agreements.  In December 2025, the Department of Defense also stopped providing wind developers with draft mitigation agreements.  In April 2026, the Department of Defense cancelled further mitigation negotiations with proposed wind energy projects.  On May 7, 2026, the Department of Defense issued interim guidance related to its internal review of energy projects that essentially froze review for wind projects. 

Plaintiffs filed a lawsuit on May 31, 2026, alleging the Department of Defense’s review freeze on wind energy projects violates the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).  On June 22, 2026, the Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint and a motion for preliminary injunction.  The Motion for Preliminary Injunction requested the Court direct the Department of Defense to resume its review of proposed wind energy projects.  The Defendants filed a Response to the Motion for Preliminary Injunction, and the Plaintiffs filed a Reply in Support of the Motion for Preliminary Injunction.  Several stakeholders also filed amicus briefs in support of the Motion for Preliminary Injunction, including Conservative Energy Network (CEN), Conservative Texans for Energy Innovation (CTEI), a group of environmental organizations (Citizens Campaign for the Environment, Clean Air Task Force, Conservation Law Foundation, Environmental Defense Fund, Environmental Protection Information Center, Natural Resources Defense Council, New York League of Conservation Voters, and Sierra Club), a group of rural landowner groups (Center for Rural Affairs, Renew Missouri, CURE, Iowa Environmental Council, and Dakota Resource Council), a group of clinical professors of environmental law, and a group of several labor organizations (Climate Jobs Oregon, Climate Jobs Colorado, Texas Climate Jobs Project, Climate Jobs Illinois, Climate Jobs Washington, Michigan Climate Jobs, Climate Jobs Massachusetts, Maine Labor Climate Coalition, Climate Jobs New York Education Fund, Union Energy PA, and Iron Workers District Council of the Mid-Atlantic States).  Oral argument on the Motion for Preliminary Injunction was held on August 4, 2026. 

On August 6, 2026, the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon granted the Motion for Preliminary Injunction.  First, the Court held Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits of the APA claims because the Department of Defense’s review freeze violates statutory and regulatory deadlines governing the Department of Defense’s review of wind energy projects.  Second, the Plaintiffs demonstrated they would suffer irreparable harm through economic harm.  Third, the Plaintiffs demonstrated the balance of equities and the public interest weighed in favor of the injunction because the public interest is served by requiring the government to comply with law and the injunction only requested the Department of Defense continue its review of wind energy projects, not rule on any specific wind energy project. 

Sanger Greene PC (Irion Sanger and Ellie Hardwick) represents the CEN and CTEI  in this litigation.

CEN is a national network of 26 state and 13 local organizations championing secure, reliable, affordable, clean American energy. CEN leads conservatives wherever the conversation for a cleaner energy future is taking place and aims to restore American energy leadership, save Americans money, build American businesses, and secure the U.S. power grid. CEN believes market-based energy policies at the local, state, and federal levels will ensure the Nation remains energy dominant. CTEI is a Texas-based nonprofit organization dedicated to clean energy education and advocacy. Its mission is to promote energy innovation and technology-neutral, market-based energy policies that expand access to clean, affordable, and reliable energy.

On April 8, 2026, the Oregon Court of Appeals reversed and remanded limited judgments entered against PacifiCorp in James v. PacifiCorp, a class action that arose from four wildfires that burned in Oregon during Labor Day weekend in 2020.

The appellate court concluded that the trial court improperly instructed the jury that it could “assume that the evidence at the trial applies to all class members.” Because the evidence concerning PacifiCorp’s alleged acts or omissions and causation differed among the four fire areas—and even among locations within the Santiam Canyon—the Court of Appeals held that the instruction was erroneous and prejudicial.

The litigation involved a single certified class consisting of members who owned or resided on property within the boundaries of four fire areas: the 242 Fire, the Echo Mountain Complex Fire, the South Obenchain Fire, and the Santiam Canyon Fire. The trial was divided into phases. Seventeen named plaintiffs represented the class during the first phase of the trial, each associated with the fire that allegedly affected their property. Phase I addressed PacifiCorp’s liability to the class and damages claimed by the named plaintiffs. The jury found for plaintiffs on claims of negligence, gross negligence, public nuisance, private nuisance, and trespass. PacifiCorp appealed the limited judgments and raised thirteen assignments of error. The Court of Appeals focused primarily on PacifiCorp’s fourth assignment, which challenged the jury instruction concerning evidence applicable to the class.

A class action permits courts to adjudicate similar claims collectively, but it does not change the parties’ substantive rights or relieve plaintiffs of the burden of proving their claims. The Court of Appeals explained that plaintiffs were required to prove that PacifiCorp’s alleged tortious conduct caused the harm suffered by all class members.

For the 242 Fire, Echo Mountain Complex Fire, and South Obenchain Fire, plaintiffs relied on a “but-for” causation theory. Under that standard, plaintiffs had to establish that the harm suffered by the class members would not have occurred but for PacifiCorp’s acts or omissions.

Plaintiffs relied on a different causation theory for the Santiam Canyon Fire and its affected members. The Santiam Canyon class area is the largest of the four, covering approximately 71 square miles.  The Santiam Canyon Fire also included fires allegedly caused by PacifiCorp as well as the Beachie Creek Fire, which was proven to have been caused by lightning and to have burned through Santiam Canyon among some of the class members’ properties at the same time. Plaintiffs therefore argued that PacifiCorp’s conduct was a “substantial factor” in causing the harm suffered within the Santiam Canyon.

At trial, plaintiffs requested an instruction stating that the jury could “assume that the evidence at the trial applies to all class members.” PacifiCorp objected, arguing that the instruction allowed evidence concerning particular plaintiffs, fires, or ignition points to be applied to class members whose properties were damaged in different locations or by different fires.

The Court of Appeals agreed that the instruction was erroneous. It explained that much of the evidence presented at trial concerned particular fires and particular ignition points. For example, evidence that PacifiCorp caused an ignition in one part of the Santiam Canyon could not simply be assumed to establish that PacifiCorp’s actions or omissions caused damage to property located hundreds of miles away and potentially affected by a different fire.

The court recognized that common evidence may properly establish class-wide facts in some cases. In this case, however, the differences among the fire areas, ignition points, and theories of causation required the jury to evaluate whether the evidence presented regarding PacifiCorp’s conduct caused the harm suffered by each of the members of the class. The challenged instruction incorrectly permitted the jury to assume that evidence applicable to some class members applied to all of them.

The court also determined that the error was prejudicial, highlighting that plaintiffs’ counsel emphasized the instruction during closing arguments and encouraged the jury to apply evidence concerning individual plaintiffs to the class as a whole. The court concluded that there was, therefore, at least some likelihood that the instruction caused the jury to reach a legally erroneous result.

The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded the limited judgments. It also noted that the trial court may reconsider on remand whether the case should continue as a single class action. The court rejected PacifiCorp’s separate argument that it was entitled to judgment as a matter of law for insufficient evidence, and it did not reach most of PacifiCorp’s remaining assignments of error.

Sanger Greene PC (Irion Sanger and Max Greene) represented six Oregon people’s utility districts as amici curiae: Central Lincoln PUD, Clatskanie PUD, Columbia River PUD, Emerald PUD, Northern Wasco County PUD, and Tillamook PUD. The PUDs’ amicus brief argued that evidence establishing causation as to some class members could not establish liability for other class members whose harm PacifiCorp did not cause. The Court of Appeals’ decision was consistent with that core reasoning in holding that the challenged jury instruction was erroneous and prejudicial.

Oregon people’s utility districts are community-owned electric utilities governed by locally elected boards. The PUDs participated as amici because imposing liability on a utility for harm it did not cause could have significant consequences for Oregon’s publicly owned utilities and the communities they serve.