948 N.W.2d 838
N.D.2020Background
- Meridian proposed and obtained a state construction permit for the Davis Refinery in Billings County; permit and public statements referenced a 55,000 bpd capacity.
- Environmental Law & Policy Center and Dakota Resource Council filed a formal complaint with the North Dakota Public Service Commission (PSC) alleging Meridian needed a site‑compatibility certificate under N.D.C.C. ch. 49‑22.1 (threshold: 50,000 bpd).
- The PSC found the complaint stated a prima facie case and served it on Meridian; Meridian did not answer but moved to dismiss under N.D.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1), submitting an affidavit that the facility is designed for and will be limited to 49,500 bpd.
- An ALJ recommended dismissal; the PSC adopted the recommendation, noting it could still enforce siting requirements if Meridian later operated above the statutory threshold; the district court affirmed.
- The North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed, holding the PSC did not err in dismissing for lack of subject‑matter jurisdiction based on Meridian’s factual jurisdictional challenge.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether PSC had to hold an evidentiary hearing/discovery after finding the complaint stated a prima facie case | After prima facie finding, the matter became an adjudicative proceeding under ch. 28‑32 and plaintiffs were entitled to an evidentiary hearing and discovery | PSC may resolve a factual attack on jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1) and consider evidence outside the pleadings without converting to summary judgment | Held: No hearing was required here; ch. 28‑32 does not compel an evidentiary hearing where PSC properly resolved a factual jurisdictional challenge |
| Whether Meridian’s affidavit removed the project from PSC jurisdiction (50,000 bpd threshold) | Plaintiffs: jurisdiction and merits are intertwined; affidavit alone insufficient to divest PSC of authority | Meridian: affidavit was a factual attack showing design ≤49,500 bpd, placing facility outside PSC’s statutory jurisdiction | Held: The affidavit placed the project outside the statutory definition of a covered facility and effectively mooted the complaint; PSC lacked jurisdiction over facilities <50,000 bpd |
Key Cases Cited
- Voigt v. N.D. Pub. Serv. Comm’n, 2017 ND 76, 892 N.W.2d 149 (standard of review for appeals from administrative agencies)
- Capital Elec. Coop. v. N.D. Public Serv. Comm’n, 2016 ND 73, 877 N.W.2d 304 (agency factual findings upheld if a reasoning mind could so conclude)
- Thompson v. Peterson, 546 N.W.2d 856 (N.D. 1996) (a court/agency may consider matters outside pleadings on a Rule 12(b)(1) jurisdictional challenge)
- Osborn v. United States, 918 F.2d 724 (8th Cir. 1990) (federal precedent allowing consideration of extrinsic evidence on jurisdiction)
- Gould Elecs., Inc. v. United States, 220 F.3d 169 (3d Cir. 2000) (distinguishes facial vs. factual challenges to jurisdiction)
- City of Arlington, Tex. v. F.C.C., 569 U.S. 290 (2013) (questions about agency authority are not a discrete "jurisdictional" category)
- Steele v. N.D. Workmen’s Comp. Bureau, 273 N.W.2d 692 (N.D. 1978) (dissent relied on holding that adjudicative proceedings with disputed material facts generally require a formal evidentiary hearing)