City and County of San Francisco v. U.S. DOT

<> City and County of San Francisco v. U.S. DOT - 7/30/15. In the U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, Case No. 13-15855. The panel affirmed the district court's dismissal of an action brought by the City and County of San Francisco against the Secretary of Transportation and the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (the "Agency"), alleging claims under the Natural Gas Pipeline Safety Act of 1968 and the Administrative Procedure Act, arising after a natural gas transmission pipeline exploded in San Bruno, California, causing multiple deaths and injuries and widespread damage to property.

Rogers Cartage Company v. Monsanto Company

 

<> Rogers Cartage Company v. Monsanto Company - 7/27/15. In the U.S. Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit, Case Nos. 12-3624 & 13-3052. The government sued several potentially responsible parties (PRPs) regarding a cleanup near East St. Louis and many of those PRPs brought contribution claims against one another.      One PRP, Rogers Cartage Company, settled with the other PRPs, but later it sought contribution from them again via a third-party complaint in a separate action. After that third-party complaint was severed and transferred back to the EPA action, the district court dismissed it and imposed sanctions against Rogers Cartage based on the settlement agreement. Rogers Cartage appeals those decisions, and the Appeals Court affirmed.

Organized Village of Kake v. USDA

<> Organized Village of Kake v. USDA - 7/29/15. In the U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, Case No. 11-35517. The en banc [full] court affirmed the district court's summary judgment in favor of the Organized Village of Kake, finding that the United States Department of Agriculture's promulgation of the Tongass National Forest Exemption to the Department's "Roadless Rule" (limiting road construction and timber harvesting in national forests) violated the Administrative Procedure Act; vacated the Tongass Exemption; and reinstated application of the Roadless Rule to the Tongass National Forest in Alaska. The U.S. Department of Agriculture declined to appeal, but intervenor-defendant State of Alaska appealed. Ninth Circuit Ensures Protection of Roadless Areas in Alaska's Tongass National Forest

EME Homer City Generation, L.P v. EPA

<> EME Homer City Generation, L.P v. EPA – 7/28/15. In the U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit, Case No. 11-1302. Consolidated with dozens of other cases. This major case involves the Clean Air Act regulations and the issue regulation of emissions in upwind States that may affect air quality in downwind States – the so called, "good neighbor provision." Petitioners challenge that EPA has overregulated emissions budgets.      The Panel said: "To sum up: We hold invalid the 2014 SO2 emissions budgets for Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina, and Texas, as well as the 2014 ozone-season NOX budgets for Florida, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Texas, Virginia, and West Virginia. We remand without vacatur to EPA for it to reconsider those emissions budgets. We reject all of petitioners' other challenges to the Transport Rule, including all of their facial challenges to the Rule. The petitions for review are therefore granted in part and denied in part." Appeals Court Keeps the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule in Place, Directs EPA to Conduct Additional Analyses

Chinatown Neighborhood Association v. Harris

<> Chinatown Neighborhood Association v. Harris - 7/27/15. In the U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, Case No. 14-15781. The panel affirmed the district court's dismissal of plaintiffs' amended complaint challenging California's "Shark Fin Law," which makes it "unlawful for any person to possess, sell, offer for sale, trade, or distribute a shark fin" in the state.

Tulalip Tribes v. Suquamish Indian Tribe

<> Tulalip Tribes v.  Suquamish Indian Tribe - 7/27/15. In the U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, Case No. 13-35773. The panel affirmed the district court's summary judgment in a treaty fishing rights case in which the Tulalip Tribes sought a determination of the scope of the Suquamish Indian Tribe's usual and accustomed fishing grounds and stations.

Environmental Integrity Project, et al v. EPA

<> Environmental Integrity Project, et al v. EPA - 7/20/15. In the U.S. Court of Appeals, Firfth Circuit, Case No. 14-60649. In this unpublished opinion, the Appeals Court denies a petition from environmental groups for review and uphold the EPA's final rule approving the Texas SIP which allows an entity to obtain a "flexible permit" for emissions up to a specified aggregate limit below the major source threshold.

National Assoc. for Surface Finishing v. EPA

<> National Assoc. for Surface Finishing v. EPA - In the U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit, Case No. 12-1459. Consolidated with 12-1460, 13-1147. The case involves challenges to a 2012 regulation promulgated by U.S. EPA, revising Clean Air Act standards for emissions of hexavalent chromium. Various environmental organizations and an industry association have filed petitions challenging EPA's revised rule. The Panel denied all of the petitions for review and upheld EPA's Final Rule.

Gunpowder Riverkeeper v. FERC

<> Gunpowder Riverkeeper v. FERC - 7/21/15. In the U.S Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit, Case No. 14-1062. In this case the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) issued a certificate of public convenience and necessity to Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC, conditionally authorizing the company to extend a natural gas pipeline in Maryland.       Gunpowder Riverkeeper, petitioned for rehearing, which the Commission denied. Gunpowder then petitioned this court for review of the Commission's order granting the certificate and Columbia intervened in support of the Commission. The Appeals Court denied Gunpowder's petition for want of a legislatively conferred cause of action.

DE Department of Natural Resourses. v. EPA

<> DE Department of Natural Resourses. v. EPA - 7/21/15. In the U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit, Case No. 13-1093, Consolidated with 13-1102, 13-1104. In this case the State of Delaware, industry and environmental organizations, and an industry intervenor challenge a final rule of U.S. EPA governing the use of certain kinds of power generators -- i.e.  Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines or "backup generators" or "emergency engines."      The Panel ruled, "We reverse the challenged rules that contain the 100-hour exemption for operation of emergency engines for purposes of emergency demand response. . . remand them to EPA for further action. . . The rest of the 2013 Rule remains in effect." Related Court Order

Pit River Tribe v. Bureau of Land Management

<> Pit River Tribe v. Bureau of Land Management - 7/20/15. In the U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, Case No. 13-16961. The panel reversed the district court's order granting judgment on the pleadings in an action brought by environmental organizations challenging the Bureau of Land Management's continuation of 26 geothermal leases in northeastern California's Medicine Lake Highlands.      Because BLM must conduct environmental, historical, and cultural review under the National Environmental Policy Act and the National Historic Preservation Act before granting lease extensions under § 1005(g), the panel held that the environmental organizations' claim fell within § 1005(g)'s zone-of-interests, and the organizations had stated a claim under § 1005(g).

Energy Future Coalition, et al. v. EPA, et al.

<> Energy Future Coalition, et al. v. EPA, et al. - 7/15/15. In the U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit, Case No. 14-1123. Petitioners in this case include several biofuel producers that want EPA to approve E30, which is a fuel that contains about 30% ethanol, for use as a test fuel. But according to petitioners, E30 is not yet "commercially available," as required by EPA's test fuel regulation.       Petitioners argue that the test fuel regulation is arbitrary and capricious. The Appeals Court disagreed and denied the petition.

Energy & Environment Legal v. Epel

<> Energy & Environment Legal v. Epel - 7/13/15. In the U.S. Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit, Case No. 14-1216. In an important case challenging the constitutionality of Colorado's renewable energy law mandating 20% renewable and increasing over time.       The Appeals Court notes: "Because electricity can go anywhere on the grid and come from anywhere on the grid, and because Colorado is a net importer of electricity, Colorado's renewable energy mandate effectively means some out-of-state coal producers, like an EELI member, will lose business with out-of-state utilities who feed their power onto the grid. And this harm to out-of-state coal producers, EELI says, amounts to a violation of one of the three branches of dormant commerce clause jurisprudence."      The district court disagreed with EELI's assessment and the Appeals Court affirmed.

ASARCO v.Celanese Chemical Co.

<> ASARCO v.Celanese Chemical Co. - 7/10/15. In the U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, Case No. 12-16832. Affirming the district court's summary judgment, the panel held that a claim for contribution under § 113(f)(3)(B) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act was time-barred.

Natural Resources Defense Council v. Metropolitan Water Reclamation

<> Natural Resources Defense Council v. Metropolitan Water Reclamation - 7/9/15. In the U.S. Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit, Case Nos. 14-1776 & 14-1777. Case involves the City of Chicago's stormwater holding plan known as the Tunnel and Reservoir Plan, sometimes called TARP and commonly known as Deep Tunnel.       The Alliance [environmental organizations] challenges a consent decree approved by the district court, saying it  concedes that the system won't work. The Appeals Court ruled, "The consent decree that the district court has approved is reasonable in light of the current infrastructure, the costs of doing things differently (no one proposes to build a new sewer system or redo the Deep Tunnel project), and the limits of knowledge about what will happen when the system is completed. . ."

Building Association of the Bay Area v. Dept. of Commerce

<> Building Association of the Bay Area v. Dept. of Commerce - 7/7/15. In the U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, Case No. 13-15132. The panel affirmed the district court's summary judgment in favor of the United States Department of Commerce and others in an action brought by property owners under the Endangered Species Act and the Administrative Procedure Act, challenging the designation of critical habitat for a threatened species, the southern distinct population of green sturgeon, and the regulations implementing that designation. Appeals Court Upholds Habitat Protections for Threatened Green Sturgeon in California, Oregon, Washington

Florida Wildlife Federation, Inc., et al. v. EPA

<> Florida Wildlife Federation, Inc., et al. v. EPA - 7/7/15. In the U.S. Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit, Case No. 14-10987. An unpublished opinion involving a challenge by environmental groups over a court ordered modification of a consent decree with EPA regarding Florida's water regulations and standards under the Clean Water Act (CWA).      In light of its approval of Florida's new CWA regulations, EPA asked the district court to modify the consent decree to relieve it of its obligation to regulate the waters covered by Florida's new CWA-compliant regulations. The Appeals Court ruled that the environmental groups were "wrong" in their challenge affirmed the district court's order modifying the consent decree.

American Farm Bureau Federation v. EPA

<> American Farm Bureau Federation v. EPA - 7/6/15. In the U.S. Court of Appeals, Third Circuit, Case No. 13-4079. In this high interest case involving many states and trade associations including Michigan, parties challenge EPA's "total maximum daily load" (TMDL) of nitrogen, phosphorous, and sediment that can be released into the Chesapeake Bay.      Challengers allege that all aspects of the TMDL that go beyond an allowable sum of pollutants (i.e., the most nitrogen, phosphorous, and sediment the Bay can safely absorb per day) exceeded the scope of the EPA's authority to regulate, largely because the agency may intrude on states' traditional role in regulating land use.      The District Court ruled against Farm Bureau, and challengers and the Appeals Court sided with EPA and affirmed the District Court's ruling. US court upholds EPA plan to clean up Chesapeake Bay

Bruce Goldfarb v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore

<> Bruce Goldfarb v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore - 7/1/15. In the U.S. Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit, Case No. 14-1825. Residents brought statutory claims under the RCRA against the current and former owners of an industrial property in Baltimore alleged to have been contaminated by hazardous waste. The district court granted the property owners' motions to dismiss the claims.       The Appeals Court vacated the district court's judgment and remand the case for further proceedings. The Panel said, in part, "the district court erred in dismissing the claim against Maryland Chemical for failure to allege 'contribution' under § 6972(a)(1)(B)."

Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission V. EPA

<> Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission V. EPA - 6/29/15. In the U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, Case No. 13-70633. The panel granted in part and denied in part a petition for review brought by the Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission, challenging the Beaufort Permit issued by U.S. EPA under the NPDES provisions of the Clean Water Act, authorizing the discharge of oil and gas exploration facilities of 13 waste streams into marine waters of the Beaufort Sea in accordance with conditions set forth in the Permit.