Carbon Sequestration Council v. EPA

<> Carbon Sequestration Council v. EPA - In the U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit, Case No. 14-1046. Under the Safe Drinking Water Act, Class VI wells are designated to receive carbon dioxide streams generated as part of a climate change mitigation program known as "carbon capture and storage."      On Jan. 3, 2014, EPA issued a final rule in which it determined that supercritical carbon dioxide injected into Class VI underground wells for purposes of geologic sequestration is "solid waste" within the meaning of RCRA. Petitioners seek review of EPA's "solid waste" determination, arguing that the supercritical carbon dioxide streams at issue in this rule are not RCRA solid waste.      The Appeals Court ruled, "Neither Southern nor Occidental can show any injury sufficient to satisfy the requirements of Article III. They therefore lack standing. Carbon Sequestration Council lacks standing because Southern lacks standing. And American Petroleum Institute lacks standing because Occidental lacks standing. The petitions for review are hereby dismissed."

Hermes Consolidated, LLC v. EPA

<> Hermes Consolidated, LLC v. EPA - In the U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit, Case No. 14-1016. Petitioner Wyoming Refining Company operates an oil refinery located in Newcastle, Wyoming. WRC is subject to EPA's renewable fuels program, but obtained an exemption through 2012. WRC unsuccessfully petitioned EPA for an extension of its exemption through 2014. The company now seeks review of EPA's denial.      The Appeals Court ruled, "We reject WRC's various challenges other than those identifying two mathematical errors in EPA's independent analysis of WRC's financial data. . . We therefore vacate EPA's decision and remand to allow the agency to reevaluate WRC's petition using the correct figures."

MS Comm. Environ. Quality v. EPA

<> MS Comm. Environ. Quality v. EPA - In the U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit, Case No. 12-1309 (consolidated with a number of cases). In these consolidated petitions, several states, counties, industrial entities and environmental organizations challenge the EPA's determination that certain geographic areas are, or are not, in "attainment" with the EPA's ground-level ozone NAAQS.      The Appeals Court ruled, ". . .because the EPA complied with the Constitution, reasonably interpreted the Act's critical terms and wholly satisfied—indeed, in most instances, surpassed—its obligation to engage in reasoned decision-making, we deny the consolidated petitions for review in their entirety." Appeals Court Upholds Clean-Up Zone for Dallas-Fort Worth Area Air Pollution