In Re: Deepwater Horizon

<> In Re: Deepwater Horizon - 6/4/14. In the U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit, Case No. 12-30883. Defendants BP Exploration & Production, Inc. (BP) and Anadarko Petroleum Corporation (Anadarko) appeal summary judgment in favor of the government on the question of their liability for civil penalties, which imposes mandatory penalties upon the owners of facilities "from which oil or a hazardous substance is discharged." The Panel ruled:"we affirm the grant of partial summary judgment with respect to the well owners' liability for civil penalties. . ."

Recent Cases

<> GenOn Power Midwest, L.P. v. Bell – In the U.S. Supreme Court, Docket No. 13-1013, Appealed from the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. The High Court denied the petition to appeal. Issue: Whether the Clean Air Act, which provides a comprehensive system for the regulation of air pollution in the United States and leaves "no room for a parallel track," American Electric Power Co. v. Connecticut, preempts state common law nuisance claims that would impose emissions restrictions different from those adopted pursuant to the Act and expose companies operating in compliance with all applicable emissions standards under the Act to liability for their emissions.

<> Venancio Aguasanta Arias v. Dyncorp – In the U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit, Case No. 13-7044. The Panel rules: "Appellants, a group of Ecuadorian provinces and individual farmers, alleged that they were injured by an anti-drug herbicide spraying operation in Colombia, conducted by an American company. In a series of rulings, the district judge dismissed all claims. Some of those are appealed. We affirm all but one."

National Environmental Dev v. U.S. EPA

<> National Environmental Dev v. U.S. EPA - 5/30/14. In the U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit, Case No. 13-1035. In December 2012, two months after EPA's petition for rehearing was denied in Summit Petroleum, the Director of EPA's Office of Air Quality and Standards wrote a directive to the Regional Air Directors of each of the ten EPA regions "to explain the applicability of the decision by the [Sixth] Circuit Court of Appeals." Applicability of the Summit Decision to EPA Title V and NSR Source Determinations (Dec. 21, 2012), reprinted in Joint Appendix ("J.A.")("Summit Directive").

    The Panel in this case granted the petition for review and vacated the Summit Directive.

US v. Certified Environmental Services, Inc.

<> US v. Certified Environmental Services, Inc. - 5/28/14. In the U.S. Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, Case No. 11-4872. The defendants, consist of an asbestos air monitoring company, five of its employees, and an employee of an asbestos abatement contractor, were convicted, collectively. The Appeals Court ruled the judgments of conviction as to CES, and 4 of the employees are vacated. The case is remanded for a new trial as to CES, and two employees and for resentencing for two employees.

Oklahoma v. Environmental Protection Agency

<> Oklahoma v. Environmental Protection Agency – 5/27/14. In the U.S. Supreme Court, Docket No. 13-921. On appeals from the U.S. Appeals Court, Tenth Circuit, certiorari denied. The High Court refused to review the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals prior decisions to uphold the United States Environmental Protection Agency's plan to cut haze pollution.

Sierra Club: "United States Supreme Court Leaves Clean Air Protections Standing, Knocks Oklahoma Polluters"

Recent U.S. Appeals Court Cases

<> Center for Biol. Diversity v. U.S. EPA - 5/27/14. In the U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit, Case No. 12-1238. Petitioners claim that EPA's failure to issue a new multi-pollutant rule in 2012, violated the Clean Air Act. EPA explained at length that the uncertainty it faced was unusually profound. Petitioners question that conclusion, but as between petitioners' critique and EPA's scientific analysis, EPA's judgment prevails -- "the petition for judicial review is denied."

<> Electric Power Supply Assoc. v. FERC - 5/23/14. In the U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit, Case No. 11-1486, consolidated with 11-1489, 12-1088, 12-1091, 12-1093. Electric Power Supply Association and four other energy industry associations petition the court for review of a FERC final rule that seeks to incentivize retail customers to reduce electricity consumption when economically efficient. Petitioners say the new rule goes too far, encroaching on the states' exclusive jurisdiction to regulate the retail market. The Panel agreed and vacated the rule in its entirety.

• NRDC Says: Court Deals Setback to Cleaner Electric Transmission Grid

Larry Klein v. US DOE

<> Larry Klein v. US DOE - In the U.S. Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit, Case No.13-1165. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan at Marquette. Frontier Renewable Resources sought funding from the Department of Energy to build a plant in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan that would convert lumber into ethanol. Larry Klein and the Sierra Club sued to stop the project. The district court rejected the claims because the plaintiffs lacked standing to bring them and because the Department of Energy at any rate permissibly found no significant impact from the proposed plant. We reverse in part and affirm in part. The Appeals Court indicated that Klein had standing to sue, but, "In the final analysis, the Department completed a thorough environmental assessment of the Frontier plant and reasonably described the environmental impacts the assessment identifies as not significant. The National Environmental Policy Act requires no more."