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 In this unpublished opinion, the Appeals Court denies a petition from environmental groups for review and uphold the EPA's final rule approving the Texas SIP which allows an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.