United States v. Dico, Inc.

<> United States  v.  Dico, Inc. - 12/10/15. In the U.S. Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit, Case No: 14-2762. The case involved Dico, Inc. owning several buildings in Des Moines, Iowa, that were under an EPA order regulating their use because of hazardous substance contamination -- Polychlorinated Biphenyls were later found.       In a partially split decision the Panel said, "We reverse the district court's summary judgment order with respect to "arranger" liability under CERCLA and punitive damages but affirm the summary judgment order as to the EPA order violation and civil penalties."      The dissenting justice said, "I disagree that the district court erred in granting summary judgment on the question of arranger liability, and therefore with this court's decision to reverse the district court's award of punitive damages on that basis."

Pesticide Action Network v. U.S. EPA

<> Pesticide Action Network v. U.S. EPA - 12/10/15. In the U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, Case No. 14-72794. The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is directed to take final action by December 30, 2016 on its proposed revocation rule and its final response to Pesticide Action Network North America and Natural Resources Defense Council's 2007 petition; with an interim status report filed with the Court no later than June 30, 2016 -- all relating to pesticide chlorpyrifos, which petitioners claim is harmful to human health.

Energy and Environment Legal Institute, et al., Petitioners v. Joshua Epel, et al.

<> Energy and Environment Legal Institute, et al., Petitioners v. Joshua Epel, et al. - 12/7/15. In the U.S. Supreme Court, Docket No. 15-471. Appealed from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. Petition for a writ of certiorari denied. Important case challenging the constitutionality of Colorado's renewable energy law mandating 20% renewable and increasing over time.       The Tenth Circuit noted in its decision: "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. 10th Circuit Decision: Energy & Environment Legal v. Epel Supreme Court Order [see page 6] Supreme Court, Docket No. 15-471

Cascadia Wildlands v. Thrailkill

<> Cascadia Wildlands v. Thrailkill - 12/3/15. In the U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, Case No. 14-35819. The panel affirmed the district court's order denying plaintiff environmental groups' motion for a preliminary injunction that sought to enjoin the Douglas Fire Complex RecoveryProject in the southern Oregon Klamath Mountains, and challenging the biological opinion issued by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service.

Siemens Energy, Inc. v. U.S.

<> Siemens Energy, Inc.  v. U.S. - 11/25/15. In the U.S. Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit, Case No. 2014-1725. Siemens Energy, Inc., an importer of utility scale wind towers, appeals the decision of the Court of International Trade, which upheld the International Trade Commission's (ITC or Commission) final affirmative injury determination in the antidumping and countervailing duty investigations of utility scale wind towers from the People's Republic of China and in the antidumping duty investigation of utility scale wind towers from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam (together, the subject merchandise). The Appeals Court affirmed the decision of the Court of International Trade.

Cahaba Riverkeeper, et al v. U.S. EPA

<> Cahaba Riverkeeper, et al v. U.S. EPA - 11/30/15. In the U.S. Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit, Case No. 14-13508. The Appeals Court dismissed an appeal filed by Cahaba Riverkeeper, et al against the U.S. EPA for allowing the state to continue administering NPDES program -- saying it lacks jurisdiction because there has been no final determination.

NRDC v. EPA

<> NRDC v. EPA - 11/24/15. In the U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, Case Nos. 14-73353 & 14-73359. EPA's motion for voluntary vacatur and remand. EPA seeks a voluntary remand in order to reconsider the Enlist Duo registration in light of the new information saying it seeks vacatur of the registration because it cannot be sure, without a full analysis of the new information, that the current registration does not cause unreasonable effects to the environment, which is a requirement of the registration standard under FIFRA.