Electric Power Supply Asso. v. FERC

Full D.C. Circuit Denies Petitions to Reconsider Divided Panel Decision Overturning Vital Clean Energy Protections - In a setback for efforts to ensure clean energy resources are properly incentivized in the nation's electricity markets, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit declined, today, to grant rehearing of its May 23, 2014 divided 2-1 panel decision vacating Order 745 of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC).

• Electric Power Supply Asso. v. FERC - 5/23/14. In the U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit, Case Nos. 11-1486, Consolidated with 11-1489, 12-1088, 12-1091, 12-1093.

Environmental Information Specialists -- WIMS Daily Environmental HotSheet -- eNewsUSA blog -- EcoBizPort.com

 

New York State Elec. & Gas Corp. v. First Energy Corp.

New York State Elec. & Gas Corp. v. First Energy Corp. - 9/11/14. In the U.S. Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, Case Nos. 11-4143, 11-4146, 11-4149. The district court held the corporate successor to plaintiff's former parent company liable for a portion of the costs on a veil-piercing theory, and it held the current owner of one site liable for a portion of the costs as well. The Appeals Court affirmed and vacated in part, but said, "We find that the district court did not abuse its discretion in allocating the response costs.  The district court reasonably took into account the fact that I.D. Booth would benefit from the increased property value after remediation and that its negotiating tactics led to significant delays in remediating the property."

 

Environmental Information Specialists -- WIMS Daily Environmental HotSheet -- eNewsUSA blog -- EcoBizPort.com

MEIC v. Stone-Manning

MEIC v. Stone-Manning - 9/11/14. In the U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, Case No. 13-35107. The panel affirmed the dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction of a citizen suit claiming that the Director of the Montana Department of Environmental Quality would violate duties imposed by the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act by approving a pending application for a mining permit.

 

Environmental Information Specialists -- WIMS Daily Environmental HotSheet -- eNewsUSA blog -- EcoBizPort.com

Alaska Cmty. Action v. Aurora

Alaska Cmty. Action v. Aurora - 9/3/14. In the U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, Case No. 13-35709. The Panel reversed, remanded and held that the district court erred in concluding that the Multi-Sector General Permit for Stormwater Discharges Associated with Industrial Activity - a general permit under EPA's National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System - shielded the defendants from liability under the Clean Water Act for their non-stormwater coal discharges. 

Organized Village of Kake v. USDA

Court to Reconsider Decision on Roadless Areas of Alaska's Tongass National Forest - 8/29/14. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit announced that it would rehear a case "en banc" (before a new 11-judge panel) challenging the Tongass exemption from the Roadless Rule, a landmark conservation rule adopted in 2001 to protect nearly 60 million acres of wild national forests and grasslands from new road building and logging.

• Organized Village of Kake v. USDA - 3/26/14. In the U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, Case No. 11-35517.

Lacano Investments v. Balash

Lacano Investments v. Balash - 8/28/14. In the U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, Case No. 13-35854. The case involves land patents which gave title to certain streambeds in Alaska that were issued by the federal government many years before Alaska entered the Union. The panel affirmed the dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction of an action against Alaska officials who determined that under the Submerged Lands Act of 1953, streambeds claimed by the plaintiffs were owned by the State of Alaska.

 

Environmental Information Specialists -- WIMS Daily Environmental HotSheet -- eNewsUSA blog -- EcoBizPort.com

ASARCO v. Union Pacific

ASARCO v. Union Pacific - 8/27/14. In the U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, Case No. 13-35356. The district court dismissed the action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), concluding that although Asarco's claim was timely, it was barred by a 2008 settlement agreement between the parties that settled Union Pacific's claims against Asarco at the same site. The Panel reversed and concluded that Asarco's claim was timely, but that the parties' 2008 settlement agreement did not unambiguously release Asarco's claim here. The case was dismissed.

 

Environmental Information Specialists -- WIMS Daily Environmental HotSheet -- eNewsUSA blog -- EcoBizPort.com