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.

ALLCO v. Klee

<> ALLCO v. Klee - 11/6/15. In the U.S. Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, Case No. 15-20. Affirming the district court's ruling on alternative grounds which dismissed the plaintiff's complaint.       The Appeals Court ruled: "We hold that: (1) the plaintiff cannot bring claims under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1988 to vindicate any rights conferred by the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act ("PURPA") because PURPA's private right of action forecloses such a remedy; (2) the plaintiff failed to exhaust administrative remedies, a prerequisite to bringing an equitable action seeking to vindicate any rights conferred by PURPA; and (3) the plaintiff lacks standing to bring a preemption action seeking solely to void the contracts awarded to the intervenors."

Treasure State Resource v. EPA

<> Treasure State Resource v. EPA - 11/3/15. In the U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit, Case No. 13-1263, consolidated with 13-1264, 14-1093, 14-1164. Each of the two petitioners now before us, Treasure State Resource Industry Association and United States Steel Corporation, challenges one of these 29 designations (not meeting its new SO2 standards): the Association attacks the one for part of Yellowstone County, Montana, and U.S. Steel challenges the one for part of Wayne County, Michigan. Each sought reconsideration by EPA, unsuccessfully.      The Appeals Court rules, "We deny the petitions for review. Except insofar as both are attacks on EPA's August 2013 designations with respect to the 2010 SO2 NAAQS, the two claims have virtually nothing in common. . ."