Mar 13: In the U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit, Case No. 07-1472. From 1958 to 2007, the New York Power Authority (NYPA) operated the Niagara Power Project, a hydroelectric facility about five miles downriver from Niagara Falls, pursuant to a 50-year license granted by what is now the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). In 2007, FERC approved NYPA’s relicensing application and granted a new 50-year license. Several communities in western New York have challenged FERC’s 2007 licensing decision as arbitrary and capricious and unsupported by substantial evidence. However, the Appeals Court decided, "We deny their petition because FERC’s decision to issue the new license was reasonable and reasonably explained."
Petitioners argue that a 50-year license is too long and inconsistent with Agency practice regarding the terms of licenses, but the Appeals Court said, "FERC possesses express statutory authority to set license terms between 30 and 50 years." Second, petitioners argue that FERC undervalued the project’s output in considering the appropriate length of the new license, but the Appeals Court said, "Applying the deferential arbitrary-and-capricious standard, we have no room to overturn that reasoned and reasonable determination."
Third, petitioners contend that FERC, as a condition of granting the license, should have required NYPA to mitigate certain adverse environmental impacts allegedly caused by the project, but the Appeals Court said, "FERC mandated measures to mitigate any such impact. In short, FERC acted entirely reasonably in addressing possible adverse environmental impacts."
Fourth, petitioners assert that FERC should have considered the consequences of “off-license” agreements that NYPA reached with interested communities and organizations in the area saying, the "agreements represented NYPA’s not-so-subtle efforts to buy off community opposition." (e.g. NYPA promised to pay the Tuscarora Nation tribe, $21.8 million if FERC approved NYPA’s relicensing). The Appeals Court said, "But the off-license agreements are not related to project operations and are irrelevant to FERC’s statutorily mandated assessment of the relicensing application. . . Therefore, FERC properly refused to consider the off-license agreements in deciding whether to reissue the license to NYPA."
Finally, petitioners also appear to directly challenge the off-license agreements as "unlawful." The Appeals Court said, "The source of law on which petitioners are relying for this argument is rather murky. In any event, petitioners lack standing to bring such a claim against FERC. The parties to the off-license agreements were NYPA and certain communities and organizations affected by the project. FERC did not approve those agreements, and FERC does not and cannot control the agreements’ terms."
Access the complete opinion (click here).
Monday, March 16, 2009
Delaware Department of Natural Resources v. FERC
Mar 13: In the U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit, Case No. 07-1007. Petitioner Delaware seeks review of two Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission) orders by which the Commission conditionally approved an application to site, construct, and operate a liquid natural gas terminal near the mouth of the Delaware River. The Appeals Court dismissed the petition citing a "lack of jurisdiction: Delaware lacks standing because it has not suffered an injury-infact."
According to the background in the case, in September 2004, Crown Landing LLC, a wholly-owned subsidiary of BP America Production Company, filed an application with the Commission to site, construct, and operate a liquid natural gas import terminal at the mouth of the Delaware River. Onshore portions of the proposed project were to be located in New Jersey, but a pier designed for the unloading of tanker ships was planned to extend beyond New Jersey waters into that portion of the river which appertains to neighboring Delaware.
Section 3 of the Natural Gas Act (NGA), prohibits the importation of foreign natural gas without prior authorization by the Commission. The NGA specifically provides for the protection of rights granted to the states under the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (CZMA), and the Clean Air Act (CAA). Crown Landing did not file a CZMA certification with Delaware but did request a status decision from the state.
On February 3, 2005, the Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control, petitioner here, issued its decision and rejected the project. On appeal, Delaware’s Coastal Zone Industrial Control Board unanimously affirmed that decision. Meanwhile, New Jersey filed an original action before the Supreme Court challenging Delaware’s jurisdiction to regulate the Crown Landing terminal pursuant to its authority under the CZMA. The Supreme Court confirmed that Delaware indeed possesses this authority. New Jersey v. Delaware, 128 S. Ct. 1410, 1427-8 (2008) [See WIMS 3/31/08].
On June 20, 2006, the Commission issued an order approving Crown Landing’s application subject to some sixty-seven conditions precedent. The Commission acknowledged that the Crown Landing proposal is subject to coastal zone consistency reviews in New Jersey, Delaware, and Pennsylvania and thus concluded that the company must obtain the concurrence of the relevant state agencies prior to Commission approval of the commencement of construction.
The Appeals Court said finally, "In sum, because FERC’s order -- as it stands now -- cannot possibly authorize Crown Landing’s project absent the approval of Delaware, the state has suffered no injury-in-fact, and thus lacks standing. For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is dismissed."
Access the complete opinion (click here).
According to the background in the case, in September 2004, Crown Landing LLC, a wholly-owned subsidiary of BP America Production Company, filed an application with the Commission to site, construct, and operate a liquid natural gas import terminal at the mouth of the Delaware River. Onshore portions of the proposed project were to be located in New Jersey, but a pier designed for the unloading of tanker ships was planned to extend beyond New Jersey waters into that portion of the river which appertains to neighboring Delaware.
Section 3 of the Natural Gas Act (NGA), prohibits the importation of foreign natural gas without prior authorization by the Commission. The NGA specifically provides for the protection of rights granted to the states under the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (CZMA), and the Clean Air Act (CAA). Crown Landing did not file a CZMA certification with Delaware but did request a status decision from the state.
On February 3, 2005, the Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control, petitioner here, issued its decision and rejected the project. On appeal, Delaware’s Coastal Zone Industrial Control Board unanimously affirmed that decision. Meanwhile, New Jersey filed an original action before the Supreme Court challenging Delaware’s jurisdiction to regulate the Crown Landing terminal pursuant to its authority under the CZMA. The Supreme Court confirmed that Delaware indeed possesses this authority. New Jersey v. Delaware, 128 S. Ct. 1410, 1427-8 (2008) [See WIMS 3/31/08].
On June 20, 2006, the Commission issued an order approving Crown Landing’s application subject to some sixty-seven conditions precedent. The Commission acknowledged that the Crown Landing proposal is subject to coastal zone consistency reviews in New Jersey, Delaware, and Pennsylvania and thus concluded that the company must obtain the concurrence of the relevant state agencies prior to Commission approval of the commencement of construction.
The Appeals Court said finally, "In sum, because FERC’s order -- as it stands now -- cannot possibly authorize Crown Landing’s project absent the approval of Delaware, the state has suffered no injury-in-fact, and thus lacks standing. For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is dismissed."
Access the complete opinion (click here).
Friday, March 13, 2009
Hempstead County Hunting Club v. Southwestern Electric Power
Mar 12: In the U.S. Court of Appeals, Third Circuit, Case No. 08-2613. Hempstead County Hunting Club (HCHC) filed a citizen's suit against Southwestern Electric Power Company (SWEPCO) pursuant to the Clean Air Act (CAA), seeking a preliminary and permanent injunction to prevent SWEPCO from commencing construction, constructing, or continuing construction of its 600-megawatt pulverized coal-fired power plant in Hempstead County, Arkansas, without first obtaining a Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) permit as required by the CAA.
On the same day that it filed its complaint, HCHC filed a motion for temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction. The
district court denied the motion, and HCHC filed an interlocutory appeal, arguing that the district court abused its discretion in
denying the preliminary injunction because "SWEPCO has proposed to construct and is constructing its Hempstead Plant, although it does not have a CAA permit."
SWEPCO filed a motion to dismiss the appeal, arguing that the appeal is moot because it has now received the CAA permit and has lawfully begun construction at the site, rendering HCHC's appeal of the denial of its motion for a preliminary injunction to halt preconstruction activities moot. The Appeals Court agreed and dismissed the appeal as moot.
The Appeals Court said, "HCHC's allegation that SWEPCO is acting illegally rests on its argument that SWEPCO is engaging in construction activities without a permit. Therefore, the present case is comparable to Mississippi River Revival in which, after the MPCA issued storm permits, the district court dismissed the environmental organizations' complaints as moot, as the complaints were based on the allegation that the Cities were discharging storm waters without required permits."
Access the complete opinion (click here).
On the same day that it filed its complaint, HCHC filed a motion for temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction. The
district court denied the motion, and HCHC filed an interlocutory appeal, arguing that the district court abused its discretion in
denying the preliminary injunction because "SWEPCO has proposed to construct and is constructing its Hempstead Plant, although it does not have a CAA permit."
SWEPCO filed a motion to dismiss the appeal, arguing that the appeal is moot because it has now received the CAA permit and has lawfully begun construction at the site, rendering HCHC's appeal of the denial of its motion for a preliminary injunction to halt preconstruction activities moot. The Appeals Court agreed and dismissed the appeal as moot.
The Appeals Court said, "HCHC's allegation that SWEPCO is acting illegally rests on its argument that SWEPCO is engaging in construction activities without a permit. Therefore, the present case is comparable to Mississippi River Revival in which, after the MPCA issued storm permits, the district court dismissed the environmental organizations' complaints as moot, as the complaints were based on the allegation that the Cities were discharging storm waters without required permits."
Access the complete opinion (click here).
Thursday, March 12, 2009
American Bird Conservancy v. Kempthorne
Mar 11: In the U.S. Court of Appeals, Third Circuit, Case No. 07-4609. In July and August 2005, appellants, a number of conservation groups, petitioned the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) to list as endangered on an emergency basis the red knot, a species of migratory shorebird. The FWS declined to undertake emergency rulemaking by letter of December 22, 2005, but continued to review the petition in the context of a non-emergency.
On June 13, 2006, before the FWS made a final determination, appellants filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey claiming (1) that the denial of emergency rulemaking was arbitrary and capricious, in violation of the Endangered Species Act (ESA), and (2) that the FWS violated the ESA by failing to issue timely findings on the petition.
The FWS issued its final determination -- that the listing of the red knot was warranted but precluded by higher-priority listing activity -- in its periodic Candidate Notice of Review (CNOR) published on September 12, 2006. In response, appellants dismissed their timeliness claim, but persisted with their challenge to the denial of emergency rulemaking. In an opinion and order dated October 11, 2007, the District Court dismissed the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, finding that the FWS’s denial of the emergency listing request was not reviewable under either the ESA or the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). Given this finding, the District Court did not find it necessary to reach the FWS’s claim that the publication of the warranted but precluded listing determination in the CNOR rendered moot appellants’ challenge to the denial of emergency rulemaking. The appeal followed.
The Appeals Court dismissed the appeal as moot; however, it said, "We note, as we conclude, that appellants have received quite substantial relief. Now that the CNOR has issued, the red knot is on the agency’s watchlist. This means that the emergency monitoring system set forth at 16 U.S.C. § 1533(b)(3)(C)(iii) has become available in the event of exigent circumstances that warrant immediate protection of the red knot."
Access the complete opinion (click here).
On June 13, 2006, before the FWS made a final determination, appellants filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey claiming (1) that the denial of emergency rulemaking was arbitrary and capricious, in violation of the Endangered Species Act (ESA), and (2) that the FWS violated the ESA by failing to issue timely findings on the petition.
The FWS issued its final determination -- that the listing of the red knot was warranted but precluded by higher-priority listing activity -- in its periodic Candidate Notice of Review (CNOR) published on September 12, 2006. In response, appellants dismissed their timeliness claim, but persisted with their challenge to the denial of emergency rulemaking. In an opinion and order dated October 11, 2007, the District Court dismissed the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, finding that the FWS’s denial of the emergency listing request was not reviewable under either the ESA or the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). Given this finding, the District Court did not find it necessary to reach the FWS’s claim that the publication of the warranted but precluded listing determination in the CNOR rendered moot appellants’ challenge to the denial of emergency rulemaking. The appeal followed.
The Appeals Court dismissed the appeal as moot; however, it said, "We note, as we conclude, that appellants have received quite substantial relief. Now that the CNOR has issued, the red knot is on the agency’s watchlist. This means that the emergency monitoring system set forth at 16 U.S.C. § 1533(b)(3)(C)(iii) has become available in the event of exigent circumstances that warrant immediate protection of the red knot."
Access the complete opinion (click here).
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
Alaska Wilderness v. Kempthorne
Mar 6: In the U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, Case Nos. 07-71457, 07-71989, & 07-72183. In a brief order, the Appeals Court said, "The opinion and dissent filed on November 20, 2008, and published at 548 F.3d 815 (9th Cir. 2008), are hereby vacated and withdrawn [See WIMS 11/20/08]. Respondents’ petition for rehearing and suggestion for rehearing en banc is denied as moot. All pending motions to file amicus briefs in support of rehearing are likewise denied as moot. The opinion vacated and withdrawn will be replaced by a new opinion. Our denial of the petition for rehearing with suggestion for rehearing en banc is made without prejudice to any party who may wish to file a petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc with regard to the new opinion."
The case involved six organizations that support environmental conservation, indigenous communities, and wildlife populations of Northern Alaska. They challenged the Minerals Management Service’s (MMS) approval of an exploration plan submitted by Shell Offshore Inc. (Shell). Shell seeks to drill multiple offshore exploratory oil wells over a three-year period in the Alaskan Beaufort Sea. In the November 20, split 2-1 decision the Appeals Court, vacated the Agency’s approval of Shell’s exploration plan, and remanded the case so that MMS can conduct the “hard look” analysis required by NEPA. The Appeals Court said MMS must prepare a revised EA "or, as necessary, an EIS."
Access the Order (click here).
The case involved six organizations that support environmental conservation, indigenous communities, and wildlife populations of Northern Alaska. They challenged the Minerals Management Service’s (MMS) approval of an exploration plan submitted by Shell Offshore Inc. (Shell). Shell seeks to drill multiple offshore exploratory oil wells over a three-year period in the Alaskan Beaufort Sea. In the November 20, split 2-1 decision the Appeals Court, vacated the Agency’s approval of Shell’s exploration plan, and remanded the case so that MMS can conduct the “hard look” analysis required by NEPA. The Appeals Court said MMS must prepare a revised EA "or, as necessary, an EIS."
Access the Order (click here).
Monday, March 9, 2009
Wilderness Watch v. Abigail Kimbell
Mar 6: In the U.S. Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit, Case Nos. 07-3689, consolidated with 07-3696 and 08-1167. In this case involving the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness Act, Wilderness Watch, Sierra Club North Star Chapter, and Northeastern Minnesotans for Wilderness (collectively Wilderness Watch) brought suit against Abigail Kimbell, Chief of the United States Forest Service, and Ed Schafer, Secretary of the United States Department of Agriculture (collectively Forest Service), alleging that the Forest Service's decision to construct a certain snowmobile trail between McFarland Lake and South Fowl Lake in northeastern Minnesota violated the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness (BWCAW) Act.
Wilderness Watch based its challenge on Congress's inclusion of South Fowl Lake (and of North Fowl Lake, to which it is connected) in the "wilderness" under the BWCAW Act. According to Wilderness Watch, the BWCAW Act prohibits snowmobiling on the Fowl Lakes (Count I) and requires the Forest Service to implement motorboat quotas on them (Count II).
The district court granted summary judgment to the Forest Service on Counts I and II, finding that the North and South Fowl Lakes are not "wilderness" under the BWCAW Act and therefore are not subject to snowmobiling and motorboat restrictions. But the district court also found that the environmental assessment (EA) prepared by the Forest Service for the plan to construct the snowmobile trail connecting the Fowl Lakes adjacent to the BWCAW failed to properly analyze the noise impact resulting from snowmobile use on the trail, as required by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).
As a result, the district court remanded to the Forest Service, instructing it to prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS) assessing the sound impact of the proposed trail routes on the adjoining wilderness area, and also enjoined the Forest Service from conducting any further activity on the proposed trail pending its completion of the EIS. Wilderness Watch appeals from the district court's grant of summary judgment to the Forest Service on Counts I and II, and Cook County, a political subdivision of the State of Minnesota, Conservationists with Common Sense, and Arrowhead Coalition for Multiple Use (collectively Intervenors) appeal from the district court's NEPA ruling.
The Appeals Court affirmed the district court decision and concluded, "Accordingly, we hold that Wilderness Watch's claims that the Forest Service (1) violated the BWCAW Act by permitting snowmobiles on South Fowl Lake and (2) failed to implement motorboat quotas on North and South Fowl Lakes in violation of § 4(f) of the BWCAW Act are time-barred by the six-year statute of limitations. As to the district court's NEPA ruling, we lack jurisdiction to review the district court's order remanding the matter to the Forest Service for an EIS and decline to vacate the injunction."
Access the complete opinion (click here).
Wilderness Watch based its challenge on Congress's inclusion of South Fowl Lake (and of North Fowl Lake, to which it is connected) in the "wilderness" under the BWCAW Act. According to Wilderness Watch, the BWCAW Act prohibits snowmobiling on the Fowl Lakes (Count I) and requires the Forest Service to implement motorboat quotas on them (Count II).
The district court granted summary judgment to the Forest Service on Counts I and II, finding that the North and South Fowl Lakes are not "wilderness" under the BWCAW Act and therefore are not subject to snowmobiling and motorboat restrictions. But the district court also found that the environmental assessment (EA) prepared by the Forest Service for the plan to construct the snowmobile trail connecting the Fowl Lakes adjacent to the BWCAW failed to properly analyze the noise impact resulting from snowmobile use on the trail, as required by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).
As a result, the district court remanded to the Forest Service, instructing it to prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS) assessing the sound impact of the proposed trail routes on the adjoining wilderness area, and also enjoined the Forest Service from conducting any further activity on the proposed trail pending its completion of the EIS. Wilderness Watch appeals from the district court's grant of summary judgment to the Forest Service on Counts I and II, and Cook County, a political subdivision of the State of Minnesota, Conservationists with Common Sense, and Arrowhead Coalition for Multiple Use (collectively Intervenors) appeal from the district court's NEPA ruling.
The Appeals Court affirmed the district court decision and concluded, "Accordingly, we hold that Wilderness Watch's claims that the Forest Service (1) violated the BWCAW Act by permitting snowmobiles on South Fowl Lake and (2) failed to implement motorboat quotas on North and South Fowl Lakes in violation of § 4(f) of the BWCAW Act are time-barred by the six-year statute of limitations. As to the district court's NEPA ruling, we lack jurisdiction to review the district court's order remanding the matter to the Forest Service for an EIS and decline to vacate the injunction."
Access the complete opinion (click here).
Friday, March 6, 2009
Latino Issues Forum v. EPA
Mar 5: In the U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, Case No. 06-71907. The Latino Issues Forum and Sierra Club challenged U.S. EPA's approval of a revision to the state implementation plan (SIP) for San Joaquin Valley, California. The revision, known as Rule 4550, is part of the Conservation Management Practices (CMP) Program, an air-pollutant reduction program, established by the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District (District). Rule 4550 aims to reduce emissions from agricultural sources of a certain kind of particulate matter known as PM-10. The Appeals Court ruled, "We hold that Rule 4550 comports with the requirements of 42 U.S.C. §§ 7509 and 7513a(b)(1)(B) and, therefore, deny the petition."
The Petitioners challenged two aspects of EPA’s approval of Rule 4550 as being arbitrary, capricious, or not in accordance with law. First, Petitioners claim that Rule 4550 does not incorporate “all feasible measures,” as required by 42 U.S.C. § 7509(d)(2). Second, Petitioners assert that Rule 4550’s menu of options for controlling agricultural PM-10 emissions does not constitute BACM, as required by 42 U.S.C. § 7513a(b)(1)(B).
On the first question, the Appeals Court said, "Because § 7509(d)(2) is ambiguous and the EPA’s statutory interpretation is reasonable, we hold that the EPA acted lawfully by not requiring implementation of 'all feasible measures' into Rule 4550." On the second issue, the Appeals Court said, "EPA demonstrated that the controls included in the rule’s menu meet the stringency requirements of BACM. Although the context is different, our inquiry into whether the EPA properly followed the procedures set forth by the Act remains the same. And, just as we held in Vigil, there is no evidence here that the process which led to the creation and adoption of Rule 4550 was improper. . . Because the EPA made no clear error of judgment in ruling that Rule 4550 complies with BACM, because the EPA followed its regulatory process, and because that process was consistent with one we approved in Vigil, we hold that the EPA’s approval of Rule 4550 did not violate 42 U.S.C. § 7513a(b)(1)(B)."
Access the complete opinion (click here).
The Petitioners challenged two aspects of EPA’s approval of Rule 4550 as being arbitrary, capricious, or not in accordance with law. First, Petitioners claim that Rule 4550 does not incorporate “all feasible measures,” as required by 42 U.S.C. § 7509(d)(2). Second, Petitioners assert that Rule 4550’s menu of options for controlling agricultural PM-10 emissions does not constitute BACM, as required by 42 U.S.C. § 7513a(b)(1)(B).
On the first question, the Appeals Court said, "Because § 7509(d)(2) is ambiguous and the EPA’s statutory interpretation is reasonable, we hold that the EPA acted lawfully by not requiring implementation of 'all feasible measures' into Rule 4550." On the second issue, the Appeals Court said, "EPA demonstrated that the controls included in the rule’s menu meet the stringency requirements of BACM. Although the context is different, our inquiry into whether the EPA properly followed the procedures set forth by the Act remains the same. And, just as we held in Vigil, there is no evidence here that the process which led to the creation and adoption of Rule 4550 was improper. . . Because the EPA made no clear error of judgment in ruling that Rule 4550 complies with BACM, because the EPA followed its regulatory process, and because that process was consistent with one we approved in Vigil, we hold that the EPA’s approval of Rule 4550 did not violate 42 U.S.C. § 7513a(b)(1)(B)."
Access the complete opinion (click here).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
