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.

ASARCO v.Celanese Chemical Co.

<> ASARCO v.Celanese Chemical Co. - 7/10/15. In the U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, Case No. 12-16832. Affirming the district court's summary judgment, the panel held that a claim for contribution under § 113(f)(3)(B) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act was time-barred.

Natural Resources Defense Council v. Metropolitan Water Reclamation

<> Natural Resources Defense Council v. Metropolitan Water Reclamation - 7/9/15. In the U.S. Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit, Case Nos. 14-1776 & 14-1777. Case involves the City of Chicago's stormwater holding plan known as the Tunnel and Reservoir Plan, sometimes called TARP and commonly known as Deep Tunnel.       The Alliance [environmental organizations] challenges a consent decree approved by the district court, saying it  concedes that the system won't work. The Appeals Court ruled, "The consent decree that the district court has approved is reasonable in light of the current infrastructure, the costs of doing things differently (no one proposes to build a new sewer system or redo the Deep Tunnel project), and the limits of knowledge about what will happen when the system is completed. . ."

Building Association of the Bay Area v. Dept. of Commerce

<> Building Association of the Bay Area v. Dept. of Commerce - 7/7/15. In the U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, Case No. 13-15132. The panel affirmed the district court's summary judgment in favor of the United States Department of Commerce and others in an action brought by property owners under the Endangered Species Act and the Administrative Procedure Act, challenging the designation of critical habitat for a threatened species, the southern distinct population of green sturgeon, and the regulations implementing that designation. Appeals Court Upholds Habitat Protections for Threatened Green Sturgeon in California, Oregon, Washington

Florida Wildlife Federation, Inc., et al. v. EPA

<> Florida Wildlife Federation, Inc., et al. v. EPA - 7/7/15. In the U.S. Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit, Case No. 14-10987. An unpublished opinion involving a challenge by environmental groups over a court ordered modification of a consent decree with EPA regarding Florida's water regulations and standards under the Clean Water Act (CWA).      In light of its approval of Florida's new CWA regulations, EPA asked the district court to modify the consent decree to relieve it of its obligation to regulate the waters covered by Florida's new CWA-compliant regulations. The Appeals Court ruled that the environmental groups were "wrong" in their challenge affirmed the district court's order modifying the consent decree.

American Farm Bureau Federation v. EPA

<> American Farm Bureau Federation v. EPA - 7/6/15. In the U.S. Court of Appeals, Third Circuit, Case No. 13-4079. In this high interest case involving many states and trade associations including Michigan, parties challenge EPA's "total maximum daily load" (TMDL) of nitrogen, phosphorous, and sediment that can be released into the Chesapeake Bay.      Challengers allege that all aspects of the TMDL that go beyond an allowable sum of pollutants (i.e., the most nitrogen, phosphorous, and sediment the Bay can safely absorb per day) exceeded the scope of the EPA's authority to regulate, largely because the agency may intrude on states' traditional role in regulating land use.      The District Court ruled against Farm Bureau, and challengers and the Appeals Court sided with EPA and affirmed the District Court's ruling. US court upholds EPA plan to clean up Chesapeake Bay

Bruce Goldfarb v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore

<> Bruce Goldfarb v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore - 7/1/15. In the U.S. Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit, Case No. 14-1825. Residents brought statutory claims under the RCRA against the current and former owners of an industrial property in Baltimore alleged to have been contaminated by hazardous waste. The district court granted the property owners' motions to dismiss the claims.       The Appeals Court vacated the district court's judgment and remand the case for further proceedings. The Panel said, in part, "the district court erred in dismissing the claim against Maryland Chemical for failure to allege 'contribution' under § 6972(a)(1)(B)."