Justia Environmental Law Opinion Summaries

The State of Indiana approved a plan to retire a coal-fired facility and replace it with wind and solar energy sources, supplemented by two new natural gas turbines to ensure grid reliability. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) approved a natural gas pipeline to serve these turbines. The Citizens Action Coalition of Indiana challenged FERC’s approval, arguing that FERC’s environmental analysis was unreasonable and inconsistent with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the Natural Gas Act (NGA). The core claim was that FERC should have analyzed non-gas alternatives before approving the pipeline.The Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission initially denied CenterPoint Energy’s proposal for an 850-megawatt natural gas unit due to inadequate consideration of alternatives. CenterPoint then modified its plan to include wind generation and applied to build two smaller gas-fired turbines, which the Indiana Commission approved. CenterPoint contracted with Texas Gas Transmission for a 24-mile pipeline to supply natural gas to the new units. Citizens Action intervened in the FERC proceeding, raising environmental concerns. FERC prepared an environmental impact statement and approved the pipeline. Citizens Action’s request for rehearing was denied by operation of law, leading to the current petition for review.The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that FERC acted lawfully and reasonably in its environmental analysis and public convenience and necessity determination. FERC was not required to consider non-gas alternatives outside its jurisdiction and properly identified the project’s purpose as supporting CenterPoint’s new natural gas units. The court also found that FERC’s use of emissions percentages and the absence of a significance label were reasonable and consistent with NEPA. The petition for review was denied. View "Citizens Action Coalition of Indiana, Inc. v. FERC" on Justia Law

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued a final rule implementing section 2613 of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), as amended by the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act. The rule concerns the assertion and treatment of confidential business information (CBI) claims for information reported to or obtained by the EPA under the TSCA. The Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) challenged three aspects of the rule, arguing that it was contrary to law and arbitrary and capricious. The American Chemistry Council (ACC) also challenged the rule, arguing that it allowed for the unlawful disclosure of information protected by section 2613(a) of the TSCA.The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reviewed the case. EDF argued that the EPA's regulatory definition of "health and safety study" was impermissibly narrow, that the EPA should require substantiation and routine review of pre-commercialization CBI claims after commercialization, and that the EPA's use of permissive language in the rule was inappropriate. ACC argued that the rule allowed for the unlawful disclosure of specific chemical identities when downstream entities reported information without knowledge of the specific chemical identity.The court denied EDF's petition for review, holding that the EPA's definition of "health and safety study" was consistent with the statute and not arbitrary or capricious. The court also held that the TSCA does not require reassertion and substantiation of pre-commercialization CBI claims after commercialization and that the EPA's use of permissive language was reasonable. However, the court granted ACC's petition for review, holding that the rule was unlawful to the extent it required entities reporting by non-confidential accession numbers and without knowledge of the underlying chemical identity to assert CBI claims for the underlying chemical identity. The court vacated these requirements under the rule. View "Environmental Defense Fund v. EPA" on Justia Law

A group of organizations and a resident challenged a plan by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and the National Park Service (NPS) regulating tourist flights over four national parks near San Francisco. The agencies determined that no environmental analysis was needed under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) because the plan would cause minimal additional environmental impact compared to existing conditions.The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reviewed the case. The court noted that the agencies had previously announced their intent to prepare an environmental assessment but later terminated that process. The agencies then decided to use the existing number of flights as the baseline for their environmental analysis, concluding that the plan would have no significant environmental impact.The court held that the agencies acted arbitrarily by using the existing flights under interim operating authority as the baseline for their NEPA analysis. This approach effectively enshrined the status quo without evaluating the environmental impacts of the existing flights. The court found that the agencies' reliance on interim operating authority as the baseline was unreasonable and contrary to their duties under the National Parks Air Tour Management Act and NEPA.The court vacated the FAA's order and remanded the case for further proceedings, instructing the agencies to conduct a proper NEPA analysis. The court also noted that the agencies could move for a stay of the mandate if they wished to keep the current plan in place while conducting the new analysis. View "Marin Audubon Society v. FAA" on Justia Law

The case involves the U.S. Sugar Corporation and other industry petitioners challenging the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) 2022 rule that classified certain industrial boilers as "new" sources of hazardous air pollutants, even though they were built before the applicable emission standards were proposed in 2020. The EPA used a 2013-era dataset to establish these standards, excluding more recent data to maintain consistency with still-valid 2013 standards. Environmental petitioners argued that this exclusion violated the Clean Air Act.The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reviewed the case. The lower court had previously remanded the EPA's 2011 rule without vacatur, allowing the invalid standards to remain while the EPA revised them. The industry petitioners argued that the EPA's classification of boilers built after June 4, 2010, as "new" sources was incorrect, as these boilers were constructed before the 2020 proposal of the new standards. The environmental petitioners contended that the EPA's decision to use outdated data was arbitrary and capricious.The D.C. Circuit held that the EPA's classification of boilers built before August 24, 2020, as "new" sources was incorrect under the Clean Air Act. The court found that the proper date to determine whether a boiler is "new" should be when each specific emission standard is first proposed, not when any standard for the category was first proposed. Therefore, the court set aside the EPA's 2022 rule to the extent that it defined sources constructed before August 24, 2020, as "new."The court also held that the EPA's decision to rely on the 2013-era dataset was neither unlawful nor arbitrary and capricious. The court found that the EPA's choice was reasonable given the limited nature of the remand and the need for consistency across standards. Thus, the court denied the environmental petitioners' petition for review. View "United States Sugar Corporation v. EPA" on Justia Law

Holtec International applied to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) for a license to construct and operate a spent nuclear fuel storage facility in New Mexico. The NRC denied multiple requests for intervention and a hearing from various petitioners, including Beyond Nuclear, Sierra Club, and Fasken Land and Minerals. These petitioners argued that the NRC acted unreasonably and contrary to law in denying their requests.The Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (Board) found the petitioners' contentions inadmissible and denied their petitions to intervene. The NRC affirmed the Board’s decisions. Beyond Nuclear, Environmental Petitioners (including Sierra Club), and Fasken each petitioned for review of the orders denying intervention. The case was held in abeyance until the NRC issued Holtec a license, after which the case was removed from abeyance for review by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reviewed the petitions and found that the NRC reasonably declined to admit the petitioners' factual contentions and complied with statutory and regulatory requirements. The court held that Beyond Nuclear did not raise a genuine dispute of law or fact regarding the NRC’s authority to consider Holtec’s application. The court also found that Environmental Petitioners failed to demonstrate any genuine disputes of material fact or law in their contentions related to statutory authority, alleged misrepresentations by Holtec, and compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Additionally, the court determined that Fasken’s late-filed contentions were procedurally defective, untimely, and immaterial.The court denied all the petitions for review, affirming the NRC’s decisions to deny the requests for intervention. View "Beyond Nuclear, Inc. v. NRC" on Justia Law

The case involves the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and its denial of small refinery exemptions under the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) program. The RFS program mandates that refineries blend renewable fuels into fossil fuels or purchase credits to comply. Small refineries can petition for exemptions if compliance causes disproportionate economic hardship. In 2022, the EPA denied all pending exemption petitions, arguing that compliance costs are passed on to consumers, thus no refinery faces economic hardship due to the RFS program. The EPA also provided alternative compliance options for certain refineries whose exemptions were initially granted but later denied.Previously, the EPA had granted exemptions based on a Department of Energy (DOE) study and a scoring matrix that considered various economic factors. However, following a Tenth Circuit decision and the Supreme Court's ruling in HollyFrontier, the EPA revised its approach, focusing solely on compliance costs and the RIN cost passthrough theory. This led to the denial of all pending petitions, including those of Sinclair Wyoming Refining Company and Wynnewood Refining Company, which had initially received exemptions.The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reviewed the case. The court found that the EPA's rationale for denying the exemptions was contrary to law and arbitrary and capricious. The court held that the EPA's interpretation of "disproportionate economic hardship" was too narrow and inconsistent with the Clean Air Act. The court also found that the EPA failed to adequately support its assumption that refineries could always purchase RINs ratably and pass the costs to consumers. Consequently, the court vacated the EPA's denial actions, except for two refineries deemed ineligible on other grounds, and dismissed Growth Energy's petition for lack of standing. The court denied Sinclair's petition challenging the alternative compliance action and dismissed Wynnewood's petition for not challenging a final agency action. View "Sinclair Wyoming Refining Company LLC v. Environmental Protection Agency" on Justia Law

A chemical manufacturer and two trade associations challenged an EPA rule regulating emissions from certain facilities, specifically disputing the EPA’s assessment of cancer risk from ethylene oxide emissions. The EPA had determined that emissions from these sources posed an unacceptable risk to public health and tightened emissions standards accordingly. The EPA’s assessment concluded that the maximum lifetime individual risk of cancer from exposure to ethylene oxide was significantly higher than what is generally considered acceptable.The petitioners initially raised their complaints during the EPA’s rulemaking process and sought reconsideration after the final rule was issued. The EPA granted reconsideration and solicited further public comment, ultimately affirming its decision to use its existing cancer-risk assessment and rejecting an alternative assessment proposed by the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ). The petitioners then sought review from the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reviewed the case and found that the EPA had adequately explained its modeling approach and decisions. The court held that the EPA’s reliance on its 2016 cancer-risk assessment was not arbitrary or capricious and that the EPA had properly considered and rejected the TCEQ’s alternative assessment. The court also found that the EPA had provided sufficient opportunities for public comment and had not violated any procedural requirements. The court denied the petitions for review, upholding the EPA’s rule and its assessment of the cancer risk from ethylene oxide emissions. View "Huntsman Petrochemical LLC v. EPA" on Justia Law

In 2021, petitioners challenged the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s (FERC) authorization of two liquefied natural gas (LNG) export terminals in Cameron County, Texas, and a related pipeline. The court partially granted the petitions and remanded the case to FERC without vacating the orders. On remand, FERC reauthorized the projects, prompting petitioners to challenge the reauthorization, arguing non-compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the Natural Gas Act (NGA).Previously, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit found FERC’s environmental justice analysis inadequate and required FERC to either justify its chosen analysis radius or use a different one. FERC was also directed to reconsider its public interest determinations under the NGA. On remand, FERC expanded its environmental justice analysis but did not issue a supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), which petitioners argued was necessary. FERC also did not consider a new carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) proposal as part of its environmental review.The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit found FERC’s failure to issue a supplemental EIS for its updated environmental justice analysis arbitrary and capricious, as the new analysis provided a significantly different environmental picture. The court also held that FERC should have considered the CCS proposal as a connected action or a reasonable alternative. Additionally, the court found FERC’s rejection of air quality data from a nearby monitor arbitrary and capricious. The court vacated FERC’s reauthorization orders and remanded the case for further proceedings, requiring FERC to issue a supplemental EIS and consider the CCS proposal. View "City of Port Isabel v. FERC" on Justia Law

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) issued a certificate to Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company, LLC (Transco) to construct and operate a pipeline through several states, including New Jersey. The New Jersey Conservation Foundation and other petitioners argued that FERC overlooked significant environmental consequences and failed to consider evidence of a lack of market need for the pipeline. They also contended that FERC ignored New Jersey state laws mandating reductions in natural gas consumption.The lower court, FERC, approved the pipeline project, finding that the public benefits outweighed the adverse impacts. FERC based its decision on precedent agreements with local gas distribution companies (LDCs) and concluded that the project satisfied the Natural Gas Act (NGA). Petitioners requested a rehearing, arguing that FERC's decision was arbitrary and capricious. FERC denied the rehearing request, maintaining its position on market need and environmental impact assessments.The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reviewed the case. The court found that FERC acted arbitrarily by not adequately explaining its decision regarding the significance of greenhouse gas emissions and failing to discuss possible mitigation measures. The court also held that FERC did not properly consider evidence showing that current capacity was sufficient to meet New Jersey's natural gas demands and that the precedent agreements with LDCs did not necessarily indicate market need. Additionally, the court found that FERC misinterpreted New Jersey's mandatory energy efficiency laws as unenforceable.The court vacated FERC's orders and remanded the case for further action, requiring FERC to reassess the market need and environmental impacts of the pipeline project. View "New Jersey Conservation Foundation v. FERC" on Justia Law

Federal agents seized packages containing noncompliant plant and animal products shipped to Amazon fulfillment centers in the U.S. by overseas sellers. The Department of Agriculture concluded that Amazon, by providing its fulfillment services, had aided, abetted, caused, or induced the unlawful importation of these products and imposed a $1 million fine on Amazon.The case was initially reviewed by an administrative law judge (ALJ) who granted summary judgment in favor of the Department, finding that Amazon had unlawfully imported the products by aiding, abetting, causing, or inducing their importation. The ALJ rejected Amazon's argument that it was unaware of the sellers' noncompliance, stating that neither bad intent nor any mens rea was required for liability. The Judicial Officer of the Department affirmed the ALJ's decision, concluding that Amazon's conduct fell within the scope of the statutes and that Amazon had substantially assisted the importations with knowledge.The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reviewed the case and set aside the Department's order. The court held that civil aiding-and-abetting liability generally requires conscious and culpable participation in unlawful conduct. The Plant Protection Act and Animal Health Protection Act incorporate this understanding. The court found that Amazon's provision of a neutral fulfillment service did not amount to conscious and culpable participation in the sellers' wrongdoing. Therefore, the court granted Amazon's petition for review, vacated the Department's order, and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "Amazon Services LLC v. AGRI" on Justia Law