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

NorthWestern Corporation and the Montana Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) appealed a District Court order vacating an air quality permit granted to NorthWestern for a natural-gas-fueled power plant near Laurel, Montana. The District Court found DEQ's analysis under the Montana Environmental Policy Act (MEPA) inadequate regarding the project's lighting impacts and greenhouse gas emissions.The Thirteenth Judicial District Court vacated the permit, ruling that DEQ's noise analysis was not arbitrary or capricious but failed to take a "hard look" at the facility's lighting impacts and greenhouse gas emissions. The court also found that DEQ did not comply with MEPA requirements in its environmental assessment (EA) and remanded the EA to DEQ for further analysis.The Supreme Court of the State of Montana reviewed the case. It affirmed the District Court's ruling that DEQ's noise analysis was adequate but agreed that DEQ failed to properly analyze the lighting impacts. The Supreme Court also held that DEQ must analyze greenhouse gas emissions within Montana as part of its MEPA review, despite the absence of specific regulatory standards for greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act of Montana.However, the Supreme Court reversed the District Court's vacatur of the permit, citing the need for specific findings under § 75-1-201(6)(c)(ii), MCA, before granting such equitable relief. The case was remanded to DEQ for further MEPA analysis in accordance with the Supreme Court's opinion, with the permit reinstated pending this additional review. View "MEIC v. DEQ" on Justia Law

Tintina Montana, Inc. sought to operate an underground copper mine in Meagher County, Montana, which required the removal of substantial quantities of groundwater. Tintina planned to use part of this water for mining operations and return the rest to the aquifer. Montana Trout Unlimited and other environmental groups (collectively "MTU") challenged the issuance of a water use permit by the Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation (DNRC) for the mine's operations, arguing that the removal and discharge of water should be considered a beneficial use requiring a permit under the Montana Water Use Act (MWUA).The Fourteenth Judicial District Court denied MTU's petition for judicial review and affirmed DNRC's decision. The court held that DNRC correctly categorized the removal and discharge of water as neither a beneficial use nor waste, thus falling outside the permitting process of the MWUA. The court also found that DNRC's interpretation of the MWUA did not contravene the Montana Constitution.The Montana Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the lower court's decision. The court held that DNRC's longstanding interpretation of the MWUA, which categorizes mine dewatering as neither a beneficial use nor waste, was reasonable and consistent with legislative intent. The court also concluded that the MWUA's exclusion of mine dewatering from the permitting process did not render the Act unconstitutional, as the primary purpose of the MWUA is to regulate water rights, not the water resource itself. The court noted that other statutory frameworks, such as the Montana Water Quality Act and the Metal Mine Reclamation Act, provide for the regulation of water quality and environmental impacts. View "Trout Unlimited v. DNRC" on Justia Law

Reabold California LLC applied to the California Department of Conservation’s Division of Geologic Energy Management (CalGEM) to convert a former oil well into a Class II injection well. The well, located in the Brentwood Oil Field, would be used to inject produced water back into an aquifer exempted from the Safe Drinking Water Act. CalGEM approved the project, invoking a Class 1 categorical exemption under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for minor alterations of existing facilities involving negligible or no expansion of use.The Contra Costa County Superior Court ruled in favor of Sunflower Alliance, which challenged CalGEM’s use of the categorical exemption. The court agreed with Sunflower that converting an oil well into an injection well constituted a significant change in use, thus not fitting within the Class 1 exemption. Consequently, the court issued a writ of mandate directing CalGEM to set aside its notice of exemption and project approval.The California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Five, reviewed the case. The court concluded that the well conversion project fell within the Class 1 exemption because the environmental risks associated with injecting water were negligible. The court emphasized that the project involved only minor physical alterations to the well and that the injected water would be geologically confined within the aquifer, posing negligible environmental risks. The court reversed the trial court’s judgment, directing it to deny Sunflower’s petition for writ of mandate and to order CalGEM to reinstate its project approval and notice of exemption. View "Sunflower Alliance v. Dept. of Conservation" on Justia Law

In April 2020, the City of Upland approved the development of a 201,096 square-foot warehouse/parcel delivery service building. The City adopted a mitigated negative declaration (MND) for the project under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Upland Community First (UCF) filed a petition for a writ of mandate, claiming the project violated CEQA due to potential significant impacts on greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, traffic, and air quality, arguing that an environmental impact report (EIR) should have been prepared.The Superior Court of San Bernardino County granted UCF’s petition on the grounds that insufficient evidence supported the City’s use of two quantitative thresholds for measuring the project’s cumulative impacts on GHG emissions. The court found that the City’s use of the 10,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent per year (MTCO2 e/yr.) and 3,000 MTCO2 e/yr. thresholds lacked adequate support. The court ordered the City to set aside its resolutions approving the MND and other project approvals to address the sufficiency of evidence supporting the GHG emissions thresholds.The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Two, reviewed the case. The court found that substantial evidence supported the City’s use of the 3,000 MTCO2 e/yr. threshold for measuring the significance of the project’s GHG emissions. The court concluded that the project’s GHG emissions would be below the 3,000 threshold, thus not significantly impacting GHG emissions. The court reversed the Superior Court’s judgment and remanded the matter with directions to enter judgment in favor of the City and Bridge Development Partners, LLC, on UCF’s petition and complaint. View "Upland Community First v. City of Upland" on Justia Law

The case involves the California Natural Gas Vehicle Coalition (Coalition) challenging the State Air Resources Board (Board) over the adoption of the Advanced Clean Trucks Regulation (Regulation). The Coalition, which supports natural gas as an alternative fuel, argues that the Regulation's focus on electric vehicles (ZEV) harms those using low-NOx vehicles designed to reduce nitrogen oxides. The Coalition claims the Board did not comply with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the Administrative Procedures Act (APA) in promulgating the Regulation.The Superior Court of Fresno County rejected the Coalition's claims and denied their petition. The court found that the Board's rejection of the low-NOx vehicle credit as an alternative was supported by substantial evidence and that the Board had no obligation to consider it further as a mitigation measure. The court also concluded that the Board's failure to respond to certain public comments was harmless. Additionally, the court allowed the Coalition to augment the administrative record with a document referenced in comments during the regulatory process.The California Court of Appeal, Fifth Appellate District, reviewed the case. The court affirmed the lower court's decision, holding that the Board's rejection of the low-NOx vehicle credit as an alternative was reasonable and supported by substantial evidence. The court also agreed that the Board's failure to respond to comments was harmless, as the Board had already considered and rejected the low-NOx vehicle credit. The court found that the Board's economic impact analysis under the APA was proper and that the Board had considered the impact on industries affected by the Regulation. Finally, the court concluded that any error in augmenting the administrative record was harmless. View "Cal. Natural Gas Vehicle Coalition v. State Air Resources Bd." on Justia Law

A lawyer representing Friends of the South Fork Gualala (FSFG) filed a disability accommodation request under rule 1.100 of the California Rules of Court, seeking extensions of time and relief from procedural obligations due to his bipolar disorder. FSFG had previously challenged the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection's (CalFIRE) approval of a timber harvest plan, arguing that the plan's approval was deficient in several respects, including inadequate consideration of geologic, biologic, and cultural resources. Although the trial court granted FSFG's petition in part, it denied the claim that CalFIRE's tardy publication of a complete written response to public comments rendered the approval defective.The Sonoma County Superior Court had granted six prior requests for scheduling relief based on the lawyer's mental health disability but denied the seventh request. The court found that the repeated requests for postponements created an undue financial and administrative burden and fundamentally altered the nature of the expedited California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) proceeding. FSFG appealed the denial of the seventh request, arguing that the trial court had no choice but to grant the accommodation due to the lawyer's qualifying disability.The California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Four, reviewed the case and affirmed the trial court's decision. The appellate court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the seventh request for accommodation. The court noted that FSFG had ample opportunity to retain additional counsel and that the repeated requests for extensions unduly burdened the court and altered the nature of the expedited CEQA proceeding. The appellate court concluded that the trial court's decision was reasonable and supported by the record. View "Friends of the So. Fork Gualala v. Dept. of Forestry & Fire Protection" on Justia Law

The case involves a challenge to the adequacy of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for a project proposing major changes to the California State Capitol. The Department of General Services (DGS) and the Joint Committee on Rules of the California State Senate and Assembly prepared both an EIR and a revised EIR under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The project includes demolishing the existing Capitol Annex, constructing a new attached Annex, building an underground visitor center, and constructing a new underground parking garage. Save Our Capitol! challenged the revised EIR, arguing it failed to comply with CEQA.The Superior Court of Sacramento County rejected Save Our Capitol!'s claims, leading to this appeal. Previously, the court had issued a peremptory writ of mandate after finding certain aspects of the original EIR flawed. DGS revised the EIR, reapproved the project without the visitor center, and the trial court discharged the writ. Save Our Capitol! then filed a new petition for writ of mandate, which the trial court also rejected.The California Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District, reviewed the case. The court affirmed the trial court’s decision, citing recent legislation, Senate Bill No. 174, which exempts the Capitol Annex Project from CEQA’s requirements. The court found that the new law, effective immediately, dictates that all work performed under the Annex Act is exempt from CEQA. Save Our Capitol!'s arguments that DGS violated CEQA were rejected based on this exemption. The court also addressed and dismissed Save Our Capitol!'s constitutional challenge to Senate Bill 174, finding that the bill does not violate article IV, section 28 of the California Constitution. The judgment was affirmed, and DGS was entitled to recover its costs on appeal. View "Save Our Capitol! v. Dept. of General Services" on Justia Law

A company applied to convert an old oil well into an injection well to dispose of produced water back into the aquifer. The well, located in Contra Costa County, had been drilled in 1963 and operated for over 20 years before being plugged. The project involved minor alterations to the well, such as removing the plug and installing injection equipment. Regulatory agencies, including CalGEM and the Regional Water Quality Control Board, reviewed the application and approved it, determining that the injected water would be confined within the aquifer by thick layers of shale.The Contra Costa County Superior Court ruled in favor of Sunflower Alliance, concluding that the project did not qualify for a Class 1 categorical exemption under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) because converting the well to an injection well constituted a significant change in use. The court issued a writ of mandate directing CalGEM to set aside its notice of exemption and project approval.The California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Five, reviewed the case and reversed the lower court's decision. The appellate court held that the well conversion project fell within the Class 1 categorical exemption as it involved only minor alterations and the change in use posed negligible environmental risks. The court found substantial evidence supporting CalGEM's determination that the project would not have significant environmental effects. The court also rejected Sunflower's argument that CalGEM improperly imposed mitigation measures, concluding that the conditions imposed were part of the regulatory requirements for Class II wells. The appellate court directed the lower court to deny Sunflower's petition for writ of mandate and to order CalGEM to reinstate its project approval and notice of exemption. View "Sunflower Alliance v. Cal. Dept. of Conservation" on Justia Law

The case involves the Santa Clarita Organization for Planning the Environment and Advocates for the Environment (collectively, SCOPE) challenging the County of Los Angeles and Williams Homes, Inc. (Williams) over the approval of a residential housing development project in the Santa Clarita Valley. SCOPE's lawsuit contested the County's approval of a conditional use permit, an oak tree permit, and a vesting tentative tract map, alleging violations of the Subdivision Map Act (SMA) and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).The Superior Court of Los Angeles County granted Williams's motion for judgment on the pleadings without leave to amend, finding that SCOPE's claims were barred under Government Code section 66499.37 of the SMA because SCOPE failed to serve a summons within 90 days of the County's approval of the vesting tentative tract map. The court concluded that section 66499.37 applied to both the SMA and CEQA causes of action, as the CEQA claims were intertwined with the SMA claims.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Seven, reviewed the case. The court held that section 66499.37 does not bar SCOPE's CEQA claims to the extent they allege procedural violations of CEQA and the County's failure to analyze and disclose the project's environmental impacts, as these claims are unique to CEQA and could not have been brought under the SMA. However, the court found that section 66499.37 does apply to SCOPE's CEQA claims challenging the reasonableness of the conditions of approval of the vesting tentative tract map, specifically the mitigation measures adopted as a condition of approval.The Court of Appeal reversed the judgment and remanded the case, directing the trial court to enter a new order denying the motion for judgment on the pleadings with respect to the first cause of action for violation of CEQA and granting the motion with respect to the second cause of action for violation of the SMA and zoning and planning law. View "Santa Clarita Organization for Planning the Environment v. County of Los Angeles" on Justia Law