Justia Environmental Law Opinion Summaries

The case involves the Michigan Attorney General's attempt to shut down Enbridge’s Line 5 Pipeline, which runs underwater across the Straits of Mackinac between Michigan’s Lower and Upper Peninsulas. The Attorney General filed the case in Michigan state court in 2019, alleging violations of three state laws. Enbridge responded by moving for summary disposition, arguing that the complaint failed to state a claim on which relief could be granted. The state court held oral argument on those dispositive motions, focusing on preemption issues, including whether the Attorney General’s claims were preempted by either the Pipeline Safety Act or the federal Submerged Lands Act.In 2020, Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer issued a notice of revocation of the 1953 easement, calling for Line 5 to be shut down by May 2021, and simultaneously filed a complaint in state court to enforce the notice. Enbridge timely removed the Governor’s case to the United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan. The district court denied the Governor’s motion to remand, holding that it had federal-question jurisdiction. The Governor subsequently voluntarily dismissed her case.Enbridge removed the Attorney General’s case to federal court in December 2021, citing the district court’s order denying the motion to remand in the Governor’s case. The Attorney General moved to remand this case to state court on grounds of untimely removal and lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The district court denied the motion on both grounds, excusing Enbridge’s untimely removal based on equitable principles and estopping the Attorney General from challenging subject-matter jurisdiction.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reversed the district court's decision, holding that Enbridge failed to timely remove the case to federal court under 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b), and there are no equitable exceptions to the statute’s deadlines for removal. The case was remanded to Michigan state court. View "Nessel v. Enbridge Energy, LP" on Justia Law

The case revolves around the use of forecasts in the electric energy industry, specifically in proposing rates for electricity-generating entities. The New York Independent System Operator, Inc., a non-profit entity that operates New York’s electric grid and oversees the state’s wholesale electricity markets, proposed rates for the 2021–2025 period. It shortened the amortization period from twenty years to seventeen years, justifying the change by pointing to the recently enacted New York Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act, 2019. The Act proclaims that by the year 2040, the statewide electrical demand system will be zero emissions.The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) initially rejected the System Operator’s submission, deeming the justification for a seventeen-year commercial lifespan “speculative”. Independent Power Producers of New York, Inc., a trade association of electricity generators, sought judicial review of FERC’s rejection. The court granted their petition, holding that FERC failed to sufficiently explain its reasons for rejecting the System Operator’s proposal. On remand, FERC again rejected the System Operator’s analysis as “speculative”. Independent Power Producers sought rehearing before FERC, which granted its request. This time, FERC approved the System Operator’s submission. The Public Service Commission sought (re-)rehearing before FERC, which was denied. The Public Service Commission now petitions for judicial review in this court.The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit denied the Public Service Commission’s petitions for review. The court found that FERC’s ultimate decision to approve the shortened amortization period satisfied the directives of the court's prior judgment. The court also found that FERC’s decision to not address the cost impact of the change was in line with the court’s precedents. The court concluded that the Public Service Commission can file a separate complaint to argue that the existing rate design is producing rates that are not just and reasonable. View "New York State Public Service Commission v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission" on Justia Law

The case involves a dispute over the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (FERC) approval of a project to expand a natural-gas pipeline from western Pennsylvania to the New York metropolitan area. The petitioner, Food & Water Watch, argued that FERC overlooked environmental issues in approving the project. Specifically, they claimed that FERC's Environmental Impact Statement failed to quantify greenhouse-gas emissions from upstream drilling for the extra gas, to quantify ozone emissions from its downstream burning, and to categorize emissions impacts as either significant or insignificant. Additionally, Food & Water Watch argued that FERC did not adequately consider New York State and New York City laws mandating reductions in carbon-dioxide emissions.The case was reviewed by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. The lower courts had approved the project, with FERC issuing a certificate of public convenience and necessity for the East 300 Upgrade Project. FERC had prepared a full Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), which estimated the downstream carbon-dioxide emissions but declined to address upstream environmental effects. FERC also declined to characterize downstream emissions as significant or insignificant.The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit rejected the petitioner's contentions and denied the petitions for review. The court found that FERC had reasonably concluded that there was too much uncertainty regarding the number and location of additional upstream wells. The court also held that FERC had reasonably explained its decision not to give a quantitative estimate of how much ozone would be produced as a result of the project. Finally, the court found that FERC had amply discussed the significance of GHG emissions and that it was not required to label the increased emissions and ensuing costs as either significant or insignificant. The court also found that FERC had reasonably explained why the New York State Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act did not undercut its finding of need for the project. View "Food & Water Watch v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission" on Justia Law

Kevin Shibilski was charged with environmental and wire-fraud crimes and conspiracy to defraud the United States, related to his operation of three Wisconsin-based companies involved in recycling electronic equipment. Shibilski pleaded guilty to a single felony count of willful failure to pay employment taxes, and in exchange, the government dropped the other charges. During the sentencing hearing, Shibilski objected to the presentence report’s recommendations regarding relevant conduct under the Sentencing Guidelines, particularly the recommendation to hold him responsible for the total amount of unpaid employment taxes for all three companies. The district judge held a seven-hour sentencing hearing, most of which was consumed by the presentation of documents and testimony, including testimony from Shibilski himself.The district judge found Shibilski responsible for the full amount of unpaid taxes. The judge also declined to award credit for acceptance of responsibility under U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1(a), finding that Shibilski had falsely denied responsibility for relevant conduct. After weighing the statutory sentencing factors, the judge imposed a sentence of 33 months in prison, the bottom of the advisory Guidelines range.Shibilski appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, arguing that the judge violated Rule 32(i)(4)(A)(i) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure by unduly curtailing his attorney’s presentation of evidence, that the judge improperly denied credit for acceptance of responsibility under § 3E1.1(a), and that the judge committed procedural error by failing to meaningfully address the statutory sentencing factors. The Court of Appeals rejected these arguments and affirmed the district court's decision. View "United States v. Shibilski" on Justia Law

The case involves four North Carolina-based citizen groups ("Petitioners") who petitioned the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) to require testing of fifty-four Per- and Poly- Fluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) prevalent in their community. The EPA granted the petition, agreeing to require testing on PFAS as a class through its own testing protocol. Petitioners sought judicial review of the EPA’s decision, contending it was in effect a denial of their petition.The district court dismissed Petitioners’ complaint for lack of jurisdiction. The court reasoned that the EPA reasonably chose to grant Petitioners’ request to test the fifty-four PFAS as a category—PFAS generally—which the TSCA encourages the EPA to do. As to the EPA’s failure to adopt Petitioners’ specific testing program, the district court explained that Petitioners “have a right to petition [the] EPA to initiate proceedings for the issuance of rules and orders, but [they] do not have a right to compel the content of [the] EPA’s proceedings or to compel [the] EPA to issue a specific rule or order.”On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. The court held that the EPA’s decision was a grant in fact. The court reasoned that the TSCA allows the EPA to group chemicals into scientifically appropriate categories for testing. The court also held that the TSCA does not give petitioners the unrestrained ability to force companies to conduct specific testing when the § 2603 requirements are met. The court concluded that by promptly commencing a proceeding for determining how to best test PFAS, the EPA gave Petitioners all that they were entitled to receive. View "Center for Environmental Health v. Regan" on Justia Law

The case involves the Puget Soundkeeper Alliance (Soundkeeper), an environmental organization, and the Port of Tacoma and SSA Terminals, LLC (collectively, the Port), operators of the West Sitcum Terminal, a marine cargo terminal. The dispute centers on a portion of the terminal known as "the Wharf," where stormwater runoff carries pollutants into Puget Sound. The Soundkeeper alleges that the Port violated the Clean Water Act by not implementing stormwater controls across the entire facility, including the Wharf. The Port argues that the Wharf is not subject to regulation because it does not conduct industrial activities that require a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit.The case was first heard in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington, which granted partial summary judgment in favor of the Port. The court concluded that the Industrial Stormwater General Permits (ISGPs) issued by the Washington State Department of Ecology did not extend coverage to the Wharf, as the Wharf did not conduct the industrial activities specified in the permits.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed in part and vacated in part the district court's decision. The appellate court held that the plain text of the 2010 and 2015 ISGPs required a transportation facility conducting industrial activities to implement stormwater controls across the entire facility. Therefore, the Port needed to implement appropriate stormwater controls across the Terminal while the 2010 and 2015 ISGPs were in effect. The court also held that the ISGPs were enforceable in a citizen suit, even if they exceeded the requirements of the federal regulations.However, the court vacated the district court's decision regarding the 2020 ISGP, which was subject to an ongoing state-court challenge, and remanded the case for further consideration. The court instructed the district court to consider the effect of the state proceedings on this case. View "PSA V. PORT OF TACOMA" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court of California reviewed a case involving the University of California, Berkeley's (UC Berkeley) plan to build a housing project on a site called People's Park. The plaintiffs, Make UC a Good Neighbor and People’s Park Historic District Advocacy Group, challenged the certification of an environmental impact report (EIR) for the project, arguing that it failed to consider the environmental impacts of "student-generated noise" and did not adequately consider alternatives to the People’s Park location. The Court of Appeal agreed with the plaintiffs.The Supreme Court of California granted review of the Court of Appeal’s decision. During the review, the Legislature passed Assembly Bill No. 1307, which added sections to the Public Resources Code stating that noise generated by project occupants and their guests is not a significant environmental effect for residential projects, and that public higher education institutions are not required to consider alternatives to the location of a proposed residential or mixed-use housing project if certain requirements are met. The plaintiffs conceded that this new law applied to the case and made clear that the EIR was not required to examine "social noise" or potential alternative locations to People’s Park.The Supreme Court of California concluded that none of the plaintiffs' claims had merit in light of the new law. The court held that the new law applied to both the People’s Park housing project and the development plan, and the EIR was not inadequate for having failed to study the potential noisiness of future students at UC Berkeley in connection with this project. The court declined to consider the plaintiffs' alternative locations argument with respect to potential future housing projects. The court reversed the Court of Appeal’s judgment. View "Make UC a Good Neighbor v. The Regents of the University of California" on Justia Law

Several Louisiana coastal parishes, joined by the Louisiana Attorney General and the Louisiana Secretary of Natural Resources, filed lawsuits against various oil and gas companies, alleging violations of Louisiana’s State and Local Coastal Resources Management Act of 1978. The companies removed these cases to federal court, asserting that they satisfy the requirements of the federal officer removal statute due to their refining contracts with the government during World War II. The district courts granted the parishes’ motions to remand these cases to state court, concluding that the oil companies did not meet their burden of establishing federal jurisdiction.The oil companies appealed the district courts' decisions. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district courts’ orders remanding these cases to state court. The court concluded that the oil companies failed to satisfy the “acting under” requirement of the federal officer removal statute, as their compliance with federal regulations or cooperation with federal agencies was insufficient to bring a private action within the statute. The court also found that the oil companies failed to establish that the conduct challenged in the parishes’ lawsuits was “connected or associated with” acts the companies had taken under color of federal office. View "Plaquemines Parish v. BP America Production Co." on Justia Law

The case involves Aerie Point Holdings, LLC (Aerie Point) and Vorsteveld Farm, LLC (Vorsteveld). Aerie Point owns a property in Panton, Vermont, which is located downhill from Vorsteveld's dairy farm. In 2017, Vorsteveld began installing tile drains in its fields to improve soil quality. The excess water drained from these tiles was discharged into public ditches, then through culverts, and finally towards Lake Champlain over Aerie Point’s property. This led to increased water flow, sediment, and contaminants on Aerie Point's land, causing shoreline erosion and algae blooms in Lake Champlain. In April 2020, Aerie Point filed a lawsuit against Vorsteveld for trespass and nuisance.The civil division found in favor of Aerie Point in March 2022, concluding that Vorsteveld's actions constituted trespass and nuisance. The court issued an injunction in August 2022, preventing Vorsteveld from allowing water from its drain tile system to flow into the public ditches and culverts on Arnold Bay Road. Vorsteveld did not appeal this judgment.In August 2023, Vorsteveld moved for relief from the judgment under Rule 60(b)(5) and (6), arguing that postjudgment changes in fact and law justified relief from the injunction. Vorsteveld claimed that an Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) investigation regarding filled wetlands on the farm prevented it from complying with the injunction, and that the federal investigation/enforcement action preempted the state injunction. Vorsteveld also argued that changes to Vermont’s Right-to-Farm law justified relief from the injunction. The court denied the motion and the request for an evidentiary hearing.On appeal, the Vermont Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's decision. The court found that Vorsteveld's arguments were attempts to relitigate issues that had been resolved by the judgment. The court also found that Vorsteveld had not demonstrated that there were significant postjudgment changes in factual circumstances or the law that made prospective application of the injunction inequitable. The court concluded that Vorsteveld's arguments relating to the EPA investigation and changes to the Right-to-Farm law were insufficient to merit relief under Rule 60(b). The court also found that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Vorsteveld's request for an evidentiary hearing. View "Aerie Point Holdings, LLC v. Vorsteveld Farm, LLC" on Justia Law

The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) and other environmental groups sued the Bureau of Reclamation and the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), alleging that they violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and Endangered Species Act (ESA) by failing to adequately consult over whether the renewal of government water supply contracts would likely jeopardize the existence of the delta smelt and by failing to reinitiate consultation with the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) regarding the contracts’ effects on Chinook salmon. The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision, holding that the federal agencies complied with their obligations under the APA and ESA. The court found that FWS's consultation on the renewal of the contracts was not arbitrary and capricious, and that Reclamation did not act arbitrarily and capriciously by relying on it. The court also rejected NRDC's argument that Reclamation violated its obligations under the ESA by misinforming FWS regarding the scope of its discretion to negotiate the contracts. Finally, the court concluded that the renewed contracts did not give Reclamation the discretion to take measures that would benefit the Chinook salmon, and therefore the district court did not err in dismissing NRDC's fifth claim for relief for failure to state a claim. View "NRDC v. Haaland" on Justia Law