Justia U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

Petitioners filed suit challenging the EPA's regional haze regulations for the State of Montana. Petitioner PPL Montana operates and partially owns the Colstrip Steam Electric Generating Station and the J.E. Corette Steam Electric Station. Petitioner NPCA are nonprofit conservation organizations. The court concluded, inter alia, that EPA’s best available retrofit technology (BART) determination for nitrogen oxide emissions at Colstrip Units 1 and 2 is arbitrary and capricious; EPA’s responses to petitioners’ more minor challenges to its cost-effectiveness analysis make clear that it is capable of the required rational explanation; because the rule offers no reasoned explanation to support its requirement of a fourth scrubber at Colstrip Units 1 and 2, the court concluded that such requirement is arbitrary and capricious; the inconsistency in EPA’s BART determinations at Colstrip Units 1 and 2 and Corette is, absent explanation, arbitrary and capricious; by requiring PPL Montana to install selective non-catalytic reduction (SNCR) at Colstrip Units 1 and 2 without sufficient assurance of any improvement at all, EPA has offered no reasoned explanation; and EPA’s determination that installation of additional technology to control emissions from Corette was not cost-effective suffers the same failure of explanation as its BART determinations at Colstrip. Finally, the court rejected NPCA's contention that EPA’s decision not to require any additional emission-reducing technology, let alone installation of selective catalytic reduction (SCR), at Colstrip Units 3 and 4 was arbitrary and capricious. Accordingly, the petitions for review are granted in part, denied in part, and vacated and remanded. View "Nat'l Parks Conservation Ass'n v. EPA" on Justia Law

Sierra Club appealed the district court's upholding of the BLM's decision to grant a right-of-way over federal land (Road Project) for a wind energy project (Wind Project) developed on private land by North Sky. The court affirmed the decision of the district court where the Wind Project does not trigger the duty to consult under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), 16 U.S.C. 1531, because the Wind Project did not constitute agency action. The Wind Project and the Road Project were separate and independent ventures, one public (Road Project) and one private (Wind Project). The Wind Project is not an indirect effect of the Road Project. The two projects are not interrelated or interdependent. Further, the Wind Project does not trigger the duty to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq., where the projects have independent utility and are not connected actions. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Sierra Club v. BLM" on Justia Law

Petitioner challenged California's plans to improve air quality in the San Joaquin Valley. At issue was whether the EPA erred in approving California's State Implementation Plans (SIPs) to comply with National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) enacted under the Clean Air Act (CAA), 42 U.S.C. 7409, concerning ozone and fine particulate matter in the San Joaquin Valley. The court held that by approving California’s plans even though the plans did not include the state-adopted mobile emissions standards on which those plans rely to achieve their emissions reductions goals, EPA violated the CAA; EPA did not violate the CAA by not requiring inclusion of other state mechanisms in its plans, and that other control measures approved by EPA are enforceable commitments as the CAA requires; and, therefore, the court granted the petition in part and denied in part, remanding for further proceedings. View "Comm. for a Better Arvin v. EPA" on Justia Law

Petitioners challenged the EPA's 2012 approval of revisions and additions to California's Pesticide Element relating to the reduction of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in the San Joaquin and Ventura air basins. The court held that the EPA was not arbitrary and capricious in its interpretation of the Pesticide Element's commitment to reduce emissions by certain levels where EPA's interpretation was reasonable in light of the ambiguity in the Pesticide Element's plain language; the EPA's determination that the revisions fulfilled the commitment in the original Pesticide Element to adopt enforceable regulations for reducing emissions was reasonable because the EPA's explanation demonstrates that it considered the relevant data and factors regarding emissions levels and the action did not conflict with the court's decision in El Comité para el Bienestar de Earlimart v.Warmerdam; the EPA's determination that California's assurances of compliance with federal and state law were adequate was not unreasonable because it provided a reasoned explanation for its actions. Accordingly, the court denied the petition for review. View "El Comite Para El Bienestar de Earlimart v. EPA" on Justia Law

In 2013, Plaintiffs filed an action against the Boeing Company and Landau Associates (Landau) in a Washington state court alleging that from the 1960s to the present years Boeing released toxins into the groundwater around its facility in Auburn, Washington and that for over a decade Landau, Boeing’s environmental-remediation contractor, had been negligent in its investigation and remediation of the pollution. Based on these allegations, Plaintiffs asserted state law claims of negligence, nuisance, and trespass. Boeing removed the action to a federal district court based on diversity jurisdiction and the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA). The district court remanded the case to state court, concluding (1) contrary to Boeing’s allegations, Landau was not fraudulently joined, and thus there was not complete diversity; and (2) Plaintiffs’ action came within the local single event exception to CAFA federal jurisdiction. The Ninth Circuit vacated and remanded, holding (1) the district court correctly determined that Boeing failed to show that Landau was fraudulently joined; but (2) Plaintiffs’ action does not come within the local single event exception to CAFA, and therefore, the district court has federal jurisdiction under CAFA. Remanded. View "Allen v. Boeing Co." on Justia Law

AmeriPride Services Inc. brought this contribution action against Texas Eastern Overseas, Inc. (TEO) under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) stemming from the contamination of the soil and groundwater in an industrial area of Sacramento, California. After a bench trial, the district court entered a final order and judgment against TEO. A panel of the Ninth Circuit vacated the district court’s judgment and remanded for further proceedings, holding (1) in allocating liability to a nonsettling defendant in a CERCLA contribution action, the district court is not required to apply either of the two leading methods for allocating liability to a nonsettling defendant after other responsible parties have entered into a settlement agreement to resolve their responsibility for an injury but, rather, has discretion to determine the most equitable method of accounting for settlements between private parties; and (2) because the district court did not explain its methodology for complying with CERCLA 9613(f) and furthering the goals of CERCLA, the panel could not determine whether the district court abused its discretion in allocating response costs. View "Ameripride Servs., Inc. v. Tex. Eastern Overseas Inc." on Justia Law

The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) approved of the South Coast Air Quality Management District’s Rule 317 as a revision to California’s State Implementation Plan for the Clean Air Act (CAA). The EPA approved the Rule pursuant to section 172(e) of the CAA - the so-called “anti-backsliding” provision - which allows for not less stringent alternative controls, finding that the pollution controls the Rule imposed were not less stringent than section 185 of the CAA. In its analysis, the EPA interpreted the statute to mean that the CAA’s anti-backsliding provisions apply when air quality standards have been strengthened as well as when they have been relaxed. The Ninth Circuit affirmed, holding (1) the EPA reasonably found that section 172(e) contained an ambiguous gap; (2) the EPA’s interpretation of the ambiguity was reasonable; and (3) EPA’s approval of Rule 317 as an alternative program was proper. View "Natural Res. Defense Counsel v. U.S. Envtl. Prot. Agency" on Justia Law

The California Dump Truck Owners Association (Truck Association) initiated a federal preemption challenge to a California environmental regulation. The district court dismissed the suit, finding that the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) approval of the regulation as part of California’s state implementation plan (SIP) divested the court of jurisdiction under the Clean Air Act (CAA). The Truck Association appealed, contending that it was challenging only the regulation and not the SIP, and therefore, the CAA did not apply. The Ninth Circuit affirmed, holding (1) the Truck Association’s suit, as a practical matter, challenged the the EPA’s approval of a provision of California’s SIP; and (2) because the court of appeals has exclusive jurisdiction over such challenges, the district court lacked jurisdiction. View "Cal. Dump Truck Owners Ass’n v. Nichols" on Justia Law

Black Mesa sought costs and expenses from the OSM after Black Mesa participated in a successful challenge to OSM's grant of a coal mining permit revision. The ALJ denied the fee request, the IBLA affirmed, and the district court affirmed. The court held that, on the standard of review applicable here, the review of the agency's "eligibility" determination is de novo and its "entitlement" determination is reviewed for substantial evidence; on de novo review, Black Mesa is "eligible" for fees because it showed some degree of success on the merits; in light of the court's decision on "eligibility," the court declined to reach whether, on this record, Black Mesa was "entitled" to fees; and the court remanded for the agency to consider the issue. In addition, the court rejected Black Mesa's argument that the Secretary waived a challenge to the reasonableness of any award amount that the agency might grant on remand for costs and expenses reasonably incurred for Black Mesa's participation in the proceedings at the agency level. Accordingly, the court reversed in part, vacated in part, and remanded. View "Black Mesa Water Coalition v. Jewell" on Justia Law

The Department of Interior's Bureau of Reclamation asked the NMFS in 2006 to evaluate the impact of continuing water extraction in the Central Valley on certain threatened and endangered Salmonid species that live there. NMFS developed a Biological Opinion (BiOp) in which it determined that Reclamation's proposed project would jeopardize some of the Delta's endangered Salmonids. NMFS required Reclamation to change the way it pumps water out of the Valley's rivers and groups that depend on Central Valley's water sued to stop this change. The district court found that NMFS violated the Administrative Procedure Act's (APA), 5 U.S.C. 706(2)(A), arbitrary or capricious standard when developing much of the BiOp and defendants appealed. The court held that the district court did not give NMFS the substantial deference it is due under the APA; the court found that the components of the BiOp invalidated by the district court are reasonable and supported by the record; and the court upheld the BiOp in its entirety. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded the district court's entry of summary judgment in favor of defendants. View "San Luis & Delta-Mendota Water Authority v. Locke" on Justia Law