Environmental Litigation

Subscribe to Environmental Litigation via RSS

Companies following the ongoing legal challenge to California’s climate disclosure laws in hopes that the court would strike down or limit the scope of these laws will be disappointed by the order issued by the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on February 3, 2025. The order dismissed constitutional challenges levied against SB 253, which requires large companies “doing business” in California to annually report their greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, and SB 261, which requires disclosure of climate-related financial risks. The ruling clears the path for the California Air Resources Board (CARB) to develop implementing regulations for SB 253, which are statutorily required to be issued by July 1, 2025.

This past Monday, the U.S. District Court for the District of North Dakota issued its ruling in the closely watched case of Iowa v. Council on Envtl. Quality, 1:24-cv-089 (D.N.D. Feb. 3, 2025), vacating the Biden administration’s Phase 2 National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) rule on the grounds that the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) overstepped its authority when it first promulgated NEPA regulations in 1978. This decision was just the latest in a series of falling dominos over the past three months that have completely upended NEPA practice both inside and outside of the federal government.

On April 3, representatives of the hydropower industry, Native American tribes, and conservation organizations provided a package of proposed legislative reforms to the Federal Power Act (FPA) to the ranking members of the U.S. Senate’s Energy and Natural Resources Committee and the U.S. House of Representatives’ Energy and Commerce Committee. The package, which was developed as part of the Stanford University Uncommon Dialogue on hydropower and river conservation, is the result of year-long intense negotiations between a variety of hydropower stakeholders.

To help reboot after the holiday break, here is a list of air topics we expect to make news in 2022 with a short discussion of why each one may be important to you.

The U.S. Supreme Court has elected to hear a legal dispute over the scope of the authority granted to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under the Clean Air Act to regulate greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from existing power plants. In orders issued October 29, the Court granted certiorari to four petitioners — West Virginia, North Dakota, the North American Coal Corporation, and Westmoreland Mining Holdings LLC — seeking reversal of a September 2020 D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals decision striking down the Affordable Clean Energy (ACE) rule.

The financial world appears to be reeling from the recent board of director election held by Exxon Mobil Corp. (Exxon) in which activist Hedge Fund Engine 1 (Engine 1) garnered enough votes to seat two directors (Kaisa Hietala and Gregory Goff), and potentially more, as the vote count continues. In the grand scheme of things, eight of Exxon’s nominees, including CEO Darren Woods, were re-elected to the 12-member board, and yet still, Engine 1 placing directors while sporting $50 million in holdings among over a $250 billion market cap for Exxon is worthy of note. The efforts of Engine 1 were aided by other large shareholders, such as BlackRock, Inc., Exxon’s second largest shareholder. The debate around the dissident directors centered on climate change issues.

In an April 1, 2021 ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court overruled Florida’s exceptions to the decision of Special Master Judge Paul Kelly in its long-running dispute with Georgia over the use of water in the Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint (ACF) river basin. The oral argument in the case, held February 22, 2021, seemed to point to several open questions where the justices could have made new law or clarified the tests associated with an equitable apportionment action. However, in the end, it came down to just the content of the evidentiary record, which was not in Florida’s favor, especially with the application of heightened standards of review.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has announced its decision to retain the current National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for fine particulate matter (PM2.5) and ozone (O3) under the Clean Air Act. However, the new Biden EPA is all but certain to reevaluate the standards and likely to reach different conclusions.

PM2.5 is a mixture of small liquid or solid particles found in the air that are less than 2.5 micrometers (μm) in aerodynamic diameter. O3 is a reactive gas that is formed through chemical reactions of nitrogen oxides and volatile organic compounds in the atmosphere. Under the CAA, EPA must ensure the ambient standards for both pollutants are established at a level “requisite to protect the public health” with “an adequate margin of safety,” and EPA must review the NAAQS every five years to determine whether the standards should be retained or revised.

The EPA has issued a rule requiring all significant agency guidance to undergo a public notice and comment process prior to issuance, modification or withdrawal (Rule). The new Rule was adopted pursuant to Executive Order 13891, which also required the agency to distinguish active guidance from inactive guidance, and to limit documents available through the official EPA guidance portal (Order). As of June 27, 2020 only guidance available through the official agency guidance portals qualifies as active guidance.

On February 20, 2020, Earthjustice, on behalf of a variety of nonprofit organizations, including the Sierra Club, brought suit against the United States Department of Defense (“DOD”), alleging that the DOD violated the National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”) and the National Defense Authorization Act (“NDAA”) in its decision to enter into contracts for the incineration of its unused stockpiles of firefighting foam. Save Our County, et al. v. United States Department of Defense, et al., 3:20-cv-01267 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 20, 2020). According to the complaint, the incineration of firefighting foam poses a threat to communities as the burning of the foam releases per– and polyfluoroalkyl substances (“PFAS”), a group of chemicals found in firefighting foam that may be linked to certain adverse health effects. In the complaint, the plaintiffs allege that the DOD’s contracts violate NEPA because the DOD did not prepare an environmental impact statement prior to consenting to the incineration of the firefighting foam. Additionally, the plaintiffs allege that the incineration of the firefighting foam does not comply with certain regulations created by the NDAA that govern the incineration of PFAS-containing materials.