Subscribe for updates
Recent Posts
- When Does NEPA Apply? The Eleventh Circuit Draws a Hard Line in Friends of the Everglades v. DHS
- Supreme Court Broadly Interprets “relating to” in Federal Officer Removal Statute
- Pennsylvania Federal Court Clarifies HSCA Statute of Limitations and “Response Costs” Under HSCA and CERCLA
- New Jersey Federal Court Dismisses PFAS Consumer Suit Against Band-Aid on Standing Grounds
- Massachusetts Federal Court Concludes that Biopellets Containing PFAS are “Useful Products,” Providing Defense to Superfund Liability
Topics
- Venue
- State Implementation Plans
- NJDEP
- Connecticut
- Pollutants
- Federal Land Policy and Management Act
- Loper Bright
- Council on Environmental Quality
- Agency Action
- New Jersey Civil Rights Act
- Public Trust Doctrine
- Environmental Justice
- Disparate Impact
- Title VI
- Massachusetts
- Evidence
- Internal Investigation
- Citizens Suit
- Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act
- Georgia
- FIFRA
- Major Questions Doctrine
- Lead Paint
- Greenwashing
- Good Faith Settlement
- Federal Facilities
- Statutory Notice
- Oil Pollution Act
- Federal Jurisdiction
- Owner Liability
- Court of Federal Claims
- Ripeness
- Renewable Fuel Standard
- Fish and Wildlife Service
- Greenhouse Gas
- Refinery
- Alaska
- Florida
- Vapor Intrusion
- Solvents
- National Priorities List
- Price-Anderson Act
- Solid Waste Management Act
- Successor Liability
- Personal Jurisdiction
- Potentially Responsible Parties
- Operator Liability
- Federal Circuit
- Environmental Covenants
- Apportionment
- National Contingency Plan
- Divisibility
- Water Pollution Control Act
- Strict Liability
- Utilities
- Historic Resources
- Public Utilities Commission
- Hydraulic Fracturing
- Water Use
- Ohio
- PFAS
- Alternative Dispute Resolution
- Arbitration
- Climate Change
- Auer Deference
- Commonwealth Court
- Fees
- West Virginia
- Forest Service
- TSCA
- Asbestos
- Martime
- Gold King Mine
- Tribal Lands
- Federal Tort Claims Act
- New Mexico
- Utah
- Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control
- Delaware
- National Forest Management Act
- FERC
- Chevron Deference
- United States Supreme Court
- Endangered Species Act
- HSCA
- Alter Ego
- Corporate Veil
- Allocation
- Eleventh Amendment
- Delaware River Basin Commission
- Mining
- Intervention
- New Hampshire
- Building Materials
- Property Damage
- First Circuit
- PCBs
- Groundwater
- Natural Resource Damages
- Brownfield
- Brownfields
- Innocent Party
- Environmental Rights Amendment
- PHMSA
- Pipeline Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
- FOIA
- Effluents
- Sediment Sites
- EHB
- Missouri
- Pipelines
- Texas
- Coal Ash
- Injunction
- Spoliation
- Stormwater
- TMDL
- Safe Drinking Water Act
- Colorado
- Michigan
- Drinking Water
- North Carolina
- Bankruptcy
- Clean Streams Law
- Hearing Board
- Civil Penalties
- Arranger Liability
- Sovereign Immunity
- Retroactive
- Tax assessment
- Property Value
- Stigma
- Fair Market Value
- Damages
- Storage Tank
- Energy
- Fifth Circuit
- Electric
- Indemnification
- Arizona
- Ninth Circuit
- OPRA
- Attorney-Client
- Iowa
- Discovery Rule
- Fourth Circuit
- Eighth Circuit
- Taxes
- Administrative Appeals
- Preemption
- CAFA
- Procedure
- Contamination
- Natural Gas
- Inspection
- Freshwater Wetlands Protect Act
- Residential
- New York
- Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection
- Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
- Natural Gas Act
- HAPs
- Mercury
- D.C. Circuit
- Hazardous Air Pollutants
- Condemnation
- Takings
- Storage
- Flooding
- Takings Clause
- Fifth Amendment
- Spill Act
- Causation
- NEPA
- Mineral Leasing Act
- Tenth Circuit
- Interior
- California
- Act 13
- Zoning
- Duty to Defend
- Insurance Coverage
- Landfill
- Eminent Domain
- Sixth Circuit
- Private Right of Action
- Illinois
- Water
- Citizen Suit
- Subject Matter Jurisdiction
- Diligent Prosecution
- Arkansas
- Pennsylvania
- Press
- Uncategorized
- Maryland
- Eleventh Circuit
- Montana
- Equal-Footing Doctrine
- Riverbed
- Navigability
- Indiana
- Seventh Circuit
- Breach of Contract
- Public Lands
- Bona Fide Prospective Purchaser
- Green House Counsel
- Delay Notice
- Equity
- Laches
- CISWI
- Rulemaking
- Consent Decree
- Boiler MACT
- EPA
- Enforcement
- Second Circuit
- Declaratory Relief
- Contribution
- NPDES
- Standing
- Dimock
- Medical Monitoring
- Legislation
- Case Update
- Certification
- Louisiana
- Dukes
- CLE
- Expert Witness
- Work Product
- Cases to Watch
- Discovery
- Decisions of Note
- Privilege
- Defense Costs
- Insurance
- Consultant Liability
- Negligence
- Response Action Contractors
- Remediation
- Rapanos
- Army Corps
- Donovan
- Class Actions
- Kentucky
- Nuisance
- Hog Barn
- Trespass
- Odors
- Farming
- Informal Agency Action
- ISRA
- New Jersey
- Administrative Hearing
- RCRA
- Combustion
- Cancer
- Air
- Railroad
- Waste
- Emissions
- CERCLA
- Speaking Engagements
- Removal
- Federal Procedure
- Third Circuit
- Toxic Torts
- Title V
- Permits
- Clean Air Act
- Statute of Limitations
- Cleanup
- Superfund
- Cost Recovery
- Supreme Court
- Camp Lejeune
- Tolling
- Statute of Repose
- Multi-District Litigation
- Deeds
- Administrative Procedures Act
- Due Process
- Mineral Rights
- Clean Water Act
- Wetlands
- Enforcement Action
- Marcellus Shale
- Exploration
- Drilling
- Real Estate
- Leases
- Oil and Gas
- Royalties
Blog editor
Blog Contributors
This summer, we reported on the Third Circuit’s decision in the Bell v. Cheswick Generating Station case, which held that the federal Clean Air Act (“CAA”) does not preempt state common law tort claims in a putative class action filed by over 1,500 residents complaining that the operations of GenOn Power Midwest, L.P.’s (“GenOn’s) coal-fired electric generation station constituted a nuisance under Pennsylvania common law.
In a Petition for Certiorari filed by GenOn on February 20th and made public last week (Docket No. 13-1013), GenOn urges the United States Supreme Court to overturn the Third Circuit’s decision and hold that the CAA preempts all state common law claims. GenOn argues that such a reversal is necessary in accordance with the Court’s prior decision in American Electric Power Co. v. Connecticut, which held that the CAA preempts federal common law nuisance suits aimed at curbing air pollution. In seeking Certiorari, GenOn argues that the Third Circuit erred in holding that the “savings clause” in the CAA preserved common law claims for air pollution, and that allowing such claims would result in an ad-hoc regulation of air pollution across the country, “that would allow a state court or jury to impose different standards than those adopted by EPA.” GenOn argues that the CAA’s “savings clause” does nothing more than preserve the ability of state or local political subdivisions to adopt additional emission standards and regulatory requirements through proper statutory and administrative processes, and that the “savings clause” does not create an avenue to regulate a source of air pollution through the common law. GenOn also argues that the Court’s decision in American Electric Power clearly held that when dealing with the regulation of air pollution, the “expert agency is surely better equipped to do the job than district judges issuing ad hoc, case-by-case injunctions,” and that therefore courts should “have only a secondary role, to review the expert agencies’ decisions and ensure compliance with statutory requirements.”
Plaintiffs’ opposition to GenOn’s Petition for Certiorari, should they choose to file one, is due later this month.
