
Subscribe for updates
Recent Posts
- District Court Remands Lawsuit Involving Contaminated Water Supply Despite Federal Involvement in Cleanup
- Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court Holds that Regional Climate Program Rule is an Illegal Tax
- District Court Finds Mine Reclaimer Liable for Past CWA and SMCRA Violations
- District Court Upholds ESG Rule Based on Chevron, Rejecting Application of “Major Questions” Doctrine
- Massachusetts District Court Holds That Breathing in Polluted Air Without A Concrete Injury Traceable To The Defendant Does Not Confer Standing Under The Clean Air Act
Topics
- Citizens Suit
- Georgia
- Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act
- 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
- Divisibility
- Apportionment
- National Contingency Plan
- Water Pollution Control Act
- Strict Liability
- Utilities
- Public Utilities Commission
- Historic Resources
- Hydraulic Fracturing
- Water Use
- Ohio
- PFAS
- Arbitration
- Alternative Dispute Resolution
- Climate Change
- Auer Deference
- Commonwealth Court
- Fees
- West Virginia
- Forest Service
- TSCA
- Asbestos
- Martime
- Gold King Mine
- Utah
- New Mexico
- Tribal Lands
- Federal Tort Claims Act
- Delaware
- Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control
- FERC
- National Forest Management Act
- Endangered Species Act
- Chevron Deference
- United States Supreme Court
- HSCA
- Alter Ego
- Corporate Veil
- Allocation
- Eleventh Amendment
- Delaware River Basin Commission
- Mining
- Intervention
- New Hampshire
- PCBs
- Property Damage
- Building Materials
- First Circuit
- Groundwater
- Natural Resource Damages
- Brownfields
- Brownfield
- Innocent Party
- Environmental Rights Amendment
- PHMSA
- Pipeline Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
- FOIA
- Effluents
- Sediment Sites
- EHB
- Texas
- Missouri
- Pipelines
- Injunction
- Coal Ash
- Spoliation
- TMDL
- Stormwater
- Safe Drinking Water Act
- Colorado
- Michigan
- Drinking Water
- North Carolina
- Bankruptcy
- Civil Penalties
- Clean Streams Law
- Hearing Board
- Arranger Liability
- Retroactive
- Sovereign Immunity
- Damages
- Stigma
- Property Value
- Tax assessment
- Fair Market Value
- Storage Tank
- Fifth Circuit
- Indemnification
- Electric
- Energy
- Ninth Circuit
- Arizona
- OPRA
- Attorney-Client
- Iowa
- Fourth Circuit
- Discovery Rule
- Eighth Circuit
- Taxes
- Administrative Appeals
- Preemption
- CAFA
- Freshwater Wetlands Protect Act
- Inspection
- Residential
- New York
- Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
- Natural Gas Act
- Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection
- D.C. Circuit
- HAPs
- Hazardous Air Pollutants
- Mercury
- Condemnation
- Takings
- Natural Gas
- Storage
- Fifth Amendment
- Flooding
- Takings Clause
- Spill Act
- Causation
- NEPA
- Interior
- Tenth Circuit
- Mineral Leasing Act
- California
- Act 13
- Zoning
- Duty to Defend
- Insurance Coverage
- Eminent Domain
- Landfill
- Private Right of Action
- Sixth Circuit
- Water
- Illinois
- Diligent Prosecution
- Subject Matter Jurisdiction
- Citizen Suit
- Arkansas
- Pennsylvania
- Press
- Uncategorized
- Maryland
- Eleventh Circuit
- Navigability
- Riverbed
- Equal-Footing Doctrine
- Montana
- Indiana
- Seventh Circuit
- Breach of Contract
- Public Lands
- Bona Fide Prospective Purchaser
- Green House Counsel
- Equity
- Laches
- Delay Notice
- EPA
- Boiler MACT
- Rulemaking
- CISWI
- Consent Decree
- Enforcement
- Contribution
- Declaratory Relief
- Second Circuit
- NPDES
- Procedure
- Standing
- Dimock
- Medical Monitoring
- Legislation
- Case Update
- Louisiana
- Certification
- Contamination
- Dukes
- CLE
- Cases to Watch
- Discovery
- Expert Witness
- Privilege
- Work Product
- Decisions of Note
- CERCLA
- Cost Recovery
- Defense Costs
- Insurance
- Real Estate
- Remediation
- Response Action Contractors
- Consultant Liability
- Negligence
- Rapanos
- Army Corps
- Donovan
- Kentucky
- Nuisance
- Class Actions
- Odors
- Trespass
- Farming
- Hog Barn
- Informal Agency Action
- Administrative Hearing
- ISRA
- New Jersey
- Cancer
- Combustion
- Emissions
- Railroad
- RCRA
- Waste
- Air
- Speaking Engagements
- Toxic Torts
- Federal Procedure
- Removal
- Third Circuit
- Permits
- Statute of Limitations
- Title V
- Clean Air Act
- Superfund
- Supreme Court
- Cleanup
- Statute of Repose
- Tolling
- Camp Lejeune
- Multi-District Litigation
- Wetlands
- Deeds
- Administrative Procedures Act
- Marcellus Shale
- Clean Water Act
- Mineral Rights
- Due Process
- Enforcement Action
- Oil and Gas
- Royalties
- Drilling
- Exploration
- Leases
Blog editor
Blog Contributors
Last week, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan refused to void a private settlement agreement entered between Sierra Club and DTE in the face of an objection by the United States that the settlement agreement interfered with a related consent decree and infringed on the government’s enforcement authority. United States v. DTE Energy Co., et al., No. 10-CV-13101 (E.D. Mich. Dec. 3, 2020).
The litigation arose from a Clean Air Act enforcement action brought by the United States against DTE. Sierra Club later intervened and brought a citizen suit action against DTE. The United States and Sierra Club alleged that DTE implemented major modifications at several coal-fired electric generating units without obtaining the necessary permits, without installing the required emission control technology, and without achieving the lowest achievable emissions rate (“LAER”). The parties ultimately negotiated a Consent Decree which the court entered, requiring DTE to reduce emissions, pay a civil penalty of $1.8 million, and perform an environmental mitigation project that replaces municipal buses with lower emitting buses.
The Consent Decree recognized DTE and Sierra Club’s intent to submit a separate proposed settlement agreement that would resolve Sierra Club’s claims against DTE. The United States reserved the right to oppose any motion concerning or seeking approval of the settlement agreement. The settlement agreement required DTE to: (1) fund at least $2 million in community based environmental projects; (2) carry out a project to improve energy efficiency and reduce energy use at a public recreation center; (3) satisfy the bus replacement project required under the Consent Decree through the provision of electric buses and related electrification infrastructure; and (4) retire certain power plants.
Sierra Club filed a motion seeking to have the court either enter or take notice of the settlement agreement and dismiss Sierra Club’s complaint against DTE. The United States opposed the motion. The court ultimately rejected the United States’ argument that the settlement agreement was, “in effect, a second consent decree or judgment and thus erodes government enforcement primacy, conflict[s] with the statutory scheme, is contrary to sound environmental enforcement policy, and potentially interferes with constitutionally mandated separation of powers.” (internal quotations omitted). The court found that the settlement agreement, unlike a consent decree, did not require the court to retain jurisdiction and that instead the parties would be required to bring a separate suit for breach of contract to enforce it. The court also found that the settlement agreement was entirely consistent with the Consent Decree and did not erode or jeopardize any of the United States’ interests or any of the terms of the Consent Decree. The court noted that the settlement agreement “requires that DTE follow through on its long-announced plans to retire (rather than retrofit, refuel, repower, or retire, as provided in the Consent Decree) three coal plants and use electric (rather than simply lower-emitting) buses in the Consent Decree’s mitigation project.” (emphasis in original).
If DTE and Sierra Club settled on terms that conflicted with the Consent Decree, the court could have denied Sierra Club’s motion and refused to take notice of the settlement agreement. The settlement agreement, however, did not conflict with the Consent Decree, even though it did limit some of the more general requirements in the Consent Decree. This case illustrates a potential outcome where the United States resists settling on terms that it feels would create too stringent of a precedent for future settlements, but where the regulated entity wants to settle all outstanding claims and obtain closure in the matter. Overall, the court’s holding allows parties flexibility in resolving enforcement and citizen suit actions.