On June 18, 2025, the Supreme Court decided EPA v Calumet Shreveport Refining, LLC et al., and its companion case Oklahoma et al. v. EPA, clarifying the tripartite framework for determining venue in Clean Air Act (“CAA” or “Act”) litigation.  Looking at the CAA's venue provision (42 U.S.C. 7607(b)(1)), the Court explained that if a challenge is to an “nationally applicable” EPA action the challenge should be directed to the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit and the matter ends there.  But, if the challenge is to a “locally or regionally applicable” EPA action, then typically those challenges belong in the relevant regional Circuit Court.  However, when a “locally or regionally applicable” action falls within the “nationwide scope or effect” exception, which requires the action be (1) “based on a determination of nationwide scope or effect” and (2) accompanied by an EPA finding to the same effect, the Court instructed that the matter should be routed back to the D.C. Circuit.  Applying this understanding of CAA's venue provision, the Court reached different conclusions in Calumet and Oklahoma, finding respectively that the “nationwide scope or effect” exception applied in one instance and not in the other. Read More »

Share | Email| Comments|  Topics: Agency Action, Air, Clean Air Act, D.C. Circuit, EPA, Federal Procedure, Procedure, Refinery, Renewable Fuel Standard, State Implementation Plans, Supreme Court, United States Supreme Court, Venue

On June 20, 2025, the Supreme Court issued it opinion in Diamond Alternative Energy v. EPA, holding fuel producers had standing—and had specifically demonstrated redressability—to challenge California-specific regulations EPA approved under the Clean Air Act.  The Court’s opinion  reversing and remanding to the D.C. Circuit left the merits of the case for another day, but acknowledged that the regulations at issue may be rescinded shortly, mooting most, if not all, of the parties’ controversy. Read More »

Share | Email| Comments|  Topics: Agency Action, Air, California, Clean Air Act, Climate Change, D.C. Circuit, Emissions, EPA, Federal Procedure, Greenhouse Gas, Legislation, Oil and Gas, Standing, Supreme Court, United States Supreme Court

In March 2024, the County of Bucks filed a controversial suit under state law against a number of large oil companies alleging the County was injured because of the companies’ deceptive conduct with respect to their impact on climate change. The Defendants filed various preliminary objections including lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, arguing that despite the County’s effort to focus the complaint on fraudulent practices, the case at bottom alleged harm from severe weather allegedly due to air emissions, which are governed exclusively by federal law. On May 16, 2025, the Bucks County Court of Common Pleas issued an opinion agreeing with the Defendants and dismissing the case entirely.  See Bucks County v. BP P.L.C., et al., No. 2024-01836 (Bucks Cty. Com. Pl. May 16, 2025). Read More »

Share | Email| Comments|  Topics: Clean Air Act, Climate Change, Pennsylvania, Preemption, Standing

In a decision on February 5, 2025, the Superior Court of New Jersey dismissed the Attorney General of New Jersey’s state tort claims against various energy companies seeking redress for the effects of climate change in Platkin v. Exxon Mobil Corp (N.J. Super. No. MER-L-001797-22).  Because the dispute concerned interstate and global air emissions, which implicate uniquely federal interests, the court concluded that the federal Constitutional structure requires that federal common law preempts these climate-change related tort claims.   Read More »

Share | Email| Comments|  Topics: Air, Clean Air Act, Climate Change, Energy, New Jersey, NJDEP, Toxic Torts

In Conservation Law Foundation, Inc. v. Academy Express, LLC, the Conservation Law Foundation brought a private right of action under the Clean Air Act, alleging that Academy Express, LLC, a bus company, allowed its vehicles to sit idle for excessive periods of time across Massachusetts and Connecticut. No. 20-10032-WGY (D. Mass. 2023). On appeal, the First Circuit decided an interesting question regarding standing: whether smelling odor from vehicle fumes was sufficient to confer standing to sue a particular bus company. The First Circuit said it was and so allowed the case to proceed. Read More »

Share | Email| Comments|  Topics: Air, Clean Air Act, Connecticut, Emissions, Massachusetts, Nuisance, Odors, Pollutants

In an opinion published on December 18, 2024, the Montana Supreme Court found that a provision in the Montana Constitution providing for the right to a “clean and healthful environment” guarantees the right to a stable climate system.  In Held v. State of Montana, 2024 MT 312 (Mont. 2024), the Montana Supreme Court affirmed a trial court decision striking down state law provisions that barred state agencies from considering greenhouse gas (“GHG”) emissions in permitting decisions, finding the law violates the environmental rights guaranteed by the Montana Constitution. Read More »

Share | Email| Comments|  Topics: Air, Citizens Suit, Clean Air Act, Climate Change, Greenhouse Gas, Montana

The United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana, Lake Charles Division, on August 22, 2024 issued an injunction barring the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) from enforcing regulations based on Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. 200d, et seq., in the State of Louisiana (the “State”). The ruling in State of Louisiana v. US Environmental Protection Agency, et al., No. 2:23-CV-00692, 2024 WL 3904868, at *1 (W.D. La. Aug. 22, 2024), effectively prohibits these federal agencies from implementing regulations that implicate Title VI’s disparate impact prohibition.   Read More »

Share | Email| Comments|  Topics: Air, Clean Air Act, Disparate Impact, Environmental Justice, Injunction, Louisiana, Permits, Rulemaking, Title VI

In the wake of the Supreme Court’s decision in Loper Bright Enters. v. Raimondo, 244 S.Ct. 2244 (2024), the general breadth and scope of agency decision-making has been called into question. In its recent decision, Huntsman Petrochemical LLC v. EPA, No. 23-1045, 2024 WL 3763355 (D.C. Cir. Aug. 13, 2024), the D.C. Circuit has made it clear that where statutory interpretation is not implicated, the Court will continue to afford EPA’s conclusions involving technical expertise a significant degree of deference. While neither the parties nor the Court attempted to address or reference Loper Bright, the Court articulated a clear standard applicable to agency actions involving statistical and modeling analyses: the Court will examine each step of an agency’s analysis to satisfy themselves that the agency has not “departed from a rational course.” Only where a statistical model “bears no rational relationship to the characteristics of data to which it was applied” will agency action be deemed arbitrary and capricious. Accordingly, regulated entities should be aware that the concept of deference lives on when challenging agency decision-making, even in the wake of the fall of Chevron Deference. Read More »

Share | Email| Comments|  Topics: Air, Chevron Deference, Clean Air Act, D.C. Circuit, Emissions, EPA, HAPs, Hazardous Air Pollutants, Rulemaking

On July 18, 2024, in Shirley v. Pennsylvania Legislative Reference Bureau, No. 85 MAP 2022, 2024 WL 3450536 (Pa. July 18, 2024), the Pennsylvania Supreme Court reversed the denial of three nonprofit organizations’ application to intervene in the litigation challenging the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP) regulation implementing Pennsylvania’s participation in the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (the RGGI Regulation).  After rejecting several arguments regarding the appealability of the order denying intervention, the Court found that the nonprofits’ interest in defending the RGGI Regulation under the Pennsylvania Constitution’s Environmental Rights Amendment (ERA) was not adequately represented by the PADEP and therefore the lower court erred in denying intervention.  Because of this ruling, the three nonprofit organizations (Citizens for Pennsylvania’s Future, Clean Air Council, and the Sierra Club) (Nonprofits) are now able to pursue an appeal of the Commonwealth Court’s final order permanently enjoining the RGGI Regulation from going into effect.  Read More »

Share | Email| Comments|  Topics: Air, Clean Air Act, Environmental Rights Amendment, Greenhouse Gas, Hazardous Air Pollutants, Intervention, Pennsylvania, Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, Rulemaking, Standing

In a 5-4 decision, a divided Supreme Court stayed the enforcement of the Environmental Protection Agency’s (“EPA”) Federal Implementation Plan (“FIP”) holding that the emission control measures set to be used in upwind states to improve ozone levels in downwind states was arbitrary and capricious. Ohio et al. v. Env’t Prot. Agency, No. 23A349, No. 23A350, No. 23A351, No. 23A384, 2024 WL 3187768 at *11 (S. Ct. June 27, 2024). The Court reasoned that EPA’s FIP rested on the assumption that all upwind states would adopt emission-reduction measures to ensure effective downwind air quality improvements. EPA, however, failed to reasonably explain if the FIP would be operable if some upwind states fell out of the plan. In the short term, the stay provides temporary relief to industry groups and states that challenged various aspects of the FIP in the D.C. Circuit; in the long term, the Court’s ruling spells trouble for the FIP’s efficacy if and when federal courts rule on the merits of the rule’s legality.      Read More »

Share | Email| Comments|  Topics: Administrative Procedures Act, Clean Air Act, United States Supreme Court