The Ninth Circuit upheld EPA's determination that a California SIP that imposes limits on motor vehicle emissions for years 2009 and 2012 are adequate for purposes of the state's transportation plans and projects. Although EPA’s overall approval process of the SIP is still underway, th...

A district court dismissed claims that an energy company is responsible for PSD violations at five coal-fired power plants it owns in Illinois. The court previously granted the company's motion to dismiss in 2010, but the United States, Illinois, and several citizen groups filed an amended c...

The Fifth Circuit granted EPA's request to transfer to the D.C. Circuit Texas' petition for review of the Agency's call for revisions to the state's SIP because its prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) provisions fail to control greenhouse gases. Greenhouse gases have not always bee...

A district court held that the CAA preempts a city transit employee's negligence and strict liability claims against a company for injuries stemming from diesel exhaust fumes. The employees alleged that the design of the company's buses violated the emissions standards set out in the CAA and...

The Ninth Circuit granted citizen groups' petition for review of a final action by EPA approving in part and disapproving in part revisions to California's SIP for meeting CAA air quality standards for ozone. EPA's failure to order California to submit a revised attainment plan for the South...

The Third Circuit dismissed a petition for review of an EPA letter opining that facilities operated by a landfill and a neighboring energy company were under common control for purposes of air emissions permitting. The landfill owner challenged EPA's determination under CAA §307(b)(1), whic...

The Ninth Circuit held that the CAA does not preempt a California air pollution district rule requiring development sites to reduce the amount of pollutants they emit. CAA §209(e)(1) only preempts those standards or requirements relating to the control of emissions from "new" construction e...

The Fifth Circuit held that an energy company's current and ongoing construction of a coal-fired power plant, for which no maximum achievable control technology (MACT) determination has ever been made, violates CAA §112(g). In ordinary circumstances, there would be no question as to whether...