Alberta Wilderness Ass’n v. Cardinal River Coals Ltd.  3 FC 425
April 8, 1999
A coalition of conservation organizations challenged a ministry decision allowing a coal mine to be constructed just outside the boundary of a national park. One of the questions the court considered was whether the environmental assessment prepared prior to the decision adequately considered the potential environmental impacts of the mine -- including cumulative impacts.
Given strained relations between the U.S. and Mexico, I was encouraged last week at a bi-national gathering focused on conservation strategies for the Lake Chapala watershed: "Unidos por Chapala" (United through Chapala).
In Center for Biological Diversity v. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, governmental and nongovernmental entities challenged a rule issued by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), which set fuel economy standards, by asserting that the EA did not adequately assess the cumulative impact of the proposed standards on GHG emissions. 508 F.3d 508 (9th Cir. 2007). The U.S.
This Thursday, President Trump announced that the United States would pull out of the Paris Agreement.
Zero Zone, Inc. v. United States Department of Energy, 832 F.3d 654 (7th Cir. 2016).
Zero Zone, Inc. (Zero Zone), a small business specializing in commercial refrigeration equipment (CRE), and others, petitioned for review of rules published by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) aimed at improving energy efficiency in manufacturing.
Juliana v. United States, Case No. 6:15-cv-01517-TC, Opinion and Order (10 November 2016)
U.S. District Court - District of Oregon
In Montana Environmental, Bull Mountain Development Company proposed to build a coal-fired power plant near a Class I area, which included parks, wilderness areas, and an Indian reservation. Id. at 512. The Montana Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) and the federal land manager (FLM), which is directly responsible for managing a Class I area, determined that the proposed coal-fired plant would adversely impact the visibility of a Class I area.