This site uses cookies to improve your experience. To help us insure we adhere to various privacy regulations, please select your country/region of residence. If you do not select a country, we will assume you are from the United States. Select your Cookie Settings or view our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Used for the proper function of the website
Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Strictly Necessary: Used for the proper function of the website
Performance/Analytics: Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
The Supreme Court tends to get all the attention, but for every Supreme Court opinion on environmental law there are probably fifty opinions in the lower federal courts. Collectively, the lower courts have done fat least as much to shape the law than the Supreme Courts occasional interventions. Any top ten list is a bit arbitrary.
EPAs 2024 Vehicle Standards EPA derives its authority and mandate to promulgate rules regulating mobile sources like light- and medium-duty vehicles from Section 202 of the CleanAirAct. In 2007, the Supreme Court held in Massachusetts v.
Obviously they couldn’t just be underpaid public servants doing their best to implement the law.) Since a 2007 Supreme Court decision, EPA has been charged with issuing CO2 standards for cars and trucks, which in effect require less fuel use. Embracing gas guzzlers. Those standards are issued by the Department of Transportation.
These findings followed from the landmark 2007 Mass v. EPA Supreme Court ruling which held that greenhouse gas emissions are unambiguously air pollutants covered by the CleanAirAct. Attacks on the Endangerment Finding and EPAs CleanAirAct authority from industry interests are nothing new.
Understanding the Endangerment Finding Two requirements must be met before a substance can be regulated under the CleanAirAct. First, it has to qualify as an air pollutant. The Supreme Court rejected that argument in 2007 in a historic case called Massachusetts v. But that case was very different. Cases 3 and 4.
Hes working out how to evade the 2007 Supreme Court decision that enabled EPA to limit carbon dioxide emissions. Hes c ancelling grants, incentives, and levying tariffs intended to squelch production and sales of clean energy generating equipment and electric vehicles. They also are helping the U.S.
It does not seek to discuss every aspect of Trumps EOs, nor to answer every question about the lawfulness of various provisions, nor to set out the exact mechanics for whats to come. However, aspects of Justice40 and the Biden administration’s focus on disadvantaged communities are embedded in federal laws and programs.
Environmental Protection Agency, agreeing to decide whether fossil fuel manufacturers have legal standing to challenge an EPA decision under the federal CleanAirAct. Last Friday, the justices granted review in Diamond Alternative Energy v. On Monday, the Court denied review in a separate but related case, Ohio v.
Back in 2007, the Supreme Court reached a landmark judgment in Massachusetts et al. establishing that heat-trapping emissions (or greenhouse gas emissions) are air pollutants covered by the CleanAirAct. What is the Endangerment Finding? Environmental Protection Agency et al. What is Zeldin being directed to do?
EPA’s 2024 Power Plant Rules EPA is required to regulate power plant emissions under Section 111 of the CleanAirAct. In 2007, the Supreme Court held in Massachusetts v. The post Sabin Center Files Two Amicus Briefs Supporting EPA’s 2024 Power Plant Rules first appeared on Climate Law Blog.
This post offers a high-level state of play for local law and policymakers, community groups, and others working at the subnational level. Pursuant to the CleanAirAct and the 2007 Supreme Court decision in Massachusetts v. Of particular note is EPAs plan to review the Endangerment Finding.
On July 25, Patrick Cicero, former PA Consumer Advocate and counsel to the Pennsylvania Utility Law Project said one in five Pennsylvania households report difficulty paying energy bills and electric utility shutoffs are already up 38.1% so far this year. MW-Day For 2025/26 Delivery Compared To $28.92/MW-Day 9 Webinar On Growth Of A.I.
Note: States that administer federal permit programs adopt state laws and regulations covering activities regulated by the federal agencies and laws covered by this order. [A A good example is surface coal mining where Pennsylvania has adopted specific laws and regulations regulating this activity.
Much will be said about the weakness of the various justifications EPA and the Department of Energy offered yesterday about why greenhouse gases do not endanger public health and welfare under the CleanAirAct. EPA , decided in 2007, had two important findings. Those justifications are, indeed, remarkably weak.
The bench trial took place last month in the state capitol, Helena, where 16 youth plaintiffs ages 5 to 22 made the case that Montana’s unwavering promotion of fossil fuels violates the state constitution’s guarantee to a “clean and healthful environment.” This is not supposed to be a town hall or a popularity contest,” he said.
497 (2007), in which the Supreme Court held that greenhouse gases were “pollutants” under the CleanAirAct and ordered EPA to determine whether greenhouse gases “may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare” under Section 202 of the Act. See 74 Fed. 66496 (Dec. EPA, 549 U.S.
497 (2007), the Supreme Court held that greenhouse gases are “pollutants” under the CleanAirAct but left open the specific question of whether greenhouse gases could be regulated under the PSD Program. In Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U.S.
Summary: Last week the Supreme Court handed down its second CleanAirAct case of the term, Utility Air Regulatory Group v. Assistant Professor, Vermont Law School. A facility is subject to new source review if it has potential emissions of 100 or 250 tons per year of an air pollutant, depending on the source.
When making single stationary source determinations without the protection of the non-aggregation provision in Section 112 of the CleanAirAct, 42 U.S.C. In 2007, in guidance specifically addressing oil and gas activities, EPA stated that “proximity is the most informative factor in making source determinations.”
However, these standards were vacated by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit after the Court found EPA’s definition of “commercial or industrial waste” conflicted with the language of the CleanAirAct in NRDC v. EPA , 489 F. 3d 1250 (D.C. Johnson , 444 F. 2d 46 (D.D.C.
References: In Mexico, $2 per hour workers make $40,000 SUVs A Toyota Factory Revs Up in Tijuana Toyota Warns US Workers: Build Camry for Less, or Else Toyota workers urged to reject union Toyota slapped with $180 million fine for violating CleanAirAct U.S. China fines Toyota 87.6 million yuan ($12.5
is a shift for this historically CleanAirAct-friendly Court. It is the first “anti-environmental” decision in the CAA realm since their 2007. The Court has a history of groundbreaking decisions in the realm of environmental law and the lesser-publicized. EPA) is one for the CleanAirAct (CAA) record books.
million for air pollution in 2007, and then $8.75 Civil society believes that this decision is contrary to the spirit of this law and harmful to its implementation. million fine for violating a 2007air pollution settlement over emissions at its Port Arthur refinery, the Justice Department said Friday.
million for air pollution in 2007, and then $8.75 Civil society believes that this decision is contrary to the spirit of this law and harmful to its implementation. million fine for violating a 2007air pollution settlement over emissions at its Port Arthur refinery, the Justice Department said Friday.
million for air pollution in 2007, and then $8.75 Civil society believes that this decision is contrary to the spirit of this law and harmful to its implementation. million fine for violating a 2007air pollution settlement over emissions at its Port Arthur refinery, the Justice Department said Friday.
million for air pollution in 2007, and then $8.75 Civil society believes that this decision is contrary to the spirit of this law and harmful to its implementation. million fine for violating a 2007air pollution settlement over emissions at its Port Arthur refinery, the Justice Department said Friday.
million for air pollution in 2007, and then $8.75 Civil society believes that this decision is contrary to the spirit of this law and harmful to its implementation. million fine for violating a 2007air pollution settlement over emissions at its Port Arthur refinery, the Justice Department said Friday.
million for air pollution in 2007, and then $8.75 Civil society believes that this decision is contrary to the spirit of this law and harmful to its implementation. million fine for violating a 2007air pollution settlement over emissions at its Port Arthur refinery, the Justice Department said Friday.
million for air pollution in 2007, and then $8.75 Civil society believes that this decision is contrary to the spirit of this law and harmful to its implementation. million fine for violating a 2007air pollution settlement over emissions at its Port Arthur refinery, the Justice Department said Friday.
And there at Geisinger, I am the founding director of the Environmental Health Institute, which we founded in 2007. We founded the Environmental Health Institute in 2007. Released from a lot of federal oversight, it left this big, blank slate for states to regulate the industry in whatever manner suited them.
This case is unique because it is the first time a Dutch company has been sued in a Dutch court of law and held liable for the l damage it caused abroad. References: The oil spills of Ogoniland Shell pays out $15.5m References: The oil spills of Ogoniland Shell pays out $15.5m
This case is unique because it is the first time a Dutch company has been sued in a Dutch court of law and held liable for the l damage it caused abroad. References: The oil spills of Ogoniland Shell pays out $15.5m References: The oil spills of Ogoniland Shell pays out $15.5m
This case is unique because it is the first time a Dutch company has been sued in a Dutch court of law and held liable for the l damage it caused abroad. References: The oil spills of Ogoniland Shell pays out $15.5m References: The oil spills of Ogoniland Shell pays out $15.5m
This case is unique because it is the first time a Dutch company has been sued in a Dutch court of law and held liable for the l damage it caused abroad. References: The oil spills of Ogoniland Shell pays out $15.5m References: The oil spills of Ogoniland Shell pays out $15.5m
This case is unique because it is the first time a Dutch company has been sued in a Dutch court of law and held liable for the l damage it caused abroad. References: The oil spills of Ogoniland Shell pays out $15.5m References: The oil spills of Ogoniland Shell pays out $15.5m
This case is unique because it is the first time a Dutch company has been sued in a Dutch court of law and held liable for the l damage it caused abroad. References: The oil spills of Ogoniland Shell pays out $15.5m References: The oil spills of Ogoniland Shell pays out $15.5m
This case is unique because it is the first time a Dutch company has been sued in a Dutch court of law and held liable for the l damage it caused abroad. References: The oil spills of Ogoniland Shell pays out $15.5m References: The oil spills of Ogoniland Shell pays out $15.5m
VW Escapes Multiple Fines In EU Over Emissions Scandal Law 360 PaulaR Thu, 01/04/2024 - 17:26 Thursday, September 14, 2023 Read more Matthew Perlman Europe's top court ruled Wednesday that Volkswagen should not have to pay a €5 million ($5.3 Agrees to Pay Over $1 Million for CleanAirAct Violation U.S.
Oliver Schmidt had previously pleaded guilty to violating the CleanAirAct and conspiracy to defraud the US government in August for his role in Dieselgate, where VW was found to have used hidden software to hide the fact that many of its cars weren’t meeting emissions standards. Volkswagen of America, Inc.
Oliver Schmidt had previously pleaded guilty to violating the CleanAirAct and conspiracy to defraud the US government in August for his role in Dieselgate, where VW was found to have used hidden software to hide the fact that many of its cars weren’t meeting emissions standards. Volkswagen of America, Inc.
Oliver Schmidt had previously pleaded guilty to violating the CleanAirAct and conspiracy to defraud the US government in August for his role in Dieselgate, where VW was found to have used hidden software to hide the fact that many of its cars weren’t meeting emissions standards. Volkswagen of America, Inc.
Oliver Schmidt had previously pleaded guilty to violating the CleanAirAct and conspiracy to defraud the US government in August for his role in Dieselgate, where VW was found to have used hidden software to hide the fact that many of its cars weren’t meeting emissions standards. Volkswagen of America, Inc.
Oliver Schmidt had previously pleaded guilty to violating the CleanAirAct and conspiracy to defraud the US government in August for his role in Dieselgate, where VW was found to have used hidden software to hide the fact that many of its cars weren’t meeting emissions standards. Volkswagen of America, Inc.
Oliver Schmidt had previously pleaded guilty to violating the CleanAirAct and conspiracy to defraud the US government in August for his role in Dieselgate, where VW was found to have used hidden software to hide the fact that many of its cars weren’t meeting emissions standards. Volkswagen of America, Inc.
We organize all of the trending information in your field so you don't have to. Join 12,000+ users and stay up to date on the latest articles your peers are reading.
You know about us, now we want to get to know you!
Let's personalize your content
Let's get even more personalized
We recognize your account from another site in our network, please click 'Send Email' below to continue with verifying your account and setting a password.
Let's personalize your content