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
EPA did not revoke EPA’s underlying authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions under the CleanAirAct. While this authority—itself rooted in a prior Supreme Court decision , the 2007 Massachusetts v. And here, the Court has struck a devastating blow. ” Justice Kagan, dissenting.
Summary: Last week the Supreme Court handed down its second CleanAirAct case of the term, Utility Air Regulatory Group v. The case involved a challenge to EPA’s attempt to regulate greenhouse gases in the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) program of the CleanAirAct. Christopher D.
EPA , and Congress finalized the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 , requiring increasing fuel economy standards. As such, under the CleanAirAct EPA has a strong incentive to push the market to adopt advanced technologies like electric vehicles , which can eliminate tailpipe pollution entirely.
It is one of the reasons we are investing in a diverse portfolio of energy sources, including solar, wind, and advanced nuclear technologies. power grid, including upgrading the physical infrastructure with advanced technologies (e.g., In 2007, Google committed to carbon neutrality in its operations.
is a shift for this historically CleanAirAct-friendly Court. It is the first “anti-environmental” decision in the CAA realm since their 2007. EPA) is one for the CleanAirAct (CAA) record books. in 2007 and a contrast to Justice Scalia’s opinion in. Summary: The recent decision by the U.S.
million for air pollution in 2007, and then $8.75 million fine for violating a 2007air pollution settlement over emissions at its Port Arthur refinery, the Justice Department said Friday. million, upgrade Port Arthur refinery Nick Snow | Oil & Gas Journal | May 2, 2007 Total Petrochemicals USA Inc.
Horizontal drilling with high intensity hydraulic fracturing was a new technology and a new method for [natural] gas extraction in many ways, but at the same time, it wasn't altogether new. And there at Geisinger, I am the founding director of the Environmental Health Institute, which we founded in 2007.
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.
EPA held the Obama administration’s Clean Power Plan Rule exceeded EPA’s authority under the CleanAirAct. Section 111 of the CleanAirAct authorizes EPA to address air pollution from both new and existing sources if the pollutant endangers public health or welfare.
Following the 2007 landmark Supreme Court case Massachusetts v. EPA , the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has regulated greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from motor vehicles under the CleanAirAct. 497 (2007), the Supreme Court reversed EPA’s denial. EPA , 549 U.S.
EN: These standards—or at least something based on the same CleanAirAct provision—have been in the works for a long time. The Clean Power Plan was the culmination of years of legal and technical haggling over EPA authority and obligations, including the landmark Massachusetts v. EPA Supreme Court decision in 2022.
Conference of Mayors , and a second on behalf of experts in carbon capture and storage (CCS) science and technology —in support of the U.S. 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 EO also refers to waivers granted to California under Section 209 of the CleanAirAct for its own Advanced Clean Cars II rule that aims to phase out new gas-powered vehicles by 2035. The EPA and NHTSA rulemakings are completed, as is Californias Section 209 waiver for Advanced Clean Cars II.
as a pollutant at all to the Clean Power Plan, which has no chance of clemency before its swift execution at some point in 2017. [14]. Commercial technologies do not exist for removing CO. that it should “Amend the CleanAirAct to clarify that it never delegated to the EPA the authority to enact climate policies through the Act.”. [18].
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