category supreme-court 2011 Related Topics 
Legal Planet
JUNE 30, 2022
I want to focus on the disingenuous way the Supreme Court deals with a previous ruling, and its implications for states. In 2011, in AEP v. Section 111 of the Act directs the EPA Administrator to list “categories of stationary sources” that “in [her] judgment. 410 (2011). 7411(b)(1)(B); see also §7411(a)(2).
Law Columbia
NOVEMBER 1, 2016
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a district court decision that vacated the listing of the Beringia distinct population segment (DPS) of the Pacific bearded seal subspecies as “threatened” under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). West Virginia Federal Court Ordered EPA to Evaluate Clean Air Act’s Impacts on Coal Industry.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Law Columbia
JANUARY 10, 2019
The revised guidelines also add “energy” as an impact category in the environmental checklist for CEQA reviews that agencies use to format and guide their environmental reviews (Appendix G). These new requirements are consistent with the California Supreme Court’s decision in Vineyard Area Citizens for Responsible Growth v.
CEQA Developments
MARCH 3, 2021
Since this blog’s beginning in September 2011, it has produced a total of 347 CEQA-related posts (not counting this one), demonstrating there is generally no shortage of subject matter, even with my self-imposed limitation excluding unpublished decisions. What are the relevant publication criteria?
The Energy Law Blog
MAY 17, 2011
By Lesley Foxhall Pietras On April 27, 2011, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the U.S. 24479, 24479 (May 2, 2011). Public comment on the proposed guidance must be received on or before July 1, 2011. Army Corps of Engineers, 531 U.S. 159 (2001) (SWANCC) and Rapanos v. Guidance at 2.
PA Environment Daily
OCTOBER 19, 2023
She has been recognized for her work as a researcher and science writer with the Rachel Carson Leadership Award, the American Ethical Union’s Elliot-Black Award, and the 2011 Heinz Award. It also offers a review of trends in research findings. Shapiro, Let's Hold Them Accountable - Support The Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative - By Rev.
Law Columbia
JUNE 8, 2021
In Baltimore’s Climate Case Against Fossil Fuel Companies, Supreme Court Held that Appellate Review of Remand Order Extends to All Grounds for Removal. The Court declined to review the companies’ other grounds for removal, finding that the “wiser course” was to allow the Fourth Circuit to address them in the first instance.
Expert insights. Personalized for you.
130 
Let's personalize your content