Carbon Dioxide Carbon Emissions Clean Air Act Clean Energy 
ESA
JULY 1, 2022
At stake was the ability to reduce carbon emissions as written in the ‘Clean Power Plan’ regulation under the auspices of the Clean Air Act that gives the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) power to regulate “the best system of reducing emissions.”
PA Environment Daily
JUNE 30, 2022
Environmental Protection Agency to limit greenhouse gas emissions from power plants under the Clean Air Act. We are therefore calling on Congress to immediately pass the $555 billion in clean energy and climate investments included in the reconciliation bill. Related Articles: -- U.S.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Legal Planet
MARCH 6, 2023
Hydrogen’s supply-side has been buttressed by incentives from state and federal governments, refineries and utilities looking to extend the life of fossil fuel infrastructure, and renewable energy companies seeking to take advantage of the huge amounts of clean energy needed to produce green hydrogen.
Law Columbia
NOVEMBER 1, 2016
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) had failed to fulfill its non-discretionary obligation under Section 321(a) of the Clean Air Act to conduct evaluations of loss or shifts in employment that might result from implementation of the Clean Air Act. Murray Energy Corp. McCarthy , No.
Legal Planet
MAY 11, 2023
still does not limit carbon emissions from existing power plants, which generate 25 percent of our greenhouse gases. The EPA is proposing a new standard for fossil fuel-fired power plants to avoid 617 million metric tons of carbon dioxide through 2042. In the year 2023, the U.S. Long story short, they did and it is.
Legal Planet
JUNE 30, 2022
Chief Justice Roberts’s majority opinion leaves EPA other options to reduce carbon emissions from coal-fired power plants. In order to regulate existing power plants—especially existing coal-fired plants—EPA turned to section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act.
Law Columbia
SEPTEMBER 10, 2021
The court held that the City’s claims were not completely preempted by the Clean Air Act and also was not persuaded by the companies’ argument that the claims necessarily arose under federal common law. The companies argued that even if state law did apply, the Clean Air Act and foreign affairs doctrine would preempt the claims.
Expert insights. Personalized for you.
52 
Let's personalize your content