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
Argument #3: The Court should narrow the scope of NEPA case because it was passed before the enactment of a bevy of other environmental statutes like the CleanAirAct. This is a weird argument for two reasons. First, all the conservatives on the Court say they are textualists.
In response, some state policy makers and advocates are now considering legal avenues to effectively require the use of sustainable aviation fuels, which emit less carbon than traditional jet fuel when burned and in some cases can eliminate these emissions altogether.
But it has passed laws regulating two powerful greenhouse gases, and some other climate laws stretching back over the past five decades. I’ll discuss these laws in chronological order. Only laws that specifically cover climate or greenhouse gases are included. Climate first cropped up in the CleanAirAct of 1970.
Patrick Cicero, former PA Consumer Advocate and counsel to the Pennsylvania Utility Law Project also participated in the briefing. EDF said PJM could add 12.2 Click Here for Routh’s presentation slides. Read more here. Click Here for Cicero’s presentation slides. Click Here for a recording of the briefing. 9 Webinar On Growth Of A.I.
EPA has managed to come to the conclusion that carbonemissions from the power sector do not significantly contribute to climate change. emissions), EPA’s solemn conclusion is that they’re no biggie. Today I’m going to look at how EPA applied this newfound requirement. billion tons is insignificant?
API specifically targets Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) rules to reduce carbonemissions from automobile tailpipes and fuel economy standards established by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. The fourth policy proposal involves the federal permitting process, a perennial enemy of the fossil fuel industry.
Key targets include regulations substantially limiting carbonemissions from coal-fired powerplants, cars, and trucks. But scores of other regulations are in the cross-hairs, such as energy efficiency standards that benefit consumers and a variety of rules that protect cleanair and water.
billion tons of carbon dioxide a year, a little less than the entire country of Russia. The Trump Administration is proposing to end all regulation of carbonemissions by power plants, on the theory that these emissions should be considered insignificant. carbonemissions. power plants emit 1.5
EPAs efforts to regulate carbonemissions from powerplants have had a tortuous history, and were about to go through another round, with a rule from a Democratic Administration being repealed and replaced by a Trump rule.
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.
By Pennsylvania law, DLC cannot own or operate the electric generation plants that will power these data centers, but we have invested heavily in the transmission lines, poles and wires that will connect them. MW-Day For 2025/26 Delivery Compared To $28.92/MW-Day So Far This Year [PaEN] -- PJM Electricity Auction: PJM Lost 2.8
EPA has proposed a novel reading of the CleanAirAct (CAA) that would foreclose any regulation of CO2 emissions from power plants. power industry’s emissions are nearly as large as Russia’s total emissions. On its face, this seems like a questionable conclusion, given that the U.S.
An about-face on the CleanAirAct The CleanAirAct provision that EPA uses to regulate power plant carbon — known as Section 111 — asks EPA to first determine whether a source category “causes, or contributes significantly” to harmful air pollution.
One such survey involved 130,000 people in 125 countries, which account for 96% of the worlds carbonemissions, and was published in the journal Nature Climate Change. Crucially, however, they thought only a minority of other people 43% would be willing to do the same. The arguments in Diamond Alternative Energy v.
On June 11, less than five months into the Trump administration, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Lee Zeldin used a rulemaking about regulating power plant carbon pollution to officially establish climate denial as EPA policy. Plus, a rundown on how to fight back. What is EPA proposing to do? And that’s not all.
In preparing to teach a course on climate law, I was really struck by how broad and rich the field has become. Back in the day, it was nearly all international law, but nowadays there’s a huge amount of U.S. domestic law. and international law. and international law. Social Cost of Carbon D. climate policy.
The same is true in environmental law. Was it a fundamental paradigm shift, re-centering the law on new values? With all this in mind, here are the cases that I see as making up the canon and anti-canons of environmental law. The case involved the lynchpin of the CleanAirAct, EPA’s power to set national air quality standards.
The majority 6–3 decision sharply curtails the EPA’s authority to set standards based on a broad range of flexible options to cut carbonemissions from the power sector—options such as replacing polluting fossil fuels with cheap and widely available wind and solar power coupled with battery storage. carbonemissions today.
The possibility of snagging some of this funding may also help nudge some lagging states to think seriously about cutting carbonemissions. Under the CleanAirAct, California has the unique ability to set its own standards for tailpipe emissions from new vehicles, including greenhouse gases.
Multiple lines of analysis make clear that regardless of how cheap wind and solar power get, without directly addressing pollution from coal and gas plants, the country’s clean energy transition will not happen fast enough. Section 111 of the CleanAirAct constrains how EPA sets standards—but gives states wide latitude in implementation.
” This actually pretty typical language in environmental statutes,, such as section 202 of the CleanAirAct, which EPA has used to limit carbonemissions from cars. The Court summarizes that section as saying: “Whenever, in the judgment of the [Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)] Administrator.
In a case that could open the door to more citizen suits to enforce mobile source provisions of the CleanAirAct—a category of enforcement actions that has so far failed to gain much traction—the 10 th Circuit Court of Appeals recently issued an opinion broadly upholding a non-profit organization’s standing.
The Court had long heard other law suits between states, but this was apparently the first one to involve pollution. an interstate air pollution case. Very briefly, here were some of their longterm impacts: International law. This principle is now famous in international law as the Smelter Trail rule. Water pollution.
My presentation was titled: Environmental Disasters that Led to Environmental Laws. This presentation reminded me of how our environmental laws in this country have been enacted. As many of us know well, most major federal environmental laws were enacted on the heels of major environmental disasters. So what’s next?
What is Environmental Law? Humanity has been aware of its environment far longer than there have been laws to protect environments. However, the term “environmental law” does not just cover government legislation. These are not “laws” per se but act as such within a regulatory framework. Sponsored Content.
Environmental Protection Agency is in the middle of adopting rulemakings under the federal CleanAirAct that will require natural gas infrastructure operators to more carefully monitor methane emissions and develop plans to meet new emission limits. Applegate noted the U.S. Read more here - supplemental EPA rule.
Opponents are sure to legally challenge EPA’s new rule to limit carbonemissions from coal-fired power plants. First, EPA’s preferred technology to limit carbonemissions — carbon capture and storage (CCS) — isn’t just pie in the sky. energy mix.
‘It Simply Should Not Happen, Period’ [PaEN] -- Stars and Stripes Guest Essay: Pause On Permits For New LNG Gas Export Facilities Right Move For National Security - Rivals Like China Are Using US LNG To Build Influence - By Steve Anderson, US Army Brigadier General - Retired [PaEN] -- PA Utility Law Project March 15 Webinar On Impacts Of LNG Gas Exports (..)
Each month, Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP (APKS) and the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law collect and summarize developments in climate-related litigation, which we also add to our U.S. Circuit also rejected EPA’s argument that the court did not have authority to review stays issued under Section 307(d)(7)(D) of the CleanAirAct.
KEEP ALL OPTIONS ON THE TABLE TO REDUCE EMISSIONS Government should not pick winners and losers, but instead support all possible technological options available to avoid, reduce, capture and sequester greenhouse gases. The all of the above approach to clean energy is the principal reason the U.S.
The all of the above approach to clean energy is the principal reason the U.S. has been able to reduce carbonemissions more than any other country. Conservatives have overseen some of the most enduring legacies of American environmental policy.
Each month, Arnold & Porter and the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law collect and summarize developments in climate-related litigation, which we also add to our U.S. The plan must specifically address how EPA will consider the effects of CleanAirAct regulation on the coal industry. and non-U.S. McCarthy , No.
Of course, the EEI did so to ensure that the CleanAirAct continues to act as a shield against private tort actions over carbonemissions, but still. first appeared on Law and the Environment. It’s difficult to call this Court conservative. Of course, it was Chief Justice Marshall who said that.
The proposal requires companies to report information related to “Scope 1” direct carbonemissions (think fuel use and greenhouse gases), “Scope 2” indirect carbonemissions (e.g., purchased energy and electricity), and for some companies to report on information related to “Scope 3” carbonemissions (i.e.,
In 1963, a typical car—which ran on leaded gasoline without pollution control devices— emitted 520 pounds of hydrocarbons, 1,700 pounds of carbon monoxide, and 90 pounds of nitrogen oxide every 10,000 miles traveled. More than 20,000 Americans died prematurely in 2015 from tailpipe emissions, according to a 2019 study.
Environmental Protection Agency's ability to reduce carbon pollution from existing power plants under the federal CleanAirAct. EPA does have authority to regulate carbon dioxide as a pollutant under the federal CleanAirAct and the Court’s ruling did not address that existing authority.
Oil giant Total is being sued by cities and NGOs for not fighting climate change hard enough Francois de Beaupuy | Fortune | January 28, 2020 Oil giant Total SA is being sued by 14 local governments and a handful of non-governmental organizations in France for not doing enough to reduce its carbonemissions and fight global warming.
Oil giant Total is being sued by cities and NGOs for not fighting climate change hard enough Francois de Beaupuy | Fortune | January 28, 2020 Oil giant Total SA is being sued by 14 local governments and a handful of non-governmental organizations in France for not doing enough to reduce its carbonemissions and fight global warming.
Oil giant Total is being sued by cities and NGOs for not fighting climate change hard enough Francois de Beaupuy | Fortune | January 28, 2020 Oil giant Total SA is being sued by 14 local governments and a handful of non-governmental organizations in France for not doing enough to reduce its carbonemissions and fight global warming.
Oil giant Total is being sued by cities and NGOs for not fighting climate change hard enough Francois de Beaupuy | Fortune | January 28, 2020 Oil giant Total SA is being sued by 14 local governments and a handful of non-governmental organizations in France for not doing enough to reduce its carbonemissions and fight global warming.
Oil giant Total is being sued by cities and NGOs for not fighting climate change hard enough Francois de Beaupuy | Fortune | January 28, 2020 Oil giant Total SA is being sued by 14 local governments and a handful of non-governmental organizations in France for not doing enough to reduce its carbonemissions and fight global warming.
Oil giant Total is being sued by cities and NGOs for not fighting climate change hard enough Francois de Beaupuy | Fortune | January 28, 2020 Oil giant Total SA is being sued by 14 local governments and a handful of non-governmental organizations in France for not doing enough to reduce its carbonemissions and fight global warming.
Oil giant Total is being sued by cities and NGOs for not fighting climate change hard enough Francois de Beaupuy | Fortune | January 28, 2020 Oil giant Total SA is being sued by 14 local governments and a handful of non-governmental organizations in France for not doing enough to reduce its carbonemissions and fight global warming.
The lawsuits are based on a variety of state law claims. The second situation is when the lawsuit is based on federal law. The complaints filed in state court don’t actually mention federal law. But the oil companies have come up with a complicated argument for ignoring the state-law basis of the cases.
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