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.
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.
On April 24, the Public Utility Commission held a public hearing to explore the impact of data centers and other large load customers on the states electric grid. Michael Fradette, Principal, Energy Service s The rapid growth of electricity demand presents both challenges and opportunities for the US energy infrastructure.
Laws Covered Laws covered by the order-- Department of Energy-- Atomic Energy Act of 1954; National Appliance Energy Conservation Act of 1987; Energy Policy Act of 1992; Energy Policy Act of 2005; and Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007.
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.
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. By Jilil Kashgary for RFA Uyghur 2023.12.07
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.
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. Moreover, the Court of Appeals for the D.C.
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.
At least partly—if not largely—because the AGs and their political organization, the Republican Attorneys General Association (RAGA), receive substantial financial support from fossil fuel companies, electric utilities, and their respective trade groups. Electric utilities, meanwhile, gave her $44,750.
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.
They involve reduced protection for endangered species, eliminating energy efficiency rules, blocking new transmission lines, changing electricity regulation to favor fossil fuels, weakening air pollution rules, and encouraging sale of gas guzzlers. #1. Undermining endangered species protections. Embracing gas guzzlers.
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.
The story also notes the administration is looking to set new emissions standards for medium and heavy-duty trucks, based on California’s first-of-its-kind rule requiring diesel truck manufacturers to transition to electric trucks starting in 2024. Mary Nichols speaks at an Emmett Institute symposium in 2018. Photo credit: Todd Cheney.
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. Conference of Mayors (USCOM). EPA , 549 U.S.
percent of US electricity and utility-scale solar generated 3.4 In 2012, coal generated 37 percent of US electricity. Coal’s decline and the rapid growth of renewables helped cut the US electricity sector’s carbon emissions by 24 percent over the last decade. Last year, wind generated 10.2 Add hydropower’s contribution of 6.2
A GGRF termination would threaten the financial viability of clean energy projects (making local clean energy goals more difficult to attain), undercut programs to upgrade and improve air quality in low-income homes , and deprive community lenders of funds to deploy to local clean energy, energy efficiency, and electric transportation projects.
The Low Emissions Electricity Program , for instance, allocates $17 million for education, technical assistance, and partnerships within low-income and disadvantaged communities. The EPA and NHTSA rulemakings are completed, as is Californias Section 209 waiver for Advanced Clean Cars II. Disadvantaged communities is not defined.
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 Power Plant Rules also preserve the cooperative federalism framework within which EPA regulates GHG emissions.
Today, the Supreme Court decided its most important environmental case since 2007. Here is the Court’s reasoning in a nutshell: Capping carbon dioxide emissions at a level that will force a nationwide transition away from the use of coal to generate electricity may be a sensible “solution to the crisis of the day.” New York v.
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]. 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