2017 Clean Air Act Sea Level 
Law Columbia
JULY 6, 2017
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 Clean Air Act. Six environmental groups launched the proceeding challenging the stay after EPA published notice of the stay in the June 5, 2017 issue of the Federal Register. Pruitt , No.
Legal Planet
NOVEMBER 28, 2022
At the very least, cities and counties could recoup some of the costs they are forced to spend on climate adaptation measures, such as building sea level rise defenses, or other costs incurred because of climate change, such as loss of tourist revenue. But localities must first establish that courts have jurisdiction to hear the cases.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Law Columbia
OCTOBER 7, 2019
In addition, the court rejected the contention that the Clean Air Act or foreign affairs doctrine completely preempted the plaintiffs’ claims and also indicated that federal common law would not provide a basis for complete preemption. The State asserted that the determination violated the Administrative Procedure Act.
Legal Planet
APRIL 26, 2023
What has become a national wave of closely-related climate change litigation began in California in 2017, when San Mateo and Marin Counties, along with the City of Imperial Beach, filed suit in state court against many of the world’s largest fossil fuel companies.
Law Columbia
MARCH 13, 2023
EPA , the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has regulated greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from motor vehicles under the Clean Air Act. While the Clean Air Act (CAA) has been amended multiple times since 1970, this basic requirement has remained untouched.
Law Columbia
NOVEMBER 7, 2017
The plaintiffs alleged that Peabody (and a number of other fossil fuel companies) caused greenhouse gas emissions that resulted in sea level rise and damage to their property. Peabody, a coal company, filed for bankruptcy in April 2016 and emerged from bankruptcy under a plan that became effective on April 3, 2017. Seggos , No.
Law Columbia
MARCH 6, 2018
The court stated that the issue arose “because a necessary and critical element of the hydrological damage caused by defendants’ alleged conduct is the rising sea level along the Pacific coast and in the San Francisco Bay, both of which are navigable waters of the United States.” 2017 CA 006685 B (D.C. ExxonMobil Corp.
Expert insights. Personalized for you.
40 
Let's personalize your content