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
CT , the Supreme Court said this: We hold that the CleanAirAct and the EPA actions it authorizes displace any federal common law right to seek abatement of carbon-dioxide emissions from fossil-fuel fired power plants. In 2011, in AEP v. at 528–529. We answered no, given the existence of Section 111(d).
The group of petitioners challenging the EPA rules imposing strict limits on carbondioxide emissions from existing power plants filed its opening briefs on Friday, February 19. EPA also cannot require electricity generation to be shifted from coal-burning units to units that use other energy sources as a pollutioncontrol technology.
EPA, as well as state and municipal governments, use the information received from reporting entities to inform the development and implementation of rules and regulations prescribed by the CleanAirAct (CAA). Notably, and unlike the SEC and California rules, EPA’s GHGRP is not directed at investors or consumers.
XTO) [ExxonMobil] and Hilcorp Energy Company (Hilcorp) , agreed to resolve alleged CleanAirAct and Pennsylvania AirPollutionControlAct violations involving their oil and gas production operations in Pennsylvania. In separate agreements, XTO Energy Inc. Specifically, by Dec.
Environmental Protection Agency's ability to reduce carbonpollution from existing power plants under the federal CleanAirAct. EPA does have authority to regulate carbondioxide as a pollutant under the federal CleanAirAct and the Court’s ruling did not address that existing authority.
The legislature put two provisions in the Appropriations Act of 2023 (House Bill 259) to prevent state agencies from adopting rules intended to reduce emissions of greenhouse gasses such as carbondioxide (CO2) in the state. Prohibit cap and trade programs for CO2 emissions. million to $865.9
Image via PickPik On May 23, the Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) proposed emission limits and guidelines for carbondioxide from fossil fuel-powered plants. To avoid the same fate as the Obama Administration’s Clean Power Plan, which was struck down by the conservative Supreme Court in West Virginia v.
Methane Emissions EPA announced it would reconsider regulations for the oil and gas industry under Section 111 of the CleanAirAct and Subpart W of the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program. EPA also announced it would reconsider risk management rules that cover oil and natural gas refineries and chemical facilities.
Supreme Court issued a decision striking down an Obama era rule regulating carbondioxide (CO2) emissions from existing power plants. EPA held the Obama administration’s Clean Power Plan Rule exceeded EPA’s authority under the CleanAirAct. The Clean Power Plan Rule. The Dissent.
The court held that the City’s claims were not completely preempted by the CleanAirAct 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 CleanAirAct and foreign affairs doctrine would preempt the claims.
EPA , the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has regulated greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from motor vehicles under the CleanAirAct. billion tons of carbondioxide emissions by 2050. These emissions standards were significantly loosened in the last year of the Trump Administration.
Murray Energy Sought Supreme Court Review of Fourth Circuit’s Dismissal of CleanAirAct Jobs Study Case. The complaint also disclosed claims of preemption under the Ports and Waterways Safety Act and the Interstate Commerce Clause Termination Act and violation of the Commerce Clause. Foster , No. decision Sept.
global warming pollution, second only to the transportation sector. The rule, which also applies to new gas plants, would avoid as much as 617 million metric tons of carbondioxide through 2042, the EPA calculated , the equivalent of the annual emissions of 137 million passenger vehicles—about half of the cars in the country.
The CleanAirAct provision at issue authorizes small refineries to petition EPA “for an extension of the exemption … for the reason of disproportionate economic hardship.” The ACE Rule replaced the Obama administration’s Clean Power Plan. June 25, 2021). Washington State Dairy Federation v. 52952-1-II (Wash.
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