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
The Clean Power Plan was based on section 111(d) of the CleanAirAct. There’s been a lot of discussion among academics and advocates about instead using section 115 of the CleanAirAct as a basis for carbon regulations. EPA might well get substantial reductions in carbonemissions this way.
This is despite the cleanenergy progress the power sector has experienced to date—and despite the groundwork laid for more progress from leading states, as well as the recently passed Inflation Reduction Act (IRA). EPA ruling, EPA can still establish rigorous carbonemissions standards.
That’s because the case, which was about the nature and scope of EPA authority in regulating carbonemissions from existing power plants, turned on a rule that does not exist. EPA did not revoke EPA’s underlying authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions under the CleanAirAct.
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 Infrastructure Act provides $5 billion in funding for states to help develop a national EV charging network. Last month, DOE solicited applications from states to develop cleanenergy projects. The Inflation Reduction Act provides another important source of state funding. Download as PDF.
But hydrogen can be cleanly produced and, with the right guardrails in place, that clean hydrogen can then be used to clean up polluting parts of the economy that can’t readily convert to running on renewable electricity. Otherwise, hydrogen will slow the cleanenergy transition, not speed it. the “three pillars”).
Environmental Protection Agency to limit greenhouse gas emissions from power plants under the CleanAirAct. We are therefore calling on Congress to immediately pass the $555 billion in cleanenergy and climate investments included in the reconciliation bill.
At stake was the ability to reduce carbonemissions as written in the ‘Clean Power Plan’ regulation under the auspices of the CleanAirAct that gives the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) power to regulate “the best system of reducing emissions.”
However, the availability of CCS is highly dependent on local topology, such as salt caverns available to sequester carbon and the availability of a pipeline infrastructure to transport carbonemissions from individual generating plants to CCS sites potentially hundreds of miles away. Comitta, Sen. Santarsiero, Rep.
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 cleanenergy is the principal reason the U.S.
The all of the above approach to cleanenergy is the principal reason the U.S. has been able to reduce carbonemissions more than any other country. OFFSET CARBON USING NATURE-BASED SOLUTIONS. Negative emissions or sequestration is a critical part of the math for achieving net-zero.
Meanwhile, defining “clean hydrogen” to reward hydrogen that is actually clean results in the scale-up of a hydrogen sector readily and robustly climate-aligned, with the right technologies built in the right places at the right times and the right pace. And yet, the dazzling prospect of easy money threatens to blind.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) had failed to fulfill its non-discretionary obligation under Section 321(a) of the CleanAirAct to conduct evaluations of loss or shifts in employment that might result from implementation of the CleanAirAct. Murray Energy Corp. McCarthy , No.
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 cleanenergy needed to produce green hydrogen.
What can EPA do to cut carbonemissions from coal-fired power plants after yesterday’s decision in West Virginia v. This leaves EPA with a powerful regulatory tool: a requirement that generators add natural gas or other lower-carbon fuels to their power mix. That’s about 450 million tons of carbon per year.
the Departments of Interior and Energy). In the first decade-plus of this Century, about half of the states actively sought to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and promote cleanenergy alternatives to coal. But the federal government needs help, and I believe we should look to the states to provide such assistance.
President John F Kennedy introduced the CleanAirAct in the US as one of many introduced in developed nations with heavy industry (15). Energy Conservation. We live in an age of dwindling fossil fuels and inaction on renewable energy. Energy Conservation. As the population grows, we need more energy.
EPA , which involves the scope of EPA’s authority to restrict carbonemissions from power plants. The case is about what measures EPA can use to reduce carbonemissions from power plants. Today, however, I’m going to focus instead on the conservative split and what it might mean for environmental law.
Murray Energy Sought Supreme Court Review of Fourth Circuit’s Dismissal of CleanAirAct Jobs Study Case. Challenge to Settlement in Utility Rate-Setting Case in New Mexico Cited Failure to Quantify Coal Plant’s CarbonEmission Risks. Foster , No. 34-2016-CR-00187 (N.D. decision Sept. 29, 2017; verdict Oct.
still does not limit carbonemissions from existing power plants, which generate 25 percent of our greenhouse gases. On June 2, 2014 , this blog led with an almost-identical sentence about EPA releasing its rule to regulate climate change-related carbonemissions from existing power plants, known as the Clean Power Plan.
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.
The case is a challenge by the coal industry and coal states to EPA’s power to limit carbonemissions by power plants. A: In practical terms, the question is what EPA can do to reduce carbonemissions from the power industry. Here’s what to look for today. Q: What is the case about? Download as PDF.
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.
I’m not including laws that simply incentivize cleanenergy or those that fund pure science, even though both are vitally important parts of climate policy. Climate first cropped up in the CleanAirAct of 1970. Next up was the Global Climate Protection Act of 1987 , which was signed by Ronald Reagan.
Last month, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposed new power plant carbon pollution standards that, if strengthened, would go a long way to help meet the Biden administration’s goal of slashing carbonemissions in half from 2005 levels by the end of this decade. EN: First, why are these new standards such a big deal?
The Clean Power Plan has no practical significance today: the deadlines in the Plan have long since passed, and the U.S. The Trump Administration said that the second two prongs, involving shifts away from coal and toward renewables, went beyond EPA’s powers under the CleanAirAct.
Washington Supreme Court Invalidated Regulation of Indirect Greenhouse Gas Emissions. The Washington Supreme Court concluded that the Washington CleanAirAct did not grant the Department of Ecology authority to regulate indirect greenhouse gas emissions of businesses and utilities whose products ultimately generate such emissions.
billion for electric vehicle charging infrastructure and $27 billion for cleanenergy research, development, demonstration and commercialization. Energy and Natural Resources. It’s seen as a way to quickly increase cleanenergy use without hiking electric bills for consumers. Allocation : $198 billion. Chair : Sen.
The federal district court for the Eastern District of California denied a motion for a preliminary injunction in a case challenging federal and state reviews and authorizations of a logging project and biomass energy facility on public forestland that burned during the 2013 Rim Fire.
Perciasepe said the administration would likely include efforts to expand natural carbon sinks, the next generation of regulations for vehicle emissions, and the likelihood of new cleanenergy and electric vehicle tax credits. Carbonemissions ‘will drop just 40% by 2050 with countries’ current pledges’ – The Guardian.
played a crucial role in negotiating the Kyoto Protocol, which required developed countries to cut their carbonemissions 5% below 1990 levels. The Kyoto Protocol may have led to emission reductions in Europe, but there was never any real prospect that the Senate would ever ratify the agreement. Under Clinton, the U.S.
Citizens for CleanEnergy v. Circuit Decision on Affordable CleanEnergy Rule. Circuit’s January opinion vacating EPA’s repeal and replacement of the Obama administration’s Clean Power Plan regulations for controlling carbonemissions from existing power plants. Department of the Interior , No.
At stake was the ability to reduce carbonemissions as written in the ‘Clean Power Plan’ regulation under the auspices of the CleanAirAct that gives the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) power to regulate “the best system of reducing emissions.”
Chief Justice Roberts’s majority opinion leaves EPA other options to reduce carbonemissions 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 CleanAirAct. We didn’t dodge the bullet.
He has launched an illegal effort to claw back $20 billion in EPA cleanenergy funding significantly targeted for disadvantaged communities. Many other states in recent years have decided they would follow Californias standards, as they are allowed to under the CleanAirAct.
Circuit Decision Vacating Affordable CleanEnergy Rule. Circuit’s January opinion vacating EPA’s repeal and replacement of the Obama administration’s Clean Power Plan regulations for controlling carbonemissions from existing power plants. States and Coal Company Sought Review of D.C. 66,496 (Dec. 15,2 2009).
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.
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