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
A federal bankruptcy court in Missouri enjoined San Mateo and Marin Counties and the City of Imperial Beach (the plaintiffs) from pursuing their climate change lawsuits against Peabody Energy Corporation (Peabody). Murray Energy Sought Supreme Court Review of Fourth Circuit’s Dismissal of CleanAirAct Jobs Study Case.
establishing that heat-trapping emissions (or greenhouse gas emissions) are air pollutants covered by the CleanAirAct. The court further mandated that, under the CleanAirAct, the EPA must set protective standards for global warming pollutants if the agency found them to be harmful to human health and welfare.
In addition, the court rejected the contention that the CleanAirAct 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.
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.
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. Oregon Court Reinstated CleanEnergy Ballot Initiatives.
establishing that heat-trapping emissions (or greenhouse gas emissions) are air pollutants covered by the CleanAirAct. The court further mandated that, under the CleanAirAct, the EPA must set protective standards for global warming pollutants if the agency found them to be harmful to human health and welfare.
EPA , the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has regulated greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from motor vehicles under the CleanAirAct. While the CleanAirAct (CAA) has been amended multiple times since 1970, this basic requirement has remained untouched.
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 sealevel along the Pacific coast and in the San Francisco Bay, both of which are navigable waters of the United States.” ExxonMobil Corp. applied federal common law.
A climate change-related argument rejected by the trial court—that sealevel rise projections in the Plan were too high and not based on best available science—did not appear to have been before the appellate court. Briefs Filed in Challenges to ACE Rule and Clean Power Plan Repeal. Delta Stewardship Council Cases , Nos.
The report finds the nation is experiencing unprecedented change from sea-level rise and flooding on the coasts, permafrost loss in Alaska and record heatwaves in cities. Spain approves ‘milestone’ cleanenergy climate bill – Al Jazeera. EPA – Proposed Consent Decree, CleanAirAct Citizen Suit.
EPA’s 2024 Power Plant Rules EPA is required to regulate power plant emissions under Section 111 of the CleanAirAct. First, they repeal the Trump-era Affordable CleanEnergy Rule. That is followed by a summary of the two briefs filed by the Sabin Center. The Power Plant Rules consist of three main agency actions.
The CleanAirAct provision at issue authorizes small refineries to petition EPA “for an extension of the exemption … for the reason of disproportionate economic hardship.” Circuit Decision on Affordable CleanEnergy Rule. North Dakota and Second Coal Company Asked for Review of D.C.
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 carbon emissions from existing power plants. If you know of any cases we have missed, please email us at columbiaclimate@gmail.com. .
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