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
In preparing to teach a course on climate law, I was really struck by how broad and rich the field has become. Back in the day, it was nearly all international law, but nowadays there’s a huge amount of U.S. domestic law. and international law. and international law. climate policy. Here goes: I. Cross-cutting A.
But the oral comments also included several speakers representing the industries producing a substantial amount of this deadly air pollution. Their main arguments include two disturbing tactics that come straight out of the disinformation playbook : casting doubt on the science, and pressing the EPA to violate a law passed by Congress.
This decision , reached with a 6-3 majority led by Chief Justice John Roberts, marks a significant shift in administrative law and has profound implications for environmental regulations and climate accountability. the EPA or FDA), staffed with experts, to interpret and implement laws within their purview effectively.
The majority 6–3 decision sharply curtails the EPA’s authority to set standards based on a broad range of flexible options to cut carbon emissions from the power sector—options such as replacing polluting fossilfuels with cheap and widely available wind and solar power coupled with battery storage.
The case concerns the scope of the United States Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from existing fossilfuel power plants under Section 111(d) of the CleanAirAct (CAA).
Through the CleanAirAct , and as affirmed—and reaffirmed—through multiple legal sagas, EPA is statutorily obligated to address carbon pollution from fossilfuel-fired power plants. Section 111 of the CleanAirAct constrains how EPA sets standards—but gives states wide latitude in implementation.
Many of the claims are based at least in part on allegations of misrepresentations by the companies regarding climate science in order to promote their sales of fossilfuels. Are the lawsuits preempted by federal law? The other argument is that the CleanAirAct itself eliminates state lawsuits for interstate pollution.
Starting in 2017, cities, counties, and states across the United States have filed claims (see here and here ) in state courts against fossilfuel companies seeking redress for the climate harms their products have caused. Many of these cases asserted nuisance and other tort law claims. Chevron Corp.
Perhaps most importantly, this rule doesn’t even attempt to grapple with the question of how to eliminate emissions from trucks, focusing exclusively on fossil-fuel powered engines to the exclusion of electrification. Bad news: electric trucks aren’t included in the rule. Sadly, it didn’t.
The bench trial took place last month in the state capitol, Helena, where 16 youth plaintiffs ages 5 to 22 made the case that Montana’s unwavering promotion of fossilfuels violates the state constitution’s guarantee to a “clean and healthful environment.” Whether Montana’s GHG emissions can be measured incrementally.
The decision focuses on EPA’s authority under a specific section of the CleanAirAct. But a closer read suggests more sweeping, longer-term implications for incentivizing the development of clean energy projects nationwide. What does this mean for clean energy projects? What is the case about? .
CARB’s Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) seeks to incentivize the production and sale of alternative, lower emissions transportation fuels in order to displace conventional fossilfuels. To identify which fuels should be promoted, CARB calculates the life cycle greenhouse gas emissions from transportation fuels.
EPA has now formally restored its waiver under § 209(b) of the CleanAirAct that allows California’s greenhouse gas emissions standards and Zero Emission Vehicle mandate, notwithstanding the preemption of state vehicle emission standards contained in § 209(a) of the CAA. Time to get to work.
Over the last five years, cities, counties, and states across the country have sued fossilfuel companies alleging that the companies violated state law in marketing their products as safe. Second are cases that allege the fossilfuel company activities violate state consumer protection laws.
We know that burning fossilfuels is the main cause of anthropogenic climate change, and that climate change is the source of adverse impacts on communities and even regional and national economies. by Justin Gundlach. These points are largely undisputed. Peter Frumhoff led off, presenting two key points.
Local actors seek climate change damages from the biggest fossilfuel companies through state law litigation. It also leaves untouched the litigation that has been bubbling up in state courts against the fossilfuel industry. Individuals, too, have brought state law cases. In the wake of West Virginia v.
A special thanks to Derek Younkers, a soon-to-be 1L at Baylor Law School, who gathered the material for this post. And so it is with the plethora of lawsuits by states, cities and counties against oil and gas producers claiming catastrophic damages from fossilfuels. Some time ago we reported on City of San Mateo v.
Upstream methane emissions are a potentially substantial share of the overall emissions rate of fossilfuel-based hydrogen production facilities. This is the starting point from which all of Treasury’s implementation decisions must follow.
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. Connecticut , 564 U. 410 (2011). Post, at 20.
Since 2019, more than seventy local and state jurisdictions have followed Berkeley’s lead in requiring or strongly incentivizing all-electric or fossil-fuel-free new buildings, with more considering similar approaches. can be fueled by natural gas), and must base these options on a defensible “one-for-one” basis.
The statute points to section 211(o)(1)(H) of the CleanAirAct to define lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions—exactly as was done for the simultaneously passed section 45V Clean Hydrogen Production Credit. Clean must mean clean, meaning no polluter loopholes, and no polluter giveaways.
In doing so, the court found itself “in accord with the other courts of appeals, which have unanimously found there is no federal jurisdiction where state or local governments have brought state-law actions against energy companies for conduct relating to climate change.” s claims were still grounded in that supplanted common law.
In the first months of 2024, legislators in four states— Maryland , Massachusetts , New York , and Vermont —have pushed for legislation that would collectively require large fossilfuel producers and refiners to pay for hundreds of billions of dollars of state-level climate adaptation infrastructure.
Amidst historically low oil prices and economic shutdowns, fossilfuel companies continue to defend against lawsuits brought by state and local governments claiming climate-change related damages. 1331 because the cities’ claims were “necessarily governed by federal common law.” San Mateo , pp. In the City of Oakland et al.
a consolidated case in which Oakland and San Francisco claim that five fossilfuel companies’ production and promotion of fossilfuels constitutes a public nuisance under federal and California common law. BP P.L.C. , Three weeks later, on June 13, Judge John F. BP P.L.C. ,
Environmental Protection Agency is in the middle of adopting rulemakings under the federal CleanAirAct that will require natural gas infrastructure operators to more carefully monitor methane emissions and develop plans to meet new emission limits. Applegate noted the U.S. Read more here - supplemental EPA rule.
What is Environmental Law? Humanity has been aware of its environment far longer than there have been laws to protect environments. However, the term “environmental law” does not just cover government legislation. These are not “laws” per se but act as such within a regulatory framework. Sponsored Content.
Summary: Last week the Supreme Court handed down its second CleanAirAct case of the term, Utility Air Regulatory Group v. Assistant Professor, Vermont Law School. A facility is subject to new source review if it has potential emissions of 100 or 250 tons per year of an air pollutant, depending on the source.
Going back to 1978 and through this month, Congress has acknowledged climate change in a total of 87 enactments, as shown by a database just posted by Columbia’s Sabin Center for Climate Change Law. Image by JessicaRodriguezRivas pursuant to a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International license.
For these reasons, today Columbia Law School’s Center for Climate Change Law is launching the President’s Climate Action Plan Tracker. The most prominent of the initiatives in the Climate Action Plan aims to use Section 111 of the CleanAirAct to limit greenhouse gas emissions from coal and other fossil-fueled power plants.
EPA ) addressing the scope of the United States Environmental Protection Agency’s (“EPA”) authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from existing fossil-fuel powered power plaints. Click here to read the article (begins on p.
But today the Supreme Court declined that request to review whether federal law prevents states and cities from suing the companies. In their appeal, the oil companies argued that the Hawaii Supreme Court erred by finding the case was not preempted by federal laws. City & County of Honolulu v. 7401 et seq. 7401 et seq.
The federal CleanAirAct defines an indirect source as any facility, building, structure, or installation, or combination thereof, which generates or attracts mobile source activity that results in emissions of any pollutant (or precursor) for which there is an air quality standard. [6]
EPA’s latest proposed rule targeting NOx emissions from fossil-fueled electric generating units (EGUs) is a classic study of diminishing returns. The downwind air quality benefits are minimal. Trisko (BA, NYU, 1972; JD, Georgetown University Law Center, 1977) is an attorney in private practice.
They also studied federal regulations, such as the CleanAirAct amendments of 1990 and the acid rain programs of 1995 and 2000, and how power plants adopted technologies to lower their sulfur dioxide emissions as required by the new laws.
Each month, Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP (APKS) and the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law collect and summarize developments in climate-related litigation, which we also add to our U.S. 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 CleanAirAct.
The EPA’s cap-and-trade program to control smog in the Central and Eastern United States is lawful and wise, and the Supreme Court should overturn the D.C. 2.5. ), mostly from fossilfuel consumption. The CleanAirAct (CAA) regulates smog, setting National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for ozone and PM.
Each month, Arnold & Porter and the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law collect and summarize developments in climate-related litigation, which we also add to our U.S. The plan must specifically address how EPA will consider the effects of CleanAirAct regulation on the coal industry. and non-U.S. McCarthy , No.
Image Image Products Oil / gas exploration and production, natural gas and LNG trading and transportation, oil refining, chemicals, solar and biomass development Protesting Total's role in Burma - Photo Credit TotalOutNow Summary Total is a fossilfuel exploration company. Violations at Port Arthur refinery bring $8.75 Total to pay $2.9
Image Image Products Oil / gas exploration and production, natural gas and LNG trading and transportation, oil refining, chemicals, solar and biomass development Protesting Total's role in Burma - Photo Credit TotalOutNow Summary Total is a fossilfuel exploration company. Violations at Port Arthur refinery bring $8.75 Total to pay $2.9
Image Image Products Oil / gas exploration and production, natural gas and LNG trading and transportation, oil refining, chemicals, solar and biomass development Protesting Total's role in Burma - Photo Credit TotalOutNow Summary Total is a fossilfuel exploration company. Violations at Port Arthur refinery bring $8.75 Total to pay $2.9
Image Image Products Oil / gas exploration and production, natural gas and LNG trading and transportation, oil refining, chemicals, solar and biomass development Protesting Total's role in Burma - Photo Credit TotalOutNow Summary Total is a fossilfuel exploration company. Violations at Port Arthur refinery bring $8.75 Total to pay $2.9
Image Image Products Oil / gas exploration and production, natural gas and LNG trading and transportation, oil refining, chemicals, solar and biomass development Protesting Total's role in Burma - Photo Credit TotalOutNow Summary Total is a fossilfuel exploration company. Violations at Port Arthur refinery bring $8.75 Total to pay $2.9
Image Image Products Oil / gas exploration and production, natural gas and LNG trading and transportation, oil refining, chemicals, solar and biomass development Protesting Total's role in Burma - Photo Credit TotalOutNow Summary Total is a fossilfuel exploration company. Violations at Port Arthur refinery bring $8.75 Total to pay $2.9
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