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 Supreme Court tends to get all the attention, but for every Supreme Court opinion on environmental law there are probably fifty opinions in the lower federal courts. Collectively, the lower courts have done fat least as much to shape the law than the Supreme Courts occasional interventions. Any top ten list is a bit arbitrary.
In choosing the top environmental laws, I wanted to focus on those with the largest impacts on the environment, not just those that are most important to environmental lawyers or best known. I included all laws passed in the U.S., not just federal regulatory laws, and some of my selections may not be what you expected.
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. Nuclear power regulation D. Here goes: I.
Earlier this year, a team of economists published a retrospective paper on the CleanAirAct. Some of the findings are not surprises: stricter regulations actually do result in improved air quality. Many people identify that discipline with cost-benefit analysis and assume that economists are opposed to regulation.
Why might we have an environmental review statute such as NEPA when we already have a range of other environmental protection statutes such as the CleanAirAct, the Clean Water Act, and more? One possibility is that NEPA serves as a back-stop for other environmental laws, filling in gaps they do not cover.
In these “carbon intensity” calculations, CARB is not allowed to count reductions in greenhouse gas emissions that are already required by law. The absence of baseline regulation of dairy operations isn’t limited to greenhouse gas emissions. Agricultural employees are excluded from the protections of the National Labor Relations Act.
For example, there’s a current challenge to EPA’s waiver under the CleanAirAct for the Air Resources Board’s Advanced Clean Trucks regulations (ACT), which require that zero-emission trucks represent an increasing proportion of in-state heavy-duty truck sales. (A
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.
These penalties are in addition to a $670,000 civil penalty DEP accessed against Shell Falcon Pipeline and its contractor Minnesota Limited LLC for violations of its permit and other laws and regulations that occurred in 2019 and 2020 during pipeline construction. Read more here. Read more here. Decrease To 31.2%
Earlier this month, Judge William Young dismissed for lack of standing claims brought by the Conservation Law Foundation alleging that bus companies violated anti-idling regulations. Either way, whether you are a potential plaintiff or a potential defendant, this case warrants careful reading.
The same is true in environmental law. Was it a fundamental paradigm shift, re-centering the law on new values? With all this in mind, here are the cases that I see as making up the canon and anti-canons of environmental law. The case involved the lynchpin of the CleanAirAct, EPA’s power to set national air quality standards.
Thus, “the holdings of those cases that specific agency actions are lawful—including the CleanAirAct holding of Chevron itself—are still subject to statutory stare decisis [Latin for standing by past decisions] despite our change interpretive methodology.”
The case concerns the scope of the United States Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from existing fossil fuel power plants under Section 111(d) of the CleanAirAct (CAA). EPA , a case that is currently before the United States Supreme Court.
In rejecting Montana’s SIP, EPA repeatedly pointed to Montana’s failure to comply with EPA’s guidelines for determining Best Available Retrofit Technology, even though the guidelines were not enforceable regulations. Congress required in the CleanAirAct that EPA develop guidelines for determining BART.
When facilities emit less pollution, their regulations require less specific record-keeping and monitoring. How stringently facilities are monitored should be based on science and on the impacts on the people who live nearby—not by a judge’s ideological viewpoint on regulation.
Under the CleanAirAct, California has the unique ability to set its own standards for tailpipe emissions from new vehicles, including greenhouse gases. The law also includes funding for offshore wind energy and electricity grid improvements, as well as incentives for electric vehicles and appliances. Download as PDF.
States and local air quality regulators have the legal authority to set particulate matter (PM), ozone, and nitrogen oxides (NOx) emissions standards and adopt regulations for these pollutants when they are already in attainment of the national ambient air quality standards ( NAAQS ) set by the U.S.
MCAP, in partnership with the Southern Environmental Law Center (SELC), petitioned the county health department to use its emergency powers to limit emissions from the facility. We also estimated that EtO emissions contributed to more than 80 percent of the cancer risk attributable to toxic air pollution around the facility.
If a regulation was upheld in the Chevron era, that decision remains valid statutory precedent. ” This actually pretty typical language in environmental statutes,, such as section 202 of the CleanAirAct, which EPA has used to limit carbon emissions from cars. Is this an exceptional situation?
President Nixon signs the CleanAirAct of 1970 Richard Revesz recently posted a piece on climate change regulation, " Bostock and the End of the Climate Change Double Standard" , forthcoming in the Columbia Journal of Environmental Law.
EPA proposed changes to its MON rule in 2019, regulating toxic emissions for about 200 chemical plants that produce solvents, plastics, and pesticides across the country. EPA plans to issue a CleanAirAct rulemaking for commercial sterilizers later this year and for other chemical facilities soon, as well.
EPA on Thursday, June 30, 2022, curbing the power of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from power plants across the country. The decision focuses on EPA’s authority under a specific section of the CleanAirAct. What did the Court decide?
Multiple lines of analysis make clear that regardless of how cheap wind and solar power get, without directly addressing pollution from coal and gas plants, the country’s clean energy transition will not happen fast enough. Section 111 of the CleanAirAct constrains how EPA sets standards—but gives states wide latitude in implementation.
With all of the attacks on regulatory safeguards coming from the regulators themselves , you may have missed a new bill coming from Congress that would not only codify the mayhem of the current administration but neuter any future administrations attempt to protect consumers and the environment from the auto industry.
It was a big step towards providing adequate health protections, but Environmental regulations need to look at people, not just pollutants—and the way to get there is by assessing cumulative impacts. However, since major US environmental laws are enacted to protect the air, water, and land separately (i.e.
Instead, the Court has ruled that, though the agency can still regulate carbon emissions, it must do so narrowly and set standards solely based on options available at individual power plant facilities, such as efficiency measures to improve plant-level heat rates.
A new NRDC report describes these risks and how weak regulations fail to appropriately protect workers and communities. Despite the clear health risks, there are no dedicated federal regulations to ensure comprehensive and safer management of radioactive oil and gas materials. What does this mean for workers and communities?
The Clean Water Act – It’s routine for EPA to take more than 10 years to act on NPDES permit renewals. The CleanAirAct – The Supreme Court has ruled that it does not provide authority for EPA to address the defining issue of our time. They created a pathway towards cleaning our air, water, and land.
One particularly notable adjustment reflects a direct request from truck manufacturers, who ( as noted previously ) have been intensely engaged in a battle to weaken the rule as part of an ongoing war against pollution regulations that undermines the lip service the companies give on climate. Image source: CARB ).
It was only once that shift was made that we could begin to think of contaminated rivers, smog, and clearcutting as part of the same body of law. In other words, it was only then that we could in terms of “environmental law” rather than distinct bodies of rules governing a scattering of different situations.
In a case that could open the door to more citizen suits to enforce mobile source provisions of the CleanAirAct—a category of enforcement actions that has so far failed to gain much traction—the 10 th Circuit Court of Appeals recently issued an opinion broadly upholding a non-profit organization’s standing.
On November 17, Erie Coke Corporation, along with a corporate officer, have been indicted by a federal grand jury in Erie on among other charges, Violation of the CleanAirAct, United States Attorney Cindy K. Chung announced today. The eight-count Indictment, returned on Nov.
Months ago, the Supreme Court agreed to hear an “emergency” request to stay EPA’s new rule regulating interstate air pollution. A Supreme Court case called EME Homer upheld EPA’s general approach to regulating interstate air pollution. By law, that suit had to be brought in the D.C.
A district court has ruled that federal law does not preempt an indirect source rule that targets emissions associated with warehouses in Southern California. The California Attorney General, the California Air Resources Board (CARB), and a group of environmental NGOs intervened in defense of Rule 2305.
The Department of Environmental Protection posted a notice on its website announcing conventional oil and gas well operators will not be eligible for new methane reduction well plugging grants if they are not in compliance with state law and regulations. “To
Read the full story at the National Law Review. On October 17, 2022, the United States Environmental Protection Agency issued a proposed finding that lead air pollution may reasonably be anticipated to endanger the public health and welfare within the meaning of Section 231(a) of the CleanAirAct, 42 U.S.C.
It is one thing for Congress to pass a law. It is entirely different thing for a federal agency to make a rule (in other words, regulations) in accordance with that law. For context, Safer Communities by Chemical Accident Prevention is a rule related to the RMP and issued by the EPA, in accordance with the CleanAirAct.
The 8 th Circuit Court of Appeals has largely affirmed a District Court order finding that Ameren Missouri violated the NSR provisions of the CleanAirAct in making major modifications to its Rush Island facility. 7413(b), expressly provides for injunctive relief to redress violations of the Act.”.
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. Regulating power plant emissions is a complex undertaking. at 528–529. Now, in West Virginia v.
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 fossil fuels violates the state constitution’s guarantee to a “clean and healthful environment.” This is not supposed to be a town hall or a popularity contest,” he said.
On the other hand, government regulation is about making hard choices – and the structure of the CleanAirAct leaves us without a mechanism to make those hard choices. I remain one of the few who believe in stringent regulation and the use of cost-benefit analysis in getting there.
While the agency has failed to update the rule as required under the CleanAirAct, last year, EPA identified 23 “elevated cancer risk” commercial sterilizers and is currently working to inform communities and work with state regulators and the facilities to decrease emissions. But much more is needed. What can be done?
The authors go on to note that more stringent regulation would provide additional benefits in economic savings and reduced mortality. . The CleanAirAct requires that NAAQS be set to protect the public health “with an adequate margin of safety”. first appeared on Law and the Environment.
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