Clean Air Act Environmental Protection Agency

News & Analysis as of

California Environmental Law & Policy Update - July 2015

Environmental and Policy Focus - BP pays record $18.7 billion to settle claims in Gulf oil spill Bloomberg - Jul 2: BP Plc reached a record $18.7 billion agreement to settle all federal and state claims from the 2010...more

Supreme Court Strikes Down EPA’s Mercury and Air Toxics Standard

Delivering a sharp blow to President Obama’s efforts to regulate coal plants, the U.S. Supreme Court invalidated the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) 2012 Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS) rule, finding that...more

Because EPA Failed to Consider Costs to Industry, Supreme Court Overturns Power Plant Regulation

The Mercury and Air Toxics Standards rule ("MATS") for electric utility steam generating units has been reversed and remanded with the Supreme Court’s much-anticipated decision in Michigan v. EPA on June 29, 2015. Writing for...more

Supreme Court Decision Could Limit EPA's Authority Over Greenhouse Gas Emissions

On June 29, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court delivered another warning to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) against overstepping its statutory authority under the Clean Air Act. In Michigan v. Environmental Protection...more

Supreme Court Rejects EPA's Rule Regulating Hazardous Air Polluntants from Power Plants

On June 29, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was wrong not to consider the cost of compliance when it decided to regulate mercury and other air toxic substances emitted from power...more

The U.S. Supreme Court Invalidates EPA's Power Plant Mercury Emissions Regulation

On June 29, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court in Michigan v. Environmental Protection Agency invalidated the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Mercury and Toxic Air Standards (MATS) regulation by a 5 to 4 vote, finding that...more

Considerable Costs—Supreme Court Requires EPA to Consider Cost Impacts of Power Plant Toxic Emissions Rules

A closely divided Supreme Court has determined that EPA must consider cost when regulating emissions of hazardous air pollutants from stationary sources. Under the Clean Air Act, EPA has authority to regulate toxic emissions...more

Supreme Court Rejects EPA Rulemaking Process for Power Plant Emissions Standards

The US Supreme Court held yesterday that the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) unreasonably failed to consider costs when it made the initial decision to regulate emissions of hazardous air pollutants from power...more

US Supreme Court Nixes EPA Regulations on Mercury Emissions – Must Consider Costs Early!

In Michigan v. EPA, the U. S. Supreme Court invalidated EPA’s rules limiting emissions of mercury and other pollutants from power plants, ruling that EPA inappropriately ignored the costs of regulation – particularly...more

Supreme Court Overturns EPA Limits on Power Plants

On June 29, the United States Supreme Court nixed the United States Environmental Protection Agency’s 2012 Mercury and Air Toxics Standard, limiting emissions of mercury and other pollutants from power plants. The challengers...more

Supreme Court: EPA Must Consider Cost Of Implementing Regulations

In a 5-4 ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court today ruled that the EPA acted unreasonably when it refused to consider the cost of implementing its Mercury and Air Toxics Standard (MATS). The MATS rule, issued in 2012,...more

Supreme Court Finds EPA Unreasonably Failed to Consider Costs When Regulating Power Plant Emissions

Today the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) improperly refused to consider costs when it decided to regulate mercury and other hazardous emissions. The EPA regulated power plant...more

Can the Majority and the Dissent Both Be Wrong? The Supreme Court Remands the MATS Rule

The short answer is, yes, though the majority is more wrong. In fact, the issue in Michigan v. EPA seems so simple that the MATS rule could have been affirmed in a two-page opinion. Judge Scalia notes that the word...more

What Comes Next for Mercury Emissions from Power Plants?

The U.S. Supreme Court held this morning that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) acted unreasonably when it determined in 2000, and again in 2012, that it was “appropriate and necessary” to regulate mercury...more

Supreme Court: EPA Must Consider Costs in Power Plant Rule

The U.S. Supreme Court issued its opinion in Michigan v. EPA, reversing a ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit and holding that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) must consider...more

EPA Aircraft GHG Emissions Regulations Take Flight: Agency Announces Endangerment Finding for Aircraft Greenhouse Gas Emissions...

After tackling greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from passenger vehicles and power plants, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on June 10 announced its latest regulatory initiative—a GHG emissions standard for aircraft....more

Ninth Circuit expands bases to avoid direct industry payment of Clean Air Act “Nonattainment Fees” — adds San Joaquin Valley...

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals capped a saga of over seven years on June 18 by extending its March 11, 2015 ruling in support of alternatives to imposing hefty fees on individual companies which have complied with the...more

"Supreme Court: A Term-End Review"

As the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2014-15 term draws to a conclusion, the Court has resolved — or will resolve in a matter of days — several cases with potentially wide-reaching implications for a range of important policy and...more

EPA Methodology For Small Refinery Exemption Upheld

On June 2, 2015, federal appellate judges decided that EPA's methodology for evaluating small refineries (those with crude oil throughput averaging 75,000 barrels or less per day) for exemptions from the RFS program was fair....more

“Clearing” the Waters – U.S. EPA and the Army Corps Finalize “Waters of the United States” Definition

On May 27, 2015, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (“U.S. EPA”) and the United States Army Corps of Engineers (“Corps”) issued their highly anticipated final revision to the definition of “waters of the United...more

Environmental Notes - June 2015

In this Issue: - EPA Issues SIP Call to Eliminate SSM Defense - EPA and Corps Define “Waters of The United States” - Frequent Questions: EPCRA 313 - Generators Need to be Vigilant About TCLP Sampling...more

EARL e-News: EPA's Carbon Dioxide Plan Can Proceed - Updates on Environmental, Administrative and Regulatory Law

On June 9th, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit rejected two petitions seeking to block EPA’s proposed Clean Power Plan to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from existing electric generating plants....more

Legal Challenge to EPA’s Proposed Clean Power Plan Rejected as Premature, Final Rule Sent to OMB for Review

The proposed Clean Power Plan introduced by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in June 2014 has been met with considerable opposition, including a court battle that pitted energy companies and more than twenty...more

EPA Issues SIP Call to Eliminate SSM Defense

EPA has issued a final rule that requires 36 states to revise their State Implementation Plans to eliminate a well-known and often-used Clean Air Act defense for excess emissions. While specific elements of the defense...more

If Congress Wants to Limit EPA’s Discretion, Perhaps It Should Do a Better Job Legislating

Earlier this week, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals rejected both industry and environmental group petitions challenging EPA’s determination of what is a solid waste in the context of Clean Air Act standards for incinerators...more

264 Results
|
View per page
Page: of 11

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:

Sign up to create your digest using LinkedIn*

*With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name. Or, sign up using your email address.
×