Unpacking California's 2024 Zero Emission Fleet Mandate
West Virginia vs. EPA Part II: U.S. Supreme Court Applies the Major Questions Doctrine to limit EPA Regulatory Authority
[Webinar] Growing Greener: Navigating Environmental Laws in the Cannabis Industry
Nota Bene Episode 101: Catching up with Global Climate Regulation with Nico van Aelstyn
Schoenbrod: SCOTUS Ruling Helps EPA Deal With a "Stupid Statute"
Law Prof: The Clean Air Act Needs a Reboot
The United States Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) published on February 15th a final rule reaffirming its decision that it remains appropriate and necessary to regulate hazardous air pollutants (“HAP”) from power...more
The federal lawsuit filed by twenty-three states challenging EPA’s Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS) is in the 8th inning, and things are not looking good for the challengers. Some background is appropriate. ...more
In this eight-week alert series, we are providing a broad look at current and emerging issues facing the energy sector. Attorneys from across the firm will discuss issues ranging from environmental disclosures and risk...more
In this edition of Seyfarth Shaw’s Energy Insights Newsletter our Energy and Clean Technologies team covers important developments in Q2 2015 for the energy industry including court protection for companies using hydraulic...more
The 2014-15 United States Supreme Court term featured a number of significant cases to the business community. The Faegre Baker Daniels appellate advocacy group is committed to helping our clients understand the Court’s...more
On June 29, 2015, the Supreme Court cast serious doubt upon the future of the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (“MATS”) by finding that the Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) failed to adequately consider the costs of...more
Last week, in Michigan v. EPA, the U.S. Supreme Court held that it was unreasonable for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) to refuse to consider costs in connection with its finding that it was “appropriate and...more
The Clean Air Act requires EPA to regulate emissions of hazardous air pollutants from coal-fired power plants if the agency determines that such “regulation is appropriate and necessary” after studying the hazards the...more
The U.S. Supreme Court’s June 29th decision in Michigan v. EPA, taken together with another significant CAA opinion from last term, Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA, demonstrates the Court’s proclivity for subjecting...more
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
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
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
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
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
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
While the Court’s decision marks a symbolic defeat for EPA, it may not significantly alter power plant operators’ compliance efforts. In a much anticipated decision delivered on the last day of the term, the Supreme...more
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
In This Issue: - Energy and Climate - Congress - Administration - Department of Energy - Department of Interior - Department of State - Department of Transportation -...more
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
Earlier today the US Supreme Court issued a 5 to 4 decision in Michigan v. EPA that struck down the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Mercury and Air Toxics Standard (MATS) rule. The MATS rule imposes stringent...more
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
On June 29, 2015, the United States Supreme Court decided Michigan v. Environmental Protection Agency, No. 14-46, and two other consolidated cases, holding that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) acted unreasonably,...more
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
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
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