News & Analysis as of

MATS Michigan v. EPA

Williams Mullen

Mercury Rule Moves Forward

Williams Mullen on

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

Foley Hoag LLP - Environmental Law

MATS, Take Two: EPA Still Supports the Rule (And EPA Is Correct)

Late last week, EPA issued a Supplemental Finding, concluding that it is still “appropriate and necessary” to regulate hazardous air pollutants from coal- and oil-fired electric generating units. The Supplemental Finding was...more

Seyfarth Shaw LLP

Energy Insights: An Update from the Second Quarter of 2015

Seyfarth Shaw LLP on

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

Williams Mullen

Environmental Notes - July 2015

Williams Mullen on

Clean Water Rule Opens Litigation Floodgates - With much fanfare, EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers (“Corps”) recently issued a final rule clarifying which bodies of water are “waters of the United States” protected...more

Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP

Supreme Court Rejects EPA Mercury Emissions Rule

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

Williams Mullen

Supreme Court Ruling on EPA Mercury Rule: Utilities Wins the Battle, But Lose the War

Williams Mullen on

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

Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP

The U.S. Supreme Court Holds EPA Must Consider Costs in Deciding to Regulate Power Plants

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

Allen Matkins

California Environmental Law & Policy Update - July 2015

Allen Matkins on

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

McGuireWoods LLP

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

McGuireWoods LLP on

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

Burr & Forman

Supreme Court Halts Implementation of EPA Rule on Mercury Emissions from Electric Power Plants: The Practical Effects Are...

Burr & Forman on

On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court halted further implementation of a U.S. EPA’s regulation limiting mercury and other hazardous air toxic emissions from coal- and oil-fired electric power plants. In a 5-4 decision, the...more

Saul Ewing LLP

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

Saul Ewing LLP on

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

Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP

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

Stinson LLP

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

Stinson LLP on

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

Nossaman LLP

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

Nossaman LLP on

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

Latham & Watkins LLP

The Supreme Court Strikes Down the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards

Latham & Watkins LLP on

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

Morrison & Foerster LLP

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

WilmerHale

Supreme Court Rejects EPA Rulemaking Process for Power Plant Emissions Standards

WilmerHale on

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

Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP

Supreme Court Decides Michigan v. Environmental Protection Agency

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

Seyfarth Shaw LLP

Supreme Court: EPA Must Consider Cost Of Implementing Regulations

Seyfarth Shaw LLP on

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

Eversheds Sutherland (US) LLP

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

Foley Hoag LLP - Environmental Law

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

Stoel Rives LLP

U.S. Supreme Court Hears Oral Arguments on EPA’s Mercury and Air Toxics Standard

Stoel Rives LLP on

Wednesday the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument in Michigan v. EPA, a Clean Air Act case involving hazardous air pollutant regulations, with implications for fossil fuel-fired power plant owners and operators in...more

22 Results
 / 
View per page
Page: of 1

"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:
*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
- hide
- hide