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 compliance costs – when it decided it should regulate these emissions from power plants.
Taking a Cue from the LGBT Community, EPA Needs to Focus On Creating a Receptive Audience for Its Clean Power Plan
Both Michigan v. EPA and Obergefell v. Hodges demonstrate a key learning about governance in America—context matters as much as, or perhaps more, than legal authority.
On June 29, 2015, the Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (“Corps”) published a final rule defining “waters of the United States.”
On June 4, 2015, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) released an external review draft of a report assessing the potential impacts of hydraulic fracturing on drinking water.
A deeply divided United States Supreme Court (SCOTUS), in Michigan v. EPA, today held that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) “strayed well beyond the bounds of reasonable interpretation in concluding that cost is not a factor relevant to the appropriateness of regulating power plants.”
On June 29, 2015, the Supreme Court issued its latest opinion in an environmental rule challenge, this to the Mercury and Air Toxics Standard, or MATS.
On June 25, 2015, Norton Rose Fulbright released the second edition of the Shale Gas Handbook.
As SCOTUS Makes It Easier for TX Polluters, New Study Finds Increased Cancer Rates Around Ship Channel
Today, the United States Supreme Court issued a ruling that sided with the State of Texas in attacking the EPA’s ability to place limits on the amounts of mercury, acids, and other toxins may be released from industrial giants.
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 emissions from coal-fired power plants.
In a 5 to 4 split decision, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Monday, June 28th, that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) unreasonably interpreted the federal Clean Air Act (“CAA”) when EPA decided deemed that costs were irrelevant in deciding whether to regulate hazardous air emissions from electric utility sources under section 112 of the CAA.