Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Discipline
-
- Natural Resources Law (3)
- Administrative Law (2)
- Energy and Utilities Law (2)
- Land Use Law (2)
- Earth Sciences (1)
-
- Environmental Health and Protection (1)
- Environmental Sciences (1)
- Geology (1)
- Health Law and Policy (1)
- Labor and Employment Law (1)
- Law and Economics (1)
- Legal Studies (1)
- Mineral Physics (1)
- Natural Resource Economics (1)
- Oil, Gas, and Energy (1)
- Oil, Gas, and Mineral Law (1)
- Physical Sciences and Mathematics (1)
- Social Welfare Law (1)
- Social and Behavioral Sciences (1)
- State and Local Government Law (1)
Articles 1 - 7 of 7
Full-Text Articles in Law
Clean Air Council V. Pruitt, Oliver Wood
Clean Air Council V. Pruitt, Oliver Wood
Public Land & Resources Law Review
The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia granted a motion for summary vacatur against the Environmental Protection Agency after environmental groups challenged the agency’s reconsideration of the Obama-era methane rule under the Clean Air Act. The court held that the EPA unlawfully issued a stay after it reconsidered the rule without proper authorization. The court vacated the EPA’s stay, one example of the Trump Administration unsuccessfully repealing Obama-era rulemaking.
Murray Energy Corporation V. Administrator Of Environmental Protection Agency, Peter B. Taylor
Murray Energy Corporation V. Administrator Of Environmental Protection Agency, Peter B. Taylor
Public Land & Resources Law Review
Congress amended the Clean Air Act in 1977 because of public concern that enforcement of the Clean Air Act would have adverse effects on employment. Section 321(a) tasks the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency with a continuous duty to evaluate the potential employment impact of the administration and enforcement of the Clean Air Act. In Murray Energy Corporation v. Administrator of Environmental Protection Agency, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit ruled on whether the federal court’s authority to review and enforce non-discretionary Clean Air Act duties extended to the EPA’s Section 321(a) duty to continuously …
Murray Energy Corporation V. Mccarthy, Sarah M. Danno
Murray Energy Corporation V. Mccarthy, Sarah M. Danno
Public Land & Resources Law Review
Holding that the widespread effects of environmental regulation on the coal industry constituted sufficient importance, the Northern District of West Virginia ordered the Environmental Protection Agency to conduct analysis on employment loss and plant reduction resulting from regulatory effects. In admonishing the EPA’s inaction, the court ruled that the Agency had a non-discretionary duty to evaluate employment and plant reduction. Furthermore, the court held that the EPA’s attempt to put forth general reports in place of required evaluations was an invalid attempt to circumvent its statutory duty.
Helping Hand Tools V. United States Environmental Protection Agency, Emily A. Slike
Helping Hand Tools V. United States Environmental Protection Agency, Emily A. Slike
Public Land & Resources Law Review
When the EPA decided to treat biomass fuel sources differently within the BACT analysis, the Ninth Circuit continued Chevron’s legacy and granted the agency deference. The Bioenergy BACT may develop as science continues to evolve, but because the EPA took a “hard look” during a thorough permit review, the court held that agency issuance of new BACT guidelines was reasonable.
Michigan V. Environmental Protection Agency, Lindsay Ward
Michigan V. Environmental Protection Agency, Lindsay Ward
Public Land & Resources Law Review
What’s the price of clean air? The Supreme Court found that the EPA, tasked with setting limits on hazardous pollutants, unreasonably declined to consider cost when regulating power plant emissions under the Clean Air Act. 42 U.S.C. § 7412 gives the EPA the authority to regulate power plants under the Clean Air Act as long as the Agency finds that “regulation is appropriate and necessary.” In the instant case, the EPA concluded that regulation met both these requirements. Finding the agency’s decision unreasonable, the majority struck down the EPA’s rule. The minority, however, asserted that the decision was unsound; it …
Environmental Protection Agency V. Eme Homer City Generation L.P., Lindsey M. West
Environmental Protection Agency V. Eme Homer City Generation L.P., Lindsey M. West
Public Land & Resources Law Review
The U.S. Supreme Court determined the Environmental Protection Agency properly interpreted the “Good Neighbor Provision” of the Clean Air Act in adopting the Transport Rule. The Court found, contrary to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals decision to vacate the rule entirely, the EPA did not act arbitrarily and capriciously by integrating a cost-effective allocation of emission reductions or by disallowing states a second opportunity to file a State Implementation Plan before promulgating a Federal Implementation Plan.
Alaska Wilderness League V. U.S. Epa, Maxwell Kirchhoff
Alaska Wilderness League V. U.S. Epa, Maxwell Kirchhoff
Public Land & Resources Law Review
In this case, the Ninth Circuit deferred to the EPA’s interpretation of a statute concerning whether increment requirements were applicable to a temporary source pollutant. The court held that Shell Offshore, Inc. was not required to analyze the potential impact of an offshore drill barge, the Kulluk, under the Clean Air Act. Additionally, the plaintiffs’ challenge concerning the Kulluk's impact on ambient air was defeated pursuant to Resisting Environmental Destruction on Indigenous Lands, REDOIL v. EPA.