Energy and Utilities Law Commons^™

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 …

Getches-Wilkinson Center Newsletter, Fall 2017, University Of Colorado Boulder. Getches-Wilkinson Center For Natural Resources, Energy, And The Environment

Getches-Wilkinson Center for Natural Resources, Energy, and the Environment Newsletter (2013-)

No abstract provided.

Why The Renewable Energy Credit Market Needs Standardization, Lisa Koperski

Washington Journal of Law, Technology & Arts

Renewable Energy Credits (RECs) are a relatively new financial instrument that help to stimulate the renewable energy market through capturing the premiums for environmental attributes associated with electricity, hopefully, encouraging investment in new renewable energy projects. However, lack of standardization in both the definition of RECs and the ways that RECs can be exchanged and administered has led to confusion on the parts of all concerned—the REC seller, the REC buyer, regulators, and the public at large—stymying investment in renewable energy projects and creating market inefficiency. Much like inconsistent accounting definitions or divergent requirements for providing investment guidance to consumers …

Voter Psychology And The Carbon Tax, Gary M. Lucas Jr

Faculty Scholarship

Economists across the political spectrum argue that a carbon tax is the most effective and economically efficient policy for addressing climate change. Voters, however, strongly oppose the carbon tax and instead favor “green” subsidies and command-and-control regulations. If carefully designed, these policies might complement a carbon tax, but by themselves, they will make global warming mitigation incredibly expensive and perhaps even infeasible. Moreover, if poorly designed, subsidies and regulations can be counterproductive.

This Article argues that the public dislikes the carbon tax because the tax possesses attributes that make it psychologically unappealing relative to other climate policy instruments. The Article …

Sovereign Lands, Melissa Stewart

Oil and Gas, Natural Resources, and Energy Journal

No abstract provided.

Wyoming, John R. Chadd

Oil and Gas, Natural Resources, and Energy Journal

No abstract provided.

West Virginia, Andrew Graham

Oil and Gas, Natural Resources, and Energy Journal

No abstract provided.

Virginia, Zachary H. Barrett

Oil and Gas, Natural Resources, and Energy Journal

No abstract provided.

Utah, Jim Tartaglia

Oil and Gas, Natural Resources, and Energy Journal

No abstract provided.

Texas, Don Hueske, Melissa Munson

Oil and Gas, Natural Resources, and Energy Journal

No abstract provided.

Tennessee, Gary D. Holland, Westley A. Ketron

Oil and Gas, Natural Resources, and Energy Journal

No abstract provided.

Pennsylvania, Nathaniel I. Holland, Jon C. Beckman, Benedict J. Kirchner, Sarah Quinn

Oil and Gas, Natural Resources, and Energy Journal

No abstract provided.

Oklahoma, Matt Schlensker, Justin Fisher

Oil and Gas, Natural Resources, and Energy Journal

No abstract provided.

Ohio, Melissa Grimes, Eli Humphries, Tim Mckeen, Andreah Frenn

Oil and Gas, Natural Resources, and Energy Journal

No abstract provided.

North Dakota, William J. Black

Oil and Gas, Natural Resources, and Energy Journal

No abstract provided.

New York, Nathaniel I. Holland, Benedict J. Kirchner

Oil and Gas, Natural Resources, and Energy Journal

No abstract provided.

New Mexico, Zach Gaver

Oil and Gas, Natural Resources, and Energy Journal

No abstract provided.

Nevada, Kacie M. Bevers

Oil and Gas, Natural Resources, and Energy Journal

No abstract provided.

Nebraska, Ashley Howie Tallichet

Oil and Gas, Natural Resources, and Energy Journal

No abstract provided.

Montana, Jessica E. Mcdonald

Oil and Gas, Natural Resources, and Energy Journal

No abstract provided.

Missouri, Heather Gale Graham

Oil and Gas, Natural Resources, and Energy Journal

No abstract provided.

Michigan, M. Vafa Barissi

Oil and Gas, Natural Resources, and Energy Journal

No abstract provided.

Maryland, Davin L. Seamon

Oil and Gas, Natural Resources, and Energy Journal

No abstract provided.

Louisiana, Rachel Cummings

Oil and Gas, Natural Resources, and Energy Journal

No abstract provided.

Kentucky, Sarah M. Lange

Oil and Gas, Natural Resources, and Energy Journal

No abstract provided.

Kansas, Sarah Trainer, Steven A. Rhodes

Oil and Gas, Natural Resources, and Energy Journal

No abstract provided.

Illinois, Justin Fisher

Oil and Gas, Natural Resources, and Energy Journal

No abstract provided.

Colorado, Diana S. Prulhiere, David R. Little, Casey C. Breese

Oil and Gas, Natural Resources, and Energy Journal

No abstract provided.

Arkansas, Kelli D. Smith

Oil and Gas, Natural Resources, and Energy Journal

No abstract provided.

Alaska, Steven A. Rhodes, Zachary H. Barrett

Oil and Gas, Natural Resources, and Energy Journal

No abstract provided.