Today, the U.S. Supreme Court released their opinion in AEP v. Connecticut in which the Court held that the Clean Air Act ("CAA") and the EPA actions on regulating greenhouse gas emissions displaced any federal common-law right to seek greenhouse gas emission reductions. The suit was filed by Eastern States and non-profit land groups against coal-fired power plants in
Quick Hits: Boiler MACT Delayed; S.C. to Hear Climate Change Nuisance Case
Boiler MACT Rules- On December 7th, EPA filed a motion with the Court requesting more time in order to re-propose the Boiler MACT rules and allow for public comment. In EPA’s motion to the Court, EPA sets forth following timetable if its motion is granted to move impending January deadline is moved to April: it will publish
Obama Administration Opposes Use of Nuisance Claims to Address Climate Change
A group of eight states and conservation groups ("Plaintiffs") have been pushing a massive federal nuisance claim against utilities. The Plaintiffs claim that major emitters of carbon dioxide in twenty states have created, contributed to, or maintained a common-law public nuisance by contributing to global warming thereby injuring States and landowners feeling the impacts of climate change. (See
Federal Court Decision Increases Pressure on Congress to Pass Climate Change Legislation
.jpg)
The Federal Court of Appeals (2nd Circuit) issued a major decision in the ever growing debate regarding action on climate change. The court is allowing states to proceed with a suit against power companies that calls for a court order to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases which contribute to global warming.
Eight states (California, Connecticut
Nuisance Finding Gives Downwind States New Ammo in the Long Cross-Border Pollution War
On January 13, 2009, Judge Lacy Thornburg of the District Court for the Western District of North Carolina issued a major decision in case of North Carolina v. TVA. When filed, this case was seen as another chapter in the on-going battle between downwind and upwind states over cross-border pollution.
However, the decision and implications