We use cookies to customise content for your subscription and for analytics.
If you continue to browse Lexology, we will assume that you are happy to receive all our cookies. For further information please read our Cookie Policy.
In cooperation with Association of Corporate Counsel
  Request new password

Search results

Order by most recent / most popular / relevance

Results: 1-10 of 80

Sierra Club challenges delay of boiler, incinerator rules

  • Mintz Levin Cohn Ferris Glovsky and Popeo PC
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • July 24 2011

On July 15, the Sierra Club filed a petition for review July 15 in the U.S

Different aspects of EPA cement kiln rules defended

  • Mintz Levin Cohn Ferris Glovsky and Popeo PC
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • July 31 2011

On July 22, in briefs filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit challenging EPA’s new cement kiln standards, environmental groups are defending the EPA’s air pollution standards, while industry is supporting the agency's decision not to require GHG controls

New Mexico Supreme Court upholds right of state board to decide emissions rule

  • Mintz Levin Cohn Ferris Glovsky and Popeo PC
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • July 31 2011

New Mexico’s Supreme Court upheld an appellate court decision on GHG emissions sending the case to the State Environmental Improvement Board for resolution rather than have it play out in state courts

Environmental justice groups oppose California emissions trading program

  • Mintz Levin Cohn Ferris Glovsky and Popeo PC
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • August 7 2011

The California Supreme Court was asked by the Center for Race, Poverty and the Environment along with other environmental justice groups to terminate the proposed greenhouse gas emissions cap-and-trade program

EPA defends GHG findings in court

  • Mintz Levin Cohn Ferris Glovsky and Popeo PC
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • August 21 2011

On August 18, EPA filed a brief in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit arguing that the agency adhered strictly to Section 202(a)(1) of the Clean Air Act’s guidelines for science-based decision-making in determining that GHG emissions from vehicles endanger public health and the environment

Biomass permit exemption challenged

  • Mintz Levin Cohn Ferris Glovsky and Popeo PC
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • August 21 2011

Georgia Forestwatch, Wild Virginia, the Center for Biological Diversity, Conservation Law Foundation, and Natural Resources Council of Maine filed a lawsuit August 15 in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit against the Environmental Protection Agency, challenging a rule that exempts facilities burning biomass from the requirement to obtain greenhouse gas emissions permits for three years

CA Supreme Court validates Clean Water Act use

  • Mintz Levin Cohn Ferris Glovsky and Popeo PC
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • August 21 2011

The California Supreme Court unanimously held August 15 that regulators did not violate the Clean Water Act by applying a cost-benefit standard to determine whether the Moss Landing Power Plant’s cooling water design reflected the best available technology to protect fish and other aquatic organisms

Environmental groups support EPA GHG ruling

  • Mintz Levin Cohn Ferris Glovsky and Popeo PC
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • August 28 2011

On August 25, ClientEarth, America's Great Waters Coalition, and the Union of Concerned Scientists filed an amicus brief in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit supporting EPA’s finding that GHG emissions from vehicles threaten inland and coastal waterways

NM utility appeals retrofit mandate

  • Mintz Levin Cohn Ferris Glovsky and Popeo PC
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • September 25 2011

The Public Service Company of New Mexico filed a petition for review of an Environmental Protection Agency rule September 16 in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit

States oppose federal implementation plans

  • Mintz Levin Cohn Ferris Glovsky and Popeo PC
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • October 2 2011

Nebraska, Florida, Alabama, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Texas, and Virginia filed a lawsuit in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit on September 23 claiming that the Environmental Protection Agency inappropriately implemented the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule through federal implementation plans