Search for: "Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA" Results 141 - 160 of 207
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
13 Jan 2022, 10:09 pm by Josh Blackman
Here is the cited passage from the Alabama case: We expect Congress to speak clearly when authorizing an agency to exercise powers of "vast 'economic and political significance.'" Utility Air Regulatory Group v. [read post]
4 Mar 2010, 3:17 pm by admin
The following is a summary review of articles from all over the nation concerning environmental law settlements, decisions, regulatory actions and lawsuits filed during the past week. [read post]
25 Apr 2011, 5:32 am by Sean Wajert
Last week, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in one of the seminal cases in this area, American Electric Power Co. v. [read post]
25 Jun 2015, 8:27 pm by Adam White
As mentioned earlier, we saw this doctrine arise last year in Utility Air Regulatory Group v. [read post]
7 Apr 2010, 3:44 pm by admin
Click Here Anchorage Waste Water Utility and Contractor Pay $9850 EPA Storm Water Penalty. [read post]
5 Oct 2017, 11:08 am by Miriam Seifter
The parties on NAM’s side of the case include agricultural companies and trade associations, electric utilities, states and environmental groups – all frequent challengers of EPA decisions. [read post]
26 Dec 2022, 9:05 pm by Series of Essays
Wagner, University of Texas at Austin School of Law Court disregards the Clean Air Act’s clear language in applying the major questions doctrine to curb EPA’s climate authority. [read post]
10 May 2010, 1:16 pm by admin
The following is a summary review of articles from all over the nation concerning environmental law settlements, decisions, regulatory actions and lawsuits filed during the past week. [read post]
4 Dec 2014, 11:05 am by John Elwood
EPA, 14-46, Utility Air Regulatory Group v. [read post]
26 Jun 2014, 3:56 am by Amy Howe
Commentary on Monday’s decision in Utility Air Regulatory Group v. [read post]
2 Aug 2010, 11:15 am by Steven M. Taber
But it was the ruling’s impact on utility regulation, not the cost, that prompted the appeals court to reverse the decision. [read post]