Search for: "Northern California Power Agency v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission"
Results 21 - 40
of 40
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
12 Apr 2010, 10:44 am
The federal Clean Air Act gives California the power to implement in-use non-road engine emissions rules more strict than the federal government. [read post]
30 Dec 2016, 1:27 pm
The Rule became effective on August 28, 2015; however, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit stayed the Rule nationwide in October of 2015 in Murray Energy Corp. v. [read post]
30 Dec 2016, 1:27 pm
The Rule became effective on August 28, 2015; however, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit stayed the Rule nationwide in October of 2015 in Murray Energy Corp. v. [read post]
14 Mar 2010, 10:47 pm
– Environmental Protection Agency, Federal Register, March 12, 2010 In accordance with section 113(g) of the Clean Air Act, as amended (‘‘Act’’), 42 U.S.C. 7413(g), notice is hereby given of a proposed settlement agreement and consent decree, to address a lawsuit filed by Wildearth Guardians: Wildearth Guardians v. [read post]
19 Jul 2010, 3:37 pm
Vol. 2, No. 20, July 19, 2010 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]
30 Dec 2020, 4:27 pm
Further, the legislative amendments to Section 25531 have “broken the once-tight link between the regulatory authority of the Public Utilities Commission (PUC) and powerplant siting decisions of the Energy Commission, such that the plenary power Article XII grants the Legislature over activities of the PUC no longer authorizes § 25531 (a). [read post]
16 Apr 2020, 3:00 am
Petitioners challenged the adequacy of the Draft Environmental Impact Report submitted by the Department of Water Resources in support of its request to extend its federal license from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (“FERC”) to operate the Oroville Dam and its related facilities. [read post]
30 Dec 2015, 7:28 pm
In 2013, the Federal District Court for the Eastern District of California ruled that farm drainage tiles were not point sources of pollution. [read post]
25 Sep 2008, 7:31 pm
But the government, which regulates cell phones through the Federal Communications Commission, has looked at this issue and concluded that the cancer claims are bogus. [read post]
23 Dec 2009, 4:42 pm
— Imelda V. [read post]
24 Sep 2018, 1:08 pm
Township of Scott, Pennsylvania (17-647): This case asks whether the Court should reconsider Williamson County Regional Planning Commission, v. [read post]
5 Nov 2020, 7:35 am
The department brought the case in a Northern California federal court, alleging the deal would eliminate the nascent but significant competitive threat that Plaid poses to Visa in the online debit market. [read post]
1 Sep 2021, 3:00 am
This case presents the following issues: (1) To what extent does the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. [read post]
1 Sep 2021, 3:00 am
This case presents the following issues: (1) To what extent does the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. [read post]
2 Aug 2010, 11:15 am
District Court for the Central District of California, Lifoam Industries is required to pay a $450,000 penalty and must vent all of its manufacturing emissions through an air pollution control device. [read post]
11 Feb 2022, 3:00 am
It classified waste coal as an alternative energy. [read post]
11 Oct 2017, 1:01 am
Given the agency’s reliance upon a mitigated negative declaration [read post]
11 Oct 2017, 1:01 am
Given the agency’s reliance upon a mitigated negative declaration [read post]
29 Dec 2021, 12:00 pm
In Milieudefensie et al. v. [read post]
16 Apr 2018, 4:48 pm
In the seminal prime bank case SEC v. [read post]
