Court Decisions Oregon Statute 
ClimateChange-ClimateLaw
APRIL 18, 2023
In 2021, the District Court ruled that the Berkeley ordinance was not preempted by EPCA , rejecting the notion that EPCA preempts local ordinances that do “not facially address any of those [energy conservation or energy use] standards.” Under EPCA, the U.S. Berkeley has not yet said whether it will appeal the Ninth Circuit’s ruling.
ClimateChange-ClimateLaw
DECEMBER 11, 2020
A Hawaii court held that the Hawai‘i Environmental Policy Act requires environmental review for commercial taking of aquarium fish and that Department of Land and Natural Resources issuance and renewal of licenses for commercial aquarium collection without environmental review was invalid and illegal. Oregon Department of Energy , No.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
ClimateChange-ClimateLaw
JULY 6, 2017
Circuit also rejected EPA’s argument that the court did not have authority to review stays issued under Section 307(d)(7)(D) of the Clean Air Act. The Second Circuit said the Connecticut statutes authorizing the solicitations did not compel utilities to enter into contracts with specific bidders. Klee , Nos. June 28, 2017).
ClimateChange-ClimateLaw
OCTOBER 7, 2019
The federal district court for the District of South Dakota temporarily enjoined enforcement of provisions of a riot boosting statute enacted in South Dakota in 2019 in response to anticipated protests of the Keystone XL pipeline. Minnesota Supreme Court Declined to Review Claims Regarding Environmental Review for Oil Pipeline.
ClimateChange-ClimateLaw
APRIL 23, 2021
Environmental Protection Agency to regulate greenhouse gases, and that this authority may prove central to addressing climate change under the statute. Indeed, the plain meaning of the statute, its structure, and its purposes all support the Second Circuit’s conclusion. A summary is available here.)
ClimateChange-ClimateLaw
JUNE 8, 2021
Supreme Court held that the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals erred when it concluded that its review of the remand order in Baltimore’s climate change case against fossil fuel companies was limited to determining whether the defendants properly removed the case under the federal officer removal statute.
ClimateChange-ClimateLaw
JULY 2, 2021
The Court held that the provision used “extension” in its “temporal sense,” but that the statute did not impose a “continuity requirement” and instead allowed small refineries to apply for hardship extensions “at any time.” In re Enbridge Energy, LP , Nos.
Expert insights. Personalized for you.
122 
Let's personalize your content