TITLE

Ruling puts road funds in jeopardy

AUTHOR(S)
Kinnander, Ola
PUB. DATE
March 1999
SOURCE
Bond Buyer;03/29/99, Vol. 327 Issue 30608, p1
SOURCE TYPE
Trade Publication
DOC. TYPE
Article
ABSTRACT
Reports on the potential impact of a federal court ruling that struck down the United States Environmental Protection Agency's existing air pollution policy on federal funding of highway projects. Claims of Environmental Defense Fund Inc. in its lawsuit against the agency; Highway projects affected by the ruling.
ACCESSION #
1709794

 

Related Articles

  • Utilities challenge EPA emissions review. Herbert, Emily; Ellison, Evelyn; Culbertson, Katie // Indianapolis Business Journal;12/22/97, Vol. 18 Issue 41, p4 

    Reports on the lawsuit that Midwest Ozone Group, a coalition of electric utilities, filed against the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Complaint regarding a review of emissions by the EPA; Companies that are members of the coalition; Allegations made by eight northeastern states who...

  • Conformity as Catalyst: Environmental Defense Fund v. Environmental Protection Agency. Yame, Michael R. // Ecology Law Quarterly;2000, Vol. 27 Issue 3, p841 

    Argues that the United States Court of Appeals has correctly overturned Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulations that undermined the conformity provision of the 1990 Clean Air Act in the Environmental Defense Fund versus EPA case. Relationship between air quality and vehicle miles...

  • $950,000 awarded to five EPA employees in IAQ suit. Bas, Ed // Air Conditioning Heating & Refrigeration News;1/10/94, Vol. 191 Issue 2, p1 

    Reports on the awarding of financial damages to five Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) employees for ailments they claim are related to indoor air quality. Lawsuit filed against SEW Investors, owners of a building leased by the EPA in Washington, D.C.; Reactions to the court decision.

  • REGULATION. Sissell, Kara; Franz, Neil // Chemical Week;8/22/2001, Vol. 163 Issue 32, p8 

    Presents news briefs related to chemical regulation in the United States as of August 22, 2001. Plan of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to propose a program for the reduction of power plant emissions; Plan of EPA to ease enforcement of the New Source Review program, which has targeted...

  • 'Fundamentally flawed' US pollution law thrown out.  // Nature;7/17/2008, Vol. 454 Issue 7202, p265 

    This article discusses the rejection of the U.S. Clean Air Interstate Rule by an appeals court. This rule established a market-based set of pollution control regulations intended to limit the emission of nitrogen oxides and sulphur dioxide. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was...

  • Luminant, AEP to Mothball Coal Units, Implement Derates on CSAPR Compliance Concerns. Patel, Sonal // Coal Power;Sep/Oct2011, p6 

    The article reports on the filing of a legal challenge by Luminant against the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Cross State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR). The Dallas, Texas-based company has confirmed that the newly finalized rule has forced it to close two coal-fired units. According...

  • 60 Seconds.  // New Scientist;7/4/2015, Vol. 227 Issue 3028, p5 

    The article offers news briefs related to science. The Lancashire, England County Council denied the energy company Cuadrilla the bid to engage in hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, in Little Plumpton, England. The record for time spent in Outer Space was set by Russian cosmonaut Gennady Padalka...

  • Settlement Doesn't Affect IGCC Status as BACT. Blankinship, Steve // Power Engineering;Nov2006, Vol. 110 Issue 11, p30 

    The article offers information on a settlement proposal announced by the U.S. Justice Department between the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and various environmental organizations. Environmental Defense, Montana Environmental Information Center and other groups would withdraw their...

  • EPA Needs To Consider Costs. Investor's Business Daily // Investors Business Daily;6/30/2015, pA01 

    3 The Supreme Court ruled that the Environmental Protection Agency unreasonably failed to consider costs when it decided to regulate air pollutants more heavily at power plants. The 2012 rules covered oil-fired and coal-burning plants. Plaintiffs included 23 states plus trade groups such as the...

Share

Read the Article

Courtesy of VIRGINIA BEACH PUBLIC LIBRARY AND SYSTEM

Sorry, but this item is not currently available from your library.

Try another library?
Sign out of this library

Other Topics