TITLE

Court Upholds EPA on Clean Air

PUB. DATE
August 2006
SOURCE
ENR: Engineering News-Record;8/21/2006, Vol. 257 Issue 8, p7
SOURCE TYPE
Trade Publication
DOC. TYPE
Article
ABSTRACT
This article reports on the ruling of a federal appeals court in Chicago, Illinois regarding the Clean Air Act lawsuit filed by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) against Cinergy Corp. EPA in 1999 sued Cinergy, now merged with Duke Energy, saying Cinergy's coal-fired Midwestern powerplants violated New Source Review because repairs increased the units' annual emission rates.
ACCESSION #
22267125

 

Related Articles

  • THIRD UTILITY SETTLES WITH EPA.  // ENR: Engineering News-Record;01/22/2001, Vol. 246 Issue 3, p20 

    Focuses on the settlement agreement between Cincinnati, Ohio-based Cinergy Corp. and the United States Department of Justice over a lawsuit filed by the Environmental Protection Agency in 2000. Major components of the settlement; Terms of the agreement.

  • Cinergy Wins on 10 of 14 Counts in New Source Review Enforcement Case.  // Venulex Legal Summaries;2008 Q2, following p2 

    The article reports that Cinergy won ten of the 14 counts leveled against it by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in the U.S., under its New Source Review (NSR) program. it is noted that over 50 repair and replacement projects conducted by the company needed additional permitting and...

  • City of Louisville wants to join Cinergy suit brought by EPA.  // Indianapolis Business Journal;5/17/2004, Vol. 25 Issue 10, p16 

    Reports that the city of Louisville, Kentucky is planning to join a lawsuit filed by the United States Environmental Protection Agency against Cincinnati, Ohio-based Cinergy Corp., claiming emissions from the utility's Gallagher plant violate clean air standards. Filing of the lawsuit in...

  • Air pollution rule put on hold. Sterling, Ed // Graham Leader;1/11/2012, Vol. 136 Issue 43, p3B 

    The article reports that the District of Columbia Court of Appeals has approved Texas' request for a stay to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Cross State Air Pollution Rule.

  • Michigan v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Brodeur, Nathan J. // Ecology Law Quarterly;2001, Vol. 28 Issue 2, p275 

    The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit largely upheld an Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) rule mandating that twenty-two states and the District of Columbia revise their state implementation plans (SIPs) to reduce nitrogen oxide emissions in order to mitigate...

  • RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW. Prasad, Anupama; Schimmel, Ruth; Abbott, Marion; Shipp, Allison; Reinhard, Taylor H.; Lasoski, Rebecca; Chalke, Brett // Tulane Environmental Law Journal;Jun2011, Vol. 24 Issue 2, p423 

    The article focuses on the improvement of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in the environmental law. It states that the EPA cleaned up the contaminated water used to suppress the fire which occurred at a tire recycling facility owned by Watertown Tire Recyclers LLC since it was the...

  • Environmental Protection... auto lead emission. Ashman, Allan // American Bar Association Journal;May75, Vol. 61 Issue 5, p633 

    Focuses on a U.S. appellate court's review of regulations promulgated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) pursuant to Section 211(c)(1)(A) of the Clean Air Act. Phased reduction of the lead content of motor vehicle gasoline; Contribution of automobile emissions to blood lead...

  • Who's Gonna Protect You? Bahls, Steven C.; Bahls, Jane Easter // Entrepreneur;Sep2001, Vol. 29 Issue 9, p70 

    Focuses on the ruling of the United States (U.S.) Supreme Court that gives authority to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to issue standards without regarding implementation costs. Effects of the ruling on businesses; Role of the U.S. Congress in determining how to balance public interest...

  • EPA's mercury pollution plan broke Clean Air Act, court rules.  // Nation's Health;Apr2008, Vol. 38 Issue 3, p6 

    This article discusses the decision by a U.S. court of appeals in February 2008 that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) violated federal law by allowing power plants to sidestep stringent rules on mercury pollution. The suit stems from EPA's 2005 Clean Air Mercury Rule, which exempted...

Share

Read the Article

Courtesy of THE LIBRARY OF VIRGINIA

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

Try another library?
Sign out of this library

Other Topics