Browsed by
Category: Student Posts

Yelling At The Rain: Why Pennsylvania’s Natural Gas Industry Has Nothing To Fear From A Norse Energy Outcome in Robinson Township v. Commonwealth

Yelling At The Rain: Why Pennsylvania’s Natural Gas Industry Has Nothing To Fear From A Norse Energy Outcome in Robinson Township v. Commonwealth

Comments 0 Comment

By: Brendan O’Regan, Associate On October 10, 2013, Norse Energy Corp. ASA, and its parent, Norse Energy Holdings, Inc., announced their conversions to Chapter 7 bankruptcy liquidations.[1] Norse Energy’s operations were concentrated on hydraulic fracturing of the Utica Shale (i.e., “fracking” of natural gas resources).[2] Though Norse Energy’s bankruptcy statement was limited to a few lines, its impetus for pulling out of the New York shale gas market was summed up by the Independent Oil & Gas Association of New…

Read More Read More

The Coosa River Hydroelectric Project: FERC’s Failure to Address Hydropower’s Impact on Rivers Through the FERC Relicensing Process

The Coosa River Hydroelectric Project: FERC’s Failure to Address Hydropower’s Impact on Rivers Through the FERC Relicensing Process

Comments 0 Comment

By: Whitney Fleshman, Associate Because climate change is one of the major environmental issues of the day, alternative energy (such as hydropower) will be integral to providing future energy needs. Though alternative energy may spare the air from greenhouse gas emissions, alternative energy sources can come with their own set of environmental impacts.[1] Dams that provide hydropower are currently the largest source of alternative energy within the United States.[2] Dams, however, often have a wide range of harmful effects on…

Read More Read More

EPA Proposes Effluent Limitation Guidelines for Steam Electric Power Plants: But Do They Do Enough?

EPA Proposes Effluent Limitation Guidelines for Steam Electric Power Plants: But Do They Do Enough?

Comments 0 Comment

By: Hina Gupta, Managing Editor Congress passed the Clean Water Act (“CWA”)[1] with a goal of eliminating the discharge of pollutants into navigable waters by 1985.[2] The Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) strives to accomplish this goal by establishing a level of technology available for distinct industrial point source category as “effluent limitation guidelines” (ELG) that will restrict the effluent discharge from the point sources at a certain level.[3] The CWA also establishes review and revision requirements for effluent limitations and…

Read More Read More

A Revival of Air Pollution Common Law? The Third Circuit’s Holding in Bell v. Cheswick Generation Station

A Revival of Air Pollution Common Law? The Third Circuit’s Holding in Bell v. Cheswick Generation Station

Comments 0 Comment

By: Andrea Grossman, Associate  The Third Circuit recently breathed new life into common law claims to combat air pollution with the holding in Bell v. Cheswick Generation Station.[1] Historically, air pollution was addressed through a variety of common law remedies, primarily trespass and private nuisance.[2] Over the past forty years, the creation and implementation of Federal statutory environmental laws, such as the Clean Air Act, has drastically reduced the number of common law actions brought to combat air pollution.[3] The…

Read More Read More

United States v. EME Homer City Generation, L.P.: Third Circuit Further Limits EPA’s Enforcement Authority Under the CAA’s PSD Provisions

United States v. EME Homer City Generation, L.P.: Third Circuit Further Limits EPA’s Enforcement Authority Under the CAA’s PSD Provisions

Comments 0 Comment

By: Spencer Piatt, Senior Notes Editor The Third Circuit’s decision in United States v. EME Homer City Generation, L.P. (“Homer City”)[1] is the most recent in a series of decisions from the U.S. Courts of Appeals that have undermined the Environmental Protection Agency’s (“EPA”) enforcement authority under the Clean Air Act (“CAA”). The Third Circuit joins the Seventh, Eighth, and Eleventh Circuits in holding that a violation of preconstruction permitting requirements applicable to a certain source is a one-time (rather…

Read More Read More

What if Iran isn’t Lying? Nuclear Energy could Greatly Reduce CO2

What if Iran isn’t Lying? Nuclear Energy could Greatly Reduce CO2

Comments 0 Comment

By: Joe Eggleston, Associate The Islamic Republic of Iran has maintained that it never sought a nuclear bomb and now says it never will.[1] For years, the world has almost uniformly rejected that claim as a lie. In May of 2011, President Obama authorized further sanctions on Iran[2] for enriching uranium to nearly twenty percent purity.[3] Most nuclear reactors used to produce electricity run on four percent uranium.[4] Much of the world has interpreted Iran’s ambitions to enrich twenty percent…

Read More Read More

Strong Opposition to EPA Proposed Carbon Emission Regulation Questions whether Carbon Sequestration Technology is Actually Available

Strong Opposition to EPA Proposed Carbon Emission Regulation Questions whether Carbon Sequestration Technology is Actually Available

Comments 0 Comment

By: Amanda Johnson, Associate The Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) newly proposed standards for greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from stationary sources only came out Friday September 20, 2013, and the standards are already facing strong opposition from industry[1] and its supporters.[2] The Administration previously proposed these standards on April 13, 2012 as emission standards for stationary fossil fuels sources.[3] The EPA chose to re-propose the rules making significant changes after receiving 2.5 million public comments to the April 2012 proposal, providing…

Read More Read More

Lessons from Hunter v. FERC: Barclays’ $453 Million Fight

Lessons from Hunter v. FERC: Barclays’ $453 Million Fight

Comments 3 comments

By: Adam Eldean, Senior Production Editor Introduction On July 16, 2013, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (“FERC”) issued an order assessing civil penalties for an alleged violation of FERC’s Anti-Manipulation Rule by Barclays Bank PLC (“Barclays”) for manipulative energy trading in and around California from November 2006 to December 2008.[1] The Order calls for $435 million in civil penalties against the company, $15 million for one of the traders, and $1 million each for three additional traders.[2] The Order also…

Read More Read More

Cornerstone of Species Protection or “For the Birds?”: Application of the ESA Take Prohibition in The Aransas Project v. Shaw

Cornerstone of Species Protection or “For the Birds?”: Application of the ESA Take Prohibition in The Aransas Project v. Shaw

Comments 0 Comment

By: Molly Masterton, Notes Editor Any day now, the Fifth Circuit may issue a ruling with immense implications for wildlife and natural resources management efforts in Texas and across the nation. The case is The Aransas Project v. Shaw, and it is one of only a handful of cases in which the federal Endangered Species Act (“ESA”)[1] has been enforced against a state agency.[2] The district court found state officials from the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (“TCEQ”) vicariously liable…

Read More Read More

Columbia River Treaty’s 49th Anniversary: Preparing for Upcoming Re-negotiations

Columbia River Treaty’s 49th Anniversary: Preparing for Upcoming Re-negotiations

Comments 0 Comment

By: Lauren Moldawer, Associate This September marks the forty-ninth anniversary of the United States and Canada’s Columbia River Treaty (Treaty),[1] which is one of the most sophisticated and important natural resource treaties to share in the world.[2] The Treaty provides the United States with “assured flood control” in exchange for providing Canada financial support for dam development and fifty percent of the hydropower produced downstream.[3] When ratified in 1964, the treaty was impermeable to change and could not be modified…

Read More Read More

%d bloggers like this: