EPA filed a new type of NSR case yesterday against Oklahoma Gas & Electric (OG&E).  Instead of claiming that emissions increased and that the utility conducted a “major modification” without a required permit, EPA is claiming that OG&E failed to prepare proper emission projections in the notifications that it provided to the state permitting authority for the following 8 projects, which OG&E conducted between 2003 and 2006:

Support for the Chemical Safety Improvement Act – a vehicle for revising the Toxic Substances Control Act (“TSCA”) – is growing and has bipartisan support in Congress. In the July 2013 issue of Electrical Apparatus, Troutman Sanders attorney Angela Levin states, “I think a big impetus has been the flame retardant industry…That has been one of the focuses that has triggered additional reform efforts.”

Randy Brogdon, Troutman Sanders environmental practice co-chair, was quoted in Law360’s June 25th article on President Obama’s speech which outlined new measures to reduce the country’s carbon footprint. The President tied the controversial Keystone XL pipeline’s fate to the emissions it will cause, a move attorneys say will make it more difficult for the project to win the administration’s approval.“If you read between the lines, its very difficult to come up with a case for Keystone in which there would be no carbon impact going forward,” Brogdon said.

In May, Senators Frank Lautenberg, D-NJ and David Vitter, R-LA introduced a bipartisan bill that would overhaul the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). While the Senate has debated the concept of TSCA reform for several years now, the introduction of this bipartisan bill represents the start of a serious
conversation…

Full disclosure and strict compliance with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permitting process under the Clean Water Act (CWA) has its benefits. That was the message delivered in a recent decision by the Federal District Court of Alaska in Alaska Community Action on Toxics v. Aurora Energy Services.

In February, the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) signed a proposed rule that requires states to virtually eliminate longstanding, previously EPA-approved air rules governing emissions from “startup, shutdown, or malfunction” (SSM) events. These rules are relied on by all types of emission sources across the country.

The United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit today refused to rehear a decision of a three-judge panel of the court that overturned EPA’s Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR). CSAPR addressed the interstate transport of pollutants emitted by electric generating units located in the eastern two-thirds of the country. The panel decision in the EME Homer City v. EPA case, issued on August 21, 2012, found that EPA had misinterpreted underlying statutory requirements. One of the panelists, Judge Judith Rogers, issued a lengthy and sharp dissent. EPA and state and environmental supporters then asked the panel to reconsider its decision and also asked the full court to rehear the decision on banc. The three judge panel today refused to reconsider its decision, with Judge Rogers again dissenting, and the full court refused to rehear the case en banc, with no judge dissenting.