Jump to Navigation
Jump to Content

"Modification" construed

New York v. EPA

The court vacates the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's equipment replacement provision (ERP) rule, which expanded the routine maintenance, repair, and replacement exclusion from new source review (NSR) requirements by allowing...

United States v. Duke Energy Corp.

The court affirmed a lower court's grant of summary judgment in favor of a power company charged with modifying its power plants without first obtaining permits in violation of the Clean Air Act's (CAA's) prevention of significant...

Considering Alternatives: The Case for Limiting CO2 Emissions From New Power Plants Through New Source Review

Anthropogenic emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) and other greenhouse gases are changing the earth's climate in ways that could lead to catastrophe. The United States is the largest emitter of these gases, producing almost one-fourth of...

A Tale of Two Theories: The Legal Basis for EPA's Proposed Revision to the Routine Maintenance, Repair, and Replacement Exception, and the Implications for Administrative Law

How many lawyers, regulators, engineers, and contractors does it take to change a light bulb? Lots, if you happen to be changing the light bulb at a "stationary source" of pollution, and the bulb change counts as a "modification" of the...

United States v. Ohio Edison Co.

The court holds that an electric utility violated the Clean Air Act (CAA) when it completed 11 construction activities that modified a coal-fired electric-generating facility without first calculating post-construction emissions and...

The Proposed WEPCo Rule: Making the Problem Fit the Solution

Editors' Summary: EPA's final decision on its proposed WEPCo rule, which addresses how new Clean Air Act provisions apply to electric utilities, is expected soon. This Article provides a glimpse into the regulatory machinery needed...