Perspectives on Environmental

Twenty-two months into the Trump Administration and a trend has become abundantly clear: courts are profoundly skeptical of the Trump Administration’s use of executive orders to undo or undercut regulations.

Schiff Hardin announced today that the firm has received 40 top-tier rankings and national recognition for its premier practices in the 2019 edition of U.S. News – Best Lawyers® “Best Law Firms.”

In a key decision earlier this month with potentially hefty ongoing implications for developers and property owners, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit held a chemical company liable for nearly $1 million in pre-acquisition cleanup costs.

Much has been written about the problem of the stagnating electricity market due to a combination of falling demand, widespread energy efficiency initiatives, lower electricity costs, and aging infrastructure.

Long-anticipated changes to California’s Proposition 65 warning requirements took effect on August 30, 2018, through amendments and new rules issued by the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment.

Partner David Loring was quoted on the rollback of restrictions on gas wells’ venting and flaring on federal and tribal lands as a sign that the Trump Administration may intend to shift the responsibility of regulating methane emissions.

Streamlining environmental reviews and permitting for infrastructure projects is a major objective of United States President Donald Trump.

Last Thursday, the South Carolina District Court reinstated the Obama-era definition of “waters of the United States” (WOTUS) in roughly half the country, furthering the ambiguity in the never-ending saga over how to define WOTUS under the Clean Water Act.

The EPA kicked off the week with the proposed Affordable Clean Energy (ACE) rule, which is meant to replace the Clean Power Plan (CPP).

Continuing reductions in environmental regulations across the power industry may seem like a good time for the C-suite to direct energy and attention towards other key priorities, but there is another force steadily working to tug reform back over the line — highly organized and increasingly strateg

Administrative deference is a fundamental tenet of environmental law. A recent decision in Los Angeles Waterkeeper v. Pruitt, however, provides an important reminder that agency deference is bound by the four corners of the underlying statute.

The Trump Administration rolled out its anticipated rules on fuel efficiency and emissions standards for model years 2021-2026 last week.

Partner Sarah Fitts was quoted on the anticipated legal battle likely to follow the Trump Administration’s announced plan to roll back greenhouse gas (GHG) vehicle emissions standards and prevent states, California in particular, from setting their own requirements on GHG regulations.

Last week, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit unanimously rejected challenges by environmental and industry groups to the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Clean Water Act (CWA) cooling water intake structure permit rule (Rule)

The Clean Water Act (CWA) term “waters of the United States” (WOTUS) has become an evolving term with an often squishy definition leading to considerable litigation.

As citizen scientists and environmental non-governmental organizations (NGOs) have stepped up to fill what they have called an enforcement gap since President Trump took office, the NGO playbook has become more complex and creative than perhaps ever before.

Since the early days of the Trump Administration, our blog has regularly covered the Administration’s various attempts at regulatory reform.

Administrative deference – in essence, that courts resolve close questions in favor of “expert” agencies – is a cornerstone of environmental practice and we’ve blogged frequently on this issue. Courts question agencies, however, when their decisions do not square with cited evidence.

Streamlining environmental reviews and permitting for infrastructure projects is a major objective of President Trump.

Schiff Hardin is pleased to announce that four practice areas and 22 attorneys have been recognized in the 2018 edition of Chambers USA, a leading legal industry ranking.

The Trump Administration continues to prioritize guidance-driven revisions to federal regulatory programs to reduce the impact of administrative review and permitting on development.

This week, the Fourth Circuit issued a decision in Upstate Forever v. Kinder Morgan Energy Partners, L.P. that addresses three key issues arising in many federal Clean Water Act (CWA) cases:

On April 3, 2018, the Illinois Commerce Commission (ICC) approved, with a number of substantial modifications, the Illinois Power Agency’s (IPA) first “long term renewable resources procurement plan” under the Illinois Future Energy Jobs Act (Illinois Public Act 99-0906.

“Standing” – a person’s right to sue someone else for injury – is a fundamental issue in every case. In 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Spokeo v. Robins, which required that a person’s injury be both “concrete” and “particularized” to confer standing.

Investor demands for climate change-related reports and risk disclosures in public filings are sometimes dismissed as socially or politically driven, but for many companies, the impact of climate change may pose genuine business risks that, like any other material risk, must be disclosed to investor