Allen Matkins sknapp@allenmatkins.com https://video.allenmatkins.com en-us Visualplatform http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss Allen Matkins episodic no https://video.allenmatkins.com/files/rv0.0/sitelogo.gif https://video.allenmatkins.com http://video.allenmatkins.com/sackett-v-epa-supreme-court <p><a href="http://www.allenmatkins.com">http://www.allenmatkins.com</a><br /> A unanimous Supreme Court held, on March 21, 2012, that parties who receive administrative compliance orders from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") under the authority of the federal Clean Water Act are entitled to "pre-enforcement review," that is, they may bring lawsuits to challenge the jurisdictional basis for such orders in court. When EPA determines that a person is discharging a pollutant into the "waters of the United States" without a permit, the Clean Water Act requires EPA either to issue a compliance order or to file a lawsuit to enforce the Act's requirements. Compliance orders have become a preferred tool for EPA to obtain quick remediation through "voluntary compliance." Parties who questioned the government's assertion of federal jurisdiction over their property either had to obey the government's compliance order, thereby losing the benefits of their ownership of their land, or refuse to comply, thereby risking ruinous liability for penalties of up to $37,500 per day if EPA decided to sue and the court decided that the government had properly asserted federal jurisdiction.</p><p><a href="http://video.allenmatkins.com/sackett-v-epa-supreme-court"><img src="http://video.allenmatkins.com/4465687/38733530/4f7750de0305a70166e89a1e41a43aae/standard/download-5-thumbnail.jpg" width="1200" height="960"/></a></p> http://video.allenmatkins.com/photo/38733530 Wed, 04 Apr 2012 17:00:00 GMT Sackett v EPA - Supreme Court Authorizes Pre-Enforcement Review of Clean... http://www.allenmatkins.com A unanimous Supreme Court held, on March 21, 2012, that parties who receive administrative compliance orders from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") under the authority of the federal Clean Water Act are entitled to "pre-enforcement review," that is, they may bring lawsuits to challenge the jurisdictional basis for such orders in court. When EPA determines that a person is discharging a pollutant into the "waters of the United States" without a permit, the Clean Water Act requires EPA either to issue a compliance order or to file a lawsuit to enforce the Act's requirements. Compliance orders have become a preferred tool for EPA to obtain quick remediation through "voluntary compliance." Parties who questioned the government's assertion of federal jurisdiction over their property either had to obey the government's compliance order, thereby losing the benefits of their ownership of their land, or refuse to comply, thereby risking ruinous liability for penalties of up to $37,500 per day if EPA decided to sue and the court decided that the government had properly asserted federal jurisdiction. http://www.allenmatkins.com A unanimous Supreme Court held, on March 21, 2012, that parties who receive administrative compliance orders from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") under the authority of the federal Clean Water Act are... Allen Matkins 03:55 <p><a href="http://www.allenmatkins.com">http://www.allenmatkins.com</a><br /> A unanimous Supreme Court held, on March 21, 2012, that parties who receive administrative compliance orders from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") under the authority of the federal Clean Water Act are entitled to "pre-enforcement review," that is, they may bring lawsuits to challenge the jurisdictional basis for such orders in court. When EPA determines that a person is discharging a pollutant into the "waters of the United States" without a permit, the Clean Water Act requires EPA either to issue a compliance order or to file a lawsuit to enforce the Act's requirements. Compliance orders have become a preferred tool for EPA to obtain quick remediation through "voluntary compliance." Parties who questioned the government's assertion of federal jurisdiction over their property either had to obey the government's compliance order, thereby losing the benefits of their ownership of their land, or refuse to comply, thereby risking ruinous liability for penalties of up to $37,500 per day if EPA decided to sue and the court decided that the government had properly asserted federal jurisdiction.</p><p><a href="http://video.allenmatkins.com/sackett-v-epa-supreme-court"><img src="http://video.allenmatkins.com/4465687/38733530/4f7750de0305a70166e89a1e41a43aae/standard/download-5-thumbnail.jpg" width="1200" height="960"/></a></p> Allen Matkins Clean Water Act David Cooke environment US Supreme Court http://video.allenmatkins.com/cap-and-trade-californias <p>California's cap-and-trade plan proposes to put a cap in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions for some industries and create a market to trade the right to create pollution. Over time, the right to emit greenhouse gases is reduced, but emitters can use market forces through quarterly auctions to determine at what point it makes more sense to implement reductions and sell their emission rights, or invest in retrofitting systems and buying others' right to emit GHGs. The concern is that this plan will cause some companies to leave California to other states.</p><p><a href="http://video.allenmatkins.com/cap-and-trade-californias"><img src="http://video.allenmatkins.com/27288175/38733544/be548f8ca1273fb3b727de267494a001/standard/download-5-thumbnail.jpg" width="1200" height="960"/></a></p> http://video.allenmatkins.com/photo/38733544 Tue, 12 Jul 2011 17:00:00 GMT Cap-and-Trade: California's Controversial Plan to Reduce Greenhouse Gas... California's cap-and-trade plan proposes to put a cap in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions for some industries and create a market to trade the right to create pollution. Over time, the right to emit greenhouse gases is reduced, but emitters can use market forces through quarterly auctions to determine at what point it makes more sense to implement reductions and sell their emission rights, or invest in retrofitting systems and buying others' right to emit GHGs. The concern is that this plan will cause some companies to leave California to other states. California's cap-and-trade plan proposes to put a cap in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions for some industries and create a market to trade the right to create pollution. Over time, the right to emit greenhouse gases is reduced, but emitters can use... Allen Matkins 03:04 <p>California's cap-and-trade plan proposes to put a cap in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions for some industries and create a market to trade the right to create pollution. Over time, the right to emit greenhouse gases is reduced, but emitters can use market forces through quarterly auctions to determine at what point it makes more sense to implement reductions and sell their emission rights, or invest in retrofitting systems and buying others' right to emit GHGs. The concern is that this plan will cause some companies to leave California to other states.</p><p><a href="http://video.allenmatkins.com/cap-and-trade-californias"><img src="http://video.allenmatkins.com/27288175/38733544/be548f8ca1273fb3b727de267494a001/standard/download-5-thumbnail.jpg" width="1200" height="960"/></a></p> Allen Matkins attorneys California Cap and Trade CARB David Cooke GHG greenhouse gases legislation market reductions