The Capital Times’ Post

An #environmentaljustice law is long overdue in #Maine. Other states in #NewEngland, including #Vermont and #Massachusetts, have already enacted such laws, and it's time for Maine to start catching up. Conservation Law Foundation and our partners have been developing and supporting an environmental justice law, LD 1621, which is an important step toward protecting all people in Maine from environmental harms. This bill is just a first step, and it needs funding before it can move forward. Read more about it in my blog: https://lnkd.in/dG6P3ZC9

I recently wrote a blog for the Environmental Law & Policy Center addressing the absence of environmental review within the planning process for logging activities in our national forests. Billions of dollars worth of timber are harvested annually from federally protected forests without a high-level review of its effect on our environment or climate change. You can check out the blog by following this link: https://lnkd.in/g-nxdN6Z

Environmentalists See Some Upsides to Court’s New Limits on EPA Powers Inside EPA July 5, 2024 Environmentalists suggest that the Supreme Court’s Loper Bright ruling overturning Chevron deference for federal agencies could create opportunities to enforce strict environmental statutes, despite concerns it may weaken the EPA’s power to interpret laws. Craig Segall from Evergreen Action warns that the ruling might lead to rigorous enforcement of broadly written statutes. Evergreen Action plans to release a memo highlighting old, business-friendly EPA policies vulnerable to challenges. The Supreme Court’s June 28 ruling in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, along with the July 1 ruling in Corner Post Inc. v. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, extends the time to challenge federal actions, raising questions about older agency actions related to environmental protections. Legal experts, including Harvard’s Jody Freeman, acknowledge the potential for increased legal challenges but also foresee opportunities for agencies to argue statutory requirements in court. Evergreen’s Segall sees the court rulings as setbacks but also as an opportunity to challenge industry-friendly EPA guidance documents and policies, particularly those related to air and water pollution. Evergreen’s upcoming memo cites potential targets, such as old guidance documents for air permits and vehicle emissions regulations, which they argue should be reconsidered in light of the rulings. The memo criticizes the Supreme Court’s recent decisions but calls for continued efforts to enforce environmental laws and challenge industry-friendly interpretations. Evergreen suggests that despite hurdles, the court rulings open new avenues for environmentalists to challenge outdated policies and push for stricter implementation of environmental laws. The memo encourages the environmental movement to match corporate efforts in leveraging the court’s decisions for environmental protection. https://lnkd.in/eZEXnbn3

📅 ⭐ What a year it's been! Fuller reflections to follow, but for now here are some edited highlights on #legal hotspots and wins🏆for the #environment. 🌟The first is the HUGE win on the Retained EU Law Act in which environmental campaigners, business, trade unions and parliamentarians persuaded the government to abandon its damaging plans which could have caused 1000s of laws to be lost at the end of this year. 🙏🙏🙏 all those who highlighted the impact of the plans and explained why common sense needed to prevail. 🔍The Act is not benign as it contains sweeping powers which will need meticulous scrutiny to prevent misuse and to ensure that the government honours commitments on public consultation and maintaining high standards of protection for environmental and consumer rights. 🦋As we've seen over recent months. the environment is not immune from political game playing 🎰. In September, the government attempted to dismantle protections for our most important nature sites from water pollution by sneaking in last minute amendments to the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill. ⚡Rapid mobilisation (h/t Green Alliance Wildlife and Countryside Link and parliamentarians from across the political spectrum) meant these damaging plans were seen off. There is no doubt that government pledges to uphold environmental protections will be policed🚨scrupulously by parliamentarians and campaigners. 🙏Finally, some reasons to be cheerful... 💪2024 will conclude the first real test of The Office for Environmental Protection enforcement powers. Many of us fought endlessly for the 'watchdog's teeth' so there will be a huge public interest in how it resolves the potential environmental law breaches on combined sewer overflows🌊 💩 ⚖Environmentally progressive legislation continues to require significant heft to secure a safe landing zone. But this year we've seen new commitments for the UK Infrastructure Bank on nature, a strengthening of the responsibilities of public authorities to support #nationalparks and the cranking up of action to cease UK financing of illegal deforestation all move forward 🏦 💷 ⏰Implementation continues to present challenges as measures progress slowly or lack available vehicles - the horticultural peat ban and replacement protections for hedgerows must be🔝priorities for early 2024. 👍Thanks to Shosha Adie Pippa Neill The ENDS Report for their diligent cataloguing and reporting throughout the year. https://lnkd.in/e65sKf-J

In recent years, the U.S. Supreme Court has become an abattoir for environmental laws. The casualties so far include a comprehensive plan to control greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from power plants, Clean Water Act protections for a hundred million acresacre of wetlands, and — soon — the Chevron deference principle that has kept judges from second-guessing many of EPA’s regulations. On February 21, the Supreme Court will hear arguments in yet another challenge by industries and conservative states to a federal regulation. And yet again, the Court isn’t just threatening our health. It’s challenging the legal principles that used to limit the power of unelected judges in our society. As with many of the Supreme Court’s recent forays into environmental law, the Court is hearing Ohio v. EPA in an unprecedented context. No lower court has said that the regulation at issue violates the law. Instead, industry and their allies are asking the Court to temporarily block the regulation even though a lower court refused to do so before ruling on its validity — and they aren’t asking the high court to rule on the regulation’s validity itself.

We need your help to protect access to legal action for Florida’s waterways. This vote is coming up very quickly! If you follow the link to the Tampa Bay Waterkeeper's site, there is a place that lets you write your state senator asap. The Florida Legislature is trying to strip us - conservation organizations and concerned citizens like yourself - of the power to go to court to enforce environmental laws. Senate Bill 738 and House Bill 739 (entitled ‘Environmental Management’) would require the losing party in many environmental lawsuits to pay the court costs and attorney fees of the other parties. This is an attempt by the legislature to stop groups from challenging environmentally destructive permits by threatening us with financial ruin. Bottom Line: SB 738 and HB 739 will make it harder for advocates to take polluters to court to protect the environment. #tampabaywaterkeeper #waterkeeper #holdpullutersaccountable #cleanwater #waterkeepersflorida

Supreme Court ruling could jeopardize California's environmental rules A recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling will probably pave the way for more legal challenges — and potential setbacks — for California's groundbreaking clean air rules and myriad other federal environmental protections. In a 6-3 decision last week, the Supreme Court overturned the so-called Chevron doctrine, a long-standing legal precedent that instructed U.S. courts to rely on federal agencies to interpret ambiguous laws. By invalidating the legal doctrine, the nation's highest court has effectively stripped power from federal administrative agencies, such as the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and handed more authority to U.S. courts to independently decide whether newly enacted rules are consistent with federal law. The six justices voting to overturn the deference rule were appointed by Republican presidents, including Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., who wrote the majority opinion. The decision was repudiated by Justice Elena Kagan, who dissented along with Justices Ketanji Brown Jackson and Sonia Sotomayor — all of whom were appointed by Democratic presidents. "What actions can be taken to address climate change or other environmental challenges?" Kagan asked. "What will the nation’s health-care system look like in the coming decades? Or the financial or transportation systems? What rules are going to constrain the development of A.I.? "In every sphere of current or future federal regulation, expect courts from now on to play a commanding role." After years of political divisiveness and congressional gridlock, the U.S. EPA has been forced to use decades-old environmental laws to craft modern regulations to slow climate change and crack down on pollution from new industries. Legal experts say the ruling could have a chilling effect on ambitious federal rulemaking, which will now be subject to a federal judiciary filled with Trump appointees. This may also spell trouble for California's ambitious rules for vehicle emissions, which have relied on Obama- and Biden-era interpretations of the Clean Air Act — a law last amended in 1990 that doesn't even mention greenhouse gases. With at least nine of California's clean air rules awaiting EPA approval, the Supreme Court decision raises the stakes on the numerous court battles over the state's zero-emission vehicle mandates and other emissions standards. "While the courts are entitled to hear what the agency thinks, they don't have to respect it," said Julia Stein, deputy director for the Emmett Institute on Climate Change and the Environment at UCLA School of Law. "They're open to adopt their own interpretation." The Supreme Court ruling could also have implications for the Clean Water Act, which regulates pollution into bodies of water.

U.S. environmental law, while relatively young, has been a cornerstone of public health. The EPA and landmark acts like the Clean Air and Clean Water acts have shaped a safer environment for all. However, the Supreme Court's recent decision to overturn Chevron deference threatens these protections, shifting power from scientific experts to judges. This change highlights the importance of taking proactive steps to maintain our health. KingsleyAirUSA is at the forefront of this effort, providing top-of-the-line air purifiers to ensure the air you breathe remains clean and safe. As we navigate these changes, let's support the businesses that prioritize our well-being and continue advocating for strong environmental safeguards. https://lnkd.in/g7J688Kb

When it comes to environmental law and regulations, the only question now remaining is when—and not if—the courts will be asked to resolve contentious issues, says Crowell & Moring’s Elizabeth Dawson. Read more in the #LitigationForecast:

The fate of Arizona's recent environmental legislation: 25 bills introduced, one new law - by Joan Meiners, Arizona Republic It's hard out here for environmental legislation. A new analysis by The Arizona Republic found that out of nine pro-environment bills introduced at the Arizona Legislature in 2024 and 16 introduced the previous year, only three were granted a committee hearing, leaving the remaining 22 bills no chance to receive votes from state lawmakers and advance into law. Of those three, Arizona lawmakers codified just one bill into mandates for the environment. And it simply allows utilities to file applications for environmental certificates electronically instead of on paper. During two years when the state toppled more heat records than in any previous period and struggled to manage the associated deaths, alongside unprecedented water cuts, population growing pains and intensifying climate extremes, its Legislature accomplished almost nothing toward addressing these challenges. In contrast, The Republic found that 12 out of 20 introduced bills identified by environmentalists as counterproductive to protections for water, climate and environmental justice passed in both the Arizona Senate and House in 2024. In 2023, eight of 16 anti-environment bills passed. This is partly the result of the GOP-led Arizona Legislature holding votes on 89% of the introduced bills environmental groups opposed, compared to only 12% of those they supported. Ultimately, six of those 20 anti-environment bills passed by both chambers were signed into law, while Arizona Gov. Katie Hobbs vetoed 13 and one was held for reconsideration. The new laws make limited groundwater more available to developers, exempt certain electricity transmission lines from the environmental impact review process and prohibit using state transportation tax funds to expand cleaner transit options. "The 2024 legislative session was disappointing," said Sandy Bahr, who directs the Sierra Club's Grand Canyon Chapter and weighed in on which bills environmentalists in Arizona should support or oppose. "Legislators again missed opportunities to act on climate, act on environmental justice or do anything meaningful on water and, unfortunately, actually passed water legislation that does more harm than good. They failed to address Arizona's rural groundwater issues or protect any rivers or streams." To read the entire article click on the link below or read it in the comments section. https://lnkd.in/gJUKPptC