Supporting the West Baton Rouge Chamber of Commerce 2024 Industry Roundtable Luncheon where panelists will cover topics on key political, economic and environmental issues affecting the industrial and petrochemical industry.
Great event Anna Johnson!
Sharing correct information is key. To this date, I am genuinely trying to research and learn WHY California imports 75% of its #oil from #overseas while we have it locally in our own backyard, and so far, no expert was able to chime in on this very specific and direct question. #environmental #oilandgas #localresources #california #habitat #import #energy #energydependence
Did You Know? CRC has operational control of 97 fields in California that produce lower carbon intensity oil supplies than barrels imported from countries that do not share the state’s leading safety, labor, human rights and environmental standards.
Digital Media Manager at Lowenstein Sandler LLP | Social Media Strategist | Legal Marketer | Graphic Designer | Etsy Shop Owner | Content Creator
Don't miss out on the opportunity to learn more about radioactive materials in toxic tort cases. Save the date for DRI's Toxic Torts and Environmental Law Seminar on March 21. #environmentallaw #environmentalprotection #environmentalsustainability #environmentalremediation #lawyers
In all aspects of due diligence, the goal is the same: How do we get the project for our investors through the approval cycle with the least risk, time and expense? In an I.CON West conference panel session, four experts discussed slightly different aspects of due diligence practices (political; biological, and resource; California Environmental Quality Act, if applicable; and site selection). Check it out at https://lnkd.in/e5mFt3ve. #NAIOPCLT
Chlorine Caper: Is a real concerned citizen’s group worried about chlorine production in Vancouver? Or is it a covert campaign secretly funded by a competitor? Read our joint IJF/CBC investigation:
⏰🚛1 week until the biggest change in how the plant sector trades with the EU 🪴Key concerns on capability, capacity & costs remain https://ow.ly/MBb450RmnmP 🪴We need to work together to address risks & monitor impacts https://ow.ly/RmZj50RmnmO 🪴Member support on preparedness & our repeated ask for an easement is top priority https://ow.ly/TVSI50RmnmM
Read more from Patti Santelle, Lynndon Groff and Morgan Liptak in the The Legal Intelligencer’s Special Section: 2024 Energy/Environmental Law.
Global Legal Advisor | Supporting clients on their international operations, deals and disputes | Bridging Latin America and the World
Quick explainer on the demise of the Chevron doctrine 👇
Partner, Chair of the Environmental Group, Curtis, Mallet-Prevost, Colt & Mosle, LLP
We are all digesting the recent SCOTUS decisions w/ direct impacts on how administrative agencies will discharge the responsibilities given them by Congress. After (and in accord with) the 1984 Chevron decision, Congress had continued to at least implicitly defer to agencies (via the courts' application of Chevron) to fill in technical, albeit often consequential, details to regulatory statututes in their regulations, so long as they didn't plainly contravene those statutes. Congress kept passing statutes with gaps to fill, and courts deferred to an agency's resolution of that statutory ambiguity (if reasonable). After the Loper Bright decision, the former will likely continue (given our political divides), but not the latter. In Loper the Court interred Chevron and endorsed a return to deference under the 1944 Skidmore decision, in which courts make case-by-case (read 'ad hoc & inherently unpredictable') determinations regarding how much deference to give to an agency's particular rulemaking, based on the agency's ability to show that its regulation necessarily follows from a statute. It's not the end of effective regulations, just a virtual guarantee of their postponement. So much the better if you tend to view all regulation as anti-competitive and thus bad; so much the worse if you tend to view regulations as necessary adjuncts to our free markets, curing their negative externalities (i e. what's not captured in prices). Of course, in the real world, your view will turn on whether your particular ox is being gored, and by whom. Meanwhile, fortuitously, the god in charge of irony has given us a gift, in the form of a quickly-issued correction to another one of the high court's decisions, as noted in this NYT Op-Ed. essay by Penn Carey Law School's Prof. Kate Shaw: "An error in one of this week’s opinions provided a stark illustration of the costs of the court’s lack of expertise: On Thursday, in the case dealing with the Environmental Protection Agency — Ohio v. E.P.A. — the released version of the majority opinion made five references to “nitrous oxide,” commonly referred to as laughing gas, rather than the “nitrogen oxide” compounds at issue. The error was quickly fixed, but no agency official working on the regulation of this compound would have made such an error — and in many ways that is Chevron’s whole point." These days, we could all use at least a chuckle, whether artificially enhanced or not.
Ahead of today's mark-up of the FY 2025 Appropriations Bill, ACC and more than 50 association signatories sent two coalition letters to members of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies. Why it matters: The letters contain recommendations for addressing concerns with EPA regulations that hurt innovation and undermine critical supply chains. We also urged subcommittee leaders to include language addressing challenges with #TSCA and IRIS. Thank you to Subcommittee Chairman Simpson for your leadership in this process. I look forward to seeing our recommendations considered throughout the FY25 #Appropriations process. #ChemistryCreates https://ow.ly/Ig2s50SqV8H
ICYMI, the Cold Chain Federation recently held an informative webinar, 'An Introduction to the Cold Chain'. This webinar provides a basic overview of the Cold Chain and what it involves. You can watch the webinar here: https://lnkd.in/d5X9C6cw Federation of Environmental Trade Associations (FETA)
Partner, Chair of the Environmental Group, Curtis, Mallet-Prevost, Colt & Mosle, LLP
We are all digesting the recent SCOTUS decisions w/ direct impacts on how administrative agencies will discharge the responsibilities given them by Congress. After (and in accord with) the 1984 Chevron decision, Congress had continued to at least implicitly defer to agencies (via the courts' application of Chevron) to fill in technical, albeit often consequential, details to regulatory statututes in their regulations, so long as they didn't plainly contravene those statutes. Congress kept passing statutes with gaps to fill, and courts deferred to an agency's resolution of that statutory ambiguity (if reasonable). After the Loper Bright decision, the former will likely continue (given our political divides), but not the latter. In Loper the Court interred Chevron and endorsed a return to deference under the 1944 Skidmore decision, in which courts make case-by-case (read 'ad hoc & inherently unpredictable') determinations regarding how much deference to give to an agency's particular rulemaking, based on the agency's ability to show that its regulation necessarily follows from a statute. It's not the end of effective regulations, just a virtual guarantee of their postponement. So much the better if you tend to view all regulation as anti-competitive and thus bad; so much the worse if you tend to view regulations as necessary adjuncts to our free markets, curing their negative externalities (i e. what's not captured in prices). Of course, in the real world, your view will turn on whether your particular ox is being gored, and by whom. Meanwhile, fortuitously, the god in charge of irony has given us a gift, in the form of a quickly-issued correction to another one of the high court's decisions, as noted in this NYT Op-Ed. essay by Penn Carey Law School's Prof. Kate Shaw: "An error in one of this week’s opinions provided a stark illustration of the costs of the court’s lack of expertise: On Thursday, in the case dealing with the Environmental Protection Agency — Ohio v. E.P.A. — the released version of the majority opinion made five references to “nitrous oxide,” commonly referred to as laughing gas, rather than the “nitrogen oxide” compounds at issue. The error was quickly fixed, but no agency official working on the regulation of this compound would have made such an error — and in many ways that is Chevron’s whole point." These days, we could all use at least a chuckle, whether artificially enhanced or not.
Let's go, ExxonMobil Baton Rouge! #WeAreExxonMobil 👏