Moving on all fronts, Trump administration has several ways to affect environmental regulations and policy.
A proposed rule governing uncontrolled discharges of raw sewage into surface waters waits review by the new administration.
Michigan just made it easier for owners and operators of underground storage tanks to demonstrate financial assurance and obtain cash for closing leaking tanks.
EPA uses victim restitution statute to recover its costs for responding to massive asbestos release.
Great Lakes water diversion to Wisconsin city outside the Great Lakes Basin supported by science and the Great Lakes Compact.
Federal legislators try to insert weaker ballast discharge regulations into defense budget, which may pave the way for more invasive species in the Great Lakes.
EPA’s new rules will govern methane emissions from new oil and gas industry operation sources, with regulations for existing sources on the horizon.
Underground storage tank owners and operators can apply for funds to help pay cleanup costs for release of materials into environment.
Our access to drinking water is almost assumed, but how do we know it is safe?
Upwind states will have to control ground level ozone inducing air emissions to help downwind states comply with the Clean Air Act.
Federal appellate court blocks EPA’s rule defining “Waters of the United States” for the purposes of the Clean Water Act.
EPA must strengthen rule controlling introduction of invasive species into US waters through ballast discharge.
EPA proposes broad rules requiring healthcare and associated facilities to properly store, transport and dispose of hazardous pharmaceutical wastes and bans "down the drain" disposal.
Federal court upholds Chesapeake Bay multi-state water quality regulations, which may be a model for future Great Lakes regulations.
The Supreme Court handed the EPA a loss by sending EPA’s Clean Air Act mercury rule for existing power plants to the DC Circuit, but the practical effect is minimal.
Supporters and opponents of fracking can all find something they like in the EPA’s draft report on its assessment on the effect of fracking on drinking water resources.
In a much anticipated rulemaking, EPA has defined what waters are regulated under the Clean Water Act, and not everyone is happy.
SubscribeRSS Plunkett Cooney LinkedIn Page Plunkett Cooney Twitter Page Plunkett Cooney Facebook Page
- Environmental Regulation
- Environmental Legislation
- Environmental Liability
- Regulatory Law
- Environmental Protection Agency
- Clean Air
- Clean Water
- Renewable Energy
- Public Policy
- Waste Water
- Greenhouse Gases
- Underground Storage Tanks (UST)
- Solar Energy
- Hazardous Materials
- Great Lakes
- Climate Change
- Oil & Gas
- Solid Waste
- Natural Gas
- Zoning and Planning
- Commercial Liability
- Housing and Urban Development (HUD)
- Lead-based Paint
- Invasive Species
- Shareholder Liability
- Michigan Environmental Protection Act
- Land Use
- Real Estate
- Cannabis Operations Require Compliance With Environmental Regulations, too
- Assessing Impact of Michigan’s Cannabis Industry on State’s Electric Grid Requires Data, Planning
- New Administration Moves Quickly on Environmental Front
- New Administration Delays Sewage Overflow Rule for More Study
- Michigan Lawmakers Ease Access to Underground Storage Tank Clean-up Funds
- Renewable Energy Poised to Thrive Under any White House
- HUD Proposes New Lead-based Paint Rule to Protect Kids
- EPA Turns to Mandatory Victim's Restitution Act to Recover Costs
- Great Lakes Compact Worked as Designed in Diversion Approval
- Ballast Water Bill at Risk of Becoming Law Without Debate