Greenberg Traurig

Confusion permeates the public arena as to what the U.S. Supreme Court recently did – and didn’t do – by ruling in favor of the Muscogee (Creek) Nation, a federally

…
Continue Reading McGirt v. Oklahoma: Understanding What the Supreme Court’s Native American Treaty Rights Decision Is and Is Not

On July 15, 2020, President Trump’s administration finalized a significant overhaul of the regulations governing the administration of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). In January 2020, when the regulatory overhaul was announced, we observed that rolling back 50 years of precedent in an administrative action could trigger judicial challenges to the rule and result in greater regulatory uncertainty for federal projects. The final rule, while making some relatively minor modifications, hews closely to its original terms, and does little to satisfy potential challengers.
Continue Reading A Tale of Two Environmental Policies: President Trump Announces NEPA Reform, as Former Vice President Biden Vows to Roll Back Reforms If Elected

The Department of Justice, in the last year, has altered its guidance related to supplemental environmental projects (SEPs), first prohibiting their use in settlements with state and local governments,…
Continue Reading DOJ’s Attack on ‘Supplemental Environmental Projects’ Extends to Citizen Plaintiffs

Read in English.

A continuación se detallan las actualizaciones más recientes y de mayor relevancia respecto de las Subastas en materia de energías renovables llevadas a cabo en Latinoamérica.
Continue Reading Actualización: Subastas en materia de energías renovables en Latinoamérica

On June 18, 2020, the Seventh Circuit handed down a decision in a case involving historical environmental contamination that eases the path to federal court for defendants who are haled into state court for acts that occurred while defendants were assisting the federal government. In Sherrie Baker et al. v. Atlantic Richfield Company, E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company, et al., No. 19-3160, 2020 WL 3287024, — F.3d — (7th Cir. 2020), the court adopted a new standard for federal officer removal, holding that defendants act under color of federal office and are entitled to a federal forum when sued for conduct relating to acts for the federal government, even if the conduct at issue in a particular case only partially implicates the federally directed acts. This decision has consequences that reach beyond defendants facing environmental liability, as did the defendants in Baker, as it could provide an additional avenue to a federal forum for companies that have either been awarded federal contracts, or that supply customers who hold federal contracts.
Continue Reading 7th Circuit Lowers Removal Hurdle for Defendants That Assisted the Feds

On April 29, 2020, the Ministry of Ecology and Environment of China (MEE) promulgated the Measures on Environmental Management Registration of New Chemical Substances (MEE Order 12) (link in Chinese), which will come into effect Jan. 1, 2021, and replace the Measures for the Environmental Management of New Chemical Substances (promulgated by the Ministry of Environment Protection of China, MEP Order 7). MEE Order 12 focuses on mass-use of new chemicals, and highly hazardous chemicals, chemicals with persistence and bioaccumulation (PB), chemicals with persistence and toxicity (PT), and chemicals with bioaccumulation and toxicity (BT).

Background: MEE the ‘China REACH

MEE is sometimes also called the ‘China REACH’ for short. ‘China REACH’ references the EU Regulation No 1907/2006 concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals. Both the Chinese and EU legislation aim to improve human health and the environment through the identification of chemical substances. Both pieces of legislation make distinctions in their application depending on annual tonnage and may restrict the usage of highly hazardous chemicals. The main difference between MEE and the EU REACH is that EU REACH focuses on the chemical registration requirement whereas MEE focuses on new substance notification.
Continue Reading China’s New Regulation on New Chemicals Aims to Make Life Easier

Rejecting the Trump administration’s novel 2019 interpretation that the Clean Water Act never requires permits for pollutant discharges to groundwater, the United States Supreme Court handed down, on April 23,…
Continue Reading Supreme Court: Pollutants Reaching Navigable Waters Through Groundwater May Require Permit Under Clean Water Act

During the COVID-19 pandemic, as large and small businesses alike struggle to stay afloat while acting responsibly to protect public health, sustainability may not be top-of-mind. But the development and…
Continue Reading EPA Commences Public Comment on Recycled-Content Product List – It May be More Relevant Than You Think

In addition to causing infection and illness, the COVID-19 pandemic is creating challenges for organizations contending with employee quarantines and isolation, supply chain and logistics disruptions, and other operational changes.

While environmental compliance may not be top-of-mind right now for most Americans, it still is a critical consideration for organizations with environmental compliance or cleanup obligations.

Many environmental laws and settlement agreements provide relief valves in certain emergency or force majeure situations. But given that the regulators themselves may be quarantined or teleworking in the coming weeks and months, organizations can take certain steps now to ensure they are able to maintain environmental compliance during the COVID-19 pandemic or to obtain relief based on force majeure, impossibility or impracticability of performance, compliance-with-all-laws clauses, enforcement discretion, or emergency relief provisions.
Continue Reading Meeting Environmental Compliance and Cleanup Requirements During the Pandemic