Jillian C Kirn

November 19, 2020 | The Legal Intelligencer

Two recent developments, the finalization of Part B of the coal combustion residuals, or CCR, rule and the finalization of the 2020 Steam Electric Reconsideration Rule have triggered conversation about, and litigation over, the path forward for long-term management of CCR in the United States.

By Jillian C. Kirn

7 minute read

June 18, 2020 | The Legal Intelligencer

Last month, a three-judge panel of the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court held that certain net metering regulations of the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission (PUC) are unenforceable.

By Jillian C. Kirn

6 minute read

June 13, 2019 | The Legal Intelligencer

According to the Pennsylvania Emergency Management Agency, flooding is the most frequent and damaging natural disaster impacting the commonwealth. Many of Pennsylvania's communities are located adjacent to waterbodies.

By Jillian C. Kirn

8 minute read

November 15, 2018 | The Legal Intelligencer

On Oct. 25, Syracuse University's Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse (TRAC) reported that federal criminal prosecutions under environmental laws dropped 10 percent in the 2018 fiscal year from 2017 levels.

By Jillian C. Kirn

8 minute read

April 12, 2018 | The Legal Intelligencer

In two recent decisions, Hawai'i Wildlife Fund v. County of Maui and EQT Production v. Department of Environmental Protection, courts have considered the nuances of “water-to-water theory” and what constitutes a single discharge.

By Jillian C. Kirn

7 minute read

May 11, 2017 | The Legal Intelligencer

According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, the commonwealth of Pennsylvania is the largest generator of coal ash in the United States. Pennsylvania is home to roughly 100 coal ash disposal facilities, three of which have been classified as "high hazard" by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Throughout the country, numerous electric generating facilities have been retiring coal-fired units in favor of natural gas combined cycle units. Still, many of those same electric generating plants find themselves undertaking large-scale coal ash mobilization projects resulting from decades of coal ash accumulation and catalyzed by new regulations from the EPA. With litigation both arising from, and in opposition to, the coal ash regulations, it is an area worth watching at the state and federal levels.

By Jillian C. Kirn

15 minute read

February 20, 2016 | The Legal Intelligencer

In two decisions issued at the end of 2015, the Pennsylvania courts increased uncertainty regarding the breadth of the Arsenal Coal exception and status of pre-enforcement reviews. As a general rule, a regulated entity may only challenge regulations when the regulator imposes those regulations on the entity in a permit or enforcement action. In Pennsylvania, pre-enforcement review is not within the authority of the Environmental Hearing Board and the courts will only take on pre-enforcement reviews where the effect of the challenged regulations upon the industry regulated is direct and immediate, thereby establishing the justiciability of the challenge in advance of enforcement. The two opinions issued on Dec. 29, EQT Production v. Department of Environmental Protection, 15 MAP 2015 (Pa. Dec. 29, 2015) and PIOGA v. Department of Environmental Protection, 321 M.D. 2015 (Pa. Commw. Dec. 29, 2015), have the potential to expand the arsenal coal exception. If, in fact, the Arsenal Coal exception is broadened, it may simultaneously open a door to pre-enforcement challenges while shutting others on the grounds of preclusion, exhaustion, and finality.

By Jillian C. Kirn

8 minute read