Environmental Law Portal

Welcome to the Beveridge & Diamond Environmental Law Portal.

Beveridge & Diamond’s 100 lawyers in seven U.S. offices focus on environmental and natural resource law, litigation and dispute resolution. We help clients around the world resolve critical environmental and sustainability issues relating to their products, facilities, and operations. 

Subscribe for updates via:

Meet the Contributors

Topics

Recent Posts

Click here to learn more about us

Showing 3 posts by Grant Tolley.

EPA Proposes Affordable Clean Energy Rule to Replace Clean Power Plan

On August 21, 2018, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposed the Affordable Clean Energy (ACE) rule to establish guidelines for states to develop plans to address greenhouse gas emissions from certain existing fossil-fuel-fired power plants.  ACE would replace the Obama Administration’s 2015 Clean Power Plan (CPP), which EPA has proposed to repeal on the basis that it exceeded EPA’s authority.  In particular, the current Administration does not believe it has authority under Section 111 of the Clean Air Act to require regulated entities to take actions “outside the fenceline,” as contemplated by the CPP.  Accordingly, the ACE plan would impose only “inside the fenceline” requirements on electric generating units (EGUs). Read More ›

North Carolina Federal Court Slashes Hog Farm Neighbors’ $50 Million Punitive Damages Award

Illustrating the power of state-law caps on damages, a federal judge in North Carolina slashed a jury’s award of $5 million in punitive damages to each of ten neighbors who sued a hog farm owner for failure to properly dispose of the animals’ waste, finding that North Carolina law capped punitive damages at $250,000 for each plaintiff.  See McKiver v. Murphy-Brown LLC, Civ. No. 14-0180 BR, Order (E.D.N.C. May 7, 2018). Read More ›

Eleventh Circuit Rejects Expert Testimony, Affirms Dismissal of Suit Against Fertilizer Plant

Highlighting the importance of strong expert testimony, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed exclusion of an expert’s testimony where—among other defects—the expert (1) failed to properly assess dose-response, (2) failed to meaningfully rule out alternative causes, and (3) failed to account for background risk.  See Williams v. Mosaic Fertilizer, LLC, 889 F.3d 1239, 1245-46 (11th Cir. 2018). Read More ›