Forgot password?
Sign up today and your first download is free.


Over 100 House Democrats are poised to formally endorse legislation setting a national goal of a 100 percent clean energy economy by 2050 and urging federal agencies to take early steps to meet that target using existing authority, part of an effort to craft a broad legislative agenda and mobilize advocacy around climate policy.

EPA officials are downplaying concerns that the Defense Department (DOD) is preempting its draft screening levels for per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in groundwater used for drinking water, after DOD last month issued guidance setting Superfund levels for two of the chemicals that are less stringent than levels suggested by EPA’s draft policy.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit has denied environmentalists and labor groups’ challenges to the scope of EPA’s framework rule for evaluating existing chemicals under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), but the court also rejected EPA’s push to preclude “legacy uses” and associated disposal when assessing risks.

Most members of a divided EPA Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC) are rejecting an EPA staff policy paper that called for tightening the annual fine particulate matter (PM2.5) ambient air limit to protect human health, with the majority instead saying the existing limit is sufficiently protective of the public.

Legal experts are debating whether the Trump administration’s constitutional challenge to California’s greenhouse gas cap-and-trade program link to Quebec will succeed, with most arguing lower courts are likely to back California but some saying there is a good chance the Supreme Court could side with the administration if it hears the case.

California water agencies are raising red flags over a draft state agency report and “data mapping tool” that seeks for the first time to assesses deficiencies and vulnerabilities of water systems across the state under a landmark “human right to water” law, suggesting the effort could unfairly target certain districts.

Federal appellate judges are questioning whether the operator of a proposed coal storage and export terminal at the Port of Oakland in California illegally withheld information about the environmental impacts of the project, raising speculation that they may reverse a lower court’s ruling backing the operator and project.