The Experts below are selected from a list of 222 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Douglas A Kysar - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
prods and pleas limited government in an era of unlimited harm
Yale Law Journal, 2011Co-Authors: Benjamin Ewing, Douglas A KysarAbstract:Not just a system of checks and balances ideally tuned to constrain collective political action, the constitutional separation of Powers also may be seen as a system of “prods and pleas” in which distinct governmental branches and actors can push each other to entertain collective political action when necessary. Though an inversion of the assumed direction of checks and balances, such prods and pleas are not a radical reconfiguration of the basic structure and principles of American government. Rather, they are limited government’s failsafe: a latent capacity inherent to a system of divided authority that does and should activate when the external pressures of a changing world threaten the sustainability of disaggregated governance. By understanding and embracing their role in the shadow logic of prods and pleas, judges and other public officials can protect limited government by, when necessary, counteracting its potential to over-prefer passivity. Through the case study of climate change nuisance litigation - particularly American Electric Power v. Connecticut, a case pending in the Supreme Court of the United States - we examine how three potential obstacles to merits adjudication - political question doctrine, standing, and preemption - should be evaluated in recognition of the significance of prods and pleas. We conclude that federal and state tort law provide an important defense mechanism that can help limited government sustain itself in the face of climate change and other dramatic twenty-first century threats, where the nature of the threat is, in large part, a function of limited government itself. As a residual locus for the airing of grievances when no other government actor is responsive to societal need, the common law of tort is a - and perhaps the - paradigmatic vehicle for the expression of prods and pleas. Although climate change plaintiffs still face long odds on the actual merits of their claims, judges would sell short their institutional role if they dismissed such claims as categorically beyond the proper domain of the courts and the common law. They would duck and weave when they should prod and plea.
-
prods and pleas limited government in an era of unlimited harm
Yale Law Journal, 2011Co-Authors: Benjamin Ewing, Douglas A KysarAbstract:Not just a system of checks and balances ideally tuned to constrain collective political action, the constitutional separation of Powers also may be seen as a system of “prods and pleas” in which distinct governmental branches and actors can push each other to entertain collective political action when necessary. Though an inversion of the assumed direction of checks and balances, such prods and pleas are not a radical reconfiguration of the basic structure and principles of American government. Rather, they are limited government’s failsafe: a latent capacity inherent to a system of divided authority that does and should activate when the external pressures of a changing world threaten the sustainability of disaggregated governance. By understanding and embracing their role in the shadow logic of prods and pleas, judges and other public officials can protect limited government by, when necessary, counteracting its potential to over-prefer passivity. Through the case study of climate change nuisance litigation - particularly American Electric Power v. Connecticut, a case pending in the Supreme Court of the United States - we examine how three potential obstacles to merits adjudication - political question doctrine, standing, and preemption - should be evaluated in recognition of the significance of prods and pleas. We conclude that federal and state tort law provide an important defense mechanism that can help limited government sustain itself in the face of climate change and other dramatic twenty-first century threats, where the nature of the threat is, in large part, a function of limited government itself. As a residual locus for the airing of grievances when no other government actor is responsive to societal need, the common law of tort is a - and perhaps the - paradigmatic vehicle for the expression of prods and pleas. Although climate change plaintiffs still face long odds on the actual merits of their claims, judges would sell short their institutional role if they dismissed such claims as categorically beyond the proper domain of the courts and the common law. They would duck and weave when they should prod and plea.
Katherine A Trisolini - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
the sweet taste of defeat American Electric Power co v connecticut and federal greenhouse gas regulation
Social Science Research Network, 2012Co-Authors: Katherine A TrisoliniAbstract:In the midst of a charged political battle over the Environmental Protection Agency's nascent efforts to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act, the Supreme Court issued its 2011 decision in American Electric Power v. Connecticut (AEP). The Court held that plaintiffs’ federal common law public nuisance cause of action had been displaced by the Clean Air Act. Many headlines touted the decision as a win for utilities, highlighting the Court’s rejection of states’ and environmentalists’ claims against the five largest Electricity generators in the United States. Although public nuisance lawsuits are often viewed as a distinct predecessor to regulation under modern federal environmental statutes, this article argues that these common law actions can significantly influence development of a federal regulatory regime for greenhouse gases. By strongly reaffirming the Court’s 2007 decision in Massachusetts v. EPA, Justice Ginsburg’s brief opinion strengthened the Environmental Protection Agency’s authority to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act. Moreover, because the Court held that displacement of public nuisance claims under federal common law hinges on EPA’s authority to regulate greenhouse gases, the decision impedes congressional Republicans’ efforts to obstruct EPA’s climate change efforts by amending the Act. Meanwhile, the Court did not decide whether or not the Clean Air Act preempts public nuisance actions brought under state law, leaving intact another possible tort avenue for plaintiffs. By bolstering EPA’s nascent efforts to regulate greenhouse gases, the decision appreciably advances the development of a federal regulatory regime to address climate change. Further, assuming they survive preemption challenges, public nuisance actions under state law could advance federal greenhouse gas regulation in both and intangible ways by serving as highly visible fora for discussing climate change impacts, generating political pressure, and prompting data collection, among other things.
-
the sweet taste of defeat American Electric Power co v connecticut and federal greenhouse gas regulation
UCLA Journal of Environmental law and Policy, 2012Co-Authors: Katherine A TrisoliniAbstract:I. INTRODUCTION II. MASSACHUSETTS v. EPA AND ITS AFTERMATH A. The 2007 Opinion B. Regulatory Aftermath III. American Electric Power V. CONNECTICUT A. Impact on EPA's Clean Air Act Authority B. Potential Impact on Proposals to Amend Away EPA Authority IV. WHAT NEXT? REDUCING GREENHOUSE GASES THROUGH STATE PUBLIC NUISANCE ACTIONS V. CONCLUSION I. INTRODUCTION Despite increasingly dire warnings from scientists, the United States Congress has been unable to pass comprehensive legislation to reduce climate altering greenhouse gases. In the absence of new federal legislation, states, cities, and nonprofits have petitioned and sued administrative agencies to regulate pursuant to existing environmental laws. Under former President Bush, executive agencies largely rebuffed these efforts, prompting litigation by environmental plaintiffs. In response to judicial determinations and citizen petitions, as well as by virtue of its own policies, the Environmental Protection Agency under President Obama began regulating greenhouse gases pursuant to the Clean Air Act. Political and legal attacks followed swiftly, with opponents charging that the Agency had exceeded its mandate and politicians proposing legislation to incapacitate the Agency. Meanwhile, plaintiffs have also sued Power producers in state and federal common law tort actions characterizing greenhouse gas emissions as a public nuisance. This cause of action--which creates liability for an "unreasonable interference with a right common to the general public" (1)--was used to abate pollution long before the advent of the administrative state. (2) Although public nuisance lawsuits are often viewed as a distinct predecessor to regulation under modern federal environmental statutes, this article argues that these common law actions can significantly influence development of a federal regulatory regime for greenhouse gases. In the midst of the battle over climate change regulation, the Supreme Court issued its 2011 decision in American Electric Power v. Connecticut (AEP) (3) holding that the federal common law public nuisance cause of action relied upon by the plaintiffs had been displaced by the Clean Air Act. Many headlines touted the decision as a win for utilities, highlighting the Court's rejection of states' and environmentalists' claims against the five largest Electricity generators in the United States. (4) Yet, such attention to the formal outcome missed the real import of the case. By strongly reaffirming the Court's 2007 decision in Massachusetts v. EPA, Justice Ginsburg's brief opinion strengthened the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) authority to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act. Moreover, because the Court held that displacement of public nuisance claims under federal common law hinges on EPA's authority to regulate greenhouse gases, the decision impedes congressional Republicans' efforts to obstruct EPA's climate change efforts by amending the Act. Meanwhile, the Court did not decide whether or not the Clean Air Act preempts public nuisance actions brought under state law, leaving intact another possible tort avenue for plaintiffs. By bolstering EPA's nascent efforts to regulate greenhouse gases, the decision appreciably advances the development of a federal regulatory regime to address climate change. Other aspects of the case--less a focus of this discussion--support environmental plaintiffs more broadly. By affirming the Second Circuit on jurisdictional questions, the American Electric Power opinion solidified the Court's 2007 holding in Massachusetts v. EPA that the injuries caused by climate change and their incremental redress provide an appropriate basis for standing to sue. In addition, the affirmance undermined claims (beginning to gain traction in some courts) that the political question doctrine prevents courts from reaching the merits of climate change suits. …
Curt Winiger - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
high pressure feedwater heater hemi head manway hoist
Volume 2: Plant Systems Structures and Components; Safety and Security; Next Generation Systems; Heat Exchangers and Cooling Systems, 2012Co-Authors: Frank Michell, David Adkins, Tim Selby, Curt WinigerAbstract:Removing and installing manway access doors on hemi-head style Feedwater Heaters can be very challenging/difficult with significant safety concerns handling components that weigh as much as 500lbs on large HP Supercritical Units. Original heater manufacturer supplied handling rigs typically require manual hands-on “grunt” methods to manipulate the rigs with the heavy doors hanging on the devices. American Electric Power (AEP) and Industrial Contractors Skanska (ICS) collaborated to design and construct a portable, hydraulically operated manway handling hoist that makes removal and installation safe and easier for plant personnel to use. The hoist has successfully been used to remove and re-install manway doors on HP Heaters on AEP 1300MW Supercritical Plants. Details of the OEM furnished rig and the AEP/ICS developed manway handling hoist will be discussed in the paper.Copyright © 2012 by ASME
-
high pressure feedwater heater hemi head manway hoist
Volume 2: Plant Systems Structures and Components; Safety and Security; Next Generation Systems; Heat Exchangers and Cooling Systems, 2012Co-Authors: Frank Michell, David Adkins, Tim Selby, Curt WinigerAbstract:Removing and installing manway access doors on hemi-head style Feedwater Heaters can be very challenging/difficult with significant safety concerns handling components that weigh as much as 500lbs on large HP Supercritical Units. Original heater manufacturer supplied handling rigs typically require manual hands-on “grunt” methods to manipulate the rigs with the heavy doors hanging on the devices. American Electric Power (AEP) and Industrial Contractors Skanska (ICS) collaborated to design and construct a portable, hydraulically operated manway handling hoist that makes removal and installation safe and easier for plant personnel to use. The hoist has successfully been used to remove and re-install manway doors on HP Heaters on AEP 1300MW Supercritical Plants. Details of the OEM furnished rig and the AEP/ICS developed manway handling hoist will be discussed in the paper.Copyright © 2012 by ASME
Benjamin Ewing - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
prods and pleas limited government in an era of unlimited harm
Yale Law Journal, 2011Co-Authors: Benjamin Ewing, Douglas A KysarAbstract:Not just a system of checks and balances ideally tuned to constrain collective political action, the constitutional separation of Powers also may be seen as a system of “prods and pleas” in which distinct governmental branches and actors can push each other to entertain collective political action when necessary. Though an inversion of the assumed direction of checks and balances, such prods and pleas are not a radical reconfiguration of the basic structure and principles of American government. Rather, they are limited government’s failsafe: a latent capacity inherent to a system of divided authority that does and should activate when the external pressures of a changing world threaten the sustainability of disaggregated governance. By understanding and embracing their role in the shadow logic of prods and pleas, judges and other public officials can protect limited government by, when necessary, counteracting its potential to over-prefer passivity. Through the case study of climate change nuisance litigation - particularly American Electric Power v. Connecticut, a case pending in the Supreme Court of the United States - we examine how three potential obstacles to merits adjudication - political question doctrine, standing, and preemption - should be evaluated in recognition of the significance of prods and pleas. We conclude that federal and state tort law provide an important defense mechanism that can help limited government sustain itself in the face of climate change and other dramatic twenty-first century threats, where the nature of the threat is, in large part, a function of limited government itself. As a residual locus for the airing of grievances when no other government actor is responsive to societal need, the common law of tort is a - and perhaps the - paradigmatic vehicle for the expression of prods and pleas. Although climate change plaintiffs still face long odds on the actual merits of their claims, judges would sell short their institutional role if they dismissed such claims as categorically beyond the proper domain of the courts and the common law. They would duck and weave when they should prod and plea.
-
prods and pleas limited government in an era of unlimited harm
Yale Law Journal, 2011Co-Authors: Benjamin Ewing, Douglas A KysarAbstract:Not just a system of checks and balances ideally tuned to constrain collective political action, the constitutional separation of Powers also may be seen as a system of “prods and pleas” in which distinct governmental branches and actors can push each other to entertain collective political action when necessary. Though an inversion of the assumed direction of checks and balances, such prods and pleas are not a radical reconfiguration of the basic structure and principles of American government. Rather, they are limited government’s failsafe: a latent capacity inherent to a system of divided authority that does and should activate when the external pressures of a changing world threaten the sustainability of disaggregated governance. By understanding and embracing their role in the shadow logic of prods and pleas, judges and other public officials can protect limited government by, when necessary, counteracting its potential to over-prefer passivity. Through the case study of climate change nuisance litigation - particularly American Electric Power v. Connecticut, a case pending in the Supreme Court of the United States - we examine how three potential obstacles to merits adjudication - political question doctrine, standing, and preemption - should be evaluated in recognition of the significance of prods and pleas. We conclude that federal and state tort law provide an important defense mechanism that can help limited government sustain itself in the face of climate change and other dramatic twenty-first century threats, where the nature of the threat is, in large part, a function of limited government itself. As a residual locus for the airing of grievances when no other government actor is responsive to societal need, the common law of tort is a - and perhaps the - paradigmatic vehicle for the expression of prods and pleas. Although climate change plaintiffs still face long odds on the actual merits of their claims, judges would sell short their institutional role if they dismissed such claims as categorically beyond the proper domain of the courts and the common law. They would duck and weave when they should prod and plea.
Indrajit Bhattacharya - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
lessons learned from the post injection site care program at the American Electric Power mountaineer product validation facility
Energy Procedia, 2014Co-Authors: Caitlin Mcneil, Srikanta Mishra, Indrajit Bhattacharya, Neeraj Gupta, Tim Lohner, James H Holley, Melissa Kennedy, Sanjay Mawalkar, Rodney Osborne, Mark R. KelleyAbstract:Abstract The carbon capture and storage (CCS) program at the American Electric Power (AEP) Mountaineer Plant Product Validation Facility (PVF) is a test program to determine the feasibility of on-site capture and geologic storage of carbon dioxide (CO2) at a coal-fired Power plant. The injection wells at the AEP Mountaineer Plant are among a select few CO2 injection and storage wells to reach the post-injection site care stage in the carbon capture and storage project lifecycle. The post- injection site care program has been implemented since the cessation of injection to meet permit requirements, ensure wells demonstrate mechanical integrity, and obtain data needed to demonstrate secure and permanent storage. This program includes reservoir pressure monitoring, CO2 plume modeling, shallow groundwater monitoring, and regulatory interaction and reporting. This paper will provide an update on these program activities, including data collection and analysis, as well as share lessons learned with the CCS community.
-
Development of conceptual design for commercial-scale geologic storage and monitoring system at American Electric Power mountaineer plant
Energy Procedia, 2013Co-Authors: Neeraj Gupta, Rod Osborne, Jacqueline Gerst, Srikanta Mishra, Erica Howat, Charlotte Sullivan, Gary Spitznogle, Mark R. Kelley, Mark Moody, Indrajit BhattacharyaAbstract:A system design for injecting 1.5 million tonnes CO2 per year at the American Electric Power's Mountaineer Plantwas developed using geologic and reservoir data from a smaller scale injection validation test and a new test well. The preliminary assessment shows that the thin vuggy zones in the Copper Ridge Dolomite layer have significant injectivity and are likely to fulfill the project needs with two injection wells and an accompanying monitoring system. The monitoring program included wells in the injection, intermediate, and shallow zones for pressure and fluid monitoring, wireline logging, micro-seismic monitoring, surface emissions, corrosion, and mechanical integrity. Cost estimates for the program indicates that the storage system cost is about 20% of the total project cost, i.e., capture, transport, and storage; however, the cost uncertainty in storage is greater due to regulatory and geologic uncertainty.