Foley Hoag LLP

Foley Hoag LLP is a law firm headquartered in Boston, with additional offices in New York City, Paris, and Washington, D.C.. The firm represents public and private clients in a wide range of disputes and transactions worldwide. It offers regional, national and international legal services.

Foley Hoag LLP Blogs

Blog Authors

ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ

Latest from Foley Hoag LLP

In 2022, Pennsylvania became the 12th member of the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (“RGGI”). Pennsylvania joined RGGI pursuant to a 2019 executive order and a subsequent rulemaking promulgated by the state’s Department of Environmental Protection (“DEP”) and Environmental Quality Board (“EQB”).
Later that year, various parties—including power producers, coal mine owners, and labor unions (collectively,

Earlier this month, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals vacated most of EPA’s startup, shutdown, and malfunction SIP Call.  The Court’s rationale boils down to EPA’s failure to make a predicate finding that the SIP call was “necessary or appropriate to meet the [CAA’s] applicable requirements.”  Without plumbing the depths of the Clean Air

Last week, in Bristol Asphalt v. Rochester Bituminous Products, the SJC jettisoned two prior decisions and revised its directions to lower courts regarding how to handle “special motions to dismiss” under Massachusetts’ so-called “Anti-SLAPP” statute.  If you don’t know what SLAPP stands for, you can just stop reading now. 
The purpose of the Anti-SLAPP

Late last month, the Interagency Working Group on Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases quietly released a three-paragraph memo on how agencies should determine the social cost of greenhouse gas emissions.  I hesitate to call it “guidance.”  Here’s the operative language:
As agencies consider applying the SC-GHG in various contexts, agencies should use their professional judgment

Last week, the 9th Circuit voted against rehearing en banc its decision from last April finding the City of Berkeley’s ban on natural gas connections in new construction to be preempted by the Energy Policy and Conservation Act.  Judge Friedland, joined by seven other judges (and three senior judges!) dissented from the denial, writing a