{"id":24782,"date":"2025-04-08T15:10:17","date_gmt":"2025-04-08T20:10:17","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/?p=24782"},"modified":"2025-04-08T15:10:17","modified_gmt":"2025-04-08T20:10:17","slug":"san-francisco-v-epa-impact-on-marine-carbon-dioxide-removal","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2025\/04\/08\/san-francisco-v-epa-impact-on-marine-carbon-dioxide-removal\/","title":{"rendered":"San Francisco v. EPA: Impact on Marine Carbon Dioxide Removal"},"content":{"rendered":"
<\/div>

\"\"<\/a>On March 4, 2025, the Supreme Court handed down an important ruling in City and County of San Francisco v. Environmental Protection Agency<\/em><\/a>. In a 5-4 decision, the Court curtailed the Environmental Protection Agency\u2019s (\u201cEPA\u201d) authority under the Clean Water Act (\u201cCWA\u201d) to issue pollutant discharge permits. The case involved a wastewater treatment facility that discharged treated water into San Francisco Bay under a CWA permit issued by EPA. The Court held that EPA cannot enforce permit provisions that \u201cmake a permittee responsible for the quality of the water in the body of water into which the permittee discharges pollutants,\u201d requiring EPA to instead determine the specific steps the permittee must take to protect water quality.<\/p>\n

The Supreme Court\u2019s decision could have implications for certain marine carbon dioxide (\u201cmCDR\u201d) activities that require permits under the CWA. While many uncertainties remain, this post attempts to shed light as to possible implications the decision may have on mCDR.<\/p>\n

Statutory Background<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

The CWA prohibits<\/a> discharges of pollutants by any person without a permit. A discharge is defined<\/a> as an \u201caddition of any pollutant to navigable waters from any point source,\u201d including pipe, outfall structure, or other conveyance.<\/p>\n

Under the CWA, EPA and authorized state agencies may issue permits authorizing the discharge of pollutants. These discharge permits (also known as NPDES permits) contain provisions specifying the quantity of pollutants that can be discharged, known as \u201ceffluent limitations\u201d or \u201cend of pipe limitations.\u201d Effluent limitations fall into two categories: (1) technology-based effluent limitations<\/a> (\u201cTBELs\u201d), which restrict the \u201cquantities, rates, and concentrations\u201d of harmful materials a permittee may discharge based on available treatment technology; and (2) water quality-based effluent limitations<\/a> (\u201cWQBELs\u201d), which set discharge limits based on applicable water quality standards when TBELs alone are insufficient to meet those standards. Based on the TBELs and WQBELs, EPA determines (and specifies in the discharge permit) the rate, flow, and\/or concentration of pollutants that may be discharged. For example, effluent limitations in a discharge permit may specify the average monthly quantity of oils and grease that may be discharged (in mg\/L or lbs\/day), based on available treatment technology and applicable water quality standards. In addition to effluent limitations, discharge permits also contain \u201cnarrative limitations\u201d, which prescribe best practices, such as monitoring, reporting, and recordkeeping requirements.<\/p>\n

Discharge permits sometimes include requirements that the receiving waters must meet applicable water quality standards. In City and County of San Francisco v. Environmental Protection Agency<\/em><\/a>, the Supreme Court described these as \u201cend-result requirements\u2014permit provisions that do not spell out what a permittee must do or refrain from doing but instead make the permittee responsible for the quality of the water in the body of water into which the permittee discharges pollutants.\u201d For example, the permit held by the San Francisco wastewater treatment facility \u201cprohibit[ed] the facility from making any discharge that contribute[s] to a violation of any applicable water quality standard for receiving waters \u2026 [or] create[s] pollution, contamination, or nuisance as defined by [the] California Water Code.\u201d In theory, then, the facility could be found to have violated its permit if its discharges contributed to water quality in the receiving water body falling below applicable standards, regardless of the facility\u2019s compliance with the permit’s effluent and narrative limitations.<\/p>\n

EPA and authorized state agencies can provide both individual and general discharge permits. Individual permits are tailored to the site-specific conditions of a single discharger. General permits are intended to cover multiple dischargers with similar operations and types of discharges, and often contain end-result requirements.<\/p>\n

San Francisco v. EPA<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

The City of San Francisco, as owner of the wastewater treatment facility, challenged the two end-use requirements in its permit. In short, the City argued that EPA lacked authority under the CWA to impose end-use requirements, and the Supreme Court agreed.<\/p>\n

The Court held that EPA and, by extension authorized state agencies, lack authority to \u201cimpose NPDES permit requirements that condition permitholder\u2019s compliance on whether receiving waters meet applicable water quality standards.\u201d On that basis, the Court held that end-result limitations, such as those in the discharge permit issued to the wastewater treatment facility owned by San Francisco, were invalid.<\/p>\n

The Court did, however, hold that EPA has authority to include effluent limitations and narrative limitations in discharge permits. The Court interpreted the CWA to authorize \u201cthe EPA to set rules that a permittee must follow in order to achieve a desired result, namely, a certain degree of water quality.\u201d In other words, according to the Court, EPA\u2019s authority is limited to laying down steps that the permittee must take to achieve applicable water quality standards. The primary basis for the Court\u2019s decision was their concern over the \u201cpermit shield<\/a>,\u201d a provision under the CWA which protects the permit-holder from liability if they adhere to the terms of the permit. In the Court\u2019s opinion, end-result requirements prevent the permit-holder from being able to take refuge under the permit shield, even if they comply entirely with effluent and narrative limitations. The Court believed that it was the responsibility of EPA to determine what steps should be taken to prevent water pollution, instead of leaving discretion to the discharger through the use of broadly worded end-result requirements.<\/p>\n

The dissent on the other hand noted that the text of CWA \u00a7301(b)(1)(c)<\/a> empowered EPA to implement end-result requirements. In response to the majority\u2019s concerns over the permit shield, the dissent countered that if EPA imposed end-result requirements in contexts where permittees cannot control the quality of the receiving waters \u2013 such as where there are multiple dischargers \u2013 then the permittee could challenge EPA action as \u201carbitrary-and-capricious\u201d under the Administrative Procedure Act.<\/p>\n

Following the majority\u2019s ruling, it is clear that EPA can no longer use end-result limitations in permits to ensure water quality standards are maintained. There is, however, some uncertainty as to \u00a0what will happen to existing permits with end-result requirements. It may be that the permits remain valid but with unenforceable end-result requirements, or EPA may have to issue new permits without those requirements. In the past, EPA<\/a> and some states<\/a> have included broadly worded prohibitions in permits \u2013 e.g., prohibiting \u201cdischarges which do not, or will not, result in compliance with applicable effluent limitations or water quality standard\u201d \u2013 which may now be invalid. That could have major implications for the operation of permitted facilities.<\/p>\n

As the dissent noted, end-result requirements were often used in situations where EPA lacked the information necessary to develop tailored effluent or narrative limitations. EPA reasoned that, in such situations, it had limited options: it could deny a permit application until further information was provided, or it could issue a permit with broadly-worded end-result requirements, or it could simply refuse to issue a permit. EPA had viewed the second option as preferable but now as it\u2019s off the table, it might be forced to deny permit applications until the information it needs to develop tailored limitations is available. That could lead to the shut down of critical systems, such as San Francisco\u2019s sewer system in the present case.<\/p>\n

End-result requirements were also commonly used in general permits, which cover a broad category of dischargers. As the dissent noted, \u201c[i]n lieu of individualized and prescriptive permitting conditions \u2013 which would take time to craft and with which small businesses might have difficulty complying \u2013 EPA instead allow[ed] the permittee to proceed under more general language. EPA [could] therefore issue the permit quickly and give responsible permittees flexibility to choose how to comply with the permit.\u201d Following the majority\u2019s ruling, this will no longer be possible, and EPA will be forced to develop more tailored requirements, which could take significant time. Delays could be further compounded by understaffed permitting offices resulting from EPA layoffs<\/a>.<\/p>\n

How is mCDR affected?<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

mCDR<\/a> refers to ocean-based processes or techniques designed to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and store it for long periods of time in the ocean. One commonly discussed mCDR technique is ocean alkalinity enhancement<\/a>, which involves adding alkaline substances to ocean waters. The goal is to trigger a series of chemical reactions, whereby carbon dioxide in the water is converted into other (more stable) forms of dissolved inorganic carbon, and thereby enable the ocean to uptake additional carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.<\/p>\n

A number of companies<\/a> are looking to advance ocean alkalinity enhancement in the U.S. Some want to use existing coastal outfall structures, for example<\/a> at wastewater treatment plants, to add alkaline substances to the ocean. This is seen as having multiple benefits, including avoiding the need for new construction and reducing permitting challenges, at least where those existing outfalls already hold permits under the CWA. Many mCDR operators hope to \u201cpiggy-back\u201d on those existing permits. Others<\/a> intend to secure individual permits for their projects. Last month\u2019s Supreme Court decision might affect their ability to do that.<\/p>\n

As noted above, in the past, EPA often issued permits with end-result requirements where it lacked the information needed to develop tailored effluent and narrative limitations for particular activities. Now that it can\u2019t do that, it might simply refuse to issue permits in such situations. That could be particularly problematic for mCDR activities, which are still in the early stages of development, and thus present significant unknowns. EPA could thus very well conclude that it doesn\u2019t know enough to develop tailored requirements for the activities, adding significant time and complexity to the permitting process, and potentially even leading to permit applications being denied. This could be an issue, not only for those mCDR operators planning to secure individual permits for their projects, but also those hoping to \u201cpiggy-back\u201d on existing general permits. As noted above, many existing general permits include end-use requirements and thus might be held invalid and need to be re-issued, which (again) could complicate the permitting of mCDR projects. mCDR operators should keep an eye on EPA\u2019s next steps to understand the potential impacts of this decision on the field.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

On March 4, 2025, the Supreme Court handed down an important ruling in City and County of San Francisco v. Environmental Protection Agency. In a 5-4 decision, the Court curtailed the Environmental Protection Agency\u2019s (\u201cEPA\u201d) authority under the Clean Water Act (\u201cCWA\u201d) to issue pollutant discharge permits. The case involved a wastewater treatment facility that […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3422,"featured_media":24788,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[69207,65722],"tags":[845,69734,69267],"class_list":{"0":"post-24782","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","7":"category-cross-cutting-issues","8":"category-negative-emissions","9":"tag-epa-other-activity","10":"tag-marine-carbon-dioxide-removal","11":"tag-ocean-cdr","12":"czr-hentry"},"yoast_head":"\nSan Francisco v. EPA: Impact on Marine Carbon Dioxide Removal - Climate Law Blog<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2025\/04\/08\/san-francisco-v-epa-impact-on-marine-carbon-dioxide-removal\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"San Francisco v. EPA: Impact on Marine Carbon Dioxide Removal - Climate Law Blog\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"On March 4, 2025, the Supreme Court handed down an important ruling in City and County of San Francisco v. Environmental Protection Agency. In a 5-4 decision, the Court curtailed the Environmental Protection Agency\u2019s (\u201cEPA\u201d) authority under the Clean Water Act (\u201cCWA\u201d) to issue pollutant discharge permits. The case involved a wastewater treatment facility that […]\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2025\/04\/08\/san-francisco-v-epa-impact-on-marine-carbon-dioxide-removal\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Climate Law Blog\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2025-04-08T20:10:17+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/files\/2025\/04\/tempImageDPy0Yf.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"508\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"339\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Ashwin Murthy\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@sabincenter\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@sabincenter\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Ashwin Murthy\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"8 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/2025\\\/04\\\/08\\\/san-francisco-v-epa-impact-on-marine-carbon-dioxide-removal\\\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/2025\\\/04\\\/08\\\/san-francisco-v-epa-impact-on-marine-carbon-dioxide-removal\\\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Ashwin Murthy\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/42813ea43fbca0c85cf11258bbce0b20\"},\"headline\":\"San Francisco v. EPA: Impact on Marine Carbon Dioxide Removal\",\"datePublished\":\"2025-04-08T20:10:17+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/2025\\\/04\\\/08\\\/san-francisco-v-epa-impact-on-marine-carbon-dioxide-removal\\\/\"},\"wordCount\":1675,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/#organization\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/2025\\\/04\\\/08\\\/san-francisco-v-epa-impact-on-marine-carbon-dioxide-removal\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/files\\\/2025\\\/04\\\/tempImageDPy0Yf.jpg\",\"keywords\":[\"Clean Water Act\",\"marine carbon dioxide removal\",\"Ocean CDR\"],\"articleSection\":[\"Cross-cutting Issues\",\"Negative Emissions\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/2025\\\/04\\\/08\\\/san-francisco-v-epa-impact-on-marine-carbon-dioxide-removal\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/2025\\\/04\\\/08\\\/san-francisco-v-epa-impact-on-marine-carbon-dioxide-removal\\\/\",\"name\":\"San Francisco v. EPA: Impact on Marine Carbon Dioxide Removal - Climate Law Blog\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/2025\\\/04\\\/08\\\/san-francisco-v-epa-impact-on-marine-carbon-dioxide-removal\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/2025\\\/04\\\/08\\\/san-francisco-v-epa-impact-on-marine-carbon-dioxide-removal\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/files\\\/2025\\\/04\\\/tempImageDPy0Yf.jpg\",\"datePublished\":\"2025-04-08T20:10:17+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/2025\\\/04\\\/08\\\/san-francisco-v-epa-impact-on-marine-carbon-dioxide-removal\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/2025\\\/04\\\/08\\\/san-francisco-v-epa-impact-on-marine-carbon-dioxide-removal\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/2025\\\/04\\\/08\\\/san-francisco-v-epa-impact-on-marine-carbon-dioxide-removal\\\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/files\\\/2025\\\/04\\\/tempImageDPy0Yf.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/files\\\/2025\\\/04\\\/tempImageDPy0Yf.jpg\",\"width\":508,\"height\":339},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/2025\\\/04\\\/08\\\/san-francisco-v-epa-impact-on-marine-carbon-dioxide-removal\\\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"San Francisco v. EPA: Impact on Marine Carbon Dioxide Removal\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/\",\"name\":\"Climate Law Blog\",\"description\":\"\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/#organization\"},\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Sabin Center for Climate Change Law\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/files\\\/2023\\\/02\\\/21-SabinBlog_Banner-1.png\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/files\\\/2023\\\/02\\\/21-SabinBlog_Banner-1.png\",\"width\":2752,\"height\":260,\"caption\":\"Sabin Center for Climate Change Law\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/sabincenter\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/42813ea43fbca0c85cf11258bbce0b20\",\"name\":\"Ashwin Murthy\",\"description\":\"Ashwin Murthy is the Negative Emissions Fellow at the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law.\",\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.linkedin.com\\\/in\\\/vincent-nolette-bb187b114\\\/\"],\"url\":\"#molongui-disabled-link\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"San Francisco v. EPA: Impact on Marine Carbon Dioxide Removal - Climate Law Blog","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2025\/04\/08\/san-francisco-v-epa-impact-on-marine-carbon-dioxide-removal\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"San Francisco v. EPA: Impact on Marine Carbon Dioxide Removal - Climate Law Blog","og_description":"On March 4, 2025, the Supreme Court handed down an important ruling in City and County of San Francisco v. Environmental Protection Agency. In a 5-4 decision, the Court curtailed the Environmental Protection Agency\u2019s (\u201cEPA\u201d) authority under the Clean Water Act (\u201cCWA\u201d) to issue pollutant discharge permits. The case involved a wastewater treatment facility that […]","og_url":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2025\/04\/08\/san-francisco-v-epa-impact-on-marine-carbon-dioxide-removal\/","og_site_name":"Climate Law Blog","article_published_time":"2025-04-08T20:10:17+00:00","og_image":[{"width":508,"height":339,"url":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/files\/2025\/04\/tempImageDPy0Yf.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Ashwin Murthy","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@sabincenter","twitter_site":"@sabincenter","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Ashwin Murthy","Est. reading time":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2025\/04\/08\/san-francisco-v-epa-impact-on-marine-carbon-dioxide-removal\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2025\/04\/08\/san-francisco-v-epa-impact-on-marine-carbon-dioxide-removal\/"},"author":{"name":"Ashwin Murthy","@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/#\/schema\/person\/42813ea43fbca0c85cf11258bbce0b20"},"headline":"San Francisco v. EPA: Impact on Marine Carbon Dioxide Removal","datePublished":"2025-04-08T20:10:17+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2025\/04\/08\/san-francisco-v-epa-impact-on-marine-carbon-dioxide-removal\/"},"wordCount":1675,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/#organization"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2025\/04\/08\/san-francisco-v-epa-impact-on-marine-carbon-dioxide-removal\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/files\/2025\/04\/tempImageDPy0Yf.jpg","keywords":["Clean Water Act","marine carbon dioxide removal","Ocean CDR"],"articleSection":["Cross-cutting Issues","Negative Emissions"],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2025\/04\/08\/san-francisco-v-epa-impact-on-marine-carbon-dioxide-removal\/","url":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2025\/04\/08\/san-francisco-v-epa-impact-on-marine-carbon-dioxide-removal\/","name":"San Francisco v. EPA: Impact on Marine Carbon Dioxide Removal - Climate Law Blog","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2025\/04\/08\/san-francisco-v-epa-impact-on-marine-carbon-dioxide-removal\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2025\/04\/08\/san-francisco-v-epa-impact-on-marine-carbon-dioxide-removal\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/files\/2025\/04\/tempImageDPy0Yf.jpg","datePublished":"2025-04-08T20:10:17+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2025\/04\/08\/san-francisco-v-epa-impact-on-marine-carbon-dioxide-removal\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2025\/04\/08\/san-francisco-v-epa-impact-on-marine-carbon-dioxide-removal\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2025\/04\/08\/san-francisco-v-epa-impact-on-marine-carbon-dioxide-removal\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/files\/2025\/04\/tempImageDPy0Yf.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/files\/2025\/04\/tempImageDPy0Yf.jpg","width":508,"height":339},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2025\/04\/08\/san-francisco-v-epa-impact-on-marine-carbon-dioxide-removal\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"San Francisco v. EPA: Impact on Marine Carbon Dioxide Removal"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/#website","url":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/","name":"Climate Law Blog","description":"","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/#organization"},"potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/#organization","name":"Sabin Center for Climate Change Law","url":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/files\/2023\/02\/21-SabinBlog_Banner-1.png","contentUrl":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/files\/2023\/02\/21-SabinBlog_Banner-1.png","width":2752,"height":260,"caption":"Sabin Center for Climate Change Law"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/x.com\/sabincenter"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/#\/schema\/person\/42813ea43fbca0c85cf11258bbce0b20","name":"Ashwin Murthy","description":"Ashwin Murthy is the Negative Emissions Fellow at the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law.","sameAs":["https:\/\/www.linkedin.com\/in\/vincent-nolette-bb187b114\/"],"url":"#molongui-disabled-link"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/24782","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3422"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=24782"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/24782\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":24791,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/24782\/revisions\/24791"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/24788"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=24782"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=24782"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=24782"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}