Think Tanks versus Advocacy Tanks
Don't get me wrong. There are real think tanks like RAND or RFF that produce significant reports on environmental policy issues. I always take the conclusions of these experts seriously, because they're very competent and don't have an axe to grind (unless you count being overly attached to economic analysis as a bias.) Then there are places like the Heritage Foundation, American Enterprise Institute, and Cato. Their basic function is to produce advocacy pieces fo...
CONTINUE READINGSaving Public Nuisance
I agree with Rick's take on the oral argument in Connecticut v. AEP -- in fact, so much so that I predicted it three years ago! But if the Supreme Court overturns the Second Circuit on the viability of a federal common law claim, that actually makes the viability of state common law claims stronger. Merely because the Clean Air Act displaces federal common law hardly implies that it pre-empts state common law. Indeed, the absence of a federal common law claim now op...
CONTINUE READINGDamage Control for the States: Predicting the Outcome in AEP v. Connecticut
Yesterday I previewed Tuesday's oral arguments in the U.S. Supreme Court's American Electric Power v. Connecticut case, and two of my Legal Planet colleagues have already posted comments on certain aspects of those arguments. But let me cast discretion to the wind and predict the outcome of the case. Actually, it's not that difficult a prognostication: the plaintiff states, City of New York and private land trusts are going to lose. From their questions and comments dur...
CONTINUE READINGConnecticut v. AEP: The Judicial Power of the Purse
That's not my phrase: it's Jerry Frug's. But it applies here. Rhead reports that in the Connecticut v. AEP argument, Justice Breyer, setting up one of his classic hypotheticals, wanted to know why a judge should not impose a $20-a-ton carbon tax as a judicial remedy. (Answer: because he can’t.) It's not clear to me why Breyer thinks that a judge can't do this. Recall that Connecticut v. AEP is formally a nuisance case. Damages are a standard remedy in nuisance...
CONTINUE READINGReading the Mary Nichols (carbon) tea leaves
It's undoubtedly dangerous to try to read too much into short media quotes. But Mary Nichols, the chair of the California Air Resources Board, is in a better position than most to judge (and to influence) the political winds on the future of the State's cap-and-trade program. Here's her latest public statement on the issue, made during an appearance last week at a climate conference in LA (and reported by KPCC here, with audio, and also by the LA Times here):...
CONTINUE READINGAEP v. Connecticut oral argument
This morning, the Supreme Court heard 75 minutes of oral argument in AEP v. Connecticut. My fellow blogger, Richard Frank, already gave us a preview of the arguments. SCOTUSblog has a nice recap of what happened this morning. I would just like to highlight a few points from the oral argument. First, the Justices seem hesitant to throw out the public nuisance remedy completely, but are uncomfortable with the complexity of a judicial remedy in this type of case. Justice...
CONTINUE READINGPreviewing the Supreme Court Oral Arguments in AEP v. Connecticut
On Tuesday the U.S. Supreme Court hears oral arguments in the only environmental case on its docket this Term: American Electric Power v. Connecticut. At issue in this critically important climate change case is whether a coalition of states, New York City and several private land trusts can pursue a federal common law nuisance claim against the owners and operators of massive Midwestern, coal-fired power plants that collectively generate an estimated 650 million tons of...
CONTINUE READINGExplaining EPA’s Authority Under the Clean Air Act to Address Climate Change
In a new white paper by the Center for Progressive Reform (CPR), Amy Sinden and I try to clear up some misconceptions about climate change and the Clean Air Act. Critics of EPA maintain that the Clean Air Act is somehow an inappropriate tool to address greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, and that EPA should be prohibited from regulating. It is true that the Clean Air Act was not specifically tailored to the task of curbing GHGs, and that it would undoubtedly be desirable f...
CONTINUE READINGEnergy and Development
Readers of this blog may be interested in a new blog by my ERG colleague Dan Kammen. Dan is currently on leave from Berkeley to head the Clean Tech effort at the World Bank as the Bank's Chief Technical Specialist for Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency. Recent subjects range from cook stoves in Africa to renewable energy in Malaysia and climate impacts on your local energy supply. Before going to the Bank, was the co-developer of the Property Assessed Clean Ener...
CONTINUE READINGThe War Against State Environmental Protection
Although much of the attention has been on Congress, states have also seen major budget-cutting efforts, with a disproportionate amount of cuts targeted on state environmental agencies. As the NY Times reports, Governor LePage summed up the animus while defending his program in a radio address. “Maine’s working families and small businesses are endangered,” he said. “It is time we start defending the interests of those who want to work and invest in Maine with ...
CONTINUE READINGJoin Our Mailing List
Climate policy is changing rapidly. Stay in the loop with expert analysis via email Monday - Friday.
