Clean Air Act
Dissecting EPA’s Endangerment Repeal: Series Wrap-Up:
Here’s what you need to know to understand the upcoming legal battles.
Yesterday was the last of five Legal Planet posts on EPA’s repeal of the Endangerment Finding, which it based on legal arguments that it has no power to regulate vehicle emissions of greenhouse gases. The series began with a quick overview of the issues. The remaining posts focus on the reasons that EPA was right to issue the Endangerment Finding in the first place in 2009, the legal precedents supporting the Endangerment Finding. and the impact of the repeal on future climate actions. The bottom line is that EPA was right to issue the Endangerment Finding and wrong to repeal it.
CONTINUE READINGHas Trump Actually “Driven a Dagger Through the Heart” of Climate Policy?
Lee Zeldin
Don’t jump to conclusions based on the Administration’s spin operation.
there’s a good chance that the repeal of the Endangerment Finding will be reversed by the courts. That would ground federal climate policy even more firmly in the law, so the Administration is taking a gamble. Saying they’ve one is as premature as a roulette player who’s just put all their chips on one number announcing that they’re now rich before the wheel has even started turning. Even if the courts do uphold the repeal, a lot will depend on just what legal theory the judges adopt. Some legal theories would slam the door on efforts by future Democratic presidents. Others would leave room to move forward.
CONTINUE READINGThe Overlooked Precedent Supporting EPA Regulation of Greenhouse Gases
Even Roberts and Scalia agreed that Mass. v. EPA is the law
An important precedent has been overlooked in the coverage of the Trump EPA’s repeal of the 2009 Endangerment Finding. The 2009 finding relied was based on , in which the Court had held that the Clean Air Act covers air pollution and directed EPA to determine whether greenhouse gases are harmful. One reason to worry about the litigation is that the conservatives Justices all dissented from Massachusetts v. EPA over the repeal. But there’s another equally important precedent: American Electric Power v. Connecticut (AEP). That ruling was joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Scalia, so it may carry more weight.
CONTINUE READINGThe Affirmative Case for Finding Endangerment
Despite hairsplitting by the current EPA, finding endangerment is a no-brainer.
or EPA to decide that vehicle greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions aren’t harmful is iike NASA deciding that the earth isn’t round after all. Over the next year or two, lawyers will be picking over EPA’s detailed legal arguments. Let’s not get mired in the weeds. It’s crazy that this issue is even being raised.
In 2007, the Supreme Court told EPA to do two things: (1) consider whether GHGs endanger human health and welfare, and (2) if the answer is yes, regulate vehicle emissions of GHGs. That’s exactly what EPA did. Nothing has changed in the meantime.
Is This the End of Cost-Benefit Analysis?
Trump’s EPA is effectively abandoning economic analysis
Maybe the Administration means to keep cost-benefit analysis in place for some other kinds of regulations at EPA or elsewhere. But if the courts uphold the EPA’s refusal to quantify the enormous harms caused by air pollution, it’s hard to see an argument for quantifying many other regulatory benefits. In other settings, environmentalists might applaud the repeal of cost-benefit analysis. In the current setting, however, the purpose is all too plain: to make it easier for the Administration to ignore the ways it is endangering human life and health.
CONTINUE READINGThe Lingering Legal Issue of California’s Limits on Vehicle Emissions
The issues are complex, but the state has some strong legal arguments on its side.
The odds are high that the Trump Administration will withdraw California’s power to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from cars and trucks – and along with it, California’s effort to become all-electric. This is a crucial issue for the state because transportation accounts for about 40% of the state’s emissions. It’s also crucial for the other states have exercised the option of adopting California standards. The issues are complex, involving an unusual statutory scheme. Here’s what you need to know, and why I think California should win this fight.
CONTINUE READINGThe Legal Barricades Protecting State Climate Policy
The general legal landscape favors state regulatory efforts.
The upshot is that it will be very challenging for the Feds to overturn state emissions regulations of power plants and other facilities. The statutory and doctrinal landscape are favorable for states playing defense, and the Supreme Court seems if anything more favorable to the states than the national government. Of course, these general observations leave plenty of room for litigation over the fine points, and the Feds could win some cases. But the states start the contest with an advantage.
CONTINUE READINGWebinar: Climate Policy without the Endangerment Finding
UCLA Law’s “Up in the Air” webinar explores the future of federal and state climate policy if the endangerment finding is repealed.
As Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lee Zeldin rushes to rescind the endangerment finding — which some have called “the Holy Grail of U.S. climate policy” — the UCLA Emmett Institute hosted an expert panel discussion on the reasoning and ramifications of such a move. The effort underlines “an extraordinarily dark time in U.S. environmental politics,” …
Continue reading “Webinar: Climate Policy without the Endangerment Finding”
CONTINUE READINGThe Woeful Economics of a Misguided Rollback
The costs of Trump’s rollback of key climate rules far outweigh any benefits.
Trump’s rollback of regulations limiting emissions from power plants is an economic disaster. According to economists, health damages far exceed savings from lower compliance costs. Just considering health impacts alone, the net cost of the rollback will be $129 billion through 2050. Climate damages add another $148 billion in costs.
CONTINUE READINGA Very Bad House Vehicle Pollution Bill
The Fuel Emissions Freedom Act may be a stunt, but it’s worth examining
It can be hard to keep track amid all the hair-raising developments in Congress and at the Supreme Court, but last week, a group of House Republicans led by Roger Williams of Texas introduced the Fuel Emissions Freedom Act, hot on the heels of the purported (illegal) termination of California’s vehicle emissions standard waiver. This freedom-to-pollute …
Continue reading “A Very Bad House Vehicle Pollution Bill”
CONTINUE READINGJoin Our Mailing List
Climate policy is changing rapidly. Stay in the loop with expert analysis via email Monday - Friday.
