Clean Air Act
California — The Resilient State. Really.
In the midst of a historic heat wave, the state’s power grid has so far passed with flying colors
Remember rolling blackouts in California? At least at this point, they appear to be a thing of the past. Earlier today, I noticed a tweet from Cody Hill, who refers to himself as a “batteries and clean energy infrastructure developer,” pointing to a rather stunning development. Despite a massive heat wave that has put more …
Continue reading “California — The Resilient State. Really.”
CONTINUE READINGWildfire and Air Quality Law
Reforming how the Clean Air Act handles smoke from wildfires
This blog post was co-authored with Dave Owen, at UC Law SF. The draft article this blog post series is based is here. This is the fourth in a series of blog posts on our proposal to reform wildfire law in the United States. The first post is here. The second post is here. The …
Continue reading “Wildfire and Air Quality Law”
CONTINUE READINGFixing Wildfire Law
The urgent challenge of reforming how we manage wildfire
This blog post was co-authored with Dave Owen, at UC Law SF. The draft article this blog post series is based is here. Every year brings another reminder of why fire is at the top of environmental and natural resource issues for the United States, and how our legal system struggles to adjust to fire. …
Continue reading “Fixing Wildfire Law”
CONTINUE READINGInterpreting the Clean Air Act After Chevron’s Demise
A recent Ninth Circuit case requires states to do more to achieve clean air goals.
Last week, the Ninth Circuit decided Committee for a Better Arvin v. EPA, which is both a significant air pollution case and an interesting case study in how the Supreme Court has changed judicial review of agency actions. Applying what it considered to be the best interpretation of an ambiguous statute, the Court required tougher air pollution controls for the San Joaquin Valley. The dissent argued that the decision would be a disaster in terms of policy. But is that even relevant under the Loper Bright ruling?
The Sting in the Tail of the Clean Air Act
Weakening restrictions on polluters can trigger different restrictions.
Some of Trump’s most important anti-environmental moves involve unleashing air polluters. There’s a problem with this strategy, however. Doing so raises air pollution levels, which can bring states into collision with other Clean Air Act (CAA) requirements. Thus, the effect could be much tighter restrictions on other sources to compensate for looser standards on some. Worse, this effect isn’t limited to the most directly affected states. They may turn around and demand that upwind states reduce their own emissions to help the downstream states meet federal standards. Even when this isn’t true, and where the state that suffers may be Democratic-leaning and thus of no concern to Trump, there could be economic repercussions in other states.
Two notable examples of this problem involve coal generators and vehicle regulation. The first example involves coal. Trump has exempted coal-fired power plants from pollution limits to allow them to remain open longer. According to E&E News, “Air pollution from coal-fired power plants spiked in 2025, a striking reversal of long-term progress in air quality as the Trump administration boosted coal use. The emission increases were among the largest in at least a quarter-century, on a percentage basis, as the bulk of about 210 power plants registered increased sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide emissions,” Power plant sulfur-dioxide emissions were up 18% and nitrogen oxides were up 12%. This is contrary to a strong long-term declining trend.
The second example involves vehicle emissions. Under the CAA, state laws regulating vehicle emissions are generally preempted, but California can apply for a preemption waiver if it needs stricter regulations, and other states can piggyback on California’s standards. California’s ability to seek a waiver has been more limited since, at Trump’s instigation, Congress overturned EPA’s approval of several California waiver requests. The Trump Administration has independently taken the view that California can’t require manufacturers to sell more EVs as a way to meet standards. Although Republicans were mostly targeting California’s standards for greenhouse gases, they have also hampered California’s ability to get waivers for smog and particulates.
The problem arises because stopping a state from regulating some polluters may legally require it to tighten other regulations. Under CAA section 110, states must have state implementation plans that will achieve national air quality standards set by EPA. If one type of source pollutes more, other sources must offset the increased pollution by polluting less. Other CAA provisions put the screws on states that exceed the national standards. As a result, if the Feds exempt one source of nitrogen oxides (perhaps by repealing California waiver), states that had adopted the California standard will need to tighten regulations of other sources. Thus, exempting nitrogen oxides from trucks or cars, or from coal power plants, might require stricter controls on other sources such as natural gas power plants. Moreover, if a state is unable to achieve the national air quality standard, the so-called “Good Neighbor” provision allows it to demand emission reductions from upwind states.
In other words, exempting some sources increases the regulatory burden on others. The exemption may even increase the total regulatory burden, if pollution from those other sources is more expensive to control than pollution from the exempted sources. Here’s why.
CONTINUE READINGBring Back “Trump Classic”
The original version of Trump was bad. The current version is much worse.
Trump has succeeded in his second term in making every past President including even himself look better. We’re now almost a year and a half into Trump’s second term. From almost every point of view, it’s worse than his first term. It reminds me of the “New Coke” that Coca Cola once introduced, which was a disaster that led to the reintroduction of what was then dubbed “Coke Classic.” Trump Classic was committed to fossil fuels and eliminating environmental protections. But in almost every respect, his policies were less radical and his methods were less drastic.
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.
Join Our Mailing List
Climate policy is changing rapidly. Stay in the loop with expert analysis via email Monday - Friday.
The Drain is a roundup of climate and environmental news from Legal Planet delivered to your Inbox once a week.
