Clean Air Act
The Case for Co-Benefits
Ignoring co-benefits violates well-established legal principles.
The Trump Administration is moving toward the view, long popular in industry, that when it regulates a pollutant, EPA can consider only the health impacts of that particular pollutant – even when the regulation will also reduce other harmful pollutants. This idea is especially important in climate change regulation, because cutting carbon emissions almost always …
Continue reading “The Case for Co-Benefits”
CONTINUE READINGSeparated at Birth? No, not really.
Trump’s pro-coal EPA plan equates two legal provisions with little in common.
Trump’s plan for coal-fired power plants, like Obama’s plan to cut carbon emissions, is based on section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act. But much of the legal argument relies on an analogy to section 165 to support EPA’s very restrictive interpretation of section 111(d). It’s that restrictive interpretation that leads the agency to reject …
Continue reading “Separated at Birth? No, not really.”
CONTINUE READINGDoes the Clean Air Act Mask One of Our Worst Remaining Air Pollution Problems?
New Article Addresses Hot Spot Pollution and the Clean Air Act
Over the last fifty years, we have made huge progress in cleaning up the nation’s air. Overall pollution levels have dropped by 70 percent since the 1970s, cars are 99 percent cleaner, and we’ve essentially eliminated lead from the atmosphere. The Clean Air Act is the main reason for this success, saving countless lives and …
Continue reading “Does the Clean Air Act Mask One of Our Worst Remaining Air Pollution Problems?”
CONTINUE READINGTrump administration and California are on collision course over vehicle emissions rules
Meredith Hankins and Nicholas Bryner co-author legal explainer for The Conversation
California and the Trump administration are going different directions on mileage standards. AP Photo/Rich Pedroncelli Meredith Hankins, University of California, Los Angeles and Nicholas Bryner, Louisiana State University The Trump administration on Aug. 2 formally announced a proposal to freeze fuel economy standards and tailpipe emission standards for new cars. In addition, it is proposing …
CONTINUE READINGThe Questionable Legal Basis of the “Transparency” Proposal
EPA seems unsure of the legal authority for its proposal — and for good reason.
“They sat at the Agency and said, ‘what can we do to reimagine authority under the statutes to regulate an area that we are unsure that we can but we’re going to do so anyway?’” When he said those words, Scott Pruitt was talking about the Obama Administration. But it seems to be a pretty …
Continue reading “The Questionable Legal Basis of the “Transparency” Proposal”
CONTINUE READINGThe New EPA Plan To Roll Back Auto Emissions Standards and “Supersede” the California Waiver is Legally Indefensible
It is also terrible for the planet
The Los Angeles Times is reporting that EPA will propose to roll back greenhouse gas emissions standards for automobiles to 2020 levels. EPA will also claim that the California waiver is superseded by fuel economy standards issued by NHTSA and therefor is not valid, according to the report: Administration lawyers argue that the law gives …
CONTINUE READINGWhy California gets to write its own auto emissions standards: 5 questions answered
Authored by Nicholas Bryner and Meredith Hankins
Rush hour on the Hollywood Freeway, Los Angeles, September 9, 2016. AP Photo/Richard Vogel This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article. Editor’s note: On April 2, Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt announced that the Trump administration plans to revise tailpipe emissions standards negotiated by the Obama administration for motor …
CONTINUE READINGScott Pruitt’s Faulty Logic
There’s a gaping hole in Pruitt’s argument for repealing the Obama’s climate change rule.
An earlier blog post pointed to a logical gap in the current EPA’s justification for repealing the Clean Power Plan (CPP), the Obama Administration effort to cut emissions from electrical power plants. He makes an argument that EPA can only base rules on actions that polluters can take within a facility, and jumps from there …
Continue reading “Scott Pruitt’s Faulty Logic”
CONTINUE READINGScott Pruitt: “What, me worry?”
The right question about greenhouse gas emissions is not whether there is an “ideal” global temperature regime, but what problems rapid regime shifts produce
(Readers of a certain age will understand the reference, and see the resemblance. If that’s not you, never mind. But read on for a little less snark and a little more analysis.) According to the Washington Post, EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt wondered in a television interview Tuesday whether global warming “necessarily is a bad thing,” …
Continue reading “Scott Pruitt: “What, me worry?””
CONTINUE READINGGuest Blogger Gregory Dotson: Is Scott Pruitt Calling for an Amendment to the Clean Air Act?
EPA Administrator Resorts to Misleading Rhetoric in Possible Prelude to Revisiting Massachusetts v. EPA
Since he was confirmed to lead the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency six months ago, Administrator Scott Pruitt has relied on three points when discussing the issue of climate change. He has cast doubt on the science by claiming it’s difficult to know the human role “with precision.” He has questioned the ability of the agency …
CONTINUE READING