Administrative Law
Dissecting the Attacks on the Endangerment Finding
EPA has identified four different arguments against the endangerment finding. None have merit.
In late 2009, EPA made a formal finding — often called the Endangerment Finding —that greenhouse gases may endanger human health and welfare. Undaunted by the overwhelming scientific evidence in favor of that finding, the Trump EPA plans to reconsider that finding. Few independent observers believe EPA will succeed, but the issue is important enough to warrant a close look. Here’s a deep dive.
CONTINUE READINGEPA Jumps the Shark
Just as a past dictator rejected modern genetics, Trump rejects climate science. For both, evidence was no match for ideology and ego.
Honestly, EPA’s embrace of climate denial is just plain embarrassing. And the rest of the world will justifiably view it as one more sign that the U.S. has taken leave of its senses. Trump can change the name of a water body on maps, but he can’t change scientific reality. The scientific evidence about the reality of climate change, its causes, and its harms is incredibly well-established. It’s based on many different types of data and models, which have been tested and retested.
CONTINUE READINGThe Legal Complexities of Deregulating Power Plant Carbon Emissions
The Supreme Court struck down Obama’s powerplant regulation. but it didn’t endorse Trump’s first try either.
We are likely to end up with a Trump rule for powerplant emissions that is much weaker than the Biden rule, but not as weak as EPA’s effort in the first Trump Administration. And the process will take Trump longer this time, with a greater litigation risk.This matters because even a very weak rule may require significant investments in improving powerplant efficiency, which could result in some plant closures.
CONTINUE READINGTrump Shoves Economic Analysis and Science to the Curb
The MAGA agenda takes precedence over data and analysis.
If you were looking for data-driven regulatory policy, you’re not going to find it in this Administration. On the contrary, Trump has marginalized economic analysis and wants to bulldoze environmental science. Thus, we are likely to get policies that are bad for the environment without being cost-justified, while ignoring policies who environmental benefits outweigh economic costs.
CONTINUE READINGCongress Lacks Authority to Review California’s Car Waiver
It’s a complicated issue but the answer is clear: the Congressional Review Act does not apply.
States get many kinds of waivers from the federal government. For example, many states (including quite a few Red states) have received waivers from some Medicaid requirements. Overturning the EPA vehicle waiver would expose all state waivers to the risk of being overturned under the Congressional Review Act, contrary to the plain language of that statute.
CONTINUE READINGTrump’s Seven Most Anti-Environmental Moves — and How to Push Back
There were dozens of actions, all harmful to the environment. These are the worst of the worst.
In the month since he reentered the White House, Trump has dedicated himself to knee-capping environmental protection through a series of executive orders. These orders aim to eliminate crucial environmental regulations, eviscerate key agencies like EPA, arbitrarily halt government funding, and eliminate environmental restraints on the private sector. But these are not done deals, and there are ways of pushing back.
CONTINUE READINGThe California Car Waiver and the Congressional Review Act
Trump has found a possible way to end run California’s legal arguments for the waiver. But there’s no reason to give up.
If the CRA resolution does go through, California should wait until after the midterms, when Democrats are favored to take the House, and then try again with different formulated regulations. When the Trump Administration rejects them, it could then litigate whether the new versions were “substantially the same” as the old ones.
CONTINUE READINGAll the President’s Men
The people occupying environment and energy positions will be anti-regulatory and pro-fossil fuel.
There will be a lot of dramatic fireworks on Day One of Trump’s second term, literally and figuratively. Yet his ability to achieve his agenda will depend on the people he’s chosen to run the government. His energy and environment picks will follow the party line of expanding fossil fuels. Yet they may not be as extremist as their predecessors in the first Trump Administration or as some of Trump’s advisors.
CONTINUE READINGWhy I Still ♥ IRA
Biden’s climate law has already had a dramatic impact.
With over a half-trillion dollars in clean tech investment to date, the Inflation Reduction Act has left an indelible mark on U.S. climate policy. It’s unlikely that Congress will vote to repeal the whole law, given massive investments in GOP congressional districts. But even if they did, there’s no undoing the investments already made.
CONTINUE READINGThe Economics of Civil Service Abolitionism
Would elimination of civil service protection increase government efficiency? Probably not.
Economists have been thinking a long time about why employers sometimes grant job security and often adopt seniority systems. It seems likely that, all else aside, Schedule F will degrade the general quality of government workers. It’s not at all clear that the efficiency benefits of threatening people with firing are enough to outweigh having a less capable and less experienced workforce.
CONTINUE READINGJoin Our Mailing List
Climate policy is changing rapidly. Stay in the loop with expert analysis via email Monday - Friday.
