Administrative Law
Does the Law Require Cost-Benefit Analysis?
According to the D.C. Circuit, the answer is no.
Putting aside the particulars of the case, it seems wrong to apply the same standard (monetized cost-benefit analysis) to every provision in environmental law. These provisions have different language, reflecting differences in congressional priorities. Some provisions, for instance, may be designed push industry to find innovative solutions; others may reflect Congress’s value judgments or a desire to limit EPA’s discretion. We shouldn’t assume that the myriad differences in statutory language are irrelevant and that Congress wanted agencies to adopt the same method of making decisions in every case.
CONTINUE READINGDon’t Panic About the Supreme Court’s Ruling on Universal Injunctions
The Court left open a variety of workarounds. At least for the now.
In a case involving birthright citizenship, Trump v. CASA, the Court limited the power of judges to issue universal injunctions that protect everyone subject to an illegal government policy. President Trump hailed this outcome as a great victory, and it does provide more maneuvering room for him and future presidents. But the Court’s reasoning does not implicate most judicial rulings about the legality of regulations. The Court also left open some important questions that will be furiously litigated in the lower courts or the Supreme Court itself.
CONTINUE READINGHow To Botch A CEQA Analysis
LA Metro’s draft EIR for the crucial Sepulveda Transit Corridor is thorough and careful, but it misses a key point: heavy rail is environmentally superior.
If you are from Los Angeles, you will get this. Q: What’s the best thing about the 405? A: Free parking. The 405 is the highway that runs down the west side of metropolitan Los Angeles, connecting the San Fernando Valley to west Los Angeles, down through the South Bay and into Orange County. Even …
Continue reading “How To Botch A CEQA Analysis”
CONTINUE READINGThe Emperor’s New Endangerment Theory (Wrap-Up)
Trump’s EPA says carbon emissions from U.S. power plants are too insignificant to regulate.
U.S. power plants emit 1.5 billion tons of carbon dioxide a year, a little less than the entire country of Russia. The Trump Administration is proposing to end all regulation of carbon emissions by power plants, on the theory that these emissions should be considered insignificant. They have some complicated legal arguments , but the arguments break down the more closely you look at them.
CONTINUE READINGThe Emperor’s New Endangerment Theory (Part III)
How did EPA get to the absurd conclusion that 1.5 billion tons of carbon emissions aren’t significant? Well might you ask.
There is a very good chance that a court would strike down a EPA’s current finding that carbon emissions from the U.S. power sector are too insignificant to regulate. EPA’s effort to explain its ultimate conclusion rests on a hodgepodge of poorly analyzed considerations, which obviously have been reverse engineered to lead to EPA’s preferred conclusion.
CONTINUE READINGThe Emperor’s New Endangerment Theory (Part I)
EPA says the electricity sector’s climate impacts aren’t significant. Really??
EPA has proposed a novel reading of the Clean Air Act (CAA) that would foreclose any regulation of CO2 emissions from power plants. EPA’s core argument is that the statute requires it to determine whether an industry’s emissions “cause or contribute significantly” to climate change and that the industry’s carbon emissions don’t meet that standard. …
Continue reading “The Emperor’s New Endangerment Theory (Part I)”
CONTINUE READINGThe Most Important Law Most People Have Never Heard Of
Here’s how the APA bolsters the rule of law and protects the environment.
Even the title of the law — the Administrative Procedure Act or APA — is a guaranteed yawner. Yet this law is central to the rule of law and, among other things, to environmental protection. We are learning from the current Administration’s efforts to evade the APA just how important it is. The APA requires reasoned decisions by government. More fundamentally, the requirements of legal and procedural regularity prevent the arbitrary use of government power to reward friends and punish foes.
CONTINUE READINGGovernment Hires Shouldn’t Have to Take a MAGA Essay Test
Schedule F was bad, But Trump’s latest move is even worse.
The Trump Administration has adopted new hiring procedures that will impose ideological litmus tests in federal hiring. Job applicants will be graded on essays about their allegiance to “America’s founding principles” and their commitment to implementing Trump’s executive orders. These new essay questions have little to do with the jobs of most government and employees and more to do with ideological conformity. They violate both the Civil Service statute and the First Amendment.
CONTINUE READINGEnvironmental Rollbacks: Will the Trump Administration Overplay Its Hand?
The odds are good that Trump agencies will go too far out on a limb.
The Trump Administration’s tendency to rely on bold legal arguments rather than detailed technical ones is a disadvantage in court. Courts defer to agencies on factual matters, especially those that involve technical expertise. Now that Chevron has been overruled, however, legal arguments by agencies don’t get the same deference. Thus, the chances of a judicial reversal are higher when the agency relies on purely legal grounds.
CONTINUE READINGTrump Goes Nuclear
Four new executive orders try to launch a nuclear renaissance.
Diluting safety and environmental reviews is also likely to lead to a lot of litigation, which will slow nuclear licensing to a crawl. In addition, the industry knows that what one President can do by executive order, the next President can undo. So it could be risky to make investments in facilities that will be around for many decades, based on what could be an evanescent presidential policy. And the public will have good reason to fear that public safety won’t be a priority.
CONTINUE READINGJoin Our Mailing List
Climate policy is changing rapidly. Stay in the loop with expert analysis via email Monday - Friday.
