Federal Climate Policy Archives - Page 13 of 61

Federal Climate Policy

The climate bill and oil and gas leasing

Provision in big climate bill that mandates oil and gas leasing on federal lands has limited reach

The big news in climate policy this past week was Senator Joe Manchin (D-WV) signing off on a deal with the Democratic Senate Majority leader, Chuck Schumer, to spend hundreds of billions of dollars on climate investments – the bill is catchily called the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022. I’ll take a look at the …

Continue reading “The climate bill and oil and gas leasing”

Climate Adaptation Moves Toward Center Stage

There’s an increasing bipartisan move to fund climate resilience.

The big news today is the deal with Manchin to provide billions of dollars of funding for clean energy. Manchin’s vote will be needed because no Republican Senator will vote for the bill. In contrast, funding for climate resilience has drawing power even for Republicans. It seems to be true that, in Bob Dylan’s words …

Continue reading “Climate Adaptation Moves Toward Center Stage”

What the Supreme Court Left Standing

No, the Court didn’t eliminate EPA’s ability to fight climate change.

The Supreme Court’s ruling in the West Virginia case left many people with the impression that it eliminated the government’s power to regulate carbon emissions. There are quite a number of areas of climate law that the Supreme Court has left untouched. Here’s the EPA authority the Court hasn’t touched: EPA’s jurisdiction over greenhouse gases. …

Continue reading “What the Supreme Court Left Standing”

Declaring a Climate Change Emergency: A Citizen’s Guide

Would it be legal to declare a national emergency for climate change? Would it be useful? Here’s what you need to know.

Based on press reports, it now seems likely that Biden will soon declare climate change to be a national emergency. Would this be legal? Would it unlock important powers that could be used to fight climate change? My answers are: It would probably be legal, and it would unlock some significant powers. But an emergency …

Continue reading “Declaring a Climate Change Emergency: A Citizen’s Guide”

Climate Change and the Major Question Doctrine

Just because a regulation involves climate change, that doesn’t make it a major question.

Red State AGs are preparing to go to town with the West Virginia case. They seem to think that everything involving climate change automatically becomes a major question. That’s simply wrong. The doctrine is more nuanced. Recall that the Supreme Court struck down OSHA’s vaccine mandate, essentially on major questions grounds, but the majority found …

Continue reading “Climate Change and the Major Question Doctrine”

West Virginia v. EPA: A Quick Explainer

This video lays out the issues, what the Court did, and where EPA can go from here.

The Supreme Court Curbs Climate Action

The ruling in West Virginia v. EPA was about as good as we could expect given the makeup of the Court.

Today, the Supreme Court decided its most important environmental case since 2007. We didn’t dodge the bullet. It’s more than a flesh wound but it didn’t hit any vital organs . Chief Justice Roberts’s majority opinion leaves EPA other options to reduce carbon emissions from coal-fired power plants. It also gives a fairly narrow reading …

Continue reading “The Supreme Court Curbs Climate Action”

Equity Weighting: A Brief Introduction

An unfamiliar concept for most that just might make cost-benefit analysis more progressive.

A technique called equity weighting could make regulation more progressive. Implementing this technique may be harder than it sounds, however, for a variety of practical, legal, and political reasons. Agencies might do best to use equity weighting as a way to check their regulatory decisions rather than as their main decision tool.

Whose Interests Count? And How Much?

Whether to consider harms to foreign countries and future generations is controversial. So is how much weight to give harm to the poor.

Should regulators take into account harm to people in other countries? What about harm to future generations? Should we give special attention when the disadvantaged are harmed? These questions are central to climate policy and some other important environmental issues. I’ll use cost-benefit analysis as a framework for discussing these issues. You probably don’t need …

Continue reading “Whose Interests Count? And How Much?”

An Abundance Research Agenda

If we need to build lots of things fast to address climate and housing crises, how will we do that?

There’s been a lot of buzz about this column by Ezra Klein in the New York Times. Klein’s basic argument: We need to do a lot of infrastructure and other development projects to make the world a better place. For example, we’ll need to build power lines and renewable projects to address climate change. But …

Continue reading “An Abundance Research Agenda”

Here We Go Again! (Maybe)

The possibility of a second Trump presidency looms ahead. Time for some contingency planning!

Is 2025 the Year of the Carbon Tax?

Carbon border adjustment mechanisms are increasingly the talk of Washington. UCLA Law’s Kimberly Clausing explains some of the options on the table.

Renewable Energy: A Timeline

Today’s wind and solar resources didn’t come out of nowhere.

Understanding Loper: A Sheep in Wolves’ Clothing?

The real world effects may be limited. Or they may undercut presidential power, to the surprise of advocates of the unitary executive.

Understanding Loper: The Grandfather Clause

Hundreds of past federal cases relied on Chevron. They remain good law.

Understanding Loper: The Primacy of Skidmore

A previously obscure 1944 case will now be central to judicial review.

$10 Billion Climate Bond Heads to the California Ballot

Prop 4 would authorize the issuance of bonds in the amount of $10 billion toward safe drinking water and groundwater, wildfire and forest programs, and to combat sea level rise.

Understanding Loper: Delegation & Discretion

Something similar to Chevron deference may still apply to many (most?) regulations.

Playing fast and loose with reality

How the US Supreme Court’s recent decisions enable greater reliance on “alternative” facts

(Energy) Independence Day

A post in which I surprise readers — and myself — with strong praise for George W. Bush.

Losing Chevron: What Does It Mean for California?

The Supreme Court’s decision in Loper Bright will not necessarily impact how California courts review our state agency determinations. But we’ll feel it in other ways.

Is the Sky Falling? Chevron, Loper Bright, and Judicial Deference

Perplexed? Worried? Here’s a guide to a fraught area of law.

Is Loper v. Raimondo Really the Power Grab Commentators Assume?

The Supreme Court has already grabbed power from agencies through the major questions doctrine.

Understanding Loper: The Primacy of Skidmore

A previously obscure 1944 case will now be central to judicial review.

Understanding Loper: The Grandfather Clause

Hundreds of past federal cases relied on Chevron. They remain good law.

The “Silver Bullet” Required to Improve California’s Water Rights System: More & Better Data

California Lags Behind Other Western States in Obtaining Critically-Needed & Available Water Diversion Data

The Hawai’i Youth Climate Settlement

Thirteen youth plaintiffs secured a court-enforced agreement to decarbonize the state’s transportation system without even setting foot in a courtroom.

Federal Climate Policy

Provision in big climate bill that mandates oil and gas leasing on federal lands has limited reach

There’s an increasing bipartisan move to fund climate resilience.

No, the Court didn’t eliminate EPA’s ability to fight climate change.

Would it be legal to declare a national emergency for climate change? Would it be useful? Here’s what you need to know.

Just because a regulation involves climate change, that doesn’t make it a major question.

This video lays out the issues, what the Court did, and where EPA can go from here.

The ruling in West Virginia v. EPA was about as good as we could expect given the makeup of the Court.

An unfamiliar concept for most that just might make cost-benefit analysis more progressive.

Whether to consider harms to foreign countries and future generations is controversial. So is how much weight to give harm to the poor.

If we need to build lots of things fast to address climate and housing crises, how will we do that?

TRENDING

The possibility of a second Trump presidency looms ahead. Time for some contingency planning!

Carbon border adjustment mechanisms are increasingly the talk of Washington. UCLA Law’s Kimberly Clausing explains some of the options on the table.

Today’s wind and solar resources didn’t come out of nowhere.

The real world effects may be limited. Or they may undercut presidential power, to the surprise of advocates of the unitary executive.

Hundreds of past federal cases relied on Chevron. They remain good law.

A previously obscure 1944 case will now be central to judicial review.

Prop 4 would authorize the issuance of bonds in the amount of $10 billion toward safe drinking water and groundwater, wildfire and forest programs, and to combat sea level rise.

Something similar to Chevron deference may still apply to many (most?) regulations.

How the US Supreme Court’s recent decisions enable greater reliance on “alternative” facts

A post in which I surprise readers — and myself — with strong praise for George W. Bush.

The Supreme Court’s decision in Loper Bright will not necessarily impact how California courts review our state agency determinations. But we’ll feel it in other ways.

Perplexed? Worried? Here’s a guide to a fraught area of law.

The Supreme Court has already grabbed power from agencies through the major questions doctrine.

A previously obscure 1944 case will now be central to judicial review.

Hundreds of past federal cases relied on Chevron. They remain good law.

California Lags Behind Other Western States in Obtaining Critically-Needed & Available Water Diversion Data

Thirteen youth plaintiffs secured a court-enforced agreement to decarbonize the state’s transportation system without even setting foot in a courtroom.

NEPA isn’t a common law subject. What the statute says matters more than pre-2023 judicial opinions.

It was puzzling that the Court agreed to hear the case. How has it ruled? And why?

We used to have the Chevron test? What test do we have now?