Pollution & Health
The Rise of Benefit-Blind Analysis
The Trump Administration cares about regulatory costs. Regulatory benefits? Not so much.
Since Ronald Reagan’s time, there has been a consensus among conservatives that cost-benefit analysis (CBA) should be the gold standard for regulation. That approach has given them common ground with moderates such as Cass Sunstein, many economists (whether liberal or conservative), and at least a few scholars more environmentally inclined. Cost-benefit analysis has had its …
Continue reading “The Rise of Benefit-Blind Analysis “
CONTINUE READINGGuest Bloggers Deborah Gordon and Frances Reuland: Is California Extraordinary? Its Oil Resources Certainly Are
Facts About California’s Oil and Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Despite ongoing federal rollbacks to environmental regulations, California has the right to set its own clean air standards because it is truly extraordinary. Truth be told, the compelling circumstances that first set in motion California’s vehicle emissions standards remain entirely valid. And there are four recent conditions, related to California’s oil supply, production, and refining, …
CONTINUE READINGTrump Administration’s Quiet Policy Change Could More Than Double Hazardous Air Pollution in California
Change in MACT applicability could result in 935 additional tons of toxic pollution emitted by stationary sources in the state each year
Earlier this year, EPA made a major policy change in how the agency evaluates stationary sources of hazardous air pollutants in a memorandum quietly issued without any warning or opportunity for public comment. This policy change was promptly challenged by California and two different coalitions of environmental and community groups (one suit was filed by …
CONTINUE READINGUCLA’s Environmental Law Clinic Files Brief on Behalf of Amici League of California Cities and California State Association of Counties
Brief defends local government authority to regulate oil drilling in face of industry challenge
[Update: The Second District Court of Appeal, Division 5 has rejected all the amicus curiae brief applications filed in this case, including this brief. We will leave this post, and the link to the brief, up on this blog so that anyone interested may see our arguments, but the brief will not be considered in …
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 READINGNew Policy Brief: How To Deploy Zero-Emission Freight Technologies At Southern California’s Ports
Brief captures key findings from UCLA / UC Berkeley Law conference in June
The environmental law centers at UCLA and UC Berkeley Schools of Law have released a new policy brief that describes the top challenges and solutions for deploying zero-emission freight technologies at Southern California’s ports. Policy Solutions to Boost Zero-Emission Freight at Southern California’s Ports summarizes the key findings from a conference on the topic at UCLA …
CONTINUE READINGEPA Makes a Pit Stop at the “Chevron” Station
EPA’s latest proposed rollback relies heavily on the Chevron Doctrine.
The ACE rule, The Trump Administration’s proposed rule for carbon emissions in the carbon sector, purports to regulate greenhouse gases from power plants. Its real goal seems to be minimizing the burden on coal-fired plants. Legal Planet has already carried some excellent posts about the proposal’s policy flaws. I’d like instead to talk about its …
Continue reading “EPA Makes a Pit Stop at the “Chevron” Station”
CONTINUE READINGThe Costs, Benefits, and Health Impacts of EPA’s Proposed Replacement for the Clean Power Plan
EPA’s New Proposed Rule Will Cost Billions of Dollars, Largely in Health Impacts and Avoidable Mortality
As my colleagues Cara Horowitz and Meredith Hankins, and others, including the New York Times, have reported, the Trump EPA today proposed a replacement rule for the Clean Power Plan, which was a plan to transform our electrical grid away from coal (with associated health and climate benefits). The essence of the new proposal is to replace …
CONTINUE READINGOne State, Two States, Red States, Blue States: Federalism Hypocrisy in Trump’s EPA
Regulatory approaches for vehicles versus power plants show the Trump White House’s true motivation – and it’s not states’ rights.
As my colleague Cara Horowitz has already blogged, the Trump EPA is preparing to announce a Clean Power Plan replacement today, rolling back Obama-era efforts to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from existing power plants. The plan is expected to largely shift the regulatory burden to states, essentially leaving it up to them to decide whether …
CONTINUE READINGGreen Groups and Corporate Sustainability
Environmental NGOs sometimes partner with business, sometimes administer “tough love.”
Much of what environmental groups do involves the government: lobbying Congress, participating in rulemakings, and suing when all else fails. But there is also an interesting story to be told of how these groups relate to the corporate world. Sometimes they play the good cop, forming partnership with companies; sometimes the bad cop, trashing the …
Continue reading “Green Groups and Corporate Sustainability”
CONTINUE READING