Regulation
The Sting in the Tail of the Clean Air Act
Weakening restrictions on polluters can trigger different restrictions.
Some of Trump’s most important anti-environmental moves involve unleashing air polluters. There’s a problem with this strategy, however. Doing so raises air pollution levels, which can bring states into collision with other Clean Air Act (CAA) requirements. Thus, the effect could be much tighter restrictions on other sources to compensate for looser standards on some. Worse, this effect isn’t limited to the most directly affected states. They may turn around and demand that upwind states reduce their own emissions to help the downstream states meet federal standards. Even when this isn’t true, and where the state that suffers may be Democratic-leaning and thus of no concern to Trump, there could be economic repercussions in other states.
Two notable examples of this problem involve coal generators and vehicle regulation. The first example involves coal. Trump has exempted coal-fired power plants from pollution limits to allow them to remain open longer. According to E&E News, “Air pollution from coal-fired power plants spiked in 2025, a striking reversal of long-term progress in air quality as the Trump administration boosted coal use. The emission increases were among the largest in at least a quarter-century, on a percentage basis, as the bulk of about 210 power plants registered increased sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide emissions,” Power plant sulfur-dioxide emissions were up 18% and nitrogen oxides were up 12%. This is contrary to a strong long-term declining trend.
The second example involves vehicle emissions. Under the CAA, state laws regulating vehicle emissions are generally preempted, but California can apply for a preemption waiver if it needs stricter regulations, and other states can piggyback on California’s standards. California’s ability to seek a waiver has been more limited since, at Trump’s instigation, Congress overturned EPA’s approval of several California waiver requests. The Trump Administration has independently taken the view that California can’t require manufacturers to sell more EVs as a way to meet standards. Although Republicans were mostly targeting California’s standards for greenhouse gases, they have also hampered California’s ability to get waivers for smog and particulates.
The problem arises because stopping a state from regulating some polluters may legally require it to tighten other regulations. Under CAA section 110, states must have state implementation plans that will achieve national air quality standards set by EPA. If one type of source pollutes more, other sources must offset the increased pollution by polluting less. Other CAA provisions put the screws on states that exceed the national standards. As a result, if the Feds exempt one source of nitrogen oxides (perhaps by repealing California waiver), states that had adopted the California standard will need to tighten regulations of other sources. Thus, exempting nitrogen oxides from trucks or cars, or from coal power plants, might require stricter controls on other sources such as natural gas power plants. Moreover, if a state is unable to achieve the national air quality standard, the so-called “Good Neighbor” provision allows it to demand emission reductions from upwind states.
In other words, exempting some sources increases the regulatory burden on others. The exemption may even increase the total regulatory burden, if pollution from those other sources is more expensive to control than pollution from the exempted sources. Here’s why.
CONTINUE READINGRenewable Energy Policy After the Federal Retreat
Which states are stepping up to fill the void?
With little resistance from Congress, the Trump administration is doing what it can to discourage the further development of renewable energy resources, showing a special lack of affection towards solar and wind. Through various executive orders and through direct payouts to some potential developers, the administration has worked to block and reverse permits on federal …
Continue reading “Renewable Energy Policy After the Federal Retreat”
CONTINUE READINGA Trump Rollback Hits a Roadblock
A Trump gambit to undo a key air pollution limit turned out to be a flop.
The Administration has moved more slowly, however, on actually wiping Biden’s regulations off the books. On Friday, the D.C. Circuit decisively rejected one important effort by the Trump EPA. In doing so, it saved (at least for now) a crucial protection for public health. While it’s not impossible to imagine that the Supreme Court might intervene, doing so would probably require it to hear oral argument, given the importance and complexity of the case. That’s unlikely to happen quickly and may not happen at all,
CONTINUE READINGThe Environment Dies in Darkness
Suppressing the rights of free speech and association is deadly to environmental protection.
It’s not a coincidence that the title of this post is taken from what used to be the motto for the Washington Post until its billionaire owner decided that democracy was not, after all, a priority. Because of the inherently collective nature of environmental protection, democracy and environmental protection are inseparable. The government’s efforts to suppress opponents have a cumulative effect, creating a climate of repression. If we want to fight global warming, we also need to fight the chilling effects of repression on First Amendment freedoms.
OMB’s New Grant Regulations: A Deeper Dive
A close look at OMB’s proposed rule only heightens concerns.
Is OMB’s proposed rewrite of federal grant regulations as bad as it sounds? Sadly, the answer is yes. Below, this posts takes a close look at some key provisions in the regulations. Some raise constitutional problems. Others are merely bad policy, undermining merit review, deterring valuable research, and skewing research toward the politics of the moment.
CONTINUE READINGOMB’s “Reforms” versus NSF’s Statutory Mission
NSF will need to do some serious explaining about how the “reforms” advance its scientific mission.
In terms of DEI, section 1861p-14(7) says that one factor in assessing grants is “expanding participation of women and individuals from underrepresented groups in STEM.” Section 1855a also authorizes the Foundation to support activities to encourage women qualify for and then pursue careers in STEM. Section 1855b contains similar language about the “participation of minorities” in science. How is the prohibition on DEI consistent with these provisions? If not, does the agency now believe these provisions are unconstitutional and if so, one what grounds?
CONTINUE READINGCalifornia Permits Pesticides the EU Has Banned
Guest contributor Julie Binot writes that farmworkers are paying the price of California’s weaker pesticide standards.
Guest contributor Julie Binot is an LL.M. graduate (’26) from UC Berkeley. Controversies in France over the reintroduction of acetamiprid, a pesticide, led me to look at California’s own protections. In France, the push to reinstate the neonicotinoid insecticide, banned since 2018 over risks to bees and human health, was ultimately blocked by the Constitutional …
Continue reading “California Permits Pesticides the EU Has Banned”
CONTINUE READINGTrump versus Cost-Benefit Analysis
EPA’s disavowal of CBA is the culmination of a longer assault.
EPA recently said it would no longer try to quantify the harms done by the two most serious, widespread air pollutants. Given that these are the most fully understood of all environmental impacts, it’s not clear what future regulations, if any, might be still subject to cost benefit analysis. This didn’t come out of the blue. Rather, it is the culmination of a series of steps that began when Trump took office in 2017. By 2018, Trump’s executive orders and other administration actions had led me to write a post about “the rise of benefit-blind analysis.” Little did I know what was coming down the road.
CONTINUE READINGTrump and Xi Meet in Beijing
As the U.S. and China meet, climate change is NOT on the agenda.
When Presidents Trump and Xi meet this week in Beijing, climate and environment will not be on the agenda. That absence is striking, because the U.S. and China are now moving in radically different directions on climate, energy, and environmental protection. The US is in an extraordinarily anti-environmental moment. It has exited both the Paris …
Continue reading “Trump and Xi Meet in Beijing”
CONTINUE READINGThe Other Half of Climate: Policy, Capital, and the Race to Scale Superpollutant Solutions
Learn how California is using satellite data to pull the emergency brake on global warming.
Methane and other short-lived climate pollutants (SLCPs) are responsible for nearly half of today’s net global warming. Because they exit the atmosphere quickly, reducing them can serve as an ‘emergency brake’ on rising temperatures. At the San Francisco Climate Week, UC Berkeley’s Center for Law, Energy and the Environment (CLEE) and the Institute for Governance …
CONTINUE READINGJoin Our Mailing List
Climate policy is changing rapidly. Stay in the loop with expert analysis via email Monday - Friday.
The Drain is a roundup of climate and environmental news from Legal Planet delivered to your Inbox once a week.
