Regulation Archives - Page 7 of 128

Regulation

California Supreme Court Rules County Ordinance Limiting Oil & Gas Development Preempted by State Law

Court Decision May Well Be Correct as a Matter of Law, But Represents Outdated & Unsound Public Policy

Last week, the California Supreme Court unanimously ruled that a local initiative measure that would have imposed severe restrictions on oil and gas development in Monterey County is preempted by state law and therefore invalid. The decision came in the case of Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. County of Monterey. The Supreme Court’s ruling was predictable, …

Continue reading “California Supreme Court Rules County Ordinance Limiting Oil & Gas Development Preempted by State Law”

Biden’s Proposed Power Plant Rule is a Solid First Step

The electric power sector remains 30 percent of the nation’s carbon dioxide emissions, and this rule can incentivize the push towards renewables.

On May 23, the Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) proposed emission limits and guidelines for carbon dioxide from fossil fuel-powered plants. To avoid the same fate as the Obama Administration’s Clean Power Plan, which was struck down by the conservative Supreme Court in West Virginia v. EPA last year, the new draft rule does not determine …

Continue reading “Biden’s Proposed Power Plant Rule is a Solid First Step”

E-bikes are a Climate Solution – Not a Menace

News stories that frame the rise of e-bikes as one big safety risk are not only short-sighted, they could lead to bad policy.

There’s a dangerous new mobility trend on American streets that’s captured the attention of the New York Times: e-bikes. Or so the Times, and some other media outlets, are suggesting with their editorial choices. “The e-bike industry is booming, but the summer of 2023 has brought sharp questions about how safe e-bikes are, especially for …

Continue reading “E-bikes are a Climate Solution – Not a Menace”

Sackett and the Dangers of a New ‘Clear-Statement Rule’

The Supreme Court decision in Sackett v. EPA will be bad for the nation’s wetlands. It is just as bad for democracy. 

The Supreme Court decision in Sackett v. EPA limits the Environmental Protection Agency’s ability to defend a large portion of the nation’s wetlands and waterways from pollution. The decision strips key environmental protections from the Clean Water Act by narrowly defining which bodies of water can be regulated under the Act, making it the most …

Continue reading “Sackett and the Dangers of a New ‘Clear-Statement Rule’”

A decade of unraveling the effects of regulation on water innovation

By Michael Kiparsky, with Dave Smith, Nell Green Nylen, Luke Sherman, Alida Cantor, Anita Milman, Felicia Marcus, David Sedlak, Bernhard Truffer, Christian Binz, Sasha Harris-Lovett, Jeff Lape, Justin Mattingly, Dave Owen, Lars Tummers, Buzz Thompson

In a recent post, my colleagues and I reported on our most recent research output in a long series of projects examining the effect of regulation on water innovation. The post describes a new framework for understanding and, ultimately, improving relationships between regulators and wastewater utility managers who are seeking to implement novel technical solutions, …

Continue reading “A decade of unraveling the effects of regulation on water innovation “

Has the Supreme Court Declared Open Season on Interstate Commerce?

How to read a baffling Supreme Court ruling.

If you’re a lawyer or a lower court judge, you know you’ve got a problem when the Supreme Court’s opinion begins with a list of parts of the opinion that do or don’t have a majority, along with a list of what different permutations of judges said what about the issues. The Pork Producers case …

Continue reading “Has the Supreme Court Declared Open Season on Interstate Commerce?”

The role of regulatory relationships in wastewater innovation

Five boxes are shown, one for each of the 5 characteristics. Arrows connect some of the boxes to one another. The first box is for “clarity.” It says “The relationship establishes explicit and mutually understood expectations regarding the utility’s and regulator’s respective responsibilities and goals.” The second box is for “capacity building.” It says “The relationship builds knowledge and abilities for both the utility and the regulator.” The third box is for “continuity.” It says “The relationship begins early and continues throughout project development and implementation.” The fourth box is for “trust.” It says “The relationship fosters willingness by the utility and regulator to take risks in exchange for the other party’s capability and willingness to deliver on commitments, as well as public confidence in both.” Finally, the fifth box is for “bounded flexibility.” It says “The relationship maintains the ability to adjust and adapt over time, including by (1) supporting project refinement, learning, and adjustment and (2) exploring the appropriate use of regulatory discretion.” Three arrows point from the clarity box to other boxes. One arrow points to the capacity building box and says “Helps parties identify their information needs.” A second arrow point to the trust box and says “Helps parties understand one another’s goals, responsibilities, and constraints + identify areas of alignment.” The third arrow points to the bounded flexibility box and says “Helps parties identify where flexibility may be possible and beneficial.” Two arrows point from the capacity building box to other boxes. One points to the trust box and says “Builds project-specific knowledge + builds ability to deal with innovation.” The other points to the bounded flexibility box and says “Supports project refinement and adjustment.” Four arrows point from the continuity box, one to each of the other four boxes. The arrow to the clarity box says “Maintains understanding of parties’ goals and expectations.” The arrow to the capacity building box says “Supports developing and maintaining the parties’ institutional and project-specific knowledge.” The arrow to the trust box says “Demonstrates a pattern of good-faith interactions.” The arrow to the bounded flexibility box says “Enables ongoing engagement around adaptive management + regulatory discretion.” Finally, an arrow points from the trust box to the bounded flexibility box. It says “Increases willingness to use adaptive management + supports exploring regulatory discretion.”

by Nell Green Nylen, Michael Kiparsky, and Anita Milman

Public water and wastewater utilities are increasingly struggling to meet society’s expectations. Their basic infrastructure is aging, budgets are tight, and they face a barrage of stressors, from population growth to climate change and shifting regulatory expectations. What’s more, in addition to performing their traditional function of protecting human health and water quality, many wastewater …

Continue reading “The role of regulatory relationships in wastewater innovation”

Environmental Law Again Front-and-Center at California Supreme Court

Local Government’s Authority to Limit Oil & Gas Development To Be Argued Before Justices

For the first two decades of this century, and under the able leadership of former Chief Justices Ronald George and Tani Cantil-Sakauye, the California Supreme Court was quite active in interpreting and shaping California environmental law. That trend had abated in the last few years–coincidentally or not during the height of the COVID epidemic–with only …

Continue reading “Environmental Law Again Front-and-Center at California Supreme Court”

To Manage Water Scarcity, California Needs a Framework for Fair and Effective Water Right Curtailment

Aerial view of a reservoir showing low water levels.

by Nell Green Nylen, Dave Owen, Jennifer Harder, Michael Kiparsky, and Michael Hanemann

After three years of drought, a parade of storms brought flooding, landslides, and a massive snowpack to California. With water temporarily so abundant, it is tempting to push planning for water scarcity to the back burner. But California does not have this luxury. The state’s water management challenges during wet and dry times interrelate, and …

Continue reading “To Manage Water Scarcity, California Needs a Framework for Fair and Effective Water Right Curtailment”

Revamping Cost-Benefit Analysis

Proposed changes will make CBA more climate friendly.

Last week, the Biden White House released proposed changes in the way the government does cost-benefit analysis. CBA has been a key part of rule making for forty years. The proposal is very technical and low-key, but the upshot will be that efforts to reduce carbon emissions will get a leg up. In particular, the …

Continue reading “Revamping Cost-Benefit Analysis”

Join Our Mailing List

Climate policy is changing rapidly. Stay in the loop with expert analysis via email Monday - Friday.

Huge Snub for Big Oil at the Supreme Court

Oil companies failed to persuade the justices to shield them from the growing number of state lawsuits seeking damages for the harms caused by climate change.

Regulation

Court Decision May Well Be Correct as a Matter of Law, But Represents Outdated & Unsound Public Policy

The electric power sector remains 30 percent of the nation’s carbon dioxide emissions, and this rule can incentivize the push towards renewables.

News stories that frame the rise of e-bikes as one big safety risk are not only short-sighted, they could lead to bad policy.

The Supreme Court decision in Sackett v. EPA will be bad for the nation’s wetlands. It is just as bad for democracy.

By Michael Kiparsky, with Dave Smith, Nell Green Nylen, Luke Sherman, Alida Cantor, Anita Milman, Felicia Marcus, David Sedlak, Bernhard Truffer, Christian Binz, Sasha Harris-Lovett, Jeff Lape, Justin Mattingly, Dave Owen, Lars Tummers, Buzz Thompson

How to read a baffling Supreme Court ruling.

by Nell Green Nylen, Michael Kiparsky, and Anita Milman

Local Government’s Authority to Limit Oil & Gas Development To Be Argued Before Justices

by Nell Green Nylen, Dave Owen, Jennifer Harder, Michael Kiparsky, and Michael Hanemann

Proposed changes will make CBA more climate friendly.

Join Our Mailing List

Climate policy is changing rapidly. Stay in the loop with expert analysis via email Monday - Friday.

TRENDING

The Governor’s proposed 2025-26 budget would tap the recent voter-approved climate bond and seek new emergency funds.

An interview with leading energy expert Catherine Wolfram

Oil companies failed to persuade the justices to shield them from the growing number of state lawsuits seeking damages for the harms caused by climate change.

It’s supposed to be cost-saving, but the savings are trivial on the scale of the federal budget.

Reducing the Number of Decisions Could Accelerate Fire Management

Addressing the difficult parts, regulation and litigation

We need legislative action to accelerate fire risk reduction in general

Wildfire policy and the tragic fires in Southern California?

New UCLA research connects the dots between the climate crisis and the supercharged LA wildfires. “Hydroclimate whiplash” means worse floods, droughts, and fires.

The reconciliation process avoids the risk of a Senate filibuster. But it comes wth procedural and political complications.

Oil companies failed to persuade the justices to shield them from the growing number of state lawsuits seeking damages for the harms caused by climate change.

Effective climate policy requires consideration of efficiency, equity, technological innovation, carbon reductions and political feasibility

Before even taking office, Trump has confirmed that “normality” is out the window.

By finally granting the Advanced Clean Car II waiver, the agency just undercut Trump’s planned attack on electric vehicles.

If you read Legal Planet, you know the work of the environmental law centers at Berkeley and UCLA is critical. Now is the time to support it.

Escalating Legal Attacks on California’s Longstanding Clean Air Act “Waiver” Authority

How much do you really know about the law relating to climate change?

Recent Department of Energy report indicates that the trade may be worth it

Deadly windstorms, wildfires, and hurricanes constitute something more horrific than just “climate change.”

The reconciliation process avoids the risk of a Senate filibuster. But it comes wth procedural and political complications.

The Supreme Court decision in Sackett v. EPA will be bad for the nation’s wetlands. It is just as bad for democracy. 