Regulatory Policy
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 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 READINGCan Public Ownership Fix Our Electricity Woes? It’s Complicated
New UCLA report “Power Struggle: California’s Electric Utility Ownership Dilemma” by Sylvie Ashford, Mohit Chhabra, and Ruthie Lazenby
This post is co-authored by Sylvie Ashford and Mohit Chhabra. California’s investor-owned utilities (IOUs) are under intense scrutiny for causing deadly wildfires and charging some of the nation’s highest electricity rates. Adding to these challenges, IOUs are required to make significant clean energy and grid investments to achieve the state’s goal of a net zero …
Continue reading “Can Public Ownership Fix Our Electricity Woes? It’s Complicated”
CONTINUE READINGThe Annihilation of Environmental Justice: A Timeline
Trump has spared no effort to ensure that the government ignores the needs of vulnerable communities.
Amid the daily onslaught of executive actions, the cumulative effect of these actions may escape notice. A case in point is environmental justice. It’s not just one or two dramatic actions: there has been a systematic war of elimination against protections for vulnerable communities. While initiated by Trump, the effort has included a ream of destructive follow-on actions. The best way to make the point is a chronological account.
CONTINUE READINGSupply-Side Regulations & Clean Vehicles
As Congress votes to undermine California’s sovereignty to set supply-side standards on polluting vehicles, CLEE’s research shows why these policies are so effective
In May 2025, both the U.S. House and Senate passed resolutions to revoke California’s Clean Air Act waivers, which allow the state to enforce stricter vehicle emissions rules than federal standards (see Ann Carlson’s post on this issue). If signed by the President—and if successful in the face of court challenges to their dubious legality—these …
Continue reading “Supply-Side Regulations & Clean Vehicles”
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 READINGExecutive Disorders
One after another, Trump has let loose destructive blasts at the environment to promote fossil fuels, mining, and logging.
We all know that Trump has issued a slew of executive orders since taking the oath of office. We also know that many of these are aimed to promoting fossil fuels, mining, and logging at the expense of the environment, while disfavoring renewable energy. Still, it’s impressive when you put the list together to see the full onslaught.
CONTINUE READINGJoin Our Mailing List
Climate policy is changing rapidly. Stay in the loop with expert analysis via email Monday - Friday.
