Transportation
NEPA in the Supreme Court — On the Eve of Oral Argument
Some thoughts about how the Court should define some limits on indirect effects.
Our paper on the proper scope of NEPA places heavy emphasis on foreseeability, but in an expanded version of the paper we consider some unusual situations where additional factors come into play. This additional analysis makes clear important limits on NEPA scope that we think address at least some of the concerns that have (appropriately) been raised about ever-expanding NEPA review and the risk that it will hamper efforts to develop needed infrastructure.
CONTINUE READINGWhat does the election mean for the EV transition?
Slower, less certain, and less equitable–with a new focus on local leadership
The election of Donald Trump and a Republican Congress poses a direct threat to environmental protection and climate policy across the board, including destructive agency heads, reduced clean energy funding, abandoned international agreements, and more federal judges openly hostile to science-based regulation in service of public and environmental health. It’s a bleak outlook from any …
Continue reading “What does the election mean for the EV transition?”
CONTINUE READINGNEPA in the Supreme Court (Part IV)
Understanding how causation applies for NEPA reviews.
This functional approach is consistent with Supreme Court precedent, based on the text and purposes of NEPA, and provides workable guidelines for agencies to determine what kinds of effects to examine when conducting environmental reviews. It is the approach the Court should follow when deciding Seven Counties, and when giving guidance to lower courts and agencies about how to apply NEPA.
CONTINUE READINGNEPA in the Supreme Court (Part II)
Here’s why the Supreme Court should reject radical arguments for limiting environmental impact statements.
Our last post explained the background of the Seven Counties NEPA case, which is currently pending in the Supreme Court. Today, we discuss the radical arguments that have been made in the case and why they should be rejected. NEPA requires that agencies consider the environmental effects of their projects, but the petitioners raise hairsplitting arguments to exclude obvious effects due to technicalities. Pleas for revising the law should be made to Congress, not to the Supreme Court.
CONTINUE READINGCarrots Are More Durable Than Sticks
Laws like the Inflation Reduction Act may have more sticking power than regulations.
it’s hard to repeal subsidies and tax credits. We’re seeing that right now in Congress. There’s been a lot of talk by Trump and others of blowing away the IRA. But many billions of dollars of IRA investments are being made in Republican congressional districts. And this has had an effect. Subsidies won’t solve the climate crisis on their own, but they provide a solid economic and political foundation for climate policies of all kinds.
CONTINUE READINGSix Sleeper Proposals in Project 2025
Project 2025 isn’t just its headline proposals. It’s a thorough, detailed attack on environmental protection.
Project 2025’s proposals involve reduced protection for endangered species, eliminating energy efficiency rules, blocking new transmission lines, changing electricity regulation to favor fossil fuels, weakening air pollution rules, and encouraging sale of gas guzzlers. There’s some pious talk about protecting the environment, but every proposal calls for weakening environmental protections.
CONTINUE READINGThe Election, Vehicle Emissions, and State Climate Plans
If the California car waiver survives a possible Trump presidency, we may have the overruling of Chevron to thank.
If one single thing about the election keeps state environmental regulators up at night, it’s how much a Trump victory would impact their ability to cut transportation emissions. As it turns out, Trump’s leverage would be reduced, ironically enough, because his conservative Supreme Court appointees helped overrule the Chevron doctrine. Trump can still cause a …
Continue reading “The Election, Vehicle Emissions, and State Climate Plans”
CONTINUE READINGA Small Win for Curbside EV Charging in California
AB 2427 marks progress for a key charging segment
Late last month, Governor Newsom signed Assembly Bill 2427, which represents a modest step in the effort to ensure all Californians have access to convenient electric vehicle (EV) charging, not just those who own their homes and have garages, by supporting efforts to invest in curbside EV charging. As CLEE described in a report issued …
Continue reading “A Small Win for Curbside EV Charging in California”
CONTINUE READINGThe Two Races Most Likely to Determine Control of the Senate
The outcomes will shape environmental policy in the new Congress.
To keep control of the Senate, Democrats must hold on to the White House and two Senate seats in red states. If Republicans win in Ohio or Montana, they are virtually guaranteed to flip the Senate, with important consequences for environmental policy.
CONTINUE READINGA Data-Driven Case for Level 1 EV Charging in Multifamily Housing–and its Equity Implications
New data insights from a community choice aggregator elevate the role of Level 1 charging in an equitable (and rapid) EV transition
Discussions about Level 1 (L1) and Level 2 (L2) electric vehicle charging generally posit a simple tradeoff: L2 (which requires a dedicated high-capacity electrical hookup) offers greater speed and convenience, while L1 (which can run on a standard 120V outlet) offers broader scale and affordability. L1’s benefits find particular traction in residential charging spaces–where drivers …
CONTINUE READINGJoin Our Mailing List
Climate policy is changing rapidly. Stay in the loop with expert analysis via email Monday - Friday.
