Transportation
Interpreting the Clean Air Act After Chevron’s Demise
A recent Ninth Circuit case requires states to do more to achieve clean air goals.
Last week, the Ninth Circuit decided Committee for a Better Arvin v. EPA, which is both a significant air pollution case and an interesting case study in how the Supreme Court has changed judicial review of agency actions. Applying what it considered to be the best interpretation of an ambiguous statute, the Court required tougher air pollution controls for the San Joaquin Valley. The dissent argued that the decision would be a disaster in terms of policy. But is that even relevant under the Loper Bright ruling?
Strategies for the 2030s
We lost the Battle of 2025. But we haven’t last the fight for sustainability.
Two recent models have some welcome news: Trump’s rollbacks and assault on the Inflation Reduction Act have not been as cataclysmic as feared. At least not yet. The models come from different sources — an MIT researcher and the Rhodium firm — using different methodologies. The models also have implications about the next steps in climate policy. Both models highlight the critical need to rip down barriers to clean energy and transmission build out.
CONTINUE READINGThe 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 READINGChina’s Climate Policies: A Timeline
How has China has gone from climate action’s problem child to a promoter of clean energy?
China has long been the world’s top emitter of greenhouse gases, making its climate and energy policies crucial for the rest of the world. It initially took the position that Westerners had caused the problem and should carry the entire burden of fixing it. Over time, however, it has shifted into a position of leadership in clean technology and cooperation on climate issues.
CONTINUE READINGWhat’s the Long-Term Plan to Decarbonize Aviation?
New CLEE Report on How to Deploy More Carbon-Neutral Electrofuels or “E-Fuels”
How can we decarbonize airplane flights? It’s a “hard to abate” sector of the economy, given that the usual transportation solutions like hydrogen or batteries will likely not work for long-distance flights, given their physics. Instead, some advocates and policymakers are betting on carbon-neutral electrofuels (or “e-fuels”) as an alternative to fossil jet fuel. E-fuels …
Continue reading “What’s the Long-Term Plan to Decarbonize Aviation?”
CONTINUE READINGThe Compelling Case for Clean Energy Subsidies
There’s a solid economic case for government support
Tax credits and direct subsidies sound like handouts. That’s not true in the case of renewable energy and electric vehicles. No should feel bashful in advocating for these subsidies. They provide very real benefits to society, not just to the shareholders in a few firms. Tax credits and subsidies. like those that were contained in the Inflation Reduction Act, will help us avoid many billions of dollars a year of harm to our environment and health. They will also make America competitive in what are clearly the industries of the future, rather than abandoning the field to China.
CONTINUE READINGGas Pains
Higher gas prices are inflicting real pain on lower-income families.
Commentators seem bemused by the intense political reaction to gasoline prices, which are up by about a dollar a gallon due to the war. No doubt the reaction is accentuated because gas prices are highly visible. People buy gas frequently and even more frequently see signs posting the prices. But to a greater extent than many in the upper income distribution appreciate, the actual economic pain is very real. Current price increases presumably won’t be permanent, but the problem isn’t going to go away quickly and might well get worse.
CONTINUE READINGToo Cheap to Meter?
Unlimited energy abundance is more of a pipe dream than a realistic policy goal.
A recent post by Matt Yglesias on on “the case for clean energy abundance” disturbingly off pitch. One reason is that the post seems unduly dismissive of environmental harms. It pooh-poohs objections to a proposed ultra-large solar that would destroy what Yglesias describes as a “bunch of forest.” Maybe this would be warranted, but it’s not wrong to consider the environmental cost. Yglesias also opposes efforts to restrict fossil fuel production. This is partly on political grounds, because it makes it hard for Democrats to win in places like Louisiana, and partly because he doesn’t think those efforts accomplish much anyway. Yglesias could be right about the benefits of this hands-off approach, to regulating fossil fuels but it would be nice to see some acknowledgement of the harm to public health and the environment. Instead, he describes the only problem with coal as being “smoggy,” which underplays coal’s serious public health and environmental harms.
CONTINUE READINGHate the Gas Tax? Get to Know the Road Usage Charge
The Drain is a weekly roundup of environmental and climate news from Legal Planet.
We Californians glide on a network of more than 394,000 miles of roadway, which includes 51,000 miles of state highways, and 25,737 bridges. Our state highway system is one of the largest in the country and requires serious maintenance. Whether you usually travel by gas-powered car, EV, public transit, bicycle or on a sidewalk, you …
Continue reading “Hate the Gas Tax? Get to Know the Road Usage Charge”
CONTINUE READINGThe Story of California’s Advanced Clean Trucks Regulation
New CLEE report & webinar tells the story of this first-of-its-kind supply-side regulation for zero-emission trucks
California has been a global pioneer on electric vehicles, and that leadership extends to zero-emission trucks. To address the pollution and disproportionate impacts on disadvantaged communities, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) adopted the first-of-its-kind Advanced Clean Trucks (ACT) regulation in 2020. This landmark standard required truckmakers to begin selling zero-emission versions (such as battery …
Continue reading “The Story of California’s Advanced Clean Trucks Regulation”
CONTINUE READINGJoin Our Mailing List
Climate policy is changing rapidly. Stay in the loop with expert analysis via email Monday - Friday.
