Trump Administration
Jumping the Fence Line, Embracing the Grid
Precedent from another agency for the Clean Power Plan.
If you’ve been reading this blog or otherwise keeping up with environmental law, you’ve probably heard this a hundred times: In rolling back Obama’s signature climate regulation, the Clean Power Plan, the Trump Administration is relying on the idea that EPA’s jurisdiction stops at the fence line. That is, according to the Trump folks, EPA …
Continue reading “Jumping the Fence Line, Embracing the Grid”
CONTINUE READINGComments on proposed ESA rule changes
Law professors submit detailed comments on proposed changes to regulations that implement the Endangered Species Act
I’ve posted earlier about proposals by the Trump Administration to make significant changes to the regulations implementing the Endangered Species Act, some of the most substantial revisions to those regulations since they were overhauled in the early 1980s. A group of environmental law professors (including me) submitted comments on those proposed rules last month, with …
Continue reading “Comments on proposed ESA rule changes”
CONTINUE READING“National Security” Coal-Bailout Collapses
Trump demanded the use of national security powers to subsidize the coal industry. Looks like that’s not happening.
In its desperate effort to save the failing American coal industry, the Trump Administration promised to use emergency powers to keep coal-fired power plants in operation even though they’re not economically viable. That would have been the kind of disruptive change that Trump promised to bring to Washington. But the effort seems to have gone …
Continue reading ““National Security” Coal-Bailout Collapses”
CONTINUE READINGTrump Administration’s Quiet Policy Change Could More Than Double Hazardous Air Pollution in California
Change in MACT applicability could result in 935 additional tons of toxic pollution emitted by stationary sources in the state each year
Earlier this year, EPA made a major policy change in how the agency evaluates stationary sources of hazardous air pollutants in a memorandum quietly issued without any warning or opportunity for public comment. This policy change was promptly challenged by California and two different coalitions of environmental and community groups (one suit was filed by …
CONTINUE READINGThe Endangered Species Act in the Supreme Court: Oral Argument Today in Weyerhaeuser v. US Fish & Wildlife Service
Post-Argument Panel at Georgetown Law Will Feature Advocates
Oral argument in Weyerhaeuser v. U.S, Fish & Wildlife Service is this morning, the first day (and first argument) of the new Supreme Court term. The Court will be short-handed, with only eight Justices hearing the case. I’ll be attending the argument and speaking on a post-argument panel at Georgetown Law School, along with other advocates …
CONTINUE READINGThe Case for Co-Benefits
Ignoring co-benefits violates well-established legal principles.
The Trump Administration is moving toward the view, long popular in industry, that when it regulates a pollutant, EPA can consider only the health impacts of that particular pollutant – even when the regulation will also reduce other harmful pollutants. This idea is especially important in climate change regulation, because cutting carbon emissions almost always …
Continue reading “The Case for Co-Benefits”
CONTINUE READINGBattle for the Senate: Arizona and Nevada
These two states offer Dems badly needed pick-up opportunities.
Here are two key Western races. The contrast between candidates on environment and energy is striking. Arizona: Sinoma v. McSally (primary Aug. 28). Incumbent Jeff Flake (R) isn’t running for reelection. Flake’s lifetime score from the League of Conservation Voters (LCV) was a mere 9%. The likely match-up is Martha McSally, a Republican with a …
Continue reading “Battle for the Senate: Arizona and Nevada”
CONTINUE READINGSeparated at Birth? No, not really.
Trump’s pro-coal EPA plan equates two legal provisions with little in common.
Trump’s plan for coal-fired power plants, like Obama’s plan to cut carbon emissions, is based on section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act. But much of the legal argument relies on an analogy to section 165 to support EPA’s very restrictive interpretation of section 111(d). It’s that restrictive interpretation that leads the agency to reject …
Continue reading “Separated at Birth? No, not really.”
CONTINUE READINGTrump Administration Announces Revisions of NAFTA with Strengthened Environmental Provisions
Revised Environmental Obligations in Preliminary Agreement With Mexico Appear to Track Environmental Chapter of Trans-Pacific Partnership
The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) has just announced that it reached preliminary agreement with Mexico for a renegotiated NAFTA. The 24-year old trade agreement between Mexico, Canada, and the U.S. was a major topic during the 2016 presidential campaign and has been a centerpiece of USTR activity in the Trump administration. The …
CONTINUE READINGWhat’s Ahead for Trump’s Pro-Coal Rule?
Be prepared: this is going to remain a live issue for at least two years.
You’ve already heard a lot about Trump’s pro-coal ACE rule. You’re likely to keep hearing about it, off and on, throughout the next couple of years, and maybe longer. I’ve set out a rough timetable below, and at the end I discuss some implications. Step 1: The Rulemaking Aug. 2018 Notice of proposed rule issued …
Continue reading “What’s Ahead for Trump’s Pro-Coal Rule?”
CONTINUE READING