In the News

State climate policy efforts not only help reduce emissions, but provide a means of political experimentation that offers data on what might work to escape the climate policy gridlock. There are many contexts in which well-organized and well-networked interest groups will be in a better position to learn from experimentation than public interest groups. Thus the “peril” associated with experimentation: the bad guys may often be able to translate political information into policy advantage.

New York, as a leader in energy policy, has embraced the Social Cost of Carbon in many recent landmark regulatory decisions. But now the state Public Service Commission is being wrongly attacked for using the SCC in its zero-emission credits (ZECs) program. If the Legislature halts this program, it would be a massive setback for climate change action in New York and around the country.

Under Republican Gov. Larry Hogan, Maryland has petitioned the Environmental Protection Agency for help bringing ozone pollution in the state to a safe level. Granting this request should be a no-brainer for EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt.

“My guess is that the bulk of the litigation is ahead of us,” said Richard Revesz, an environmental and regulatory law expert at New York University School of Law. “All this litigation is going to consume the full four years.”

It’s already been almost 17 years since the EPA first concluded that it should issue a rule limiting mercury emissions from coal- and oil-fired power plants. It’s been more than five years since the agency actually did issue such a rule. And it’s been more than two years since the nation’s power plants started complying with the rule. All along the way, the EPA, states, power companies, and public health and environmental groups have been fighting about the rule in court. They show no signs of stopping anytime soon.

It’s no secret that the Trump administration would like to undo as much of Obama’s environmental legacy as possible by rescinding or repealing regulations. Under the law, that process is difficult, but Trump’s agency heads now seem to be looking for an easy way to undo rules without officially rescinding or repealing them.

It’s no secret that the Trump administration would like to undo as much of Obama’s environmental legacy as possible by rescinding or repealing regulations. Under the law, that process is difficult, but Trump’s agency heads now seem to be looking for an easy way to undo rules without officially rescinding or repealing them. Courts have rejected this kind of behavior in the past. Let’s hope they do so this time too.

Richard Revesz, director of the Institute for Policy Integrity at New York University School of Law, said a D.C. Circuit ruling resolving that uncertainty would head off further courtroom wrangling over the issue. “There is no compelling reason for the D.C. Circuit to delay facing those issues for years, with the serious negative consequences that would entail, when it is likely to already have decided them,” he said.

“It’s uncharted territory for a president to attempt to completely lift a moratorium like the one President Obama instituted,” says Jayni Hein, policy director at New York University’s Institute for Policy Integrity. Past presidents have tweaked the size of previously designated protected areas, she says, but a full-on repeal is unprecedented and would likely end up in the courts.

Pruitt is in no position to declare victory and merely preserve the status quo. Large swaths of the country are violating the air and water standards that both Republican and Democratic administrations have agreed were necessary to protect public health.