Blog

We’ve already started to hear claims that the Biden power plant rule falls under the major questions doctrine, which the U.S. Supreme Court used to strike down former President Obama’s Clean Power Plan. Are those claims plausible?

Although the U.S. Constitution does not say so directly, the U.S. Supreme Court has said there are implied limits on state regulations that interfere with interstate commerce. This is known as the dormant commerce clause doctrine. State clean energy laws have been bedeviled by challenges based on this doctrine. The Supreme Court has just made it easier for states to fend off those claims.

Testifying before Congress, releasing new books, engaging with the news media — our Member Scholars packed virtually a year’s worth of advocacy on climate justice, clean air and water, and worker health and safety into the first three months of 2023.

Last summer, standing outside the Paradise Inn in Washington’s Mount Rainier National Park, I still needed a fleece to keep warm. In the shadow of the park’s snow-covered volcano, the meadows sparkled with wildflowers. I remembered a news article from a few years back about how Mount Rainier’s iconic flora were slowly retreating to higher elevations away from the inn. Park scientists attributed this to higher temperatures caused by climate change. There was some debate at the time about whether park staff should manually seed the meadows where lodge visitors gather or to let the buttercups and salmonberries crawl naturally uphill. I don’t know where they ended up on that.

Ever since the Supreme Court decided West Virginia v. EPA, conservatives and industry interests have claimed that just about every new regulation violates the major question doctrine. When the Biden administration ramped up fuel efficiency requirements through 2026, ideologues such as the Heritage Foundation and states like Texas were quick to wheel out this attack. No doubt the same attack will be made on the administration's ambitious proposed post-2026 standard. Maybe Judge Kacsmaryk in Amarillo, crusader against abortion pills and all things liberal, would buy that argument. But opponents won’t be able to handpick their judge this time, and the chances that this argument will win in the D.C. Circuit are slim to none.

Nevada is considered one of the hottest states in America, and it consistently tops the list of places with the most heat-related deaths per year in the country. But what a lot of people don’t know is that it is also the second most polluted state, with wildfires, vehicles, factories, and the mining industry being the biggest sources. The deadly combination of scorching heat and poor air quality makes Nevada a hazardous place to work, especially for migrants who work under the heat of the sun. Even those working indoors are exposed to poor air quality with no climate controls every single day.

A list of environmental and climate-themed book recommendations by Center for Progressive Reform staff in honor of Earth Day.

The landmark Inflation Reduction Act gave the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) $3 billion to fund a wide range of pollution reduction, clean energy, and climate resilience measures in the nation’s most marginalized communities. At issue now is how the agency will allocate the funds to eligible communities and projects.

As you’ve probably heard, the Biden administration has proposed aggressive new targets for greenhouse gas emissions from new vehicles. That’s great news. One really important aspect of the proposal relates to the justification for the proposal rather than the proposal itself. Following a recent trend, the justification is based on the factors specified by Congress rather than on a purely economic analysis. That may not sound like much, but it’s a really big deal. Among other things, this will shift influence on the regulatory process somewhat away from economists and toward lawyers.