Search

California has led the country on environmental policy since at least the 1960s, when it first tackled the state’s notorious air pollution. But in the last decade, its role as an environmental leader has eclipsed its own impressive history. California has enacted the world’s most ambitious policy to tackle greenhouse gas emissions. Its program to do so—and some musings on the reasons for its leadership—are the focus of this essay.

No Abstract

[No abstract]

I. INTRODUCTION II. HEAT WAVE DEFINITIONS A. Heat Waves B. Heat-related Illnesses and Mortality C. Demographics 1. Individual Characteristics D. Place and Space Matter 1. Geographic Differences 2. Intra-urban Differences [...]

The Clean Air Act (CAA) has delivered enormous pollution reductions in its almost fifty-year history, produced huge health benefits, and saved thousands of lives. Its ambient focus has led to the almost complete elimination of lead and dramatic drops in the other pollutants it regulates. Nevertheless, the CAA has a major blind spot: small "microclimates" that contain levels of deadly pollutants that can far exceed federal standards. These hotspots contain pollutants that exacerbate asthma, increase respiratory and cardiac deaths, may cause developmental problems in children, and increase cancer risks. The most prevalent of these pollution hotspots occur in predictable patterns around heavily trafficked roads and industrial facilities. Low-income communities and communities of color are much more likely to live in polluted microclimates and suffer health effects as a result. This Article argues that the ambient focus of the CAA, which requires the monitoring and regulation of large air districts to produce background levels of pollution that meet stringent federal standards, actually masks pollution hotspots. Residents who live in air districts that receive the imprimatur of "attainment" under the CAA may nevertheless experience air quality that is considerably worse than federal air standards. Paradoxically, residents of air districts that are out of attainment, even with extreme designations, may be breathing background air that is cleaner than residents in attainment zones who are exposed to hotspot pollution. Our regulatory system helps shape our understanding of health and safety risks, in other words, in ways that are inconsistent with scientific reality. Unfortunately, using the traditional CAA mechanisms, primarily the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), to regulate conventional pollutants is an awkward fit for hotspot pollution. States are the primary regulators of these pollutants, yet they have little authority over the biggest causes of hotspot pollution: cars, heavy-duty trucks, and other vehicles. Nevertheless, the Article offers suggestions for how states and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) may be able to address microclimate pollution using existing statutory authority. Indeed the most effective strategy for dramatically reducing hotspot pollution, electrifying the transportation fleet, also happens to be one of the most effective ways to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Recognizing the immediate health benefits that greening the fleet would deliver could make action on climate change mitigation more palatable. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Decarbonizing the electric power sector will be central to any serious effort to fight climate change. Many observers have suggested that the congressional failure to enact a uniform system of electricity regulation could stifle the transition to a low-carbon electricity grid. This Article contends that the critique is overstated. In fact, innovation is occurring across different aspects of the electricity system and across different types of states in ways one would not expect to see under a single, national approach. As the Article demonstrates, this innovation stems in part from Congress's failure to enact a single, national approach to electricity regulation, which has given states the ability to choose whether and how to participate in restructured electricity markets. This ability to opt into or out of wholesale and retail competition has resulted in three regulatory models now operating across the country, combining different approaches to wholesale and retail regulation. Under each of these models, a number of state public utilities commissions (PUCs) are using their powers to set utility rates in surprisingly innovative ways and are targeting different aspects of the electricity system in a manner that will help transition to an electricity grid that is greener, less carbon-intensive, more efficient, and more distributed than the current system. The Article claims that the diversity of policy innovations occurring across these different models, and the system-wide benefits they are producing, are unexpected outcomes of the distinctive structure of federalism that continues to animate the U.S. system of electricity regulation and the limited reach of policies to promote competition in the sector. When combined with specific federal policy nudges and subsidies to encourage state experimentation in ratemaking, the three-model system is producing significant and underappreciated benefits as the United States confronts the challenges of decarbonizing the electricity grid. While the current system may not be ideal, it is the system we will likely be working with for some time to come. As a result, understanding the nature of these ratemaking experiments, and the innovations they enable, will be key to the successful implementation of EPA's Clean Power Plan or any other federal effort to cut greenhouse gas emissions from the power sector. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article offers information on the judicial decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in the case of Utility Air Regulatory Group v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and EPA v. EME Homer City Generation related to EPA's climatic regulation and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reduction program. It also that the Court reviewed the ruling in the Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council regarding agency's interpretation as of the environmental protection program.

In this article, I analyze a difficult and surprisingly under-examined issue about how to reduce greenhouse gas emissions most effectively at the lowest cost. If policy-makers commit to using cap-and-trade as a central regulatory mechanism--the dominant policy choice to date--to what extent should they also adopt regulatory programs that contain more traditional direct regulation? Cap-and-trade is by definition designed to harness market forces to allow polluters to make choices about whether and how they will reduce their own emissions or trade for a right to emit more while another polluter cuts emissions more dramatically. Complementary policies, by contrast, designate in advance how greenhouse gases ("GHGs") must be reduced and the sources from which these reductions must come. While complementary policies can effectively reduce emissions, they also constrain the market options available under cap-and-trade by limiting the choices emitters have about how to reduce their emissions. That constraint can lead to higher compliance costs. Though policymakers may enact complementary policies for reasons other than greenhouse gas emissions reduction, if the goal is solely to reduce greenhouse gases most cost-effectively, cap-and-trade alone is a better choice in a well-functioning market. However, if systematic market failures prevent emitters subject to a cap-and-trade system from choosing the lowest cost compliance options, then, from a climate policy perspective, complementary policies to correct the market failure make sense. Energy efficiency measures are one example of a complementary policy that corrects such a market failure. If no market failure exists, policymakers should recognize the trade-off inherent in limiting the market mechanisms cap-and-trade is designed to promote and evaluate whether ancillary benefits justify the reduction in market flexibility and the potentially higher costs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article explores the legislation that the federal government has implemented with regards to energy efficiency in the U.S. It discusses the policy strategies considered for energy efficiency and carbon emissions in the country as well as federalism and appliance standards. It also further explains the lax appliance standards and delays in promulgation, as well as the multiplicity of standards for the national products markets. Moreover, it details the structure of the regulatory leader in California.

The article presents a study which investigated the occurrence of osteopenia as a result of enhanced osteoclastogenesis in twisted gastrulation(TWSG1)-deficient mice using increased bone morphogenetic proteins (BMP) signaling. It is stated that bone tissue deterioration resulted in increased bone fragility, bone pain and periodontal bone loss. The findings of primary osteoblast cultures and dynamic histomorphometric analysis are discussed.