Pub Date : 2023-06-09DOI: 10.52214/cjel.v48i2.11732
T. Hester
As the growing land stewardship movement has joined with rising evangelical environmentalism, religious worship has intersected with ecological protection to spark the rise of a new variety of ecoworship. Given the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent willingness to expand constitu- tional protections for religious exercise and trim bulwarks against Establishment Clause challenges, religious claimants now have bolstered powers to assert exemptions from governmental mandates based on their free exercise of faith. The growing role of faith-based environmentalism and institutional religions in private environmental protection will likely lead to similar claims for religious exemptions for pro-environmental activism based on faith. Most legal scholarship so far has squarely focused on the general foundational question of how federal and state constitutional laws apply to protect religiously motivated actions both within and outside environmental law. This Article takes a different tack. Federal environmental law is over- whelmingly statutory, and state environmental laws rely on a similar base. It is time to re-read these statutes through the newly expanded constitutional lens. This path yields two notable results. First, the increased accommodation for Free Exercise claims and revamped Establishment Clause parameters will inevitably shape the way that courts will interpret environmental statutes that impinge on religious activities. This interpretive tendency has a deep historical provenance in federal and state courts, although it is difficult to extract from the outsized historical shadow of Holy Trinity Church v. United States. Second, an altered interpretation of federal statutory terms through the new religious exercise lens could grant special status to proactive environmental initiatives impelled by religious beliefs, as essentially protected environmental worship. This reinterpreted statutory language could expand standing for certain claimants raising federal statutory claims, force the federal government to reassess the way it selects clean-up remedies or environmental permit limits in certain contexts, redefine the scope of environmental justice policies, and alter the degree of regulatory limitations on environmentally protective uses of land by religious actors.
{"title":"Ecoworship and Federal Environmental Law","authors":"T. Hester","doi":"10.52214/cjel.v48i2.11732","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.52214/cjel.v48i2.11732","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 \u0000 \u0000As the growing land stewardship movement has joined with rising evangelical environmentalism, religious worship has intersected with ecological protection to spark the rise of a new variety of ecoworship. Given the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent willingness to expand constitu- tional protections for religious exercise and trim bulwarks against Establishment Clause challenges, religious claimants now have bolstered powers to assert exemptions from governmental mandates based on their free exercise of faith. The growing role of faith-based environmentalism and institutional religions in private environmental protection will likely lead to similar claims for religious exemptions for pro-environmental activism based on faith. Most legal scholarship so far has squarely focused on the general foundational question of how federal and state constitutional laws apply to protect religiously motivated actions both within and outside environmental law. \u0000This Article takes a different tack. Federal environmental law is over- whelmingly statutory, and state environmental laws rely on a similar base. It is time to re-read these statutes through the newly expanded constitutional lens. This path yields two notable results. First, the increased accommodation for Free Exercise claims and revamped Establishment Clause parameters will inevitably shape the way that courts will interpret environmental statutes that impinge on religious activities. This interpretive tendency has a deep historical provenance in federal and state courts, although it is difficult to extract from the outsized historical shadow of Holy Trinity Church v. United States. Second, an altered interpretation of federal statutory terms through the new religious exercise lens could grant special status to proactive environmental initiatives impelled by religious beliefs, as essentially protected environmental worship. This reinterpreted statutory language could expand standing for certain claimants raising federal statutory claims, force the federal government to reassess the way it selects clean-up remedies or environmental permit limits in certain contexts, redefine the scope of environmental justice policies, and alter the degree of regulatory limitations on environmentally protective uses of land by religious actors. \u0000 \u0000 \u0000","PeriodicalId":246399,"journal":{"name":"Columbia Journal of Environmental Law","volume":"71 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-06-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"124419316","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-06-09DOI: 10.52214/cjel.v48i2.11734
C. Shapiro
Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) funds face tremendous skepticism regarding their impact relative to investor perceptions. In fact, several figures, including media commentators and asset management leaders, have sounded the alarm on ESG investing. They believe investors, especially retail investors, are being misled by funds’ names and largely unhelpful disclosures, and that some fund managers are exaggerating their ESG practices in the name of attracting investors’ money. The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has documented evidence of misleading statements regarding ESG investing processes and has brought enforcement actions against companies for making false claims in their disclosures. In an effort to address the lack of standardization and clarity in the ESG fund industry, the SEC proposed two rules in May 2022 that would change the naming and disclosure requirements for ESG funds. To examine how ESG funds are naming themselves and disclosing key ESG information, this Note aggregates data collected from the twenty largest ESG mutual funds and exchange-traded funds (ETFs). Based on an analysis of this data—which simulates an investor’s experience attempting to identify which ESG funds best align with their objectives—this Note derives quantitative and qualitative takeaways. The main conclusion is that ESG fund names are often vague and misleading, and neither their names nor their accompanying disclosures describe the funds’ investment strategies in a manner retail investors can meaningfully understand and use to make fully informed investment decisions. This Note calls this phenomenon the “ESG fund labeling problem.” In addition to analyzing the ESG fund labeling problem and its impact on retail investors, this Note considers whether the SEC’s two proposed rules from May 2022 will be successful in abating the ESG fund labeling problem. Ultimately, this Note concludes that the proposed rules fall short of meeting investors’ needs in key areas and proposes modifications the SEC can employ to further resolve the ESG fund labeling problem and reduce investor confusion.
{"title":"Green Funds in a Gray Area","authors":"C. Shapiro","doi":"10.52214/cjel.v48i2.11734","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.52214/cjel.v48i2.11734","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 \u0000 \u0000Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) funds face tremendous skepticism regarding their impact relative to investor perceptions. In fact, several figures, including media commentators and asset management leaders, have sounded the alarm on ESG investing. They believe investors, especially retail investors, are being misled by funds’ names and largely unhelpful disclosures, and that some fund managers are exaggerating their ESG practices in the name of attracting investors’ money. The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has documented evidence of misleading statements regarding ESG investing processes and has brought enforcement actions against companies for making false claims in their disclosures. In an effort to address the lack of standardization and clarity in the ESG fund industry, the SEC proposed two rules in May 2022 that would change the naming and disclosure requirements for ESG funds. \u0000To examine how ESG funds are naming themselves and disclosing key ESG information, this Note aggregates data collected from the twenty largest ESG mutual funds and exchange-traded funds (ETFs). Based on an analysis of this data—which simulates an investor’s experience attempting to identify which ESG funds best align with their objectives—this Note derives quantitative and qualitative takeaways. The main conclusion is that ESG fund names are often vague and misleading, and neither their names nor their accompanying disclosures describe the funds’ investment strategies in a manner retail investors can meaningfully understand and use to make fully informed investment decisions. This Note calls this phenomenon the “ESG fund labeling problem.” \u0000 \u0000 \u0000 \u0000In addition to analyzing the ESG fund labeling problem and its impact on retail investors, this Note considers whether the SEC’s two proposed rules from May 2022 will be successful in abating the ESG fund labeling problem. Ultimately, this Note concludes that the proposed rules fall short of meeting investors’ needs in key areas and proposes modifications the SEC can employ to further resolve the ESG fund labeling problem and reduce investor confusion. \u0000 \u0000 \u0000 \u0000 \u0000 \u0000","PeriodicalId":246399,"journal":{"name":"Columbia Journal of Environmental Law","volume":"115 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-06-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"129425163","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-06-09DOI: 10.52214/cjel.v48i2.11735
E. Shumway
In recent years, European demand for wood pellets has surged due to a misconception of carbon neutrality. The current legal frameworks posit that simply replacing a harvested tree renders the burning of wood pellets for energy use renewable energy. This oversimplification does not consider a number of factors, including the difference in carbon sequestration capabilities between original, natural forests and replacement monoculture plantations, the cumulative impact of CO2 emissions in the atmosphere, and the years required for a replacement tree to sequester as much carbon as the harvested tree. The EU and U.K. can currently utilize emissions “reductions” due to burning wood pellets to reach domestic renewable energy goals along with commitments under the Paris Agreement. The corresponding increase in demand for wood pellets in Europe has resulted in a hotspot of wood pellet production in the U.S. South with several significant consequences. This Note presents the environmental justice and climate change impacts of the growing wood pellet industry in historically marginalized communities in the U.S. South, with a close look at the Enviva wood pellet plant in Hamlet, North Carolina. It provides an overview of the inadequacies of U.S., EU, U.K., and international environmental law in protecting both the global climate and local communities from the impacts of wood pellet production and combustion. This Note then builds on calls to change IPCC and EU carbon accounting rules for wood harvested for energy use to propose a solution to the environmental justice side of the wood pellet dilemma in international environmental law: namely, adding environmental justice safeguards to the UNFCCC Paris Agreement.
{"title":"Wood Pellet Production in the U.S. South and Exportation for ‘Renewable’ Energy in Europe","authors":"E. Shumway","doi":"10.52214/cjel.v48i2.11735","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.52214/cjel.v48i2.11735","url":null,"abstract":"In recent years, European demand for wood pellets has surged due to a misconception of carbon neutrality. The current legal frameworks posit that simply replacing a harvested tree renders the burning of wood pellets for energy use renewable energy. This oversimplification does not consider a number of factors, including the difference in carbon sequestration capabilities between original, natural forests and replacement monoculture plantations, the cumulative impact of CO2 emissions in the atmosphere, and the years required for a replacement tree to sequester as much carbon as the harvested tree. The EU and U.K. can currently utilize emissions “reductions” due to burning wood pellets to reach domestic renewable energy goals along with commitments under the Paris Agreement. The corresponding increase in demand for wood pellets in Europe has resulted in a hotspot of wood pellet production in the U.S. South with several significant consequences. This Note presents the environmental justice and climate change impacts of the growing wood pellet industry in historically marginalized communities in the U.S. South, with a close look at the Enviva wood pellet plant in Hamlet, North Carolina. It provides an overview of the inadequacies of U.S., EU, U.K., and international environmental law in protecting both the global climate and local communities from the impacts of wood pellet production and combustion. This Note then builds on calls to change IPCC and EU carbon accounting rules for wood harvested for energy use to propose a solution to the environmental justice side of the wood pellet dilemma in international environmental law: namely, adding environmental justice safeguards to the UNFCCC Paris Agreement.","PeriodicalId":246399,"journal":{"name":"Columbia Journal of Environmental Law","volume":"69 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-06-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"129731172","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-03-30DOI: 10.52214/cjel.v48is.11038
Eric S. Laschever, R. Kelly, M. Hoge, Kai N. Lee
Federal and state agencies have begun using residual genetic information taken from the environment—environmental DNA or eDNA—to help make management and regulatory decisions. Environmental DNA can provide information from water, soil, or air samples about the living parts of ecosystems with unprecedented scope, in some cases providing broad surveys of the species present and in others pinpointing hard-to-find species. However, standards for analysis and interpretation have only recently begun to arise in the nascent field of eDNA analysis. As this new and valuable source of information begins to influence the implementation of environmental laws, we survey existing federal uses of eDNA and review federal information requirements relevant to natural resource management—in particular, under the data-hungry Endangered Species Act and National Environmental Policy Act. We find that some agencies are already using eDNA data, and, for the most part, these uses are likely to meet the legal requirements of the controlling statutes and regulations. Though legally acceptable, social factors influence the degree to which a technology becomes widespread in agency practice. We survey likely future scenarios for eDNA uptake and offer recommendations for driving broader adoption of this useful technology and enabling management and regulatory decisions grounded in eDNA as a data source.
{"title":"Next Generation of Environmental Monitoring","authors":"Eric S. Laschever, R. Kelly, M. Hoge, Kai N. Lee","doi":"10.52214/cjel.v48is.11038","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.52214/cjel.v48is.11038","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 \u0000 \u0000Federal and state agencies have begun using residual genetic information taken from the environment—environmental DNA or eDNA—to help make management and regulatory decisions. Environmental DNA can provide information from water, soil, or air samples about the living parts of ecosystems with unprecedented scope, in some cases providing broad surveys of the species present and in others pinpointing hard-to-find species. However, standards for analysis and interpretation have only recently begun to arise in the nascent field of eDNA analysis. As this new and valuable source of information begins to influence the implementation of environmental laws, we survey existing federal uses of eDNA and review federal information requirements relevant to natural resource management—in particular, under the data-hungry Endangered Species Act and National Environmental Policy Act. We find that some agencies are already using eDNA data, and, for the most part, these uses are likely to meet the legal requirements of the controlling statutes and regulations. Though legally acceptable, social factors influence the degree to which a technology becomes widespread in agency practice. We survey likely future scenarios for eDNA uptake and offer recommendations for driving broader adoption of this useful technology and enabling management and regulatory decisions grounded in eDNA as a data source. \u0000 \u0000 \u0000","PeriodicalId":246399,"journal":{"name":"Columbia Journal of Environmental Law","volume":"40 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-03-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"129338000","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-03-30DOI: 10.52214/cjel.v48is.11037
V. Flatt, Nicholas S. Bryner
In response to legislative gridlock, Presidents have increasingly relied on policy made by administrative action, leading to major swings occurring when the political party of the presidency changes. These policy disputes have spilled into the third branch with a concomitant increase in legal challenges seeking judicial review of such actions. At the same time, since the 1980s, both Republican and Democratic administrations have made cost-benefit analysis the currency of federal rulemaking in the executive branch. The combination of cost-benefit analysis requirements and increased litigation over rulemaking has increased the importance of economic and scientific justifications in both the original promulgation and any subsequent revision of administrative actions. False or misleading data in regulatory analysis, when unchecked, pollutes the regulatory process—and administrative decisions that rely on flawed data should be struck down as arbitrary and capricious. Despite their importance to the administrative process, the actual economic and scientific analyses that underlie cost-benefit studies are often not at the front and center of regulatory action or of legal challenges. To more transparently understand the legality of administrative actions and thus to push for better regulatory actions, these underlying data should be better presented in agency actions. Though attorneys may not believe themselves well versed in the minutiae of such studies, underlying economic and scientific data should be analyzed closely in any legal rulemaking challenges. In this Article, we use the economic analyses accompanying the Trump administration’s National Waters Protection Rule rulemaking under the Clean Water Act as a case study to demonstrate the importance of such data and administrative actions, and as a vehicle to discuss approaches to accommodate this procedural need moving forward.
{"title":"Rotting Under the Bridge","authors":"V. Flatt, Nicholas S. Bryner","doi":"10.52214/cjel.v48is.11037","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.52214/cjel.v48is.11037","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 \u0000 \u0000In response to legislative gridlock, Presidents have increasingly relied on policy made by administrative action, leading to major swings occurring when the political party of the presidency changes. These policy disputes have spilled into the third branch with a concomitant increase in legal challenges seeking judicial review of such actions. At the same time, since the 1980s, both Republican and Democratic administrations have made cost-benefit analysis the currency of federal rulemaking in the executive branch. \u0000The combination of cost-benefit analysis requirements and increased litigation over rulemaking has increased the importance of economic and scientific justifications in both the original promulgation and any subsequent revision of administrative actions. False or misleading data in regulatory analysis, when unchecked, pollutes the regulatory process—and administrative decisions that rely on flawed data should be struck down as arbitrary and capricious. \u0000Despite their importance to the administrative process, the actual economic and scientific analyses that underlie cost-benefit studies are often not at the front and center of regulatory action or of legal challenges. To more transparently understand the legality of administrative actions and thus to push for better regulatory actions, these underlying data should be better presented in agency actions. Though attorneys may not believe themselves well versed in the minutiae of such studies, underlying economic and scientific data should be analyzed closely in any legal rulemaking challenges. \u0000 \u0000 \u0000 \u0000In this Article, we use the economic analyses accompanying the Trump administration’s National Waters Protection Rule rulemaking under the Clean Water Act as a case study to demonstrate the importance of such data and administrative actions, and as a vehicle to discuss approaches to accommodate this procedural need moving forward. \u0000 \u0000 \u0000 \u0000 \u0000 \u0000","PeriodicalId":246399,"journal":{"name":"Columbia Journal of Environmental Law","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-03-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"129898242","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-12-29DOI: 10.52214/cjel.v48i1.10441
Samantha Daisy
Climate finance has become a progressively indispensable consideration in the fight against climate change. Global agreements on climate mitigation and adaptation have changed over time to focus increasingly on the need for climate finance. Many commentators have considered whether climate agreements have been successful in allocating the necessary finance to mitigation and adaptation efforts. What changes can be made to the language of climate agreements to promote an efficient flow of funding to climate goals? This Note argues that we can use pre-existing legal frameworks to analyze and assess the progression of climate finance over the years. By analyzing the progression of climate finance provisions in global climate agreements based on legal frameworks grounded in principal-agent theories, governance principles, and contract law, this paper will show how adherence to these pre-existing legal frameworks may have enhanced the success (or lack thereof) in global climate finance.
{"title":"Choosing Words Wisely","authors":"Samantha Daisy","doi":"10.52214/cjel.v48i1.10441","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.52214/cjel.v48i1.10441","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 \u0000 \u0000Climate finance has become a progressively indispensable consideration in the fight against climate change. Global agreements on climate mitigation and adaptation have changed over time to focus increasingly on the need for climate finance. Many commentators have considered whether climate agreements have been successful in allocating the necessary finance to mitigation and adaptation efforts. What changes can be made to the language of climate agreements to promote an efficient flow of funding to climate goals? This Note argues that we can use pre-existing legal frameworks to analyze and assess the progression of climate finance over the years. By analyzing the progression of climate finance provisions in global climate agreements based on legal frameworks grounded in principal-agent theories, governance principles, and contract law, this paper will show how adherence to these pre-existing legal frameworks may have enhanced the success (or lack thereof) in global climate finance. \u0000 \u0000 \u0000","PeriodicalId":246399,"journal":{"name":"Columbia Journal of Environmental Law","volume":"95 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-12-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"125904569","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-12-29DOI: 10.52214/cjel.v48i1.10440
Ying Zhu
Global environmental governance reflects a bottom-up trend of polycentric, adaptive, and participatory decision-making processes. The legal regime for international investment, by contrast, has a top- down structure that requires consistent, stable, and predictable governance of foreign investment in host states. This difference in structure results in an emerging “bottom-up” dilemma where states face conflicting obligations regarding the distribution of governing authorities, the frequency of norm evolution, and the inclusiveness of decision-making. This paper analyzes three aspects of the bottom-up dilemma—governing actors, scales of governance, and modes of governance—as reflected in the investment arbitration case law. It then conducts an analysis of investment treaties to assess their effectiveness in solving the dilemma and makes proposals for future treaty reform and arbitration practice. In conclusion, the paper proposes to strike a balance between, on the one hand, the protection of foreign investors’ interests in a dynamic and complex governing process, and, on the other hand, the preservation of host states’ policy space to adopt a polycentric and bottom-up governance structure.
{"title":"Bottom-Up Dilemma","authors":"Ying Zhu","doi":"10.52214/cjel.v48i1.10440","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.52214/cjel.v48i1.10440","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 \u0000 \u0000Global environmental governance reflects a bottom-up trend of polycentric, adaptive, and participatory decision-making processes. The legal regime for international investment, by contrast, has a top- down structure that requires consistent, stable, and predictable governance of foreign investment in host states. This difference in structure results in an emerging “bottom-up” dilemma where states face conflicting obligations regarding the distribution of governing authorities, the frequency of norm evolution, and the inclusiveness of decision-making. This paper analyzes three aspects of the bottom-up dilemma—governing actors, scales of governance, and modes of governance—as reflected in the investment arbitration case law. It then conducts an analysis of investment treaties to assess their effectiveness in solving the dilemma and makes proposals for future treaty reform and arbitration practice. In conclusion, the paper proposes to strike a balance between, on the one hand, the protection of foreign investors’ interests in a dynamic and complex governing process, and, on the other hand, the preservation of host states’ policy space to adopt a polycentric and bottom-up governance structure. \u0000 \u0000 \u0000","PeriodicalId":246399,"journal":{"name":"Columbia Journal of Environmental Law","volume":"262 ","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-12-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"120874257","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-12-29DOI: 10.52214/cjel.v48i1.10437
Adam D. Orford
To fight climate change and support the transition to a zero- emissions transportation sector, the United States is setting out to build a huge fleet of electric vehicle (EV) charging stations. But EV charging infrastructure—often called EV supply equipment (EVSE)—is expensive, and how to pay for it is not straightforward. This Article explores the emerging law and policy of using the bill payments of millions of electric utility customers to solve the problem. State utility regulators, in obscure technical proceedings, have begun directing billions of ratepayer dollars toward EVSE. Is this an unfair and risky social spending experiment, as its opponents argue? Or is it a sensible economic investment that will save ratepayers money, even while responding strategically to shifting market conditions, supporting domestic manufacturing, and achieving environmental goals, as its proponents contend? State regulators, one by one, have been reaching the same conclusion: The environmental, energy, and economic policy considerations are aligned, and the ratepayer funding approach makes sense, provided appropriate ratepayer protections are in place. To shine a light on these developments, this Article presents the findings of a fifty-state (plus D.C. and Puerto Rico) review of regulatory proceedings, revealing the full extent of authorized utility spending, the wide variety of EVSE investment program elements, the broad range of reasoning that regulators have found persuasive, and the protections that regulators have put in place to ensure ratepayer benefit. The Article demonstrates that support for utility EV infrastructure spending is not the sole province of states with progressive climate politics; that new federal funding is augmenting, but not displacing, utility investment; and that public utilities commissions have concluded that utility EV infrastructure investment can provide benefits that may not be provided by the private or public sectors.
{"title":"Rate Base the Charge Space","authors":"Adam D. Orford","doi":"10.52214/cjel.v48i1.10437","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.52214/cjel.v48i1.10437","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 \u0000 \u0000To fight climate change and support the transition to a zero- emissions transportation sector, the United States is setting out to build a huge fleet of electric vehicle (EV) charging stations. But EV charging infrastructure—often called EV supply equipment (EVSE)—is expensive, and how to pay for it is not straightforward. This Article explores the emerging law and policy of using the bill payments of millions of electric utility customers to solve the problem. State utility regulators, in obscure technical proceedings, have begun directing billions of ratepayer dollars toward EVSE. Is this an unfair and risky social spending experiment, as its opponents argue? Or is it a sensible economic investment that will save ratepayers money, even while responding strategically to shifting market conditions, supporting domestic manufacturing, and achieving environmental goals, as its proponents contend? State regulators, one by one, have been reaching the same conclusion: The environmental, energy, and economic policy considerations are aligned, and the ratepayer funding approach makes sense, provided appropriate ratepayer protections are in place. To shine a light on these developments, this Article presents the findings of a fifty-state (plus D.C. and Puerto Rico) review of regulatory proceedings, revealing the full extent of authorized utility spending, the wide variety of EVSE investment program elements, the broad range of reasoning that regulators have found persuasive, and the protections that regulators have put in place to ensure ratepayer benefit. The Article demonstrates that support for utility EV infrastructure spending is not the sole province of states with progressive climate politics; that new federal funding is augmenting, but not displacing, utility investment; and that public utilities commissions have concluded that utility EV infrastructure investment can provide benefits that may not be provided by the private or public sectors. \u0000 \u0000 \u0000","PeriodicalId":246399,"journal":{"name":"Columbia Journal of Environmental Law","volume":"39 6 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-12-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"133109322","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-12-29DOI: 10.52214/cjel.v48i1.10442
Nicole Franki
Carbon offsets are often emphasized as effective and easily accessible tools in the effort to mitigate the looming threat of climate change. Offsets can be a useful bridge mechanism to allow industries with processes that are emission-heavy to purchase carbon reductions elsewhere as cleaner technologies develop. But the current use of offsets as a primary tool for corporations to meet their emissions reductions goals, or for consumers to reduce their individual carbon footprints, will not be sufficient to meet climate change mitigation goals. This Note will examine two major issues with the voluntary offset system. First, there is no centralized regulatory system for carbon offsets. Second, set within the larger neoliberal framework of market-based climate solutions, carbon offsets do not promote the more aggressive policies that are needed to mitigate the disastrous effects of the climate emergency. Carbon offsets are a mechanism that place responsibility on individuals and the market, when there must be unified state and private action. This article will also explore some of the proposed legal and regulatory strategies to strengthen government regulation of the voluntary offset market.
{"title":"Regulation of the Voluntary Carbon Offset Market","authors":"Nicole Franki","doi":"10.52214/cjel.v48i1.10442","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.52214/cjel.v48i1.10442","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 \u0000 \u0000Carbon offsets are often emphasized as effective and easily accessible tools in the effort to mitigate the looming threat of climate change. Offsets can be a useful bridge mechanism to allow industries with processes that are emission-heavy to purchase carbon reductions elsewhere as cleaner technologies develop. But the current use of offsets as a primary tool for corporations to meet their emissions reductions goals, or for consumers to reduce their individual carbon footprints, will not be sufficient to meet climate change mitigation goals. This Note will examine two major issues with the voluntary offset system. First, there is no centralized regulatory system for carbon offsets. Second, set within the larger neoliberal framework of market-based climate solutions, carbon offsets do not promote the more aggressive policies that are needed to mitigate the disastrous effects of the climate emergency. Carbon offsets are a mechanism that place responsibility on individuals and the market, when there must be unified state and private action. This article will also explore some of the proposed legal and regulatory strategies to strengthen government regulation of the voluntary offset market. \u0000 \u0000 \u0000","PeriodicalId":246399,"journal":{"name":"Columbia Journal of Environmental Law","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-12-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"131311275","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-06-05DOI: 10.52214/cjel.v47i2.9871
Samier Saeed
Animal rights advocates in the West decry the mistreatment of animals, such as their use in experimentation and, most notoriously, factory farming. They identify the fact that animals are legally considered mere property as the source of these abuses. They also tend to view Abrahamic religions as responsible for this paradigm and in conflict with animal rights. The most flashpoint in this context is the battle over Jewish and Muslim ritual slaughter. However, this Note argues, animal rights advocates mistarget their animosity. Jewish and Islamic law are quite favorable towards animals in comparison to American law, and while they obviously do not go as far as animal rights advocates would like in according rights to animals, they do cohere with modern animal rights views in several ways, such as by according animals a legal status distinct from mere property, subjecting the use of animals for food to heightened scrutiny, and providing more clearly for the enforcement of animal protection laws. As animal rights advocates and their opponents continue to debate the extent to which animals should be accorded greater legal protections under American law, these religious traditions show that the matters they are debating were considered and debated by Muslim and Jewish jurists thousands of years ago, and that, far from impeding animal rights, religious bodies of law constitute a positive example that can help advance them.
{"title":"Squashing the Beef: Why American Animal Rights Advocates Should Start Liking Jewish and Islamic Law","authors":"Samier Saeed","doi":"10.52214/cjel.v47i2.9871","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.52214/cjel.v47i2.9871","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 \u0000 \u0000Animal rights advocates in the West decry the mistreatment of animals, such as their use in experimentation and, most notoriously, factory farming. They identify the fact that animals are legally considered mere property as the source of these abuses. They also tend to view Abrahamic religions as responsible for this paradigm and in conflict with animal rights. The most flashpoint in this context is the battle over Jewish and Muslim ritual slaughter. However, this Note argues, animal rights advocates mistarget their animosity. Jewish and Islamic law are quite favorable towards animals in comparison to American law, and while they obviously do not go as far as animal rights advocates would like in according rights to animals, they do cohere with modern animal rights views in several ways, such as by according animals a legal status distinct from mere property, subjecting the use of animals for food to heightened scrutiny, and providing more clearly for the enforcement of animal protection laws. As animal rights advocates and their opponents continue to debate the extent to which animals should be accorded greater legal protections under American law, these religious traditions show that the matters they are debating were considered and debated by Muslim and Jewish jurists thousands of years ago, and that, far from impeding animal rights, religious bodies of law constitute a positive example that can help advance them. \u0000 \u0000 \u0000","PeriodicalId":246399,"journal":{"name":"Columbia Journal of Environmental Law","volume":"105 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-06-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"127157071","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：