On February 7, 2024, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced a final rule imposing a stricter limit for the fine particulate matter (PM2.5) national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS). The annual exposure standard for PM2.5, currently set at 12 micrograms per cubic meter of air, will now be 9 micrograms per cubic meter, marking the first time in over eight years that EPA has strengthened any NAAQS. The rule is predicted to have many health benefits, such as preventing 4,500 premature deaths by 2032, which may particularly affect overburdened communities. On March 15, 2024, the Environmental Law Institute hosted a panel of experts to discuss the final rule and how it will affect various environmental sectors. This Dialogue presents a transcript of that discussion, which has been edited for style, clarity, and space considerations.

The total electricity generated by rooftop solar has increased tenfold over the past decade, and the number of American homes with rooftop solar increases by the day. Despite the rapid rise of solar, in 2022, total solar generation, including small-scale rooftop solar and large-scale utility solar, only made up 3.4% of the American electricity grid, while fossil fuels made up the majority. This Comment argues that the U.S. federal government should facilitate the continued growth of rooftop solar by addressing a looming legal issue associated with rooftop solar’s rise—jurisdiction over net metering.

The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) established the “Superfund,” which allows the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to clean up contaminated sites. It also forces the parties responsible for contamination to either perform cleanups or reimburse the government for the EPA-led cleanup work. The Superfund program relies on several tools to protect against lasting contamination. Perhaps the most well-understood of these tools is “engineering controls.” Conversely, the lesser-known “institutional controls” (ICs) are nonengineered or legal controls that minimize the potential human exposure to contamination by limiting land or resource use. This Comment provides an overview of the Superfund program; explains the when, where, and what of ICs at Superfund sites; discusses criticisms of ICs and challenges with their implementation; examines their role as a cleanup solution; and surveys land use case studies and best practices from Superfund sites across the country, highlighting how, with commitment from local governments, this unsung hero can be reimagined to yield lasting progress in and around Superfund sites.

Natural resource damages (NRD) under federal law is a statutory cause of action to compensate for injury to natural resources resulting from releases of hazardous substances or oil. Designated officials are authorized under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) and the Oil Pollution Act (OPA), among others, to act as “trustees” on behalf of the public or tribes. While many states have comparable statutes or recognize public common-law claims, the federal statutes uniquely require trustees to use damages exclusively to restore, replace, or acquire the equivalent of injured resources. NRD fills a gap at some sites where cleanup actions stop short of fully mitigating harm or compensating for the public’s loss of access. The statutory provisions and rules governing NRD claims are complex and have been interpreted in relatively few judicial decisions. This Article covers those decisions and a wide range of issues, including the scope of liability, defenses, how NRD should be measured, and the public’s role in NRD assessment and restoration planning. It also addresses how NRD claims can be resolved by settlement, including partial, “early restoration” settlements that narrow the scope before a full NRD assessment is complete.