This Comment is written from the perspective of a practicing attorney who represents clients on the issues addressed in Prof. Joshua C. Macey’s Zombie Energy Laws, and focuses on the filed rate doctrine, which is one of the zombie energy laws Professor Macey identifies—a doctrine that is alive and kicking and still particularly relevant today.

With the dawn of the Joseph Biden Administration, there is renewed optimism that the United States will take steps to fulfill its responsibilities under the Paris Agreement and curb greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Electrification is a big step on this path, and the nation needs a cleaner, more resilient grid to support this reduced emissions future. But as University of Chicago Law Prof. Joshua C. Macey details in his article, Zombie Energy Laws, efforts to support mass electrification and decarbonization face a major stumbling block: zombies.

This Article traces the development of three legal rules—cost recovery for vertically integrated utilities, the requirement that regulators assess the financial viability of energy projects before issuing a certificate of public convenience and necessity, and the filed rate doctrine—that emerged out of the view that electric power companies should be shielded from market forces.

Because environmental justice is inherently a conversation about geography (i.e., where in our states, cities, and towns are environmental burdens most concentrated), maps represent a natural tool for articulating and addressing environmental justice issues.

CalEnviroScreen, California’s mapping tool that quantifies cumulative impacts in communities, has played a pivotal role in advancing environmental justice in the state. The tool continues to evolve with each version by incorporating new data sources, the latest data, and community involvement and feedback. The tool can be tailored to fit unique applications because the underlying data sets are publicly available. This Comment expands on the points raised in Dr.

This Article focuses on lessons learned by the author from state practice in environmental justice mapping and screening, and their relationship to addressing the central issue of cumulative impacts.

California Public Employees’ Retirement System (CalPERS) is the largest-defined benefit public pension fund in the United States, with about $450 billion in global assets under management. CalPERS actively protects its rights as an investor and the Board Governance and Sustainability program sits at the center of this effort.

Madison Condon’s Externalities and the Common Owner warrants serious attention and consideration by a broad variety of stakeholders—investors, public policymakers, academics, and citizens concerned about the systemic risks climate change pose to our economy, wealth, and sustainability. This Comment is written from the perspective of an active investor and portfolio manager integrating environmental, social, and governance risks and opportunities into Arjuna Capital’s client investment portfolios.

Madison Condon’s Externalities and the Common Owner (ECO) plays an important role in the growing literature around shareholder activism aimed at increasing portfolio returns, regardless of individual firm effects. The article raises important questions of political economy, power distribution, and anticompetitive activity. In this Comment, I introduce key terminology for discussing these issues, and then reframe several issues raised by the article.

This Article expands the consideration of the effects of common ownership from the industry level to the market-portfolio level and argues that diversified investors should rationally be motivated to internalize intra-portfolio negative externalities. This portfolio perspective can explain the increasing climate change-related activism of institutional investors, who have applied coordinated shareholder power to pressure fossil fuel producers into substantially reducing greenhouse gas emissions.