On the first Earth Day in 1970, Sen. Edmund Muskie (D-Me.) called for “a total strategy to protect the total environment.” More than 50 years later, the parameters of a “total strategy” are at last coming into view.

The Donald Trump Administration has been attempting to roll back a wide array of regulations, including rules that have governed methane emissions, established energy-efficiency standards, and defined “waters of the United States.” The U.S. administrative law framework allows rules to be changed or undone, but governs how these modifications can happen. In most cases, the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) mandates justifications similar to those required for an original rulemaking if a regulation is to be cancelled or rescinded.

To date, scholars and policymakers have focused primarily on whether and how the government should regulate the sharing economy—that is, on what form, if any, regulation should take. This Article focuses on a logically antecedent question—who should decide. Using the potentially significant, yet uncertain, environmental impacts of Uber and Lyft as a case study, this Article argues that regulatory authority should be allocated according to the principle of precautionary federalism.

With the new technologies, many species we are currently protecting could technically be unsuitable for protection based on a rigid interpretation of the ESA. A defined hybrid policy must be adopted, taking into consideration the twin aims of protecting genetic lineages and protecting ecosystems.

While the nation has made great progress on a number of environmental fronts, the size and cost of the federal environmental regulatory bureaucracy have come under sharp criticism. One alternative policy approach—long available, but underutilized—is based on the straightforward governmental use of line drawing (also known as “geographic delineations”).

Surely net metering has played an important role in the story about solar development in the United States. But, as a policy, net metering is the equivalent of looking in the rearview mirror. If we want a dynamic, responsive energy system, then we need to look ahead and toward smart rate designs that do not favor certain customers over others. We need rates that work to the benefit of all customers and their unique energy needs.

Prof. Richard L. Revesz and Dr. Burcin Unel propose an “Avoided Cost Plus Social Benefit” valuation protocol for clean distributed energy.

Utilities concerned about lost revenues have begun urging state legislatures and public service commissions to impose fixed charges for net metering customers and to decrease the rate of compensation those customers receive for the energy they generate. Environmentalists and individuals seeking to generate their own electricity for financial or libertarian reasons have argued opposite positions. One goal of this Article is to evaluate the respective arguments.

In Visual Rulemaking, Prof. Elizabeth G. Porter and Prof. Kathryn A. Watts challenge agencies to break free of dense text and to explore a new universe of “visual rulemaking.” Citing colorful examples from the past few years, the authors urge agencies to make greater use of videos, images, and social media to promote transparency and expand public engagement. The authors also fully acknowledge the legal risks of pouring such new wine into old wineskins.

Porter and Watts’ article helpfully underscores the values that should be reflected in the regulatory process, including the worthy goals of making regulatory activities more transparent, increasing political accountability, and encouraging public participation. There is a long, bipartisan history of efforts to further these aims in the rulemaking process; Porter and Watts’ piece illuminates one new emerging strategy to support these goals.