In Rethinking Grid Governance for the Climate Change Era, Shelley Welton has incisively described the underexplored institutional role of regional transmission organizations (RTOs) in facilitating decarbonization. As an attorney who advocates within the RTO stakeholder process, and before the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) and the federal courts, I see firsthand how the RTO processes for identifying and addressing emerging issues can succeed or be derailed, and the limitations in FERC’s ability to proactively set these processes and their outcomes straight.

In Rethinking Grid Governance for the Climate Change Era, Prof. Shelley Welton makes a compelling case for why “U.S. grid governance must be redesigned to accommodate a new era of regulatory priorities that include responding to climate change.” As the operators of regional electricity markets and managers of the transmission grid, Regional Transmission Organizations (RTOs) “must play a pivotal role” in achieving clean electricity goals.

This Comment is based on Tom Hassenboehler’s remarks at the 2021-2022 Environmental Law and Policy Annual Review conference, available at https://www.eli.org/ environmental-law-policy-annual-review/2021-2022-ELPAR-conference.

One central but under-scrutinized way that fossil fuel companies impede the clean energy transition is by essentially running the United States’ electricity grid, writing its rules to favor their own private interests. In most of the country, the electricity grid is managed by Regional Transmission Organizations (RTOs). RTOs are private membership clubs in which incumbent industry members make the rules for electricity markets and the electricity grid through private mini-democracies—with voting privileges reserved for RTO members—under broad regulatory authority.

Proposed oil and gas pipelines have faced a myriad of legal challenges in the past several years. Even where pipeline proponents have prevailed, the cost and delay of protracted litigation has often caused cancellation of pipeline projects. In addition, presidential transitions have led to abrupt reversals of pipeline policies, which courts have often reviewed skeptically.

The Joe Biden Administration has proposed reversing a number of the Donald Trump Administration’s changes to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) regulations by again requiring federal agencies to evaluate the direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental impacts of projects under environmental review. On April 20, 2022, the first phase of those amendments was finalized, and on April 21, the Environmental Law Institute hosted a panel of experts to explore the changes to NEPA implementation, and how they might impact climate change policy and environmental justice.

Policymakers at the local, state, and federal levels are increasingly turning to building performance standards (BPSs) to reduce buildings’ contributions to climate change. A key question in designing BPSs is what “metric” the standards should use to gauge a building’s performance. This Comment provides general background information on the case for regulating energy use in buildings, reviews the two general categories of metrics in existing BPSs and explains why an energy efficiency-based standard is superior to a greenhouse gas-based standard, and highlights the findings from a study of N

Gasoline is the source of 17% of U.S. carbon emissions. To achieve emissions reductions consistent with the 2030 goals set by the Joseph Biden Administration and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, annual U.S.

We are told the transition to a zero-carbon economy will depend upon the United States’ ability to assure a sufficient supply of rare earths and minerals such as cobalt, nickel, or lithium. The Biden Administration is intent on promoting some new form of a critical mineral policy, and calls for reforming the 1872 Mining Law have persisted for well over one hundred years. This Article is designed to provoke a meaningful conversation about a critical minerals policy informed by our past.