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.

On February 28, 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments for the landmark West Virginia v. EPA case, involving the scope of powers delegated to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) through the Clean Air Act. The Court’s decision will affect administrative law, and could have major consequences for environmental law, particularly the Agency’s power to regulate greenhouse gas emissions and take action on climate change.

At this point in time, climate change pervades every aspect of contemporary life. It is a persistent current through our lives and, increasingly, throughout the law. One would be hard-pressed to find any area of law that has not or will not soon be touched by climate change. The onset of climate change has prompted decades worth of deep and wide efforts to reshape law and policy. Yet, alongside this development, there is also erosion.

The European Union, China, California, and a number of U.S. states in the Northeast are currently using emissions trading as part of their efforts to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. However, the popularity of emissions trading as a policy tool co-exists with a well-established, and increasingly politically powerful, set of critiques of it in the United States. These critiques come from environmental justice advocates as well as some academics and other observers.

Efforts to hold major greenhouse gas emitters accountable for the harms caused by global climate change have been consistently frustrated at the procedural stages of litigation in U.S. federal courts. This Article explores using a combination of class action mechanisms to engage with these threshold barriers and hold carbon-major corporations responsible for climate impacts.

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

The Paris Agreement’s goal to hold warming to 1.5°-2°C above pre-industrial levels now appears unrealistic. Profs. Robin Kundis Craig and J.B. Ruhl have recently argued that because a 4°C world may be likely, we must recognize the disruptive consequences of such a world and respond by reimagining governance structures to meet the challenges of adapting to it.