The name of the climate game right now is fast, sustained progress. The world needs this both politically and technologically to effectively fight climate change. Progress was achieved both politically and technologically with the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 (IRA), which allocated $369 billion to “energy security and climate change,” amounting to the United States’ largest investment in climate action to date.

Carbon offsets allow polluters to pay someone else to reduce, avoid, or remove emissions to counterbalance their own emissions. For some, carbon accounting concerns render offsets a necessary evil to be tightly regulated on the path toward decarbonization. For others, moral and political concerns render offsets a dangerous mistake to be thrown out of the climate law toolbox.

The Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) of 2022 added seven new sections to the Clean Air Act (CAA) and provided the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) with substantial new authorities and resources. This Article examines these new amendments and the EPA-related provisions of the IRA, and explains the major implications of this historic legislation.

On October 29, 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari in West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency, a petition filed by several states and coal companies attacking the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA’s) regulatory authority under the Clean Air Act (CAA). The Court’s holding in this case would determine EPA’s continued ability to use the CAA—including the national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) program—as a climate change tool.

On the final day of the 2021-2022 term, the U.S. Supreme Court released its decision in West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency. The majority (6-3) opinion limited the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from power plants under Clean Air Act §111(d), in part by invoking the “major questions doctrine.” The decision has implications for EPA’s authority both to regulate emissions from stationary sources and to regulate greenhouse gases more broadly.

In 2009, when carbon dioxide (CO2) levels were at 387.43 parts per million, the Center for Biological Diversity and 350.org submitted a citizen petition calling on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to take steps necessary to institute a national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) for greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions under §§108-110 of the Clean Air Act (CAA). For 12 years, the petition was simply ignored. Then, the day President Donald Trump left office, outgoing EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler issued a letter denying the petition.

Over the past 50 years, tremendous progress has been made in reducing air pollution under the Clean Air Act. Nevertheless, while air quality has improved greatly for much of the nation, there are still places where the goal of attaining national standards has still not been reached. This is often true in urban locations that are affected by multiple pollution sources; typically, these areas are also environmental justice communities. Recent events have called attention to the urgent need for concrete action to address the many problems of these communities.

Two carbon pricing bills were introduced during the 115th Congress. Reps. Carlos Curbelo (R-Fla.) and Brian Fitzpatrick (R-Pa.) introduced the MARKET CHOICE Act during the summer of 2018. Reps. Ted Deutsch (D-Fla.) and Francis Rooney (R-Fla.) introduced the Energy Innovation and Carbon Dividend Act (Energy Innovation Act) in November 2018, and reintroduced it early in the 116th Congress, where it presently has more than 65 cosponsors. By different methods and with different comprehensiveness, both of these bills place a Pigouvian tax on greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.

Aerial drones are emerging as an effective tool for environmental monitoring and enforcement because of their ability to reach areas that would be otherwise inaccessible or cost-prohibitive. However, the regulatory framework has not developed as fast as the technology, raising concerns. As EPA and other agencies consider using drones to monitor industrial sites and farmland, many landowners claim it would be an invasion of privacy. Using drones for inspections also raises legal questions about information obtained from drone flyovers and the associated evidentiary requirements.

In Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC) v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S. Supreme Court narrowly upheld orders issued by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) pursuant to §§113(a)(5) and 167 of the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act), prohibiting construction of a new power generator unit at a mine in Northwest Alaska.