The Experts below are selected from a list of 246 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform

Oar Us Epa - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

Robert N. Stavins - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • Policy Evolution under the Clean Air Act
    Journal of Economic Perspectives, 2019
    Co-Authors: Richard Schmalensee, Robert N. Stavins
    Abstract:

    The US Clean Air Act, passed in 1970 with strong bipartisan support, was the first environmental law to give the federal government a serious regulatory role, established the architecture of the US Air pollution control system, and became a model for subsequent environmental laws in the United States and globally. We outline the Act's key provisions, as well as the main changes Congress has made to it over time. We assess the evolution of Air pollution control policy under the Clean Air Act, with particular attention to the types of policy instruments used. We provide a generic assessment of the major types of policy instruments, and we trace and assess the historical evolution of the Environmental Protection Agency's policy instrument use, with particular focus on the increased use of market-based policy instruments, beginning in the 1970s and culminating in the 1990s. Over the past 50 years, Air pollution regulation has gradually become more complex, and over the past 20 years, policy debates have become increasingly partisan and polarized, to the point that it has become impossible to amend the Act or pass other legislation to address the new threat of climate change.

  • Policy Evolution under the Clean Air Act
    SSRN Electronic Journal, 2018
    Co-Authors: Richard Schmalensee, Robert N. Stavins
    Abstract:

    The U.S. Clean Air Act, passed in 1970 with strong bipartisan support, was the first environmental law to give the Federal government a serious regulatory role, established the architecture of the U.S. Air pollution control system, and became a model for subsequent environmental laws in the United States and globally. We outline the Act’s key provisions, as well as the main changes Congress has made to it over time. We assess the evolution of Air pollution control policy under the Clean Air Act, with particular attention to the types of policy instruments used. We provide a generic assessment of the major types of policy instruments, and we trace and assess the historical evolution of EPA’s policy instrument use, with particular focus on the increased use of market-based policy instruments, beginning in the 1970s and culminating in the 1990s. Over the past fifty years, Air pollution regulation has gradually become much more complex, and over the past twenty years, policy debates have become increasingly partisan and polarized, to the point that it has become impossible to amend the Act or pass other legislation to address the new threat of climate change.

Deborah L. Heller - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

Richard Schmalensee - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • Policy Evolution under the Clean Air Act
    Journal of Economic Perspectives, 2019
    Co-Authors: Richard Schmalensee, Robert N. Stavins
    Abstract:

    The US Clean Air Act, passed in 1970 with strong bipartisan support, was the first environmental law to give the federal government a serious regulatory role, established the architecture of the US Air pollution control system, and became a model for subsequent environmental laws in the United States and globally. We outline the Act's key provisions, as well as the main changes Congress has made to it over time. We assess the evolution of Air pollution control policy under the Clean Air Act, with particular attention to the types of policy instruments used. We provide a generic assessment of the major types of policy instruments, and we trace and assess the historical evolution of the Environmental Protection Agency's policy instrument use, with particular focus on the increased use of market-based policy instruments, beginning in the 1970s and culminating in the 1990s. Over the past 50 years, Air pollution regulation has gradually become more complex, and over the past 20 years, policy debates have become increasingly partisan and polarized, to the point that it has become impossible to amend the Act or pass other legislation to address the new threat of climate change.

  • Policy Evolution under the Clean Air Act
    SSRN Electronic Journal, 2018
    Co-Authors: Richard Schmalensee, Robert N. Stavins
    Abstract:

    The U.S. Clean Air Act, passed in 1970 with strong bipartisan support, was the first environmental law to give the Federal government a serious regulatory role, established the architecture of the U.S. Air pollution control system, and became a model for subsequent environmental laws in the United States and globally. We outline the Act’s key provisions, as well as the main changes Congress has made to it over time. We assess the evolution of Air pollution control policy under the Clean Air Act, with particular attention to the types of policy instruments used. We provide a generic assessment of the major types of policy instruments, and we trace and assess the historical evolution of EPA’s policy instrument use, with particular focus on the increased use of market-based policy instruments, beginning in the 1970s and culminating in the 1990s. Over the past fifty years, Air pollution regulation has gradually become much more complex, and over the past twenty years, policy debates have become increasingly partisan and polarized, to the point that it has become impossible to amend the Act or pass other legislation to address the new threat of climate change.

Nathan Richardson - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • The Rise and Fall of Clean Air Act Climate Policy
    2020
    Co-Authors: Nathan Richardson
    Abstract:

    The Clean Air Act has proven over nearly fifty years to be one of the most successful and durable statutes in American law. After the Supreme Court’s 2008 decision in Massachusetts v. EPA, there was great hope that it could be brought to bear on climate change, the most pressing current environmental challenge of our time. Massachusetts was fêted as the most important environmental case ever decided, and upon it the EPA under President Obama built a sweeping program of greenhouse gas regulations, aimed first at emissions from road vehicles, and later at fossil fuel power plants. It was the most ambitious federal climate policy in American history. Now, twelve years after Massachusetts was decided, that program is in ruins, largely repealed or weakened by the climate-skeptic Trump administration. Massachusetts has not provided a foundation for durable climate policy. The roots of Clean Air Act climate policy’s failures lie not just in changes in political leadership, but with a majority on the Supreme Court increasingly skeptical of not just climate regulation specifically, but of the administrative state in general. This and other barriers will persist regardless of who is in the White House. This article explores why climate regulation under the Clean Air Act has been so much more fragile than other regulations under the statute, who bears responsibility for its failures, and what prospects remain for future federal climate policy.

  • The Rise and Fall of Clean Air Act Climate Policy
    SSRN Electronic Journal, 2020
    Co-Authors: Nathan Richardson
    Abstract:

    The Clean Air Act has proven to be one of the most successful and durable statutes in American law. After the Supreme Court’s 2008 decision in Massachusetts v. EPA, there was great hope that the Act could be brought to bear on climate change, the most pressing current environmental challenge of our time. Massachusetts was feted as the most important environmental case ever decided, and, upon it, the Environmental Protection Agency under President Obama built a sweeping program of greenhouse gas regulations, aimed first at emissions from road vehicles, and later at fossil fuel power plants. It was the most ambitious federal climate policy in American history. Now, twelve years after Massachusetts was decided, that program is in ruins, largely repealed or weakened by the climate-skeptic Trump administration. Massachusetts has not provided a foundation for durable climate policy. The roots of the Clean Air Act’s climate policy failures lie not just in changes in political leadership, but also in a Supreme Court majority increasingly skeptical of not just climate regulation but of the administrative state in general. This and other barriers will persist regardless of who occupies the White House. This article explores why climate regulation under the Clean Air Act has been so much more fragile than other regulations under the statute, which Actors bear responsibility for its failures, and what prospects remain for future federal climate policy.

  • prevailing academic view on compliance flexibility under 111 of the Clean Air Act
    Research Papers in Economics, 2011
    Co-Authors: Gregory E. Wannier, Nathan Richardson, Jason A. Schwartz, Michael A. Livermore, Michael B. Gerrard, Dallas Burtraw
    Abstract:

    EPA will soon propose performance standards under Section 111 of the Clean Air Act for greenhouse gas pollution from the two largest emitting stationary source sectors—fossil-fueled power plants and petroleum refineries. The form these standards will take remains unclear. A key issue that will shape the effectiveness of the regulations is the degree to which they enable regulated entities to use flexible approaches to achieve the standards. This discussion paper provides the content of a letter to EPA Administrator Jackson that describes areas of general academic agreement on the EPA‟s authority to use compliance flexibility options under Section 111 of the Clean Air Act in the development of performance standards for greenhouse gas emissions.

  • Prevailing Academic View on Compliance Flexibility under § 111 of the Clean Air Act
    SSRN Electronic Journal, 2011
    Co-Authors: Gregory E. Wannier, Nathan Richardson, Jason A. Schwartz, Michael A. Livermore, Michael B. Gerrard, Dallas Burtraw
    Abstract:

    EPA will soon propose performance standards under Section 111 of the Clean Air Act for greenhouse gas pollution from the two largest emitting stationary source sectors—fossil-fueled power plants and petroleum refineries. The form these standards will take remains unclear. A key issue that will shape the effectiveness of the regulations is the degree to which they enable regulated entities to use flexible approaches to achieve the standards. This discussion paper provides the content of a letter to EPA Administrator Jackson that describes areas of general academic agreement on the EPA‟s authority to use compliance flexibility options under Section 111 of the Clean Air Act in the development of performance standards for greenhouse gas emissions.

  • International greenhouse gas offsets under the Clean Air Act.
    SSRN Electronic Journal, 2010
    Co-Authors: Nathan Richardson
    Abstract:

    Offsets, and in particular international offsets, have been advanced as an important tool in climate policy, capable of significantly reducing the costs of emissions reductions. As attention turns to the existing Clean Air Act as a potential vehicle for general reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, an important question is whether regulation under the statute is compatible with international offsets. This paper analyzes the regulatory programs under the Clean Air Act that are the most likely candidates for greenhouse gas regulation and concludes that many of them are legally incompatible with international offsets. Those programs that might permit use of international offsets have other problems that make them unpopular choices for greenhouse gas regulation. To the extent that Clean Air Act regulation depends on state Action, state law and constitutional limitations appear to offer more barriers than opportunities for use of international offsets. These conclusions have implications for the costs and flexibility of climate policy under the Clean Air Act.