What Local Climate Change Plans Can Teach Us About City Power

Discussions of city power have long focused on cities’ power relative to higher levels of government and to each other. The diffuse causes of climate change offer an opportunity to revisit the question of city power by focusing more closely on the intended object of influence. Although these two perspectives on power will at times overlap, they are not identical. If we consider greenhouse gas emissions as the target, cities can employ their relatively minor powers to substantial effect and many of them appear to be trying to do so. But consideration of cities’ climate change policies alters the usual analysis of city power further. While local government theorists have generally evaluated cities’ autonomy in terms of residents’ ability to shape their local community or their metropolitan region, municipal climate change policies aim to meaningfully contribute to resolution of a global problem. Although some elements of climate change plans may provide fiscal or other benefits that may make cities better providers of services to “consumer-voters” on a public choice model, many other elements cannot be explained other than recognizing these as efforts to engage their residents in a community building effort that encompasses the entire world. Perhaps Frug’s future vision for cities is already taking shape in the realm of local climate change policies, but on a grander vision of geographic interconnection than even he envisioned

Waste Not, Want Not: Landfill Gas to Energy Projects, Climate Change, and the Clean Air Act

This Article aims to address this gap, proposing how the Rule could be amended to reduce methane generally and enhance LGTE specifically. The sections discuss legal mechanisms to reduce landfill methane emissions and promote LGTE where appropriate, focusing on the federal Clean Air Act’s potential role in regulating landfill gas emissions. Section II explains the adverse effects of methane emissions generally and the potential benefits of reducing landfill emissions specifically. Section III describes federal emissions standards under the Clean Air Act and incentive programs for expanded use of LGTE. The discussion highlights potential conflicts between divergent means of regulating landfill gas and discusses criticisms of LGTE incentives. Section IV proposes amendments to Landfill Gas Rule that would more effectively control landfill methane emissions and improve the benefits of LGTE projects by reducing their risks. Section V briefly concludes

What Local Climate Change Plans Can Teach Us About City Power

Discussions of city power have long focused on cities’ power relative to higher levels of government and to each other. The diffuse causes of climate change offer an opportunity to revisit the question of city power by focusing more closely on the intended object of influence. Although these two perspectives on power will at times overlap, they are not identical. If we consider greenhouse gas emissions as the target, cities can employ their relatively minor powers to substantial effect and many of them appear to be trying to do so. But consideration of cities’ climate change policies alters the usual analysis of city power further. While local government theorists have generally evaluated cities’ autonomy in terms of residents’ ability to shape their local community or their metropolitan region, municipal climate change policies aim to meaningfully contribute to resolution of a global problem. Although some elements of climate change plans may provide fiscal or other benefits that may make cities better providers of services to “consumer-voters” on a public choice model, many other elements cannot be explained other than recognizing these as efforts to engage their residents in a community building effort that encompasses the entire world. Perhaps Frug’s future vision for cities is already taking shape in the realm of local climate change policies, but on a grander vision of geographic interconnection than even he envisioned

The Sweet Taste of Defeat: American Electric Power Co v. Connecticut and Federal Greenhouse Gas Regulation

[No abstract

The Sweet Taste of Defeat: American Electric Power Co v. Connecticut and Federal Greenhouse Gas Regulation

[No abstract

Decisions, Disasters, and Deference: Rethinking Agency Expertise after Fukushima

On March 11, 2011, a magnitude 9.0 earthquake triggered a massive tsunami that devastated the Sendai region of Honshu Island, Japan,\u27 and disrupted electrical transmission to the Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear power plant. Backup generators failed at all six reactors, causing a complete station blackout. Despite circumstances for which they were entirely unprepared, including total darkness inside the buildings, plant workers heroically attempted to maintain safety equipment. Nonetheless, without electricity, essential cooling systems eventually failed, precipitating spent fuel pool fires, reactor fuel melting, hydrogen explosions, and major releases of radioactive materials.\u2