By Richard Lazarus -- Sep. 11, 2014 at 9:05 a.m. This article originally appeared in the September/October 2014 issue of The Environmental Forum. The Environmental Law Institute has graciously allowed the Harvard Environmental Law Review Blog to republish the piece. The biggest environmental law news from the Supreme Court last term may well not have been the Court’s rulings … [Read more...] about It’s Raining Cert Petitions!: Last Term’s Biggest Supreme Court News
By Gabriel Daly -- Nov. 7, 2013 at 12:10pm If an agency uses cost-benefit analysis (CBA) to inform its decision-making, what costs and what benefits should it consider? A case currently before the D.C. Circuit, White Stallion Energy Center, LLC v. EPA, raises this issue. White Stallion suggests a tension between the incentives created by Office of Information and Regulatory … [Read more...] about A New Cost of Cost-Benefit Analysis?
By J.B. Ruhl Thirty-five years ago, the Endangered Species Act (“ESA”) had as auspicious a debut in the U.S. Supreme Court as any statute could hope for. In Tennessee Valley Authority v. Hill, a majority of the Court proclaimed that the ESA was intended “to halt and reverse the trend toward species extinction, whatever the cost” and backed up those and other bold words by … [Read more...] about The Endangered Species Act’s Fall From Grace in the Supreme Court
By David M. Driesen This Article compares the relative merits of feasibility and cost-benefit based regulation, responding to a recent article by Jonathan Masur and Eric Posner on this topic. Normatively, it shows that the lack of correlation between non-subsistence consumption and welfare supports the argument that regulation should be strict, unless widespread plant … [Read more...] about Two Cheers for Feasible Regulation: A Modest Response to Masur and Posner