Jody Freeman

This September is a big month for the coal industry. Early in the month, the US Environmental Protection Agency released its final version of a modified Cross-State Air Pollution Rule that seeks to cut emissions from power plants tied to smog. And, at the end of the month, a federal circuit court will begin hearing arguments over the Clean Power Plan that aims to cut carbon emissions...Harvard Law Professors Jody Freeman and Richard Lazarus explain that EPA’s rule gives states several alternative options to comply, such as replacing their coal-fired generation with plants that run on cleaner natural gas, or with green energies. States with a lot of coal, for instance, have less stringent requirements. With that, Freeman and Lazarus point out that coal plants in this country are on average 42-years-old and pollute a lot more than newer plants. Still, coal is expected to supply 30 percent of the nation’s energy mix by 2030, which negates the argument that the plan is nothing more than a “power grab.”

President Obama’s signature climate change initiative is about to face its biggest challenge yet. Time is running out on Obama’s second term in the White House, and the president could leave office next January with his Clean Power Plan stuck in legal limbo. The rule, which would require power plants to cut their carbon dioxide output, is the centerpiece of Obama’s efforts to use executive power to slow U.S. contributions to global warming...“I think that people shouldn’t be too pessimistic or optimistic either way,” said Jody Freeman, director of Harvard Law School’s environmental law program and a former counselor to Obama. She filed a legal brief backing the plan on behalf of two former Republican EPA chiefs.

Nearly 200 Democrats in Congress – including most from New England – are supporting the Environmental Protection Administration as it faces a legal challenge to its effort to regulate carbon emissions from coal-burning power plants. “The law is clear: The Clean Air Act gives EPA the authority to regulate air pollution and that is what the agency is doing with the Clean Power Plan rule,” Sen. Edward Markey, D-Mass., said during a conference call Friday with reporters to announce the filing of an “amicus brief” in support of the rule...A similar brief was filed Thursday by Harvard Law Professors Jody Freeman and Richard Lazarus on behalf of two former EPA administrators who had been appointed by Republican presidents Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush. Former EPA Administrators William D. Ruckelshaus and William K. Reilly are supporting the Clean Power Plan as a “pragmatic, flexible, and cost-effective pollution control program” that respects the authority of states. They argue that the rule “falls well within the bounds” of the agency’s authority to reasonably interpret broadly worded statutory language to address unforeseen problems without the need for congressional amendment of current law.

An article by Jody Freeman (registration required): In February 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court made an extraordinary decision. It temporarily suspended the implementation of President Barack Obama’s signature climate change initiative—the Clean Power Plan—which requires coal- and gas-fired power plants, the largest source of U.S. carbon pollution, to cut their emissions for the first time. At the Paris climate talks just two months prior, nearly 200 nations pledged to mitigate their greenhouse gas emissions using a variety of domestic policies. Obama’s plan had become a crucial part of the United States’ strategy for meeting its own commitment in Paris: to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by up to 28 percent by 2025, compared to 2005 levels.

Be wary of any promises from Republican presidential candidates to abolish federal entities such as the Environmental Protection Agency and Energy Department, legal scholars told Bloomberg BNA, because they will not come true...“This is just red meat to their supporters, of course, and cannot be unilaterally accomplished,” Jody Freeman, a professor at Harvard Law School, told Bloomberg BNA. “Presidents can ask Congress for skeletal agency budgets, try to stymie or slow agency work or control them and weaken regulation through centralized White House review, but they cannot eliminate agencies or zero out budgets by fiat, which is what these candidates are promising.” ...Laurence Tribe, Harvard Law professor and legal scholar, told Bloomberg BNA in an e-mail that the agency's origins are “legally irrelevant” to whether it could now be abolished. “The fact that an executive order by President Nixon preceded the Acts of Congress constituting the current EPA, delegating regulatory powers to that agency, authorizing its expenditures and appropriating the funds in its budget doesn't make it vulnerable to unilateral presidential abolition,” Tribe said.

Ten research projects driven by faculty collaborators across six Harvard Schools will share over $1 million in the second round of grants awarded by the Climate Change Solutions Fund, an initiative launched last year by President Drew Faust to encourage multidisciplinary research around climate change...This year’s winners are:...Wendy Jacobs and Alma Cohen, Harvard Law School. Jacobs and Cohen will work with existing community organizations to encourage behavior changes that meaningfully reduce greenhouse gas emissions and build social and political support for policies to mitigate climate change...Katherine Konschnik and Jody Freeman, Harvard Law School. Konschnik and Freeman’s project, called Power Shift, will help policymakers, regulators, and stakeholders design a modern legal infrastructure to support 21st-century electricity by creating and supporting a new network of expert communities.

Justice Antonin Scalia, who died unexpectedly Feb. 13 while on vacation at a West Texas resort, authored nearly two dozen majority opinions and a dozen dissents in environmental law cases during his 30 years on the U.S. Supreme Court. ... Richard J. Lazarus, a professor at Harvard Law School, told Bloomberg BNA that Scalia “was probably environmental law’s greatest skeptic,” but not “because he was against environmentalism.” ... Jody Freeman, a professor at Harvard Law School, told Bloomberg BNA that “you could largely predict where Scalia would come out on those cases. He was very consistent that the burden on the larger public to get standing was always going to be greater than for directly regulated entities.”

A few hours after nearly every country in the world adopted the Paris Agreement last December, John Kerry went into enemy territory. Backed by the blinking lights of the Champs-Élysées, the bleary-eyed secretary of state clipped on an earpiece and started fielding questions from Fox News Sunday’s Chris Wallace. One of the main objections American conservatives have to any global climate deal is the fear that other countries will renege, making money off dirty energy while Americans sacrifice to clean the atmosphere like a bunch of chumps...But this week, another branch of government emerged as a threat to the plan. Chief Justice John Roberts, backed by his four fellow Republican appointees on the Supreme Court, barred the Obama administration from taking any steps to implement its plan to reduce carbon pollution from existing power plants until the courts reach a final decision on the plan’s legality...Jody Freeman, a Harvard University law professor who served as White House counselor for energy and climate change under Obama, disagrees. "There’s no argument for irreparable harm," she says. "There is no obligation on the part of the federal government to preserve the market share of the coal industry."

OnPoint with Tom Ashbrook: The Supreme Court hits the brakes on the heart of President Obama’s push to fight global warming. We’ll dig in. Guests: Jody Freeman, founding director of the Harvard Law School Environmental Law and Policy program.

In a major setback for President Obama’s climate change agenda, the Supreme Court on Tuesday temporarily blocked the administration’s effort to combat global warming by regulating emissions from coal-fired power plants. The brief order was not the last word on the case, which is most likely to return to the Supreme Court after an appeals court considers an expedited challenge from 29 states and dozens of corporations and industry groups. But the high court’s willingness to issue a stay while the case proceeds was an early hint that the program could face a skeptical reception from the justices...“It’s a stunning development,” Jody Freeman, a Harvard law professor and former environmental legal counsel to the Obama administration, said in an email. She added that “the order certainly indicates a high degree of initial judicial skepticism from five justices on the court,” and that the ruling would raise serious questions from nations that signed on to the landmark Paris climate change pact in December.

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's recent victory before the U.S. Supreme Court bodes well for the Environmental Protection Agency when the justices eventually consider substantive challenges to the Clean Power Plan, legal analysts told Bloomberg BNA. The court ruled 6-2 that the Federal Power Act unambiguously extends FERC authority to regulate demand response rates in the wholesale energy market (FERC v. Elec. Power Supply Ass'n, 2015 BL 18590 (U.S. 2015); 15 ECR, 1/25/16). Jody Freeman, a professor at Harvard Law School, told Bloomberg BNA that she was surprised both by the margin of victory and that the court so emphatically upheld FERC's demand response rule. “The interesting thing is that an agency took an old law that was written decades ago and which couldn't possibly have anticipated the modern grid, and the agency had to adapt that law to deal with modern policy,” and the court resoundingly upheld those actions, Freeman said.

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday upheld a major Obama administration electricity-markets regulation that encourages big power users like factories to cut consumption at peak times, rejecting a challenge brought by electric utilities. The court, ruling 6-2, reversed a 2014 decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to strike down the 2011 Federal Energy Regulatory Commission regulation...Jody Freeman, director of Harvard Law School's environmental law and policy program, called the ruling a "crucial step" toward the Obama administration's goal to reduce carbon emissions that contribute to climate change.

Two Republicans who headed the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) are backing the Obama administration’s climate change rule for power plants as it faces a federal court challenge. William Ruckelshaus, who was the first EPA administrator under President Richard Nixon and later served in the same position under President Ronald Reagan; and William Reilly, who served under President George H.W. Bush, want to be able to file amicus briefs in the case. The two men support the climate rule, saying in October that “the rule is needed, and the courts we hope will recognize that it is on the right side of history.”...Ruckelshaus and Reilly are being represented by Jody Freeman and Richard Lazarus, two Harvard Law School professors who have written and fought in support of the climate rule.

An epic legal battle is about to begin over President Obama's plan to address climate change, in which the Environmental Protection Agency is putting in place new limits on greenhouse gases from power plants. Critics argue the plan is on shaky legal ground, but the administration says it's prepared to defend the regulations in court...Others say the EPA is likely to prevail on that point. Harvard law professor Jody Freeman, a former legal expert on energy and climate change for the Obama administration, says the final version of the regulations is "far more legally defensible than the draft was." For example, Freeman notes that the draft version set emission targets for entire states instead of specific polluters. "Now, what EPA has done is put the regulatory burden directly on the power plants themselves to cut their pollution," she says. "That's just much more direct, and it aligns better with the Clean Air Act."

Obama's announcement of a final rule to reduce carbon emissions on Monday (03.08.2015) drew international attention to the United States. The administration appears to have responded to a growing desire for politicians to take the fight against climate change more seriously. The American public has been demanding more government action as severe droughts and forest fires ravage the western US...."It's a transformational moment in the US, both in the business sector and in politics," Jody Freeman, founding director of the Harvard Law School Environmental Law and Policy Program, told DW. "The push at the national level is a signal that is going to drive change in the private sector."

An op-ed by Jody Freeman and Richard Lazarus. After releasing the Clean Power Plan this week the Obama administration must shift from offense to defense. The plan, which set the first national limits on carbon pollution from existing coal- and natural gas-fired power plants, faces two significant risks: one legal, the other political. The administration must address them to achieve the plan’s ambitious goal of cutting carbon emissions 32% below 2005 levels in 2030.

An op-ed by Jody Freeman and Kate Konschnik. With the release of President Obama’s Clean Power Plan, a flood of legal challenges will begin. Already, opponents have denounced the new rule limiting carbon pollution as unconstitutional. Behind the rattling sabers, however, there’s a quieter story worth noticing. Many big players in the electric power industry will gain more with the rule in place than if the courts strike it down. In fact, many power companies have worked with the administration to get the best possible deal, and with states to discuss compliance strategies. Given their financial interests, some of these utilities may even wind up helping the government defend the rule.