On October 22, 2012, the Center for Climate Change Law at Columbia Law School hosted a forum to discuss the future of RGGI. The event addressed results from the first three years of RGGI’s existence, some perceived problems with the program, and potential solutions. The speakers gave a wide range of assessments of the impact of RGGI, from Mr. Snyder arguing that “by just about any measure, [RGGI] has been a success,” to Mr. Stavins stating, “I don’t think it deserves credit for much.”  This Field Report will discuss the perspective of the various speakers to determine who the winners and losers have been under the program, its effectiveness as a tool against climate change, and its future.

The continuing advancement of nanotechnology represents a tremendous opportunity for society because of the unique traits that nanoscale materials possess.  Unfortunately, the same physical traits that give nanotechnology its economic and scientific value also make it a potentially dangerous emerging form of pollution that is particularly difficult to regulate under current law.  After discussing the properties of nanoparticles and the current, problematic legal framework surrounding their environmental regulation, I will explore an alternative regulatory regime that could prove to be more successful in confronting the environmental risk posed by nanoparticles.

This Field Report provides background on the MRGO and its role in Hurricane Katrina’s impact on the Gulf region, the subsequent district court litigation, and compares the initial Fifth Circuit ruling with the panel’s current ruling on the case. Although the reasons why the Fifth Circuit withdrew its initial ruling may never be known beyond the walls of the judges’ chambers, a comparison of the two rulings suggests that there was a change from emphasis on what the Corps actually did to an emphasis on the nature of the decision the Corps had to make. This revised opinion brings the Fifth Circuit back in line with its other decisions requiring the government merely to show that “the acts or omissions that form the basis of the suit are susceptible to a policy-driven analysis, not whether they were the end product of a policy-driven analysis.

Climate justice has many synergistic and sometimes competing dimensions.  Superstorm Sandy struck a strategically important city in a strategically important country within days of a strategically important election.  Irrespective of the degree to which climate change contributes to any given weather event, climate change has an aggregate effect of increasing the need for effective disaster response.  This essay argues that prioritizing human rights and environment in the context of energy, climate, and water decision making offers a best practice model for climate mitigation and adaptive resilience.

 The rise in building energy consumption is a growing  problem.  Today, buildings make up roughly 40% of total  U.S. energy con-sumption.   Some state and local  legislatures have responded by enacting residential and  commercial green building codes, which they hope will make buildings more sustainable and more energy efficient.   Recently, however, a federal court voided the City of Albuquerque’s green building code because federal law preempted its appliance efficiency standards.   This is problematic because energy efficient appliances are a key component to energy use reduction strategies in green building codes.   Further, current federal standards are inadequate because they are out-of-date  and do not address regional climate diversity.   Federal reform is also unlikely.   Accordingly, this field report will explore the limits the Albuquerque decision places on non-federal regulation and will argue that market-based incentive codes (MBI Codes) can nonetheless effectively improve appliance efficiency standards without violating federal law.

The Indian Point Energy Center, a nuclear power plant located just thirty-four miles from New York City in Buchanan, New York, has recently been the subject of intense debate.  On March 1, 2012, the Center for Climate Change Law at Columbia Law School hosted a forum on the future of Indian Point.  Paul Gallay of Hudson Riverkeeper and Ashok Gupta of Natural Resources Defense Council spoke in opposition to Indian Point.  Arthur "Jerry" Kremer of the Affordable Reliable Electricity Alliance (New York) and John Kelly, the former Director of Licensing at Indian Point, spoke in support of relicensing the plant.  Michael Gerrard, the Andrew Sabin Professor of Professional Practice and Director of the Center for Climate Change Law at Columbia Law School, moderated the panel discussion at the forum.  This Report reviews and analyzes the claims made during the forum, highlighting the conclusion that Indian Point presents serious risks that must be addressed before the plant is relicensed.