NEPA is not about my agenda or your agenda. It is about solutions that work for all of us. This Comment offers a litmus test. The first section explains the promise NEPA makes to each of us, describing the integration, information, and inclusion that NEPA brought to our federal statutory framework in a way not previously seen and describing how NEPA enhances our democracy by holding the government accountable to the people it serves—by giving the public a right to information, as well as the right to provide information.

While a “spaceport” may sound like a concept mostly confined to science fiction, several commercial spaceports are in operation in the United States and abroad, and more are being developed. As the name suggests, spaceports, or commercial space launch sites, are used to conduct launch and reentry operations to and from space, such as launching satellites into orbit or sending space tourists to the edge of space and back.

In the absence of a national mandate to intensify use of renewable energy, many corporations are increasing their own reliance on renewables. Numerous utilities are likewise transitioning toward wind, thermal, and solar power. But renewable energy continues to face challenges, including battery storage, grid expansion and incorporation of renewables into the grid, initial project costs, and regulatory barriers. How are utilities and energy-consuming companies increasing their renewables portfolios while navigating this terrain?

We are practitioners for the City of Philadelphia with extensive experience in cases and analysis regarding the extent to which the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania has, or has not, preempted local regulation in various subjects of concern to the City. As City attorneys, our perspective is based in our role as advocates for the preservation and defense of the City’s exercise of its home rule powers. In considering the city-state relationship, many of the practical, political and cultural issues addressed in Prof. Richard C.

The Endangered Species Act defines an endangered species as one at risk of extinction “throughout all or a significant portion of its range.” The U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI) has repeatedly defined “significant portion” to mean an area of the range essential to species persistence. This definition is redundant, and various iterations of the definition have been struck down in the past. At the same time, other proposals to list a species only in a portion of its range fail to satisfy the statutory requirements.

On March 11, 2019, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration published an advance notice of proposed rulemaking to amend regulations that implement the Coastal Zone Management Act’s (CZMA’s) consistency requirement. This Article places the notice in context, focusing on the CZMA’s role in state review of offshore oil and gas development and its evolution to provide a predictable framework that balances coastal state interests with the nation’s energy needs.

The principles of “common but differentiated responsibility” (CBDR) and sustainable development play an integral role in international environmental law. However, these principles have come under fire in recent years, particularly from the global North, which has grown impatient over the lack of contribution on climate change from the emerging economies. Much effort has been expended toward the establishment of greater contribution, and the shouldering of greater responsibility from these countries.

In 1990, when the Clean Air Act (CAA) was last substantially amended, atmospheric carbon dioxide levels stood at about 350 parts per million (ppm). Now they are close to 414 ppm, and the U.S.

In recent years, the drumbeat for more expansive climate-related corporate disclosures has grown louder and more consistent within a broader swath of the financial community. This intensifying call argues for considering more climate-related information legally material under existing U.S. securities disclosure law. A key component of materiality as defined in U.S. securities law—who is a “reasonable investor”—is evolving when it comes to climate-related information. This evolution may soon impact what climate-related information courts consider material.