UCLA Journal of Environmental Law and Policy

In an era defined by climate crises and mounting barriers to cross-border movement, this Article examines the intricate relationships between climate change, displacement, and refugee protection in the United States. Through a comprehensive analysis, incorporating insights from interviews with asylum seekers from Mexico and Central America at the U.S.-Mexico border, we present case examples that highlight the convergence of climate change impacts with other drivers of displacement. Our assessment reveals how some individuals affected by climate-related displacement may qualify for refugee protection when climate change impacts intersect with and exacerbate persecution based on protected grounds under U.S. law. Nevertheless, the significant protection gaps for climate-displaced people underscore the urgent need for the development of additional protection pathways as climate change impacts increasingly drive movement across borders.

The Supreme Court’s 2007 decision in Massachusetts v. EPA marked the first time the Court had addressed the standing of states to sue the federal government in an environmental case. The Court’s holding that Massachusetts, New York, and the other petitioners had standing to sue the Environmental Protection Agency for climate change-related harms established important precedent for lawsuits brought by states against the federal government. In this article, we examine environmental litigation over the past seventeen years in which federalc ourts have considered the Massachusetts standing holding—and the Court’s instruction that states deserve “special solicitude” in the standing inquiry—in deciding whether states had demonstrated standing against the federal government. As was the case in Massachusetts, it is critical that states have the ability in our system of cooperative federalism to vindicate their rights (and the rights of their residents) in federal court. We discuss the different types of standing theories states have relied on to vindicate those rights, such as financial and quasi-sovereign injuries, and which ones have proven to be the most successful. We then highlight the recent effort to curb the well-established ability of states to use financial injury to establish standing against federal agencies, leading Justice Alito’s admonition that the Court not treat states with “special hostility.” We argue that states seeking to establish standing on financial injury grounds should not be held to a higher standard than other litigants in that showing, and we further discuss how states can rely more on quasi-sovereign interests in establishing standing in the event that standing based on financial injury is curtailed. In that vein, we revisit Massachusetts’s discussion of quasi-sovereign interests, and conclude that—consistent with the grand bargain of federalism and the fundamental notion of parens patriae (“parent of the country”)—a state should be able to sue the federal government where it is neglecting its duty under federal law to protect the health or welfare of the state’s residents. Finally, we consider how courts have interpreted Massachusetts’s instruction that states deserve special solicitude in the standing inquiry. Drawing on Massachusetts, we argue that, where states are suing the federal government to invoke the protections of federal law (including lawsuits brought by a state to protect the health and well-being of its residents), special solicitude is especially warranted.

Increasing electrification is key to solving climate change. However, the current system of electricity provisioning is not equal and disproportionately burdens low-income and minority households. To avoid intensifying this inequality, the growing number of incentives aimed at electrification must be coupled with significant structural changes to the electricity system. California’s Income-Graduated Fixed Charge (IGFC) is an example of this type of needed change. First introduced as a provision in Assembly Bill 205, it promises to alter the way consumers pay for electricity by adding an income-based, monthly fixed charge to electricity. It also promises to remedy California’s currently regressive rate design, to lower electricity bills for many customers—most significantly, low- and middle-income customers—and to lower the cost of electricity which would thus incentivize beneficial electrification. However, this uncomplicated portrayal of the IGFC belies the challenges this proposed rate reform has faced. Since AB 205’s passage, the IGFC has been the subject of misinformation campaigns, repeal efforts, and significant public outcry.

This Comment first introduces a framework of energy justice and a brief history of California’s electricity system and energy equity initiatives. This Comment then attempts to offer a cohesive narrative of the IGFC’s inception. It proceeds to follow the IGFC’s development through the California Public Utilities Commission’s Rulemaking procedure and explores the relevant stakeholders involved. This Comment challenges a dominant characterization of the IGFC as rushed, opaque, and unconstitutional, revealing instead that it was the product of years of deliberation, research, and democratic processes. Finally, this Comment attempts to make sense of the implementation concerns, myths, and misaligned actors, including the solar industry, that have surrounded the IGFC. Here, two competing visions of electricity provisioning emerge: one built on the idea of a shared grid and the other built around an individualist, consumer-centric view that prioritizes the conservation ethic over beneficial electrification. Identifying and understanding these conflicting visions will be helpful to understanding and resolving bigger obstacles to achieving a just and clean energy transition.

Twelve years ago, a Canadian mining company started drilling for graphite in the Kigluaik Mountains. The Native Villages of Mary’s Igloo, Brevig Mission, and Teller were never notified of the start of exploration, despite their proximity to the proposed mine site and the significance of the Kigluaiks in their culture and creation story. Adding insult to injury, in July 2023, the Department of Defense (DoD) granted Graphite One $37.5 million dollars to expedite the feasibility study for this mine. To this day, the DoD has not consulted with the Tribes regarding the Graphite One mine.

The DoD wants to expedite the project because there is currently no domestic manufacturing of graphite in North America, and graphite is an essential ingredient for both renewable energy technologies and weapons manufacturing. While local Tribes oppose the mine, many Tribal members feel that mine development is inevitable, especially given that the Graphite One mine is on State land (and thus subject to fewer environmental and Tribal consultation requirements) and the project has the federal government’s blessing.

This Comment pushes back against that feeling of inevitability by identifying existing tools within federal environmental and federal Indian law that Tribes affected by mining projects can wield to mandate consultation and participation in mine-related decision-making. Using Tribal opposition to the Graphite One mine as an example, this Comment explores actions Tribes have already taken and further steps Tribes could take to protect their homelands and subsistence resources from mining projects.

As the Green Transition intensifies the need for minerals used in renewable energy technologies, Tribal consultation and participation in mine-related decision-making grows increasingly important. Without meaningful consultation with Tribes, the Green Transition will inevitably follow in the footsteps of the fossil fuel past it seeks to replace: extracting resources from Indigenous lands and threatening subsistence lifestyles. This Comment imagines a just transition where Indigenous ways of life are honored and uplifted.