SJ Quinney College of Law, University of Utah
  •  
  •  
 

Abstract

This Article explores the flipside of Michigan - v. EPA - where the Court’s logic can just as well support agencies in their public health and environmental protection efforts. In particular, taking Michigan as a blueprint, this Article argues that cumulative impacts are centrally relevant to environmental regulation and—like cost—deserve a systemic and meaningful role in agency decisionmaking, including in the threshold decision of when to regulate. In doing so, this Article serves as a counterbalance to the weight of cost benefit rhetoric that would reduce environmental law off to a line item in a strained budget.

Share

COinS