Nathan Richardson
University Fellow
Nathan Richardson is an attorney and professor of law at Jacksonville University. He has been a researcher at RFF since 2009, specializing in environmental law and economics. His research has examined environmental liability, environmental federalism, and the relationship between law, regulatory institutions, and policy design. He has published research on law and policy related to climate change, including EPA regulation of greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act. Other research areas include regulation and liability rules related to oil and gas development. Richardson also served as managing editor of RFF’s environmental policy and economics blog, Common Resources, from 2012 to 2014.
Economics
- JD with Honors, University of Chicago Law School, 2009
- BS in foreign service, Georgetown University, 2001
Featured Content
- Highlights
- Publications
- Events
- Editorial
- News
Media Highlight — Jul 18, 2022
Bloomberg: "Existing Air Law Tools Give EPA Narrow Path on Tackling Climate"
An in-depth story published a few weeks after the ruling on West Virginia v. EPA quotes panelists from an RFF Live event about the decision.
Common Resources — Jul 6, 2022
The Consequences of the Supreme Court’s West Virginia v. EPA Ruling for Environmental Regulation
The Supreme Court’s ruling in West Virginia v. EPA last week reduced the US Environmental Protection Agency’s authority to regulate emissions from power plants at the national level absent specific legislative directives.
RFF Live — Jul 7, 2022
Climate Change and the Supreme Court: West Virginia v. EPA
A conversation on the recent Supreme Court decision and its consequences for emissions regulation and climate change efforts
Media Highlight — May 4, 2022
Washington Post: "Supreme Court Leak Strikes Fear among Environmental Lawyers"
University Fellow and environmental attorney Nathan Richardson predicts the fate of the Supreme Court case West Virginia v. EPA in light of the court's draft decision on Roe v. Wade.
Testimony and Public Comments — Jul 28, 2020
Comments to the EPA on "Increasing Consistency and Transparency in Considering Benefits and Costs in the Clean Air Act Rulemaking Process”
Comments to the EPA on "Increasing Consistency and Transparency in Considering Benefits and Costs in the Clean Air Act Rulemaking Process”
Testimony and Public Comments — Aug 10, 2018
Comments to the US EPA on “Increasing Consistency and Transparency in Considering Costs and Benefits in the Rulemaking Process”
Comments to the US EPA on “Increasing Consistency and Transparency in Considering Costs and Benefits in the Rulemaking Process”
Journal Article — Nov 18, 2016
Risks and mitigation options for on-site storage of wastewater from shale gas and tight oil development
Risks and mitigation options for on-site storage of wastewater from shale gas and tight oil development
Working Paper — Oct 31, 2016
The Elephant in the Room or the Elephant in the Mousehole? The Legal Risks (and Promise) of Climate Policy under §115 of the Clean Air Act
The Elephant in the Room or the Elephant in the Mousehole? The Legal Risks (and Promise) of Climate Policy under §115 of the Clean Air Act
RFF Live — Jul 7, 2022
Climate Change and the Supreme Court: West Virginia v. EPA
A conversation on the recent Supreme Court decision and its consequences for emissions regulation and climate change efforts
RFF Live — Jun 27, 2019
CPP vs. ACE: Evaluating the Economic and Legal Impacts
Examining the economic and legal implications of the ACE rule
Workshop — Jun 5, 2014
Making Sense of EPA’s Proposed Rule for Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Existing Power Plants
Making Sense of EPA’s Proposed Rule for Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Existing Power Plants
Conference — Oct 28, 2013
Carbon Regulation for Existing Fossil Power: Design Options and State Implementation
Carbon Regulation for Existing Fossil Power: Design Options and State Implementation
Common Resources — Jul 6, 2022
The Consequences of the Supreme Court’s West Virginia v. EPA Ruling for Environmental Regulation
The Supreme Court’s ruling in West Virginia v. EPA last week reduced the US Environmental Protection Agency’s authority to regulate emissions from power plants at the national level absent specific legislative directives.
Common Resources — Nov 5, 2021
The Supreme Court’s New Threat to Climate Policy
The US Supreme Court has agreed to take up a new case on the Environmental Protection Agency’s authority to regulate greenhouse gases. That’s bad news for ambitious climate policy—and potentially for the power of administrative agencies more generally.
Common Resources — Jan 28, 2021
Striking Down the Affordable Clean Energy Rule Helps—But Does Not Guarantee—Ambitious Climate Policy
A circuit court striking down the Trump administration’s Affordable Clean Energy rule opens avenues for the Biden administration to pursue climate policy, but forthcoming efforts will need to contend with a skeptical Supreme Court.
Common Resources — Dec 14, 2020
Legal Risk Hangs over Biden’s Climate Plans
The current ideological tilt of the Supreme Court will make it harder, though not impossible, for the Biden administration to pursue an ambitious environmental agenda.
Media Highlight — Jul 18, 2022
Bloomberg: "Existing Air Law Tools Give EPA Narrow Path on Tackling Climate"
An in-depth story published a few weeks after the ruling on West Virginia v. EPA quotes panelists from an RFF Live event about the decision.
Media Highlight — May 4, 2022
Washington Post: "Supreme Court Leak Strikes Fear among Environmental Lawyers"
University Fellow and environmental attorney Nathan Richardson predicts the fate of the Supreme Court case West Virginia v. EPA in light of the court's draft decision on Roe v. Wade.
Media Highlight — Dec 10, 2021
Supreme Court's Review of EPA Authorities Carries Far-Reaching Implication
An article in S&P Global looks to University Fellow Nathan Richardson for insight on the Supreme Court's recent decision to review the legality of EPA regulations.
Media Highlight — Nov 13, 2020
Biden Climate Ambitions for EPA Hamstrung by Conservative Supreme Court
Biden Climate Ambitions for EPA Hamstrung by Conservative Supreme Court