On June 19, EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler signed the Affordable Clean Energy (ACE) rule, which will replace the Obama-era Clean Power Plan. Resources for the Future (RFF) researchers have been leading efforts to understand the emissions, economic, and health implications of the ACE rule. Their extensive research on the regulation—in particular, the “emissions rebound effect" that will likely increase carbon dioxide emissions under ACE in at least 18 states—has been reported on by the New York Times, Washington Post, and others in their coverage of recent developments.
At 12:30 p.m. on Thursday, June 27, join us for an RFF Live event where a panel of experts will explore the economic and legal implications of the ACE rule.
- Introductory Remarks: Sally Katzen, Professor, New York University School of Law
- Dallas Burtraw, Senior Fellow, RFF
- Megan Herzog, Special Assistant Attorney General, Massachusetts Office of the Attorney General
- Jeffrey R. Holmstead, Partner, Bracewell
- Nathan Richardson, Assistant Professor, University of South Carolina School of Law
- Moderator: Emily Holden, The Guardian
When: Thursday, June 27, 12:30 p.m.–1:45 p.m.; doors will open and lunch will be served at noon.
Where: Resources & Conservation Center, 1400 16th St. NW, Washington, DC, 20036
Find out more about RFF’s research on the ACE rule:
- Amelia Keyes and Dallas Burtraw coauthored a seminal study of the ACE emissions rebound effect. It has been cited by the New York Times, Washington Post, Vox, and many other publications.
- RFF contributed to an accompanying fact sheet that outlines key findings, explaining what the ACE rule potentially means for the nation, for states, for health, and for the courts.
- In response to the proposed ACE rule, RFF submitted public comments on the consideration of health cobenefits, estimates of the social cost of carbon, the emissions rebound effect, and determination of the “best system of emission reduction.”
- In Resources blog posts, Burtraw and Keyes explained why the ACE rule may be vulnerable to legal challenges and Keyes explained why greater efficiencies may counterintuitively drive higher emissions. Nathan Richardson expanded further on the legal implications of the rule.