For over a decade, California has stood at the forefront of U.S. climate policy, using its Clean Air Act waiver to establish the nation’s most aggressive greenhouse gas emissions regulations in order to meet their goal of reaching carbon neutrality by 2045. However, in the wake of the overruling of Chevron deference in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo (2024) and the Supreme Court’s recent ruling in Diamond Alternative Energy, LLC v. Environmental Protective Agency (EPA) (2025), California’s Clean Air Act (CAA) waiver now rests on fragile ground. The overturning of Chevron deference alongside the recent ruling in Diamond Alternative Energy, LLC v. EPA signals that courts may now reinterpret the waiver provision more narrowly, undermining many states’ capacity to lead on climate regulation.
Read MoreWith the acceleration of man-made global warming, environmental regulatory frameworks have come under severe scrutiny for not tackling climate issues with enough urgency. The advent of space tourism presents even greater challenges, since environmental regulations must now encompass innovations they were never intended to govern. At the center of this ambiguity is the Clean Air Act (CAA), the landmark 1970 law responsible for regulating U.S. atmospheric pollutants. The CAA laid the groundwork for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to establish air quality standards for a variety of pollutants, including particles whose environmental implications were discovered after the law’s passage. Notably, the CAA does not explicitly regulate any emissions sources, but rather establishes different standards based on the classification of the emission source as either stationary or mobile. [1] However, the growing space tourism industry raises new concerns about the CAA’s regulatory prowess, because space rockets exhibit characteristics of both mobile sources (lower emissions standards) and stationary sources (higher emissions standards). Yet, the CAA does not include a resolution for potential mobile-stationary source classification overlap. [2] Given that technology moguls such as Richard Branson intend to expand space tourism thirty-fold in the next decade, space tourism has the potential to become one of the main contributors to greenhouse gas emissions in the near future. Hence, the classification of rockets as mobile or stationary is incredibly consequential. [3]
Read More