University of Alabama law professor Tara Leigh Grove, a member of the Presidential Commission on the Supreme Court of the United States, joins hosts John Harrison and Risa Goluboff to discuss options for reform and why change is so difficult.

S4 E2: Inside the President’s Supreme Court Commission

Yale Law School professor Tom R. Tyler joins co-host and fellow psychologist Gregory Mitchell to discuss Tyler’s work on procedural justice, including a training program for Chicago police officers.

S4 E4: Why Fair Procedures Matter in Policing

Congressional conflicts with the executive branch often set off legal battles in the courts, and cases can drag on until the point is moot. UVA Law professor Payvand Ahdout digs into why this is happening and what impact it has on the balance of power.

Avoiding the Separation-of-Powers Question

On this episode of Free Range, Host Mike Livermore is joined by two University of Virginia Law students, Matt Disandro and Elizabeth Putfark, who have produced this explainer episode on the pros and cons of wood pellets as a replacement for fossil fuels. 

To make wood pellets, wood from trees is broken apart, heated to reduce moisture, converted to a fine powder, and compressed to form dense, short pellets. According to Daniel Reinemann from Bioenergy Europe, a nonprofit based in Brussels that advocates for biomass energy, wood pellets are the closest thing that the biomass market has to a commodity. (6:50-8:09) 

Dr. Knight, the Group Director of Sustainability at the U.K energy company Drax, explains the key difference between biomass and fossil fuels: fossil fuels take millions of years to turn biological matter into fuel; biomass, on the other hand, was carbon in the sky a few years ago. Disandro, Putfark, Knight, and Reinemann discuss carbon sequestration, the carbon dividend, and the potential technology known as “BECCS” – bioenergy carbon capture and storage. Many policies encourage the use of wood pellets, including  the European Union Renewable Energy Directive. (8:10-19:57) 

The biomass industry doesn’t just affect Europe; it also impacts wood pellet manufacturers in the Southeast United States, which is very rich in timber. To discuss the market for pellets in the Southeast US, Disandro and Putfark are joined by Professor Bob Abt, a forest economist at North Carolina State University. Abt discusses the tradeoffs and distributional consequences of the growing demand for wood pellets from the Southeast. (19:58-24:42)

Notwithstanding support in the EU for wood pellets, conservationists have been raising alarms.   Lousie Guillot, a journalist at Politico, provides some background on the controversy. (24:43-26:46) According to Dr. Mary Booth, the director of the Partnership for Policy Integrity’s science and advocacy work, burning wood is not a carbon neutral energy source. Dr. Booth and the hosts discuss the urgency of reducing emissions now and the important role trees play in taking carbon out of the atmosphere. (26:46 – 31:20) One feature of the controversy is how the Renewable Energy Directive classifying wood pellets as a zero-carbon energy source, despite objections from some environmentalists. (31:21 – 33:27)
 
An additional question is whether wood pellets are mostly derived from forest refuse -- which is the treetops, branches, and diseased trees left behind from logging – rather than whole trees. Heather Hillaker, at the Southern Environmental Law Center, explains her research on wood pellet sourcing in the U.S. Southeast. Using satellite imagery, SELC’s geospatial team found that 84% of the hardwood material being used for bioenergy came from whole trees instead of refuse. Guillot shares details of similar problems happening in European forests. (33:28 – 38:49) Hillaker goes on to discusses the social and community impacts of the wood pellet mills on environmental justice communities. (38:51 – 44:59)
 
Livermore, Disandro and Putfark wrap up the episode by discussing their own views on the pros and cons of wood pellets and what, if anything, the wood pellets experience teaches about broader issues in climate policy. (45:00 – 51:43)

S2E2. Explainer: The Controversy over Wood Pellets

Does the U.S. Supreme Court need more oversight in light of recent ethics concerns? UVA Law professors Amanda Frost and Richard M. Re join host Dean Risa Goluboff to discuss whether more rules are needed.

S6 E1: Ethics at the Supreme Court

The Last Sovereign Bond in New York

Due to litigation over the PDVSA 2020 bond, all future issues of sovereign bonds in New York have been canceled, effective immediately. (PDVSA is quasi-sovereign, but whatever...) You may have heard that New York’s highest court has ruled that investors cannot enforce sovereign bonds, period. Well, maybe that's not quite what it held – okay, not even remotely – but it is how some in the market are reacting. In fact, the New York Court of Appeals did nothing unusual. It held that Venezuelan law decides whether the collateral pledge backing the PDVSA 2020 bonds is valid but that, even if invalid, New York law will decide whether and how this affects investors. Some are complaining that this ignores the contractual choice of law provision designating New York's law as governing. But if investors are surprised, they shouldn't be, and there is nothing unique or strange about New York's conflicts law. Anyway, no one has said the bond is unsecured. No need for all the bedwetting.

Producer: Leanna Doty

Ep 129 - The Last Sovereign Bond in New York

Though much divides us these days, there are still some things we all share in common. One of them is law. From the kind of health care we receive to the laws that determine what’s a ticket and what’s a court date, law is everywhere. “Common Law” gives insight into the laws around us and what’s next. This season, Dean Risa Goluboff hosts with “Co-Counsel” Danielle Citron, John Harrison, Cathy Hwang and Greg Mitchell, who are also UVA Law professors. Transcripts are posted at commonlawpodcast.com.