In the News

An academic center that supports tough environmental rules is pressing the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) to address risks gas cooking stoves pose to public health, opening another front against the fossil fuel’s use as various state and local governments seek to limit gas-fired appliances over climate change concerns.

Carefully orchestrated comment and complaint campaigns can be a powerful, low-risk tool at communities’ disposal, and the organizers and lawyers convened by the Critical Legal Empowerment conference provide important insight into how to get the most out of them.

Because the mining project’s [GHG] emissions comprised 0.44% of the annual global total, Interior concluded that the project would have “no significant impact” on the climate. In doing so, Interior rejected established methodologies such as the social cost of greenhouse gases that would allow for a more precise assessment of climate damage from the mine expansion. This week, the Ninth Circuit held that Interior’s analysis was insufficient.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is finalizing a long-awaited update to fuel economy standards closely tracking EPA’s greenhouse gas limits, with the Biden administration touting the plan as a policy that will reduce consumer costs and boost energy security. New York University’s Institute for Policy Integrity attorney Meredith Hankins called the standards the “largest increases to fuel economy standards” in the program’s history, acknowledging the final rule’s tighter MY26 standard compared with the proposal. Hankins added that NHTSA’s recent reinstatement of tighter civil penalties for noncompliance will “make the [fuel economy] program far more effective.”

The court is considering West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency, a case brought by 18 Republican attorneys general, backed by some of the nation’s largest coal companies, who want to sharply limit, if not eliminate, the agency’s authority to regulate greenhouse gas pollution from power plants. “This is a serious threat to regulations,” said Richard Revesz, who teaches environmental law at New York University and filed a legal brief in the case in support of the administration.

This episode compares three US state and regional carbon cap-and-trade programs: the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI), Washington State’s Climate Commitment Act, and the Transportation and Climate Initiative (TCI). Guests include Iliana Paul, Senior Policy Analyst at the Institute for Policy Integrity at NYU School of Law.

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission has rolled back sweeping new policies for large natural gas projects, including a framework for assessing how pipelines and other facilities contribute to climate change, weeks after prominent lawmakers panned the changes. If the orders issued yesterday “inappropriately ignore” the impacts of climate change, they may continue to be rebuked by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, said Sarah Ladin, an attorney at the Institute for Policy Integrity at the New York University School of Law.

Many have viewed the current regulatory regime as ineffective in eliciting appropriate climate disclosure. As described in this 2021 report from the Institute for Policy Integrity at NYU and the Environmental Defense Fund, two years after the issuance of the 2010 guidance, the SEC reported to Congress that it had not seen a noticeable change in disclosure as a result.

When states adopt commitments to use clean energy it often has the celebratory air of a new marriage. But making good on those commitments and leaving fossil fuels behind also requires a messy divorce from longstanding legal frameworks. In all of the states that have committed to transitioning to clean energy — and away from fossil fuels — the laws embodying the new commitment generally don’t repeal other, older laws that enable or even encourage consumers to continue getting their energy from fossil fuels.

The Securities and Exchange Commission voted Monday 3-1 in favor of a proposed rule that would expand and standardize how public companies disclose business risks related to the climate and greenhouse gas emissions. Jack Lienke, regulatory policy director at the Institute for Policy Integrity, supported the SEC’s proposed rule in a statement Monday, saying the commission “no longer has the luxury of ignoring climate change.” The SEC, he said, must protect investors by demanding the same transparency on climate risk as other financial risks.