In the News

Meanwhile, the Institute for Policy Integrity (IPI) at New York University School of Law in June 14 comments urges EPA to further examine the potential costs and benefits in the rule with specific regard to its environmental justice benefits, its interaction with climate risks, and its effect on future pollution patterns. “EPA should set secondary NAAQS that prevent anticipated adverse and disproportionate public welfare impacts on environmental justice communities, including potential impacts to drinking water quality, subsistence fishing, and recreational opportunities,” IPI says, calling EPA’s EJ analysis “abbreviated.”

New York University’s Institute for Policy Integrity (IPI) is backing the Energy Department’s (DOE) economic justification for tougher energy efficiency standards for gas-fired appliances, arguing the rules help address “market failures” in which consumers sometimes do not choose a more-efficient appliance even if it would save them costs over time. “DOE’s modeling approach reflects the complexities of accounting for consumer choices in markets where the energy-efficiency gap exists,” IPI writes in a June 17 amicus brief in American Gas Association (AGA), et al., v. DOE, et al before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

What can the governor do? She can sign the “Climate Change Superfund Act,” which puts the world’s largest oil companies on the hook for at least some of those costs. The bill requires those companies most responsible for the emissions of greenhouse gases to pay the state $3 billion annually for the next 25 years. The major hangup had been concerns that the annual assessment will be passed on to the public. That concern runs counter to basic marketplace economics, a view echoed in an independent economic paper published by the respected Institute for Policy Integrity at the NYU School of Law. 

FERC doesn't even necessarily have to make a "significance" finding on GHG impacts in order to factor them into an ultimate decision under the NGA that a project is needed and in the public interest, said Jennifer Danis, federal energy policy director at the Institute for Policy Integrity at New York University School of Law. "For that, labeling something significant or not seems to me to be less precise than weighing monetized costs and benefits," said Danis, who has frequently represented challengers to FERC-approved pipelines.

Climate change is already causing more frequent and severe weather events, and these events pose an increasing threat to the resilience of our power grid and other critical pieces of infrastructure. Addressing these challenges and strengthening system resilience requires insights from diverse disciplines and collaboration among researchers, policymakers, and utilities. Our recent webinar, featuring experts from academia and the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC), focused on these issues. The panelists included Dr. Duncan Callaway of UC Berkeley, Dr. Mikhail Chester of Arizona State University, Dr. Erica Fischer of Oregon State University, and Leuwam Tesfai of the CPUC.

The court's ruling does not appear likely to doom future climate cases against FERC. The D.C. Circuit's dismissal of Food & Water Watch's arguments for a robust climate analysis of the East 300 Upgrade Project was grounded in the particular facts of the case, said Jennifer Danis, federal energy policy director for New York University's Institute for Policy Integrity. "The D.C. Circuit's opinion does not have real bearing on ongoing or future challenges regarding how climate laws or costs should factor into FERC's need or public interest determinations under the Gas Act," she said in an email.

The major hangup had been concerns that the annual $3 billion Climate Superfund assessments would be passed on to the public. Those concerns should have been allayed by a consideration of America’s system of marketplace economics. The fact that the bill’s assessment would not impact the public was echoed by an independent economic paper published by the respected Institute for Policy Integrity at the NYU School of Law. 

The law does not restrict future production by fossil fuel companies. They can still drill to their corporate hearts’ content and pay nothing more to Vermont. An economic analysis of a similar proposal in New York State by the Institute for Policy Integrity at New York University’s law school found that it “was unlikely to alter the price” of gasoline at the pump or the price of crude oil. In short, Vermont’s law is an elegant legal approach to make oil company shareholders foot their fair share of these costs.

Despite sharing a border, Iowa and Nebraska diverge on many legislative topics, especially the regulatory review process. Iowa has been noted to have “one of the best-designed review structures in the country,” according to the Institute for Policy Integrity, by maximizing the oversight of state agencies, ensuring public transparency and impact. The same cannot be said for the Cornhusker State, whose process is notably less thorough.

The Speaker’s statement represents a fundamental misunderstanding of how the Climate Change Superfund Act would work. A failure to approve the legislation will leave New York taxpayers holding the bag for mounting climate costs, while Big Oil continues to make huge profits. The Climate Change Superfund Act should not have an impact on utility rates, no impact on gas prices, no impact on home heating costs. The bill’s impact will be to solely reduce climate costs currently paid by taxpayers. An independent economic paper published by the respected Institute for Policy Integrity at the NYU School of Law supports that view.