In the News

After the Supreme Court handed down its decision in West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) earlier this year, many speculated on what it does—and does not—mean for future power plant rules. One key point is clear: the decision will shape, but not stop, power plant regulation, writes Attorney Dena Adler.

The major questions doctrine boils down to the following: under rare circumstances that would transform the underlying statute, the Court may depart from its normal approach to agency deference and look more skeptically on agency authority in the absence of clear congressional authorization. Many have noted the ill-defined parameters of this interpretive principle,1 but one key feature is not reasonably in dispute: it remains the exception, not the rule.

There is “deep thinking going on in the community about what information needs to be before the agency” in light of the importance major questions took in West Virginia v. EPA, Earthjustice attorney Kirtki Datla told a Sept. 20 Institute for Policy Integrity event.

FERC’s latest decision “should be the final nail in the MOPR’s coffin,” Sarah Ladin, senior attorney at the Institute for Policy Integrity at NYU School of Law, said in a statement Friday. “By rejecting the request to expand NYISO’s previous rule to the rest of the state, the commission closes a chapter on overly expansive rules that undermine state authority and harm wholesale market competition.”

The IRA may reduce any real or perceived tension between wholesale markets and state policies and the need for other mechanisms to harmonize wholesale markets and state policies.

Michael Gergen, a partner at Latham & Watkins and a board member at New York University’s Institute for Policy Integrity (IPI), told a Sept. 20 event held by IPI that the GHG Reduction Fund’s multi-part structure encourages EPA to use $7 billion directly for projects and invest the direct the remaining $20 billion toward other entities in a green bank structure, which provides various groups funds that can in turn finance projects.

The often-cited estimate of the law’s climate spending “actually pretty dramatically understates the total scale of investment,” argued Jeremiah Baumann, chief of staff at DOE’s Office of the Undersecretary of Infrastructure, during a Sept. 20 event hosted by New York University’s Institute for Policy Integrity.

President Joe Biden’s pick to lead the White House’s regulatory office possesses a background in environmental law, has written extensively on federal regulations and has drawn support from peers who served under Democratic and Republican administrations. Richard Revesz, a former dean of New York University’s law school known as Ricky, may also play a prominent role in shepherding the Biden administration’s policy agenda into force if Republicans take control of one or both chambers of Congress in January.

Amid the national effort to reduce emissions, state laws play a key role, according to the United States Climate Alliance, a bipartisan coalition of governors working to turn back climate change. The alliance released a resource Monday, “The Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases: A Guide for State Officials,” to help leaders better understand the social cost of greenhouse gas emissions. It was put together by the Institute for Policy Integrity at New York University School of Law and is freely available to public officials.

After a meteoric rise in production over the past decade, the United States has become the largest exporter of liquefied natural gas (LNG) in the world. Yet, the analysis behind LNG terminal and export approvals overlooks climate and environmental justice impacts, despite promises of imminent reform. Policy Integrity’s new report provides a comprehensive look at the Department of Energy’s (DOE) and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s (FERC) past practice in this space and offers recommendations for improving their review of the climate and environmental justice impacts of LNG approvals.