In the News

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.

A recently introduced bill aiming to prevent federal agencies from considering the Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases highlights the role some bills play in informing — and sometimes misinforming — the public. Though almost certainly destined to fail, the bill presents faulty and misleading criticisms that could have chilling effects on important policy evaluation efforts.

One potential consequence, that each panelist feared could happen, would be more rulings based on the Major Questions doctrine. This would be a big change for the Court. On this point, Dena Adler from NYU stated, “Until recently, this interpretive framework was little-used, and it remains poorly defined.”

A Yale Journal of Regulation article by Justin Gundlach and Michael Livermore on the complementary uses of the social cost of greenhouse gases and marginal abatement costs metrics was featured in the editors' selection, along with an op-ed by Peter Howard and Max Sarinsky explaining why limiting domestic fossil fuel extraction reduces global climate pollution despite substitution effects.

The Supreme Court’s enshrinement in West Virginia v. EPA of the major questions doctrine as a key technique of statutory interpretation is a threat to regulation in general, contends Richard Revesz.

Most Clean Air Act experts say that even if ACE had taken effect, the Biden EPA would have little difficulty in rolling it back and replacing it with a new rule. “The explanation might have looked a little different if the Trump administration had justified the ACE rule in a different way,” said Richard Revesz. “But I don’t think it would have taken any extra time to do it.”

Richard Revesz, professor and director of the Institute for Policy Integrity at New York University School of Law, said the Supreme Court’s decision would limit but not remove the EPA’s power to regulate power plant emissions. “The administration still has a lot of tools in its toolbox," he said.

The real wrecking ball in West Virginia v. EPA is how the court unnecessarily tied our societal hands from most effectively tackling a major problem. This case could be a canary in the coal mine for a wider attack on regulatory safeguards.

Observers had mixed views on how the ruling would affect proposed changes to company disclosure statements about climate-related risks at the SEC, or FERC's proposal for how to assess the emissions of individual interstate natural gas projects before they are approved for construction. The disclosure rule is designed to be a proxy for the financial risk facing companies, including from potential environmental regulation, and does not force companies to reduce their emissions, according to recent public comments filed by the Institute for Policy Integrity.