In the News

“​​The story of climate policy in the US, generally, is one of missed opportunities and unjustifiable delay,” said Jack Lienke, author of the book Struggling for Air: Power Plants and the “War on Coal.” Many other issues may have seemed more pressing, or simply better understood. As Lienke writes in Struggling for Air, “At a time when Americans were still dying somewhat regularly in acute, inversion-related pollution episodes, it is unsurprising that legislators were more concerned with the known harms of sulfur dioxide and carbon monoxide than the uncertain, seemingly distant threat of climate change.”

The Supreme Court has rejected an emergency request to block the Biden administration’s use of a key climate metric, effectively preserving federal agencies’ ability to account for the costs of heat-trapping emissions — at least for the time being. Max Sarinsky, a senior attorney with the Institute for Policy Integrity at New York University School of Law, said he was not surprised by the high court’s decision. The institute had filed a friend of the court brief in the appeals court, arguing that the administration’s metric was based on research and evidence. He added that the district court “badly misapplied bedrock constitutional principles about the role of federal courts,” and its injunction was swiftly lifted. Sarinsky said the ruling allows federal agencies to continue to apply available climate damage valuations to help write policy (Climatewire, May 26).

Rachel Rothschild, a legal fellow with the Institute for Policy Integrity, said fossil fuel companies are sure to sue if the state enacts the legislation. Rothschild’s legal research provided the basis for the proposed legislation, and she says one major legal question likely to arise in court is jurisdictional. In a memo to state legislators, Rothschild cites various cases in the hazardous waste context that she says suggest “that a state can exercise jurisdiction over a polluter simply because it discharged harmful substances into the forum state” and can therefore aid New York’s ability to assert jurisdiction over foreign or out of state companies.

The impact of removing the social cost of greenhouse gas figures from the Biden administration’s arsenal might not hobble future climate rules. Losing the social cost of carbon “would complicate things,” said Max Sarinsky, a senior attorney with the Institute for Policy Integrity at New York University Law School. “But it would not be fatal. Climate regulation would continue.”

The growing threat of power outages fueled by extreme weather calls for new approaches to grid oversight, the head of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission said yesterday, adding that utilities and grid operators should “think differently.” Sarah Ladin, an attorney at the Institute for Policy Integrity at the New York University School of Law, said FERC should “deeply scrutinize” the emissions estimates provided by project applicants, even in cases where a new gas project would replace a higher-emitting coal power plant. In general, many coal plants across the United States are closing due to market changes, she added.

The agency last year also withdrew the Trump EPA’s other last-minute denials of petitions that sought a more expansive Clean Air Act to battle climate change. Environmental and public interest groups behind those petitions, however, remain in limbo. “We have not heard anything more on this since we received the withdrawal of the denial,” said Derek Sylvan, a spokesperson for the Institute for Policy Integrity, based at the New York University School of Law. The institute petitioned EPA to regulate greenhouse gas emissions under Section 115 of the Clean Air Act.

In its Phase 2 rulemaking, CEQ can better clarify agencies’ existing responsibilities under NEPA to consider climate change impacts. The six recommendations in our “Ensuring Robust Consideration of Climate Change Under NEPA” policy brief are summarized in this post.

Environmental lawyers are urging federal officials to do more to protect the public from gas stoves' emissions, saying the pollution is dangerous and not adequately regulated. In a new report, researchers at the Institute for Policy Integrity said the stoves should be sold with warning labels similar to those on portable generators warning of carbon monoxide poisoning, the authors said. The Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) should also start public education campaigns about the dangers of stove emissions, they added. "Something needs to be done. We know that [gas stoves] are dangerous. You can't just ignore it," said Laura Figueroa, a co-author of the report and a legal fellow at the institute. "The CPSC ... is in a position to address these dangers, and we think they should take action," she added.

In February, U.S. District Judge James D. Cain Jr. of the Western District of Louisiana, agreed with Louisiana and nine other states, issuing an order blocking the use of the interim metric. The states told Cain, who was appointed by Trump, that the metric was arbitrary and would boost the cost of producing energy and hike regulatory costs for states. At the time, Max Sarinsky, an attorney at the Institute for Policy Integrity at NYU Law School, said Cain’s injunction might not survive.

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.