In the News

Federal officials have tied a certain, yet undefined concern over climate change impact to a proposal to develop and upgrade natural gas compressor stations in North Jersey. Attorneys representing New York University's Institute for Policy Integrity claim the staff's assessment regarding climate change fails to aid in a meaningful review of the public benefits of the project. The attorneys said the climate damage costs if the stations run continuously could total more than $131 million a year based on estimates from the federal government's Interagency Working Group on the Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases.

The cases challenging the Trump NEPA rules aimed to ensure that agencies would continue to assess factors such as the cumulative and indirect impacts of major projects like pipelines. "The cases are presumably not moot, because this is not a full rollback," said Max Sarinsky, a senior attorney at the Institute for Policy Integrity at New York University School of Law.

FERC staff said issues like the social cost of carbon methodology, how the commission decides if a project is needed and what a "significant" amount of GHG emissions is are being tackled in the agency's broad review of its gas policy, and it is inappropriate for staff to consider them in the East 300 Upgrade EIS. The EIS underscores how important it is for FERC to change its policy statement on natural gas infrastructure, according to Max Sarinsky, a senior attorney with New York University's Institute for Policy Integrity.

More granular data and improved computing power are allowing economists to refine their climate change predictions — and, they hope, influence policy, said experts during a Climate Week NYC panel hosted by the New York University School of Law's Institute for Policy Integrity.

According to the analysis, the tunnel project and pipeline could contribute an additional 27 million metric tons of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere annually, and generate $41 billion in climate damages between 2027 and 2070. The testimony was provided by Peter Erickson, a senior scientist and climate policy director for the Stockholm Environment Institute, as well as by Peter Howard, an economic policy expert at New York University’s School of Law.

Peter Howard, economics director at the Institute for Policy Integrity at New York University School of Law, testified that the emissions tied to the tunnel project would generate approximately $1 billion in global social economic costs each year from 2027 to 2070, as well as “significant unmonetized climate effects and other unquantified pollution costs to human health and the environment.”

So what's a reasonable investor to think about the MOPR and state climate and clean energy policies? If nothing else, it should be clear that one is more certain than the other. A reasonable investor knows the MOPR has not been a durable construct, while state policies have long been moving in one direction. There is certainty there. Regardless of what happens to the MOPR, states are not giving up on their climate ambitions. They will continue to support clean energy technologies that are cheaper for consumers and safer for their citizens.

New York University law experts also tried to knock down the “perfect substitution” argument in an article for the Michigan Journal of Environmental & Administrative Law last year, calling it “contrary to basic principles of supply and demand” and a “fallacy.”

Peter Howard, the economics director at the Institute for Policy Integrity at New York University School of Law, said from 2027 to 2070 the average annual climate costs would approximate $1 billion each year over this period, "plus significant unmonetized climate effects and other unquantified pollution costs to human health and the environment."

No longer a risk of the distant future, a failure to tackle climate-change risk could cost the world $1.7 trillion a year by 2025—according to a report released in March by New York University Law School’s Institute for Policy Integrity. In what its authors believe to be “the largest-ever expert survey of the economics of climate change,” the “overwhelming consensus” among the 738 economists canvassed concludes that inaction will be costlier than action, and that “immediate, aggressive emissions reductions are economically desirable.”