In the News

Adding to the uncertainty is the US Supreme Court's recent decision to hear a sweeping challenge to EPA's authority to regulate greenhouse gases from stationary sources, although legal experts expect the court will focus on novel aspects of a since-abandoned 2016 rule that created a cap-and-trade-like system for CO2 from power plants. "That issue is not present in the methane rule," New York University School of Law professor Richard Revesz said.

Justin Gundlach, a senior attorney at the Institute for Policy Integrity, a New York University think tank, said the decisions are likely to set a precedent and steer planning in New York’s power sector by “tamping down expectations” about whether the future promise of clean hydrogen can justify the development of natural gas plants today.

New York regulators are, for the first time, denying Clean Air Act operating permits for two proposed new natural gas-fired power plants over climate change concerns after regulators determined that the projects would violate a new state law to cut greenhouse gas emissions. According to Justin Gundlach, a senior attorney at the Institute for Policy Integrity at New York University, this is not the first time the state has cited the CLCPA to deny a permit, having rejected water and pipeline permits already, but it is the first denial of air permits, in this case Title V operating permits under the Clean Air Act.

“Fossil fuel-powered appliances ubiquitous in residential and commercial buildings collectively emit almost three times more smog-forming nitrogen oxides than the nation’s gas-fired power plants, and almost as much planet-warming carbon dioxide,” IPI says in an Oct. 25 statement announcing a new report that makes the cases for such regulation.

Richard Revesz, a New York University Law School professor who was discussed as a possible Biden pick for EPA administrator, said one option would be for EPA to roll out several rules as an “umbrella proceeding." “Typically EPA has done [rulemakings] sort of one at a time and the government has done them one at a time, but one could sort of think of this as a whole-of-government package so that the power sector could be regulated in an intelligent way that reduces the cost of the regulation and increases the environmental benefits,” Revesz said.

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.