In the News

Burcin Unel, senior economist for Institute for Policy Integrity told Utility Dive the social cost of carbon was used in several of the calculations made by the NYPSC in its Track One Reforming the Energy Vision proceedings. With a social cost of carbon-based adder, “the generators’ bids reflect the external costs they impose on society,” she added. “It is technology neutral. Short-term, the price signal will impact the dispatch order. Long-term, it will drive investments that will more cost-effectively reduce carbon.”

A protracted delay in the Trump administration coming up with its own carbon-cost estimate could empower environmentalists pursuing legal challenges to mining, drilling or pipeline projects, said Richard Revesz, director of the Institute for Policy Integrity at New York University School of Law.

The U.S. Court of Appeals’ rulings against the FERC “show how President Trump’s executive order withdrawing support for the social cost of carbon is misguided and shortsighted,” Richard Revesz, director of the Institute for Policy Integrity, said in a statement. “The executive order gives federal agencies a false sense of security that they can ignore the cost of greenhouse gas emissions in their policy decisions.”

Trump’s Executive Order 13783 disbanded the Interagency Working Group on the Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases, withdrew IWG’s official valuations, and instead instructed agencies to monetize climate effects using “the best available science and economics.” Yet IWG’s estimates already are the product of the most widely peer-reviewed models and best available data.

In several news stories this summer, administration officials have floated various strategies for how they would justify repealing the Clean Power Plan without a replacement. One strategy is to say the EPA can’t regulate carbon from existing power plants. Another approach may be arguing that the EPA can only require small tweaks to efficiency inside the plants. “I expect the first thing we’ll see when it gets published is a straight repeal,” says Richard Revesz, a Clean Air Act expert at the New York University School of Law. “Both of [these arguments] are legally weak and neither will ultimately get upheld by the courts.”

“Pruitt’s willingness to play fast and loose has helped his anti-regulatory reputation soar,” Davis Noll and Revesz write in Slate. “But the brazen deficiencies in the agency’s work exposing the hollowness of Pruitt’s ‘rule of law’ rhetoric should give Pruitt’s supporters pause. Once the judicial challenges run their course, Pruitt may be striking out a lot more.”

“The methane rule was justified based on enormous benefits to the public,” Bethany A. Davis Noll, Senior Attorney at the Center for Policy Integrity, told VICE News, “It will be difficult to roll it back.”

Pruitt claims that his regulatory rollbacks represent a return to the “rule of law,” but he has pursued them in a lawless fashion, cutting corners and ignoring fundamental legal requirements. Now, failing to follow the rules of the game is catching up with him.

I’m tempted to call it the decade’s most important paper on the costs of climate damage. The paper, just published in Environmental and Resource Economics, by Peter Howard, economics director at NYU Law School’s Institute for Policy Integrity; and Thomas Sterner, professor of environmental economics at the University of Gothenburg, upends the long-prevailing approach for estimating the social cost of carbon, potentially laying the ground for putting the SCC into triple digits.

Oren Cass’s article “Who’s the Denier Now?” (May 1) condemns the misuse of scientific data in climate-change policy debates, but to support his position Cass misrepresents the findings in our survey of economists and cherry-picks survey data to suggest that “economists hold widely varying views” on the costs of climate change.