In the News

If NYCI’s price on GHG emissions will not unlock the necessary emissions reductions for the CLCPA’s first compliance deadline (2030), DEC, NYSERDA, and other state agencies must act immediately to deploy complementary programs that make up the difference. But the state has provided little evidence of such action — and 2030 is nearly upon us. New York must change tack now.

The Clean Air Act requires that a best system of emissions reduction must be “adequately demonstrated.” Courts have interpreted this phrase to include options that are forward-looking and “technology-forcing”—meaning that the standards may not be achievable today, but information available now shows they will be achievable in the future.

The Institute for Policy Integrity hosts an April 29 event on electrification in buildings and communities. Speakers include academics, as well as DOE science official Henry McKoy.

Unlike former President Barack Obama’s Clean Power Plan, Biden’s regulation drills down on carbon emissions at the power plant level, which legal experts say may save it from a similar fate before the Supreme Court. “EPA’s new rule sticks to its plain vanilla, long-standing approach to reduce emissions through systems that help a source operate more cleanly,” said Dena Adler with the New York University School of Law.

Industry lawyers last fall raised concerns about EPA’s reliance on those D.C. Circuit cases -- including arguing that they do not apply to existing sources. However, New York University’s Institute for Policy Integrity in a recent issue brief argues federal courts have repeatedly affirmed that technology does not have to be in widespread use to be “adequately demonstrated,” and that standards may be forward looking.

"At bottom, the Clean Power Plan essentially adopted a cap-and-trade scheme, or set of state cap-and-trade schemes, for carbon," Roberts wrote. "Congress, however, has consistently rejected proposals to amend the Clean Air Act to create such a program." The Biden rule, however, takes an entirely different approach, said Dena Adler, a senior attorney at the Institute for Policy Integrity at the New York University School of Law. “EPA’s new rule sticks to its plain vanilla, long-standing approach to reduce emissions through systems that help a source operate more cleanly,” she said.

Voluntary carbon markets remain largely unregulated despite these serious integrity issues. The U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) and the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) have recently taken small steps in the right direction. But as long as voluntary carbon markets continue to exist, the U.S. government should explore ways to more proactively regulate them.

EPA’s passenger vehicle rule’s “thorough analysis also offers a critical roadmap for Department of Justice litigators who will soon brief this issue. Other agencies should study EPA’s approach and follow suit,” argued Max Sarinsky, the regulatory policy director at New York University’s Institute for Policy Integrity, in a March 25 blog post.

In a recent post for the Yale Journal on Regulation’s Notice and Comment blog, the regulatory policy director at the Institute for Policy Integrity, Max Sarinsky, argued that administrative agencies should aim to preemptively rebut major questions doctrine challenges by citing previous agency actions. Sarinsky identified new Environmental Protection Agency vehicle pollution standards as an example.

Also, on April 18, New York University’s Institute for Policy Integrity hosts a webinar about the role of economics in regulatory advocacy. The discussion will cover ways to engage in the regulatory process including the White House’s National Science and Technology Council’s Subcommittee on Frontiers of Benefit-Cost Analysis.