In the News

Environmentalists are urging the Department of Energy (DOE) to rescind a Trump-era categorical exclusion (CE) exempting liquified natural gas (LNG) projects from National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) review, saying the exclusion violates the DOE’s Natural Gas Act (NGA) authority and that the projects undermine the nation’s climate goals. Max Sarinsky, an IPI senior attorney, tells Inside EPA that his group decided to ask DOE to rescind the LNG CE even as DOE is looking to expand CEs to implement the IRA.

“Many anticipated actions have been delayed amid an evolving judicial landscape and legislative developments that bear influence on regulatory design," said Dena Adler. "The administration recently rolled out an updated regulatory agenda with many actions scheduled for release over the next year, which we have not yet had the chance to evaluate. This year will be a critical period for the administration to propose and finalize regulations as well as implement the IRA.”

A study released by New York University in 2021 found carbon trading would lead to deeper cuts in greenhouse gas emissions and lower the cost of complying with the law.

“BLM’s proposal is inadequate because it does little to curb the wasteful practice of flaring from oil wells, despite its recognition that flaring is the largest source of waste of publicly and Tribally owned gas,” argues a coalition of nearly three dozen environmental and conservation groups. Jan. 30 comments from New York University’s Institute for Policy Integrity (IPI) argue that BLM could bolster its cost-benefit review in several ways, including by assessing all benefits expected to occur after 2031 and analyzing the benefits of reducing flaring that could occur from its royalty-based approach.

Environmentalists are pressing the Biden administration to ensure its imminent proposed rule strengthening effluent limits for coal-fired power plants requires use of contested membrane technology that the Trump administration rejected in its 2020 rule, citing in part a 2021 agency study that shows significant benefits and lower costs than prior estimates. According to a March 2021 paper by the Institute for Policy Integrity, “the 2020 rule is based on faulty and incomplete benefits estimates that EPA could easily amend by applying information that is already in the rulemaking record.”

A New York bill could force fossil fuel companies to pay for what lawmakers — and studies — say is their share of the mess they’ve made in the atmosphere. Peter Howard, the economics director at NYU’s Institute for Policy Integrity, co-authored a 2022 report that looked at the effect of the Climate Change Superfund Act on gas prices. He said the penalties would not be expected to impact the cost of gasoline at the pump in New York or the price of crude oil because companies would treat these payments as one-time fixed costs. Rachel Rothschild, an assistant professor at the University of Michigan Law School who conducted legal research for the bill, said there are currently no federal laws that would prevent New York or another state from passing a Climate Change Superfund Act.

Environmentalists on Thursday called on Governor Kathy Hochul to make the world’s largest oil companies pay for the infrastructure costs of dealing with climate change. The groups estimate that those costs could total $100 billion in New York over the next decade, with more expenses as the world’s climate worsens. An analysis from the think tank Institute for Policy Integrity at NYU Law was also shown, which made the case that charging Big Oil would not lead to higher consumer prices.

The delays are fueling concern among both outside activists and Washington insiders, who warn that federal agencies face a narrow window to finalize enduring climate actions before the end of the president’s first term. One recent development could accelerate the administration’s pace of progress, even though it largely flew under the radar in Washington. On Dec. 21, when many people were tuning out the news around the holidays, the Senate confirmed Richard “Ricky” Revesz to lead the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, which vets hundreds of rules each year.

Recent remarks from a federal consumer safety regulator are escalating a debate among climate advocates, the natural gas industry and lawmakers about whether gas cooking stoves pose health hazards -- even though officials have not proposed any new health standards for the equipment, much less a “ban” on new or existing models. An April 2022 report from the Institute for Policy Integrity (IPI) summarizes that “[w]ithin just a few minutes of cooking, … pollutant concentrations can exceed levels” that both EPA and the World Health Organization (WHO) “have deemed unsafe and linked to respiratory illness, cardiovascular problems, cancer, and other serious health conditions.”

The consumer commission has several options it could consider should it choose to dive into stove regulation. A report last year from New York University’s Institute for Policy Integrity argued that the CPSC could require warning labels on gas stoves, conduct public education campaigns about their dangers or, most directly, issue mandatory rules to reduce the risks.