In the News

Federal government contractors are detailing a host of legal and technical criticisms of the Biden administration’s proposed requirements for large contractors to disclose various types climate information, even as environmentalists say the plan would save taxpayer funds and protect against climate risks. New York University’s Institute for Policy Integrity, for instance, says the Federal Acquisition Regulation Council should be careful not to “understate baseline levels of climate risk in disclosure (and thus overstate the incremental compliance costs of the Proposed Rule.)”

Revesz came to the White House from his role as an environmental law professor and dean emeritus of New York University Law School. He is also the co-founder of an N.Y.U.-affiliated think tank, the Institute for Policy Integrity, which is known for its innovative approach to analyzing the costs and benefits of environmental regulations.

An appellate court covering several major energy-producing states has issued a first-of-its-kind ruling requiring officials to weigh the cumulative greenhouse gas effects of approving oil and gas drilling in National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) reviews and to use a GHG budget, setting a precedent that environmentalists say is long overdue. According to an amicus brief from the Institute for Policy Integrity, such an analysis would show a social cost of more than $1.6 billion from the applications for permits to drill.

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.