Recent Projects

Together with partner groups, we submitted joint comments to the Department of Energy (DOE) on it proposed energy efficiency standard for general service lamps (i.e. lightbulbs). Our comments applaud DOE for using the social cost of greenhouse gases (SC-GHGs) in analyzing the proposed rule, but encourage the agency to expand upon its rationale for adopting a global damages valuation and for the range of discount rates it applies to climate effects. We further recommend that DOE disclose the SC-GHG estimates that it applies after 2050.

We filed joint comments to the Department of Labor’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration (“OSHA”) in response to its advance notice of proposed rulemaking Heat Injury and Illness Prevention in Outdoor and Indoor Work Settings. We advised that OSHA develop a heat standard that will be robust to climate impacts, provided recommendations on costs and benefits to consider in the economic analysis for the rule, and encouraged OSHA to use other facets of its statutory authority to complement its rulemaking efforts.

Certain coal companies and states have asked the Supreme Court to narrow the scope of EPA’s authority by prohibiting the agency's use of flexible compliance mechanisms—like intersource emissions trading and production shifting—in regulating greenhouse gas emissions from the power sector. The challengers rely in part on the major questions doctrine, a little-used canon of interpretation that petitioners claim bars EPA from issuing costly and controversial rules.

In this amicus brief, we explain that petitioners’ application of the major questions doctrine would expand the canon beyond either recognition or workability, stretching a doctrine meant to apply only in rare cases to cover many different regulations advanced by administrations of both parties. We further explain that, contrary to petitioners’ assertions as part of their major questions analysis, EPA has frequently relied on flexible compliance mechanisms under numerous Clean Air Act provisions. Finally, our brief argues that Section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act is an integral statutory provision for regulating air pollution and not an afterthought as petitioners contend.

The Supreme Court will hear the case, West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency, later this term. The case seeks to revive the Affordable Clean Energy Rule, a deregulatory action promulgated under the Trump administration that was vacated last year by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.

We filed a comment letter with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission regarding its continued failure to meaningfully assess the climate impacts of natural gas infrastructure projects, this time regarding the Wisconsin Access Project EIS. The company has requested authorization to modify its facilities in Wisconsin to increase its firm capacity by over 50,000 dekatherms per day, which could contribute roughly $55 million in annual climate damage costs. 

On January 20, 2022 the Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources hosted a remote oversight hearing titled, “What More Gulf of Mexico Oil and Gas Leasing Means for Achieving U.S. Climate Targets.” Witnesses included Policy Integrity's Max Sarinsky, whose full testimony is available here. Watch the hearing recording here.

The Emergency Temporary Standard (ETS), which directs large employers to require COVID-19 vaccines or testing, represents an important step toward reducing the virus in the workplace. While the agency offers numerous compelling justifications for the proposed rule, this comment highlights several additional rationales regarding the legislative and regulatory history of the Occupational Safety and Health (OSH) Act. A blog post on the issue by comment co-authors and NYU Law students Nina Henry and Alex Jonlin is available here.

Together with several environmental nonprofits, we filed comments supporting the Federal Acquisition Regulatory Council's emphasis on climate-sensitive procurement. We endorse using the social cost of greenhouse gases in procurement decisions and suggest rigorous ways for agencies to incorporate those figures into their analyses of different bids and proposals.

We submitted post-technical conference comments to FERC regarding its authority to consider greenhouse gas emissions and to impose mitigation conditions in assessing whether to grant a certificate of public convenience and necessity for interstate natural gas pipelines and other infrastructure projects. Our comments also recommend that the Commission prescribe reasonable default estimates for calculating emissions and monetize climate damages using the social cost of greenhouse gases to assess the project's climate impacts under NEPA and balance them against benefits under the NGA.

The Bureau of Land Management's approval of over 300 drilling permits in New Mexico would allow for an increase in production resulting in more than $1.6 billion in climate damages. We filed an amicus brief in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit criticizing the agency's analysis of the project, which inappropriately minimizes these climate impacts through comparison to nationwide totals. We explain that this approach does not facilitate a rational analysis of the project's climate effects.