Recent Projects

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit vacated EPA’s Close-Out Rule, which allowed upwind states to continue emitting ground-level ozone pollution that significantly contributes to downwind air quality problems. The agency justified the rule by falling back on its analysis from the Cross-State Update, a prior rule that had provided only a partial remedy to interstate emissions. We filed an amicus brief, which argued that EPA fundamentally misunderstood its job in analyzing and choosing between cost-effective options.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to abandon its longstanding “Once In, Always In” policy, in turn allowing “major sources” that reduce emissions below major source thresholds to reclassify as “area sources” subject to less stringent regulation. We submitted comments detailing inadequacies in EPA’s assessment of the rule’s costs and benefits. The agency fails to analyze the rule’s aggregate emissions impacts, conduct its illustrative analyses against an appropriate baseline, account for the possibility of inadequate state enforcement, and monetize the health and environmental effects of emissions changes.

The Department of Agriculture (USDA) proposed revisions to eligibility for its Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP. We submitted comments focusing on serious flaws in the agency’s analysis of the rule’s impacts.

The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) released its draft resource management plan for the Eastern Colorado planning area, projecting millions of tons of greenhouse gas emissions per year from oil and gas development, coal production, and downstream emissions. We submitted joint comments focusing on BLM’s failure to monetize climate damages and properly analyze energy substitution effects.

The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) recently finalized a rule that expands protections for healthcare workers who deny care based on moral or religious beliefs. We submitted amicus briefs in support of challenges to the rule filed by states, municipalities, medical organizations, and civil-rights advocates. Our argument details how HHS’s analysis of the rule’s economic impacts ignores significant costs while touting entirely speculative benefits. We submitted briefs to the Southern District of New York, Northern District of California, and the District of Maryland.

New Jersey’s 2019 Energy Master Plan (EMP) outlines how the state can achieve its emissions reduction target of 80% below 2006 levels, as well as 100% clean energy, by 2050. We submitted comments applauding improvements to the draft EMP and making further suggestions. Our comments encourage the state to establish a technology-neutral policy framework to achieve its emissions reduction goal, compensate distributed energy resources in a way that reflects their full social value, and implement reforms to advance related technological and regulatory frameworks. We also submitted comments last October, during the EMP scoping phase, that made suggestions on grid resilience, rate design, and energy storage incentives.

We filed a petition requesting that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) reconsider and rescind a new rule reducing penalties for automobile manufacturers that fail to meet corporate fuel economy standards. Our petition explains how NHTSA’s analysis ignores financial and environmental benefits forgone by the rule and relies on flawed, even contradictory evidence. NHTSA’s weakened fuel economy penalties deprive the public of substantial benefits and should be rescinded.

The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and Minnesota Department of Commerce requested comments on their proposal to consider resource planning scenarios using a range of both environmental and regulatory costs. Minnesota has been a leader among states on incorporating environmental externalities into electricity policy, and our comments encourage the agencies to continue requiring the use of the social cost of carbon.