-
Public Comments
Comments to DOE on Energy Conservation Standards for Distribution Transformers
The Department of Energy (DOE) recently asked for input on energy conservation standards for certain electrical grid equipment. We submitted comments encouraging DOE to continue monetizing the full climate benefits of greenhouse gas emissions reductions.
-
Public Comments
Expert Report on Colorado’s Zero Emission Vehicle Program
Peter Howard and Jason Schwartz provided an expert report on Colorado’s Zero Emission Vehicle program, which will reduce millions of tons of greenhouse gas emissions annually. They demonstrate how the program’s climate benefits can be monetized and how those estimates can provide useful context for decisionmakers and the public.
-
Public Comments
Comments to FERC on Jordan Cove Natural Gas Project
We submitted joint comments to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) on its environmental assessment of the Jordan Cove natural gas exports project in Oregon. FERC failed to provide a meaningful analysis of the pipeline’s climate effects.
-
Court Filings
Amicus Brief on Repeal of Fracking Rule
In 2017, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) repealed an Obama-era rule that tightens environmental regulations for fracking on public lands. We filed an amicus brief detailing BLM’s irrational analysis of the repeal, which erases the rule’s significant net benefits and flouts longstanding standard practices.
-
Public Comments
Comments to the Army Corps of Engineers on the Pebble Mine Project
We submitted joint comments on the Army Corps of Engineers’ environmental assessment of the Pebble Mine Project in southwest Alaska. The Corps quantifies greenhouse gas emissions from the project but fails to provide a monetized estimate of the climate damages those emissions will produce.
-
Court Filings
Amicus Brief on BLM’s Repeal of Waste Prevention Rule
Last year, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) repealed its Waste Prevention Rule, undoing crucial regulations that reduce natural gas waste from venting, flaring, and leaks. We submitted an amicus brief focusing on the problematic aspects of the repeal: BLM’s false understanding of its role in waste prevention and its faulty analysis of climate impacts.
-
Public Comments
Comments on BLM Coal Leasing Environmental Assessment
The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) recently issued an Environmental Assessment (EA) for its decision to lift the Obama administration’s pause on the federal coal leasing program. We submitted comments explaining how the EA provides flawed and incomplete analysis of BLM’s legal authority, alternatives to resuming leasing, and environmental effects.
-
Public Comments
EPA Science Advisory Board Input
As part of EPA’s June 5-6 meeting of the Chartered Science Advisory Board (SAB), we submitted both oral and written input on several issues, including the Clean Water Rule, power-sector emissions of air toxics, vehicle emissions standards, and the Science Transparency Rule.
-
Public Comments
Comments to Iowa Utilities Board on Energy Efficiency Program Benefits
The Iowa Utilities Board is currently reviewing its policies on energy efficiency planning. We submitted comments supporting some of the suggestions made by stakeholders to better gauge the benefits of the energy efficiency programs.
-
Public Comments
Additional Comments to EPA and NHTSA on Vehicle Emissions Standards Economic Analysis
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) are proposing to weaken key fuel economy and greenhouse gas emissions standards for future vehicle models. In October, we highlighted our concerns with some of the economic analysis supporting the proposal. The Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers submitted comments that included economic analysis supporting the proposed rule prepared by NERA Economic Consulting and Trinity Consultants. In December, we wrote supplemental comments rebutting NERA and Trinity’s analysis, identifying serious flaws and unexplained departures from longstanding practices. NERA recently responded.
Our latest comments detail how NERA’s response does not address many of the problems we previously discussed. As our comments explain, the analysis relies on unreliable modeling and methodologies, for which NERA still has not provided critical details. NERA also misstates or fails to respond to our points on a number of topics, such as scrappage and fuel savings benefits. We point out the shortcomings in NERA’s response and provide more detail on each of the topics.
Viewing recent projects in Climate Change and Energy Policy