Recent Projects

The U.S. Postal Service committed to acquiring at least 10% battery electric vehicles (BEVs) over the next decade. We filed comments supporting that decision for monetizing the social cost of the project's marginal greenhouse gas emissions and describing several ways the Postal Service should extend its analysis.

In our comment letter, we call on the agency to substantially reform the coal program to adequately account for externalities and protect the public interest.

The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) recently issued a notice of intent to complete a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for an oil and gas leasing plan within the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) Coastal Plain. We submitted comments explaining how BLM’s previous EIS fell short of the agency’s obligation to assess the effects of oil and gas leasing and to consider reasonable alternatives.

Virginia recently adopted aggressive decarbonization legislation, which recognized that energy storage has an important role to play in decarbonizing the power sector. The Virginia Energy Storage Task Force (VESTF) was convened to help guide the deployment of energy storage resources. Senior Attorney Justin Gundlach served on the task force, and VESTF's final report drew extensively on Policy Integrity's research, including its reports on energy storage policy, valuing DERs, and DERs' emissions reduction potential.

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission requested responses to a number of questions on the effects of climate change and electric system reliability. In April 2021, we submitted comments highlighting opportunities to improve reliability and resilience by adjusting approaches the Commission and others take to planning, investing in, and operating grid components.

Then FERC, following a technical conference over the summer, requested further comments on a specific series of questions. In September 2021, we submitted joint comments describing process options and resources for conducting climate resilience planning, and emphasized how accounting for climate impacts is relevant to consumer costs.

We submitted comments on the Environmental Protection Agency’s (“EPA”) notice of proposed rulemaking, Revised 2023 and Later Model Year Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards. Our comment urged EPA to: select the regulatory alternative that will maximize net social welfare and promote distributional justice; rely on legislative and regulatory history to help justify its aproach to lead time; and improve its modeling to more fully capture benefits of stronger standards.

We also submitted joint comments with a coalition of other environmental groups on EPA's use of the social cost of carbon (SCC) in its proposed regulation, recommending that the agency expand its justification its discount rates and inclusion of global damages in the SCC, and affirm that the SCC is a lower bound of projected climate impacts.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration ("NHTSA") sets corporate average fuel economy ("CAFE") standards for light-duty vehicles, and penalizes automobile manufacturers who fail to meet applicable standards. In January 2021, NHTSA issued an Interim Final Rule repealing the inflation-adjusted penalty increase for Model Years 2019-2021, which we commented was untimely and disregarded critical environmental harms. 

In August 2021, NHTSA proposed to rescind the Interim Final Rule. We filed comments supporting the proposal for complying with inflation-adjustment obligations, driving fuel savings, and reducing pollution.

We filed a comment letter with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) regarding their continued failures to meaningfully assess the climate impacts of natural gas infrastructure projects, this time regarding the Alberta Xpress Project DEIS. The project will contribute up to 3.31 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent per year in operational and downstream emissions, and it could cause at least $3.33 billion in climate costs over the twenty-one-year precedent agreement underlying it.

Policy Integrity's Economics Director Peter Howard joined climate scientists and economic experts in written testimony to the Michigan Public Service Commission (MPSC) about the significance of excessive greenhouse gas emissions that would be generated if Enbridge’s Line 5 tunnel siting permit is approved. Howard explained that “the Proposed Project will generate a present value of $41 billion (in 2020 dollars) or more in net monetized climate costs from 2027 to 2070 as compared to the no-action alternative – in other words, the Proposed Project will generate average annual monetized climate costs of approximately $1 billion each year over this period, plus significant unmonetized climate effects and other unquantified pollution costs to human health and the environment.”