Recent Projects

Last year, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) replaced the Obama Administration’s Clean Power Plan, which sought substantial cuts in greenhouse gas emissions from power plants, with the so-called Affordable Clean Energy (ACE) rule, a far weaker policy that will, at best, yield modest reductions below business-as-usual emissions and, at worst, increase pollution from the electric sector. We filed an amicus brief in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit highlighting three key errors in EPA’s rationale for repealing the Clean Power Plan. Specifically, we explain, EPA misstates regulatory precedent and Clean Air Act legislative history supporting the Clean Power Plan and disregards the substantial harms that the ACE Rule will cause.

Advanced Energy Economy, the Electric Power Suppliers Association, and a diverse group of other stakeholders recently filed a petition for the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) to hold a technical conference on carbon pricing in organized wholesale electricity markets. We have worked extensively to study and promote carbon pricing, publishing a comprehensive report and several academic articles. We also hosted a conference that brought together experts and stakeholders to discuss related legal, economic, and policy questions. Our comments to FERC highlight our previous work on wholesale market carbon pricing and express our support for the requested technical conference.

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s (FERC) environmental assessment estimates that the Lamar County Expansion Project would result in 3.87 million metric tons of greenhouse gases from downstream emissions. We submitted comments suggesting that FERC monetize climate impacts using social cost of carbon estimates. The proposed natural gas project would result in over $200 million in annual climate costs.  

The federal Clean Car Standards promised steadily increasing fuel efficiency and lower vehicle emissions. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and the Environmental Protection Agency have now rolled back those standards, eviscerating important public health benefits and fuel savings for consumers. But the agencies’ own analysis shows that the rollback will cause more harm than good for society. And even the slight benefits that the agencies find under certain assumptions are premised on a flawed economic analysis that is riddled with problems.

We released a resource that explains the main economic problems with the rollback’s justification, identifying several critical errors and detailing how they invalidate the agencies' own claims

The Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) for managing emissions on the Uintah and Ouray Indian Reservation in Utah proposes control requirements for new, modified, and existing oil and natural gas sources. Despite forecasting that the requirements would lead to a substantial decrease in methane emissions, EPA severely underestimates resulting benefits through the use of an “interim” social cost of methane metric that disregards the best peer-reviewed science. We submitted joint comments detailing EPA’s failure to adequately monetize and evaluate the benefits of the FIP.

The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) proposed to extend the compliance dates of its entry-level commercial driver training program from 2020 to 2022. The program includes space and speed management training that reduces vehicle emissions. FMCSA projects that extending compliance dates would forgo hundreds of thousands of metric tons of greenhouse gas emissions. We submitted joint comments criticizing the agency’s regulatory impact analysis, which vastly underestimates forgone benefits and relies on flawed ‘interim values’ of the social cost of carbon.

Our resource compiles the greenhouse gas emissions and resulting damages from liquefied natural gas (LNG) export terminals.

The Department of Energy (DOE) proposed to change the way it selects energy efficiency standards by excluding certain efficiency levels as not "economically justified" on the grounds of effects to small businesses, market competition, or consumer convenience.The change, however, would allow DOE to irrationally and inconsistently give preference to whichever subset of economic impacts the agency wants to focus on in order to deem standards that otherwise achieve net benefits as instead being not economically justified. We submitted comments explaining how the proposal will not ensure consistent consideration of statutory factors.

The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) proposed changes to the regulations implementing the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), a decades-old statute that requires federal agencies to analyze the environmental impact of actions. We submitted comments explaining how the proposed rule runs afoul of the statute, drastically limiting agencies’ abilities to consider various effects and implement NEPA procedures. We also submitted joint comments detailing how the provisions would undermine analysis of climate effects, and encouraging CEQ to promote the use of the social cost of greenhouse gases.