Recent Projects

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.

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.

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.

California has long been a trendsetter in clean energy policy, and our input helped inform the state’s approach for evaluating distributed energy resources (DERs), such as rooftop solar installations. The state’s new approach, which will quantify the environmental benefits of DERs, could help influence other policies around the country, boosting the growth of clean energy sources. Our comments to the California Public Utilities Commission were heavily cited in a March 2018 administrative law judge ruling that was adopted by the Commission, requiring utilities to conduct a societal cost test to determine the cost-effectiveness of DERs. Having been “persuaded by the arguments of the Institute for Policy Integrity,” the ruling will require utilities to calculate the climate benefits of DERs by using the Social Cost of Carbon estimate developed by the Interagency Working Group. As we suggested further, California utilities will also quantify the air quality impacts of DERs. As a result of this decision, California will be able to create incentives encouraging DER installations that have the greatest benefit to the public.

The Department of Energy called for input on developing and analyzing energy conservation standards for small electric motors. We submitted comments encouraging DOE to account for the monetized climate benefits of greenhouse gas emissions using social cost of carbon estimates.

Peter Howard and Denise Grab both provided testimony at an April 25 New Jersey State Legislature hearing on climate change mitigation and what the state can do to address greenhouse gas emissions. They discussed how New Jersey can contextualize and weigh climate impacts by using the social cost of greenhouse gases.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to withdraw a prior finding that it is “appropriate and necessary” to regulate power-sector emissions of mercury and other “air toxics” under the Clean Air Act. We submitted comments arguing that EPA has failed to provide a reasoned explanation for this change of course.

We recently encouraged the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) to clarify aspects of its new process for evaluating the social costs and benefits of energy resources. As we discussed in prior comments, the proposed analysis framework, the Societal Cost Test (SCT), will help the Commission to make investments that provide the greatest welfare benefits. Our new comments ask CPUC to provide some additional information in the SCT proposal.