Recent Projects

Many federal agencies are requesting the public’s suggestions for rules to repeal or reform, tacitly implying that most regulations stifle economic growth. In comments to several agencies, we argue that regulatory review should consider the public benefits of regulation, not just the costs to regulated industries, and should prioritize review of rules for which actual costs and benefits diverge significantly from predicted costs and benefits.

In 2016, EPA issued a rule to decrease methane and volatile organic compound emissions from new, modified, and reconstructed sources in the oil and natural gas sector. EPA has now proposed to suspend some of the rule’s compliance obligations for two years while the agency decides whether and how to revise those requirements. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit rejected an earlier attempt by EPA to stay the methane rule for 90 days, and our comments argue that the new proposal is similarly unlawful.

The Minnesota Public Utility Commission (PUC) updated its social cost of carbon (SCC) values last week to a range of approximately $9 to $43, drawing from the 2015 Interagency Working Group (IWG) estimates. Minnesota’s use of the IWG SCC values recently came under scrutiny by industry groups in the state, who cited the recent energy executive order as reason to revisit the PUC externality estimates. After initial oral arguments, parties were invited to submit revised SCC values. Accordingly, we shared our recent comments to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, along with a cover letter explaining the importance of our analysis to the PUC.

In its new Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the expansion of the West Elk coal mine in Colorado, the Forest Service fails to monetize climate damages. It claims that these methods are not appropriate at the project level, that the court ruling was issued prior to an executive order withdrawing federal guidance on these estimates and thus no longer applies, and that the EIS did not selectively exclude climate impacts because it also does not monetize other benefits or costs. We argue that these justifications are inadequate in our joint comments with the Environmental Defense Fund, the Natural Resources Defense Council, the Sierra Club, and the Union of Concerned Scientists.

Many federal agencies are requesting the public’s suggestions for rules to repeal or reform, tacitly implying that most regulations stifle economic growth. In comments to several agencies, we argue that regulatory review should consider the public benefits of regulation, not just the costs to regulated industries, and should prioritize review of rules for which actual costs and benefits diverge significantly from predicted costs and benefits.

We recently submitted comments to California’s Public Utilities Commission, focused on the economic analysis used in its longer-term energy planning process across utilities. We ask the Commission to exercise caution in coordinating or consolidating this planning with other energy-related proceedings, as different proceedings have different goals and statutory requirements.

We recently submitted comments to the United States Forest Service on a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) that makes problematic claims about evaluating greenhouse gas emissions. In the Pine Mountain Late-Successional Reserve Habitat Protection and Enhancement Project Draft EIS, the Forest Service gives three main reasons for not quantifying—or monetizing the effects of—greenhouse gas emissions from the proposed action. First, the Service claims that “project level emissions alone are not sufficient to cause climate change.” Second, the Service claims that the “large majority of Forest Service projects” are too “small” for it to be “presently possible to conduct quantitative analysis of actual climate change effects.” Finally, the Service questions whether “such disclosure would provide a practical or meaningful effects analysis for project decisions.” We explain why each of these reasons is wrong according to economic principles, the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act, and the Service’s own guidance regarding climate change.

California’s state government is moving forward on electricity and climate policy, likely setting a blueprint for future state and federal action. We submitted comments to the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) on factual disputes flagged by stakeholders, related to how utilities will use cost-benefit analysis in decisionmaking. We encouraged staff at CPUC to use the Social Cost of Carbon for its interim greenhouse gas adder, use a 3% discount rate for future damages, include other environmental externalities like air pollution in its analysis, and continue considering societal costs to ensure that the benefits justify the costs of a proposed policy.