Recent Projects

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit will soon hear arguments in Murray Energy Corp. v. U.S. E.P.A., challenging the EPA’s revised ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). Policy Integrity has submitted an amicus brief in support of the EPA for this case.

We recently submitted an amicus brief in the litigation over the EPA’s Clean Power Plan, which regulates carbon dioxide emissions from the power sector. A group of coal companies and states is asking the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit to strike down the rule, arguing that it represents an unprecedented expansion of the EPA’s regulatory authority. Our brief shows that, in fact, there are regulatory precedents for every aspect of the rule that petitioners claim is unprecedented. Our analysis of past EPA regulations and court rulings reveals that the Clean Power Plan is consistent with decades of Clean Air Act practice under administrations of both parties.

We recently submitted an amicus brief in a case challenging two large coal leases approved by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). The case, WildEarth Guardians v. U.S. Bureau of Land Management, is being heard by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit. We believe that BLM used an irrational assumption about coal supply and demand in its environmental impact statement for the Wright Area coal leases in the Powder River Basin in Wyoming. Because of this flawed assumption, BLM’s presentation of the climate consequences of leasing, versus taking no action, is inaccurate and misleading, in violation of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).

We recently filed an amicus brief in a federal court case challenging the U.S. Department of Energy’s (DOE’s) new efficiency standards for commercial refrigeration equipment. The case, Zero Zone Inc. v. U.S. Department of Energy, will be heard by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.

The Supreme Court will soon hear a challenge to the EPA’s Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (commonly known as the MATS rule). Policy Integrity has submitted an amicus brief in support of the EPA for this case.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit will soon hear the first set of cases challenging President Obama’s signature climate change initiative—the EPA’s Clean Power Plan. We recently filed an amicus brief for West Virginia v. EPA, one of the cases challenging the as-yet unfinalized regulation.

Policy Integrity welcomes the decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit to uphold the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) rule limiting mercury and other toxic air pollutants emitted by fossil-fuel burning power plants, which are the largest source of mercury emissions. The decision supports EPA efforts to improve our air quality and safeguard public health.

Policy Integrity director, Richard Revesz, legal director, Jason Schwartz, and legal fellow Denise Grab were at the Supreme Court today to hear oral arguments in the case challenging the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from stationary sources under the prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) program.

Today, Policy Integrity filed an amicus brief with the Supreme court which argues that in place of an established, relatively unchallenged understanding of EPA authority, a lower court substituted its preferred policy for that of the agency. In doing so, it acted inconsistently with core principles of American administrative law.

Policy Integrity submitted an amicus brief in conjunction with the Tulane Environmental Law Clinic and the Harvard Emmett Environmental Law & Policy Clinic in support of the EPA for a federal court case challenging the agency’s proposed standards to curb mercury and toxic air pollution from power plants. Some industry groups are contesting the EPA’s “National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants from Coal and Oil-Fired Electric Utility Steam Generating Units” (otherwise known as the MATS rule) finalized last year.