-
Court Filings
Amicus Brief on New Jersey’s Zero-Emissions Credits Program
In 2018, New Jersey established a Zero-Emissions Credits (ZECs) program, which provides subsidies to the state’s nuclear power plants for reducing carbon emissions in the energy sector. Our amicus brief explains how the Social Cost of Carbon is the best available estimate for valuing harms caused by carbon dioxide emissions. We also argue that the ZECs program should account for the benefits of avoided emissions both inside and outside of New Jersey.
-
Court Filings
Amicus Brief on Dust-Lead Hazard Standards
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) finalized a rule revising standards for lead found in dust on floors, window sills, and in soil. Our amicus brief critiques the rule, which forgoes net beneficial options in favor of weaker standards that will cause significant harms to public health.
-
Public Comments
Comments to EPA on Water and Air Pollution Limitations from Electric Power Generation
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposed to weaken technology standards adopted in 2015 that act as crucial controls on effluent and emissions from electric power generation. Our comments focus on EPA’s flawed legal and economic justifications for the proposed rule, which contravenes the Clean Water Act, creates harmful incentives to delay compliance with guidelines, and relies on flawed cost-benefit analysis. We also submitted joint comments that detail how EPA severely undervalues the proposed rule’s climate costs and must monetize the full social cost of carbon using the best available data and methodologies.
-
Public Comments
Comments to EPA’s Chartered Science Advisory Board
We submitted four comments in advance of the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) January 2020 meeting of its Chartered Science Advisory Board (SAB).
-
Public Comments
Comments to EPA on Water Quality Trading Proposals
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) requested input on policy approaches to promote market-based programs that will improve water quality. We submitted comments suggesting that EPA provides additional clarity, works to avoid undermining key permitting goals, and considers using alternate market-based structures before reissuing its proposals.
-
Public Comments
Comments to EPA on TSCA Chemicals Regulation
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to regulate four chemicals that have serious environmental and health risks. We submitted comments supporting EPA and suggesting ways the agency can strengthen its proposal and, additionally, urging EPA to reexamine its decision not to regulate a fifth chemical.
-
Public Comments
Comments to EPA on Coal Combustion Residuals Rule
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recently proposed to significantly weaken requirements for the disposal of coal combustion residuals from coal-fired power plants. We submitted comments focusing on inadequacies in EPA’s assessment of the rule’s costs and benefits.
-
News
Court Strikes Down Rule Refusing to Limit Cross-State Air Pollution
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit vacated EPA’s Close-Out Rule, which allowed upwind states to continue emitting ground-level ozone pollution that significantly contributes to downwind air quality problems. The agency justified the rule by falling back on its analysis from the Cross-State Update, a prior rule that had provided only a partial remedy to interstate emissions. We filed an amicus brief, which argued that EPA fundamentally misunderstood its job in analyzing and choosing between cost-effective options.
-
News
Court Upholds 2015 Ozone Standards
A federal appeals court recently rejected industry and state challenges to a set of Obama-era air quality standards, which the Institute for Policy Integrity had filed an amicus brief defending. In 2015, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) strengthened National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for ground-level ozone, the primary ingredient in urban smog and the source of a variety of respiratory ills. The coal mining company Murray Energy Corporation, along with trade associations and several state attorneys general, brought suit in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, arguing that the new standards were unnecessarily stringent and impossible to achieve. We filed an amicus brief in support of the standards.
-
Public Comments
Comments to EPA on New York’s Clean Air Act Petition
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposed to deny New York’s Clean Air Act Section 126 Petition seeking reductions in pollution from upwind sources that significantly impede the state’s attainment of ozone pollution standards. We submitted comments explaining how EPA’s justification for the decision is flawed.
Viewing recent projects in Environmental Health