Recent Projects

EPA finalized a rule updating the MATS (mercury and air toxics) limits for certain fossil-fuel-fired power plants in May 2024. These limits were issued pursuant to Section 112(d)(6) of the Clean Air Act, which gives EPA authority to update regulations based on improvements in processes and control technologies. Policy Integrity submitted an amicus brief in merits litigation before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit (D.C. Circuit) in which we responded to Petitioners’ false assertions that the Rule has no public health benefits and EPA improperly considered the costs and benefits of the Rule.

EPA finalized greenhouse gas emission limits for existing coal-fired and new natural gas-fired power plants in May 2024. These limits were issued under authority from Section 111 of the Clean Air Act. Policy Integrity submitted an amicus brief in merits litigation before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, addressing the relationship between regulation of new and existing sources under Section 111 of the Clean Air Act and the applicability of this Court’s past decisions reviewing EPA’s discretion on technical findings under Section 111.

EPA's Science Advisory Board (SAB) seeks comments on its review report of the EPA’s Draft Revised Environmental Justice Technical Guidance (EJTG), which reviews the methods and procedures described in EPA’s Draft Revised EJTG for evaluating environmental justice concerns in regulatory actions. Policy Integrity submitted comments making four key recommendations that the SAB can use to advise EPA.

EPA revised the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for Particulate Matter (PM) in March. The state of Kentucky and others filed a lawsuit in the D.C. Circuit arguing that EPA should have considered costs when setting its 2024 NAAQS for PM. We filed an amicus brief explaining that EPA appropriately assessed costs in its separate regulatory impact analysis, that considering regulatory costs would not lead to a less stringent standard, and that there is no history of EPA considering costs when revising the NAAQS.

EPA's Science Advisory Board (SAB) sought comments on its draft peer review report on EPA’s Draft Revised Environmental Justice Technical Guidance (EJTG). This report reviews the methods and procedures described in EPA’s Draft Revised EJTG for evaluating environmental justice concerns in regulatory actions. The Institute for Policy Integrity submitted comments making three key recommendations that the SAB can use to advise EPA.

In April 2024, EPA proposed retaining the secondary national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for nitrogen oxides (NOx) and particulate matter (PM) and setting a new annual average standard for sulfur oxides (SOx). Policy Integrity submitted comments arguing that although the Proposed Rule begins to assess the various adverse welfare effects of SOx, NOx, and PM emissions and depositions that different populations may face, EPA should assess, consider, and present more information regarding both distributional impacts and future risks. 

In March 2024, a set of states and industry groups asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to stay the implementation of EPA’s rule to limit methane emissions from the oil and gas sector. Our Economics Director, Peter Howard, authored an expert declaration defending the agency's development and use of new values for the social cost of methane in the rule.

In May 2024, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued a request for input on reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from existing fossil fuel-fired stationary combustion turbines. The Institute for Policy Integrity submitted comments to EPA, providing recommendations on key issues for the agency to consider as it develops new regulations.

In January 2024, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposed a regulation under the Clean Water Act that would impose new effluent limitations guidelines and standards for the meat and poultry products point source category. As EPA documents, the proposed standards would help improve health and water quality near these slaughterhouse facilities. It would also carry benefits stemming from better-protected habitats for a variety of wild animals. In our comment letter, we explain that, while the Proposed Rule and its accompanying regulatory impact analysis reasonably explain many of these benefits, EPA should take further steps to ensure the complete presentation of regulatory benefits and costs, along with their distribution, and to present its decisionmaking factors transparently.