Recent Projects

In May 2023, EPA proposed a package of regulations to limit greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuel-fired power plants under Section 111 of the Clean Air Act. This proposal included revisions to strengthen the limits for new gas fired-plants and to establish limits for existing coal-fired plants and some of the largest, existing gas-fired plants. To determine the stringency of these limits, EPA identified “best systems of emission reduction” (BSERs). In our comments we explain how EPA’s has selected BSERs that are traditional in scope and consistent with the legal pathway left intact by the Supreme Court’s decision in West Virginia v. EPA. We also recommend that EPA strengthen the design of the rule to ensure it best fulfills its goal to reduce GHG emissions, which endanger public health and welfare, in a manner that avoids creating perverse incentives.

In May 2023, EPA proposed to strengthen tailpipe emissions standards for greenhouse gas and criteria pollutants for both light-duty and medium-duty vehicles. The standards apply to vehicle model years beginning in 2027 and would increase in stringency through model year 2032. In our comment letter, we explain that the Proposed Rule represents a sensible approach to cost-effectively reducing motor vehicle pollution that contributes to climate change and harms public health. We suggest that EPA take some additional steps to robustly support the regulation and ensure a complete presentation of benefits and costs.

We recently filed comments to EPA on its proposal to grant the State of Louisiana primary enforcement responsibility (primacy) over Class VI injection wells used for geologic carbon sequestration. Our comments encourage EPA to ensure that Louisiana has adequate and timely plans for transitioning Class II enhanced oil or gas recovery wells to the Class VI program, where appropriate, in order to mitigate safety concerns. Louisiana’s planned timeline for Class II transition fails to meet some of the requirements set forth in EPA’s regulations and guidance, and the state’s Class II transition plan and related regulations may be inadequate for mitigating risks. Our comments also encourage EPA to provide thorough responses to all concerns raised by community members about risk and oversight of injection wells, and require appropriate risk-mitigation measures before granting primacy.

In April, the Environmental Protection Agency released a proposal to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from heavy-duty vehicles beginning in model year 2027. Jointly with six other organizations, we submitted comments on EPA’s application of the social cost of greenhouse gases in that rule. Our comments applaud the agency for appropriately applying the social cost of greenhouse gases to estimate the climate benefits of the proposed standards. We also suggest that EPA apply additional analysis to the rule and all alternatives using draft updated climate-damage valuations that EPA released in November 2022.

In March, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposed to strengthen its power plant effluent guidelines by tightening discharge requirements for flue gas desulfurization wastewater, bottom ash transport water, and combustion residual leachate resulting from steam electricity generation. In our comment letter, we offer several recommendations for EPA to strengthen its consideration of regulatory benefits. 

This month, EPA restored the legal foundation for regulating emissions of mercury and other hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) from coal- and oil-fired power plants under section 112 of the Clean Air Act. Policy Integrity has long recommended that EPA adopt such an approach that considers unquantified and ancillary effects, as is consistent with the best economic practices and the law, including through our comments on the 2022 proposed rule and an amicus brief opposing the 2020 finding. 

The Environmental Protection Agency recently solicited public input on how to implement the Inflation Reduction Act’s Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund, which provides $27 billion to support zero-emission technologies and other projects that reduce or avoid greenhouse gas emissions and other forms of air pollution, including in low-income and disadvantaged communities. We recommended that EPA require funding applicants to submit cost-benefit analyses for their proposed projects and, where otherwise consistent with statutory requirements, use the results of such analyses to prioritize funding allocations. We further recommended that such analyses account for significant unquantified effects, include assessments of distributional impacts, and consider the project’s potential to increase (or reduce) resilience to climate change. Finally, we suggested that, in tracking the success of the program, EPA identify climate resilience as a relevant program outcome.

The Institute for Policy Integrity submitted comments to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regarding its proposed revisions to the Risk Management Program (RMP), under Section 112(r) of the Clean Air Act. EPA’s new proposal will better protect communities from chemical accidents that release toxic air pollution. Policy Integrity recommended that EPA further strengthen its regulatory impact analysis, including its consideration of unquantified benefits and the distribution of benefits and costs between fenceline communities and facilities. In particular, EPA should strengthen its breakeven analysis by better considering how risk mitigation measures decrease the magnitude of accidents and avoid the most-costly accidents or catastrophes. EPA should also clarify its new language concerning climate-related hazards and provide complementary guidance to ensure robust consideration of climate-related hazards by RMP facilities.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has proposed a ban on multiple conditions of use of chrysotile asbestos. The Institute for Policy Integrity and Professor Rachel Rothschild at the University of Michigan Law School submitted comments on the agency’s economic analysis of the proposed rule, identifying numerous ways EPA underestimated the health benefits from reduced cancer cases and lung illnesses and could strengthen the robust scientific, economic and legal basis for EPA’s proposed rule.