Recent Projects

We submitted joint comments to EPA and the chartered Science Advisory Board noting that the proposal is unnecessary and explaining how it breaks from best practices for cost-benefit analysis of regulations in several significant ways.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to amend the 2015 New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) for residential wood heating devices, purporting to respond to retailer needs in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic. Our comments detail how how the proposal contradicts the Clean Air Act’s mandate and longstanding agency guidance. The proposed rule will, even under the agencies’ own analysis, cause net harms to the public without providing any reasonable justification.

The Environmental Protection Agency’s chartered Science Advisory Board (SAB) invited the public to comment on its new draft Guidelines for Preparing Economic Analyses. We submitted multiple sets of comments covering different portions of the guidelines. 

Coal combustion residuals, commonly known as coal ash, are the residual substances that remain after burning coal. They contain several chemicals that are toxic to human health, including arsenic, boron, lead, and mercury. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposed a rule that amends the regulatory framework for the disposal of coal ash. We submitted comments in January detailing how EPA fails to analyze the forgone benefits of the regulatory changes, which extend deadlines and eligibility for facilities that lack appropriate disposal capacity. We also submitted comments in April focusing on the second part of EPA's proposal, which fails to assess the forgone benefits of allowing facilities to seek approval for alternative basin liners. 

The Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) for managing emissions on the Uintah and Ouray Indian Reservation in Utah proposes control requirements for new, modified, and existing oil and natural gas sources. Despite forecasting that the requirements would lead to a substantial decrease in methane emissions, EPA severely underestimates resulting benefits through the use of an “interim” social cost of methane metric that disregards the best peer-reviewed science. We submitted joint comments detailing EPA’s failure to adequately monetize and evaluate the benefits of the FIP.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposed revisions to the National Primary Drinking Water Regulation for lead and copper. Our comments ask EPA to more fully monetize the benefits and better assess the significance of non-monetized benefits of the proposal. We also submitted a letter to EPA’s Science Advisory Board (SAB) summarizing our comments and encouraging the SAB to consider our points during its review of the proposed revisions.

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.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposed revisions to New Source Performance Standards for methane and volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions from the oil and natural gas sector. We submitted comments focusing on EPA’s flawed legal and economic justifications for the rule.

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.

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.