The Bureau of Land Management has proposed to rescind or revise its 2016 rule to limit methane emissions associated with natural gas production. The analysis for the original rule showed it to be hugely beneficial to the public, largely due to the avoided climate damages, for which BLM relied on the IWG’s Social Cost of Methane in the original analysis. Now, BLM has radically altered the analysis for the rule, claiming that the costs outweigh its benefits and the Bureau is justifying its decision to rescind or revise the rule based on this flawed rehashing of the effects, even though many of the problematic elements actually undercut BLM’s justification of the proposal to rescind or revise the rule. We submitted comments focused on this faulty analysis and also submitted joint comments on how BLM failed to appropriately value the Social Cost of Methane and other foregone benefits that would result from the rule’s rescission.
Related Reading
-
Consensus on Carbon Dioxide Removal: A Large-Sample Expert Elicitation on the Future of CDR
Publications / July 31, 2024
-
Amicus Brief on EPA Good Neighbor Rule
Project Updates / June 24, 2024
-
Analyzing Major Rules in the Courts
In the News / June 24, 2024 / Yale Journal on Regulation
-
The Road Ahead for New York Cap-and-Invest: Too Many GHG Emissions?
In the News / May 3, 2024 / Policy Integrity Insights
-
Policy Integrity Scholarship and Advocacy Shapes EPA’s New Climate Damage Valuations
Project Updates / December 2, 2023