Recent Projects

The Department of Energy (DOE) asked for input on conducting its national impact analysis, including on market failures, its emissions analysis, and monetization of benefits of emissions reductions. We submitted comments suggesting that DOE continue to monetize the full climate benefits of emissions reductions using the best available estimates of the social cost of greenhouse gases. 

The Department of Energy (DOE) asked for input on conducting its national impact analysis, including on market failures, its emissions analysis, and monetization of benefits of emissions reductions. We submitted comments suggesting that DOE continue to monetize the full climate benefits of emissions reductions using the best available estimates of the social cost of greenhouse gases. 

We filed a brief in the D.C. Circuit supporting a challenge to the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) decision to revoke the waiver of preemption that allowed California (and more than a dozen states following California's standards) to set critical auto emission standards to further restrict greenhouse gases and other harmful air pollutants. EPA wrongfully concluded that it has virtually unconstrained authority to revoke a preemption waiver under Section 209(b) of the Clean Air Act. We explain how the agency overlooks key countervailing principles and misconstrues the purpose and mechanics of the waiver provision.  

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.

Under recent revisions to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, nearly 700,000 current beneficiaries would lose eligibility—harming the health of those individuals and likely causing economic disruption in the food sector. We filed an amicus brief in a federal lawsuit challenging the rule, detailing how the Department of Agriculture’s analysis fails to assess the profound and widespread costs of substantial disenrollment from SNAP assistance. Our brief was cited several times in the State Plaintiffs' reply brief to support their argument that the federal government did not adequately consider the indirect costs of the rule. 

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission proposed changes to its electric transmission incentives, which aim to spur the deployment of technologies that enhance reliability, efficiency, and capacity of transmission facilities. We submitted comments identifying significant problems with the proposal, including its reliance on a benefit-cost ratio for project selection.

The Oklahoma Health Care Authority has requested permission from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services to change the state’s Medicaid program in a variety of ways—including by introducing work requirements and premium payments for some beneficiaries. We filed comments opposing the request and explaining why the benefits, if any, of work and cost-sharing requirements are unlikely to justify the accompanying health and administrative costs.

The Department of Energy requested input on impact and emissions analysis for upcoming energy conservation standards. We submitted comments encouraging DOE to continue to monetize the full climate benefits of greenhouse gas emissions reductions.