-
Comments to Treasury on 45V Clean Hydrogen Production Tax Credit
Policy Integrity commented on the Department of Treasury's proposed regulation to implement the Section 45V tax credit for clean hydrogen production from the Inflation Reduction Act. This tax credit subsidizes the production of hydrogen based on its emissions intensity. Our comments leveraged our expertise on the electric grid to advise Treasury on how to accurately measure the emissions intensity of hydrogen from grid-connected electrolyzers.
-
Reducing Pollution Without Sacrificing Reliability
A Breakdown of the Respective Roles that FERC, EPA, and State Regulators Play to Support a Cleaner & More Reliable Electric Grid
Multiple federal and state regulators must coordinate their efforts to ensure electric grid reliability, particularly during a period of major transition, and it is important to understand what role each of them plays. This report reviews the respective roles of FERC, RTOs/ISOs, other transmission operators, state public utility commissions, and state environmental regulators. EPA’s duty to reduce GHG emissions that endanger public health and FERC’s duty to steward grid reliability will require them to coordinate each other’s respective expertise as they work with RTOs/ISOs, state regulators, and utilities to implement EPA rules.
-
Comments to EPA on Draft Scientific Integrity Policy
On February 23rd, Policy Integrity submitted comments to EPA on its draft Scientific Integrity Policy. The draft Policy appropriately clarifies that economic analyses are protected by the same integrity policies as other scientific assessments, but it currently cites EPA's 2010 Guidelines for Performing Economic Analyses as the only example of a best-practice document that "should be followed" when assessing benefits, costs, and economic impacts. Several key elements of those 2010 guidelines are out of date, notably the recommendations on discount rates. Our comments offer a simple redline to ensure that other documents that meet the standards for objectivity--like the updated Circular A-4, or the pending ecosystem service guidance--could also fall under the Policy's proposed protections.
-
Comments to NYPSC on CLCPA’s Zero-Emissions Amendments to Public Service Law
Policy Integrity submitted comments to the New York State Public Service Commission (NYPSC) regarding the section of the Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act (CLCPA) that amends the Public Service Law to add a new section (Section 66-p), which requires, among other things, that, by 2040, “the statewide electrical demand system will be zero emissions.” NYPSC had posed several questions about how it should interpret the requirements for 2040 under the new Public Service Law provision.
-
Comments to CFTC on Voluntary Carbon Credit Derivatives Guidance
In December 2023, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) proposed guidance that identifies key features of high-integrity voluntary carbon credits (VCCs) for exchanges that list certain VCC derivatives. The Institute for Policy Integrity submitted comments that highlight additional sources of CFTC legal authority over these derivatives and suggest improvements to the proposed guidance’s discussions of additionality, leakage risk, quantification, risk of reversal, and exchanges’ discretion to set stringent standards. Finally, our comments recommend that the CFTC explore whether it has other authority to address issues with VCC integrity and whether to seek additional authority from Congress.
-
Comments to FTC on Proposed Rule on Unfair or Deceptive Fees
In 2021, Policy Integrity submitted a petition for rulemaking to the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) calling for a ban on the use of drip pricing. After granting the petition, the FTC in 2023 proposed a Trade Regulation Rule on Unfair or Deceptive Fees (Proposed Rule). The Institute for Policy Integrity submitted comments with suggested edits and additions to the regulatory text to ensure that the Proposed Rule fully codifies FTC's stated objectives. Our comments also suggest several actions to strengthen FTC's breakeven and cost-benefit analyses.
-
Comments to DOE and CPO a National Definition for a Zero Emissions Building
The Department of Energy (DOE) and the Office of Domestic Climate Policy (CPO) published a Request for Information on a National Definition for a Zero Emissions Building. The Institute for Policy Integrity at New York University School of Law (Policy Integrity) submitted comments through DOE and CPO's question-and-answer textbox format.
-
Comments to EPA on Draft Revision of Technical Guidance for Assessing Environmental Justice in Regulatory Analysis
EPA seeks comments on the it's Draft Revised EJ Technical Guidance, which highlights technical approaches that analysts can use to evaluate environmental justice concerns in regulatory actions. The Institute for Policy Integrity's comments to the agency advocate for enhanced documentation and transparency in environmental justice assessments.
-
The Climate Costs and Economic Benefits of LNG Export
Gas provides nearly a quarter of the world’s total energy supply. As part of that supply chain, gas is shipped between continents in the form of liquefied natural gas (LNG). The United States is now the world’s largest LNG exporter following a surge in gas exports since 2016, but these exports have generated controversy due to their climate effects.This policy brief provides an analysis to support an effort to balance the full range of impacts from LNG exports. Using DOE’s own published studies, we compare the climate cost per unit of LNG export to the economic benefit (measured using consumer welfare). We find that climate costs likely exceed economic benefits. While the precise difference depends on several factors, gross climate damages greatly exceed economic benefits under all scenarios evaluated. These findings provide useful insights as DOE prepares to re-evaluate the LNG export program.
-
Major Questions in Lower Courts
Published in the Administrative Law Review
In June 2022, the Supreme Court handed down its landmark decision in West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which marked the first time the Court named and expressly relied on the major questions doctrine. This Article surveys how lower federal courts have interpreted West Virginia and applied the major questions doctrine. There is no one major questions doctrine in the lower courts. Judges have taken vastly different approaches to defining and applying the doctrine both within and across circuits. These differences illustrate that many judges may view the doctrine as a little more than a grab bag of factors, which they seem to be choosing from at their discretion. Lower court judges do not appear to be constrained in how they apply the doctrine. In a majority of cases concerning Biden Administration agency actions and executive orders, judges applied the doctrine to reach outcomes that aligned with the political party of their appointing President.