Recent Projects

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recently proposed to significantly weaken requirements for the disposal of coal combustion residuals from coal-fired power plants. We submitted comments focusing on inadequacies in EPA’s assessment of the rule’s costs and benefits.

The Albany County Supreme Court rejected a challenge to New York’s Zero-Emissions Credit (ZEC) program, which pays nuclear power plants for the value of avoided carbon emissions. The legal challenge focused largely on the state’s decision to use the Interagency Working Group’s Social Cost of Carbon (SCC) to value emissions.

We submitted comments to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regarding changes to its New Source Review (NSR) applicability regulations. Our comments focus on EPA’s failure to perform a cost-benefit analysis for the proposed rule.

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's environmental assessment of the Alaska LNG project failed to provide a meaningful analysis of the pipeline project's climate effects. We submitted joint comments encouraging FERC to monetize the social cost of greenhouse gases in its Environmental Impact Statement.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit vacated EPA’s Close-Out Rule, which allowed upwind states to continue emitting ground-level ozone pollution that significantly contributes to downwind air quality problems. The agency justified the rule by falling back on its analysis from the Cross-State Update, a prior rule that had provided only a partial remedy to interstate emissions. We filed an amicus brief, which argued that EPA fundamentally misunderstood its job in analyzing and choosing between cost-effective options.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to abandon its longstanding “Once In, Always In” policy, in turn allowing “major sources” that reduce emissions below major source thresholds to reclassify as “area sources” subject to less stringent regulation. We submitted comments detailing inadequacies in EPA’s assessment of the rule’s costs and benefits. The agency fails to analyze the rule’s aggregate emissions impacts, conduct its illustrative analyses against an appropriate baseline, account for the possibility of inadequate state enforcement, and monetize the health and environmental effects of emissions changes.

The Department of Agriculture (USDA) proposed revisions to eligibility for its Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP. We submitted comments focusing on serious flaws in the agency’s analysis of the rule’s impacts.

The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) released its draft resource management plan for the Eastern Colorado planning area, projecting millions of tons of greenhouse gas emissions per year from oil and gas development, coal production, and downstream emissions. We submitted joint comments focusing on BLM’s failure to monetize climate damages and properly analyze energy substitution effects.

The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) recently finalized a rule that expands protections for healthcare workers who deny care based on moral or religious beliefs. We submitted amicus briefs in support of challenges to the rule filed by states, municipalities, medical organizations, and civil-rights advocates. Our argument details how HHS’s analysis of the rule’s economic impacts ignores significant costs while touting entirely speculative benefits. We submitted briefs to the Southern District of New York, Northern District of California, and the District of Maryland.