Recent Projects

In September 2017, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) issued a memorandum rescinding the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program (DACA), which had protected certain young people who were brought to the U.S. as children from deportation. A variety of plaintiffs—including the Regents of the University of California; several states, counties, and municipalities; and individual program participants—promptly challenged DHS’s decision in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California and secured a preliminary injunction blocking DHS from carrying out the rescission. DHS has now appealed that injunction to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Our brief, which urges the court to affirm the district court’s injunction, addresses only one issue in the case: DHS’s contention that it had a reasonable basis for rescinding DACA based on the “evident risk” that the program “would at a minimum be the subject of protracted litigation, and very likely be enjoined nationwide.”

California has legislation authorizing its Air Resources Board (ARB) to extend its cap-and-trade program for carbon emissions. This extension, while defining much of the program’s structure, asks ARB to develop some design features through a regulatory process and public feedback. California’s most recent changes to the plan are consistent with our previous comments on the program, and they place California on the path to internalizing the cost of climate change from carbon emissions. Our most recent set of comments encourage ARB to continue to set the price ceiling for carbon permits at least as high as the Social Cost of Carbon set by the Interagency Working Group in 2016, as it does in its Concept Paper on carbon pricing. We also encourage ARB to allocate preferentially any unsold carbon allowances to the price ceiling, rather than to a lower price.

California has long been a trendsetter in clean energy policy, and our input helped inform the state’s approach for evaluating distributed energy resources (DERs), such as rooftop solar installations. The state’s new approach, which will quantify the environmental benefits of DERs, could help influence other policies around the country, boosting the growth of clean energy sources. Our comments to the California Public Utilities Commission were heavily cited in a March 2018 administrative law judge ruling, which, if adopted by the Commission, would require utilities to conduct a societal cost test to determine the cost-effectiveness of DERs.

In 2017, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) suspended its 2016 Civil Penalties Rule, which adjusted the penalties for automobile manufacturer non-compliance with fuel economy standards for the first time in decades to reflect inflation. In issuing its suspension, NHTSA claimed that it was causing no harm. Our brief in the case challenging this suspension shows that NHTSA’s claim of no harm was inaccurate.

We recently submitted joint comments to advocate for the proper use of the social cost of greenhouse gases in multiple environmental impact statements. Our comments to the Office of Surface Mining and Reclamation (OSMRE) and our comments to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) focused on the agencies’ failure to use the social cost of greenhouse gases metric to account for the climate effects of anticipated project emissions. In our comments on the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM)’s 5-year scoping plan for offshore oil and gas leasing, we emphasized that if and when BOEM decides to monetize greenhouse gas emissions, it should use the 2016 IWG estimates, as it has done in the past.

The Department of the Interior’s offshore leasing program must analyze and account for the potential for environmental damage, the potential for the discovery of oil and gas, and the potential for adverse impact on the coastal zone. In addition, offshore oil and gas leases must provide fair market value for private use and development of these publicly-owned oil and gas resources. Our comments to the Interior’s Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) explain why its Draft Proposed Program for 2019-2024, which would replace BOEM’s existing Program for 2017-2022, fails to meet its statutory mandates under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA).