-
Comments on California’s Evaluation Methods for Distributed Energy Resources
We recently submitted comments to the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) on their proposal to develop a more robust societal cost test to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of distributed energy resources (DERs). California has been a national leader in addressing the challenges associated with DER integration, and this proceeding will help the state to reform their cost-effectiveness framework.
-
Toxic Substances Control Act Comments
We recently submitted two sets of comments to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on issues related to the implementation of the recently amended Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). The first comment letter focuses on EPA’s proposed restrictions on the manufacture, processing, and distribution of trichloroethylene (TCE) for use in aerosol degreasing and in spot cleaning in dry cleaning facilities. Our second comment letter focuses on EPA’s proposed process for conducting future risk evaluations under the amended TSCA.
-
Comments on California’s Clean Cars Program
We recently submitted comments on the California Air Resource Board’s (ARB’s) Midterm Review of its Advanced Clean Cars program, which sets pollution limits and zero-emissions vehicle targets for automobiles sold in California. California is unique among the states in that the Clean Air Act allows it to seek a waiver from EPA to set its own automobile emission targets, which other states can then adopt.
-
The Social Cost of Carbon: A Global Imperative
To solve the unprecedented global commons problem posed by climate change, all nations must internalize the global externalities of their emissions. If not, collective efforts will never achieve an efficient, stable climate outcome. The United States’ practice of looking at the global impact of emissions has come under attack in courtrooms and academic journals, with some arguing that the U.S. should instead consider only the domestic impacts of climate change in its decisionmaking.
In a letter published in Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, we argue that federal agencies should continue to use a global number for Social Cost of Carbon, as developed by the Interagency Working Group on Social Cost of Carbon. First, the United States benefits tremendously if other countries set policy based on global rather than local effects. From a legal perspective, not only does international law—the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change—commit the United States to account for global effects, but domestic laws like the Clean Air Act and the National Environmental Policy Act also either require or give discretion to agencies to consider global climate costs. Many seemingly “foreign” climate damages would actually spill over to harm the United States.
-
Social Costs of Greenhouse Gases
Scientific studies show that climate change will have, and in some cases has already had, severe consequences for society, like the spread of disease, increased food insecurity, and coastal destruction. The social cost of carbon (SCC) is a metric designed to quantify climate damages, representing the net economic cost of carbon dioxide emissions. Our issue brief on the Social Cost of Carbon details how this metric was developed and how it applies to federal regulatory policy.
-
Does Environmental Regulation Kill or Create Jobs?
Our issue brief on Jobs and Environmental Regulation addresses rhetoric on “job-killing regulations,” describing the lack of consistent evidence that regulations lead to long-term changes in the unemployment rate. It also provides information on how to analyze claims about job impacts.
-
The Importance of Evaluating Regulatory “Co-Benefits”
Our issue brief on Regulatory Co-Benefits analyzes the importance of using unbiased economic analysis to consider all direct and indirect costs and benefits of any environmental safeguard.
-
Comments to Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection on Greenhouse Gas Reductions
Public Comments / February 24, 2017 / DownloadThe Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (“MassDEP”) has proposed a set of regulations to limit the greenhouse gas emissions from electric power plants, natural gas pipelines, government-owned transportation equipment, and utility-owned switchgear equipment. MassDEP has also proposed a new requirement that retail sellers of electricity purchase gradually increasing amounts of clean energy, along with non-binding targets for greenhouse gas emissions from the transportation sector.
In our comments to MassDEP, we offer three suggestions to ensure these regulations cut global greenhouse gas emissions in a cost-effective way. First, we encourage MassDEP to prevent potential emissions leakage to other states in the Northeast’s Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (“RGGI”) program. Second, we recommend the regulations should be technology-neutral and use a flexible compliance system. Third, we recommend enforceable emissions limits on the transportation sector rather than non-binding targets, especially considering that the state’s emissions from transportation sector are almost twice those of the electric sector.
-
Public Comments to OIRA on Regulatory Review Guidance
President Trump’s recent Executive Order on reducing regulation directed agencies to identify two existing regulations to repeal when issuing a new regulation, and to offset all incremental costs of new regulations. On February 2, 2017, the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) released interim guidance on how it plans to implement the Executive Order, and we submitted comments on the guidance.
-
Comments to Federal Energy Regulatory Commission on Proposed Rulemaking for Electric Storage Participation in Markets Operated by RTOs and ISOs
Public Comments / January 30, 2017 / DownloadIn November 2016, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) announced its intent to ease the process for energy storage and distributed energy resources to participate in wholesale electricity markets. The proposed rule would require regional transmission organizations (RTOs) and independent system operators (ISOs) to revise their tariffs to energy providers in order to promote technology neutrality. In comments on the rule, we recommend that in addition to adjusting these tariffs, FERC should take more steps to fully realize the benefits that these technologies could provide for wholesale markets. We recommend that the Commission explicitly clarify the benefits for which it compensates these technologies; allow states to compensate for distribution-side benefits; eliminate location-based constraints on resource participation while recognizing the importance of location in optimally dispatching these services; encourage coordination between RTOs/ISOs and state regulators; and promote advanced metering technology to increase efficiency in how energy is dispatched.
