Recent Projects

In the aftermath of summer storms that resulted in widespread and prolonged power outages, Michigan's Public Service Commission requested comments on whether utilities should continue to rely exclusively on historical data when planning for extreme events. In comments filed jointly with the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law at Columbia Law School, and the Initiative for Climate Risk and Resilience Law, Policy Integrity suggested processes and tools that the Commission should direct utilities to use to identify and mitigate vulnerabilities to the impacts of extreme weather and climate change impacts more generally.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration ("NHTSA") sets corporate average fuel economy ("CAFE") standards for light-duty vehicles, and penalizes automobile manufacturers who fail to meet applicable standards. In January 2021, NHTSA issued an Interim Final Rule repealing the inflation-adjusted penalty increase for Model Years 2019-2021, which we commented was untimely and disregarded critical environmental harms. 

In August 2021, NHTSA proposed to rescind the Interim Final Rule. We filed comments supporting the proposal for complying with inflation-adjustment obligations, driving fuel savings, and reducing pollution.

We filed a comment letter with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) regarding their continued failures to meaningfully assess the climate impacts of natural gas infrastructure projects, this time regarding the Alberta Xpress Project DEIS. The project will contribute up to 3.31 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent per year in operational and downstream emissions, and it could cause at least $3.33 billion in climate costs over the twenty-one-year precedent agreement underlying it.

Policy Integrity's Economics Director Peter Howard joined climate scientists and economic experts in written testimony to the Michigan Public Service Commission (MPSC) about the significance of excessive greenhouse gas emissions that would be generated if Enbridge’s Line 5 tunnel siting permit is approved. Howard explained that “the Proposed Project will generate a present value of $41 billion (in 2020 dollars) or more in net monetized climate costs from 2027 to 2070 as compared to the no-action alternative – in other words, the Proposed Project will generate average annual monetized climate costs of approximately $1 billion each year over this period, plus significant unmonetized climate effects and other unquantified pollution costs to human health and the environment.”

We submitted comments to FERC today providing suggested topics for the first meeting of the joint federal-state task force on transmission. Our comments respond to a request for topics related to barriers inhibiting more efficient and effective transmission planning and deployment. We identify two barriers that the task force should discuss -- jurisdictional issues related to transmission siting and the lack of a standardized cost benefit analysis rubric for transmission projects.

We filed a comment letter with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) regarding their continued failures to meaningfully assess the climate impacts of natural gas infrastructure projects, this time regarding the Evangeline Pass Expansion Project EIS. Two companies have requested authorization to construct and operate a new pipeline, compressor stations and meter stations in Louisiana and Mississippi, which will be used to transport up to 1,100,000 dekatherms per day to an LNG facility for export.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) have expressed the intention to repeal the Navigable Waters Protection Rule, which removed critical federal protections on many waterways and has been vacated by a federal court for violating the Clean Water Act. In comments filed to the agencies, we welcome the decision to replace the rule but encourage strong justification for reversing course and point to flaws in the economic analysis for the earlier rule that can support the case for replacing it.

We previously commented on the rule and its flawed economic justification, published a report on its concealed costs, and filed amicus briefs in court cases that challenged it.