On January 6th, the White House Council of Environmental Quality ("CEQ") released a new Guidance on Consideration of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change ("the Guidance") in permitting decisions, with significant implications for energy and infrastructure projects. Though this Guidance is effective as of the date of publication, it was issued on an interim basis and CEQ will consider comments until March 10th, after which it could be revised further.
CEQ's recommendations will influence the Biden Administration's analysis of greenhouse gas ("GHG") emissions in environmental reviews under the National Environmental Policy Act ("NEPA"), applying immediately to all newly proposed actions as well as some on-going NEPA reviews. While the Guidance is largely framed as a series of recommendations rather than requirements, it highlights best practices for environmental reviews that could help expedite project completions, improve agency decision making, and minimize litigation risks for developers.万博体育app手机登录归根结底,CEQ正努力确保机构和项目开发商充分关注气候影响,不无端延迟机构决策,特别是考虑到加速清洁能源基础设施是Biden爱慕气候议程的一个关键部分。
指南力求加深理解温室气体影响和替代物取舍,从而提高对联邦温室气体分析质量的期望。 项目开发商希望与联邦监管商密切合作,确保NEPA机构审查的充足性。万博体育app手机登录失败可能为项目反对者提供诉讼路径 。
Below万博体育app手机登录Encouraging Consistency in Agency Analysis of GHGs
CEQ's Guidance builds upon an earlier 2016 policy document, and is the latest in a series of efforts aimed at enhancing certainty in agency GHG analysis.[1] This Obama-era 2016 guidance was revoked and replaced by the Trump Administration,[2] and then ultimately reinstated by the Biden Administration in early 2021.[3] In the interim, court decisions have required some kind of analysis of project climate impacts under NEPA, without articulating clear generally applicable guidelines as to what level of review would be sufficient, thus resulting in uncertainty.[4]
CEQ is encouraging more certainty in addressing GHG consequences, while acknowledging that any such analysis must be conducted in a measured, proportional, yet thorough manner.CEQ实现这一点的主要方式是建议机构量化并联系相关温室气体影响
A万博体育app手机登录Quantifying GHG Emissions and Reductions
CEQ recommends agencies first quantify all reasonably foreseeable GHG emissions and reductions of a proposed action, any reasonable alternatives, and a no action alternative. In doing so, CEQ recognizes the unique nature of the climate emissions challenge, where the effects arise from a wide range of emissions activities. It thus notes, "NEPA requires more than a statement that emissions from a proposed Federal action or its alternatives represent only a small fraction of global or domestic emissions."[5] In other words, an agency is not absolved from analyzing GHG emissions because no single agency action has the ability to mitigate climate change on its own. Instead, an agency must recognize that adequate reforms will occur incrementally, and therefore analyze the emissions impacts of significant federal actions that contribute to, or remediate, climate impacts.[6] To do so, CEQ directs agencies to use tools that are commonly deployed by the private sector and government to quantify emissions.[7]
Using these tools, emissions increases and reductions should be quantified individually by constituent greenhouse gases, as well as aggregated in terms of total carbon dioxide equivalency. Additionally, where feasible, agencies are encouraged to represent the proposed action's annual emissions or reductions, especially when those emissions might vary over the life of the project.[8]
CEQ further instructs that agencies evaluate direct, indirect, and cumulative emissions as part of their environmental review. Among other things, CEQ notes that quantifying direct and indirect emissions "is generally essential to reasoned decision making."[9] Cumulative emissions are critical to consider given the nature of the climate problem, where detrimental effects flow from the accumulation of historic GHGs. Consideration of cumulative effects can be accomplished by summarizing and citing to the relevant scientific literature, as well as monetizing and contextualizing emissions as noted in the following section.[10]
Analyzing direct, indirect, and cumulative emissions is likely to be one of the most challenging aspects of CEQ's guidance to implement, and similar recommendations have already been the source of some controversy. For instance, in February 2022, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) issued a policy statement stating that for gas pipeline approvals FERC would review "GHG emissions that are reasonably foreseeable" including those resulting from upstream impacts—such as those tied to construction and operation of the project—and downstream impacts—such as emissions resulting from the combustion of transported gas.[11] Barely a month later, FERC re-designated this policy statement as a draft and invited additional comments after it garnered significant industry and political criticism.
CEQ attempts to tamp down such controversy by making clear that any analysis of GHGs should be bounded by principles of proportionality. They caution against "an in-depth analysis of emissions regardless of the insignificance of the quantity of GHG emissions that the proposed action would cause."[12] For example, "the relative minor and short-term GHG emissions associated with construction of certain renewable energy projects, such as utility-scale solar and offshore wind, should not warrant a detailed analysis of lifetime GHG emissions."[13] In order to further enhance efficiency and avoid duplicative efforts, CEQ expects that agencies will rely on and incorporate scientific and technical information on impacts from other, more expert, agencies, as well as international organizations and academic literature.[14]
B.Monetize and Contextualize GHG Emissions
Agencies should contextualize GHGs associated with a project after quantifying them. This can include monetizing climate damages using the "best available estimates" of the social cost of GHG ("SC-GHG") and placing emissions in the context of relevant climate goals and commitments.
The best available SC-GHG figure is currently in flux. Two years ago, the Biden Administration reconstituted an Interagency Working Group (IWG) on the SC-GHG, which issued an interim estimate of the SC-GHG in the spring of 2021. As detailed in a prior blog post, that estimate has been the subject of litigation and the IWG has yet to issue a final SC-GHG. More recently, EPA issued a regulatory document in the fall of 2022, which previewed a much higher SC-GHG than contemplated in the IWG's interim estimate.[15]
CEQ nonetheless notes that "in most circumstances" agencies should use the SC-GHG to analyze a proposed action and its alternatives. In doing so, the SC-GHG will empower agencies to make clearer comparisons of the GHG impacts of each action.[16] Monetizing emissions is particularly useful if: (a) the NEPA review monetizes other costs and benefits from the proposed action!替代物在不同时间或温室气体排放类型上有差异and (c) the significance of the climate impacts are hard to assess or not readily apparent without monetization.[17] Any such SC-GHG should be global in nature and utilize a discount rate that accurately reflects the harms climate change inflicts on future generations.[18]
Despite encouraging the monetization of GHG impacts, CEQ clearly states that "NEPA does not require a cost-benefit analysis where all monetized benefits and costs are directly compared." Utilizing SC-GHG to estimate the societal cost of GHG emissions does not create a requirement to do so.[19] However, if an agency considers a formal cost-benefit analysis appropriate, it is not prohibited from including or appending this analysis to its NEPA documents.
For any actions "with relatively large GHG emissions or reductions" or that "perpetuate reliance on GHG-emitting energy sources"—such as fossil fuels—agencies should explain how the proposed action and its alternatives would meet or detract from broader climate goals and commitments, such as federal or state goals or international agreements.[20] For example, agencies could discuss how the actions align with the U.S.机构应考虑使用更多语法或无障碍方法描述温室气体排放量,其中一些例子可包括使用“familiar度量法,例如家用每年排放量、公路上一定数车或加仑燃烧汽油平均量值”。 CEQ is also using this Guidance to encourage agencies to take actions that lower GHG emissions by building such considerations into the process. This underlines CEQ's desire to align government decision making with the Biden Administration's net-zero ambitions. Embedded in this approach is the hope that a more complete consideration of GHG impacts will lead to more climate-positive decision-making, even though NEPA does not require agencies to opt for the most environmentally friendly alternative.[22] CEQ provides advice on how to consider reasonable alternatives and mitigation measures that might address short- and long-term climate change effects, with the aim of promoting emission mitigations.[23] CEQ notes that agencies should also acknowledge the impacts of climate change on the proposed action (not just the impact of the proposed action on the climate) and embed considerations of climate adaptation and resilience into the formulation of the proposed action and alternatives.[24] CEQ also recommends evaluating reasonable alternatives that have lower GHG emissions, including technically and economically feasible clean energy alternatives to proposed fossil-fuel projects.[25] CEQ notes how "[s]ome proposed actions, such as those increasing the supply of certain energy resources like oil, natural gas, or renewable energy generation, may result in changes to the resulting energy mix as energy resources substitute for one another on the domestic or global energy market." CEQ encourages agencies to conduct a "substitution analysis" to understand how any energy project proposals will affect the resulting energy mix and GHG emissions. When doing this analysis, agencies should not assume that if any project does not go forward it will be replaced by one that generates identical emissions, such that net emissions relative to a baseline are zero.[26] Instead, agencies should conduct modeling that "accurately account[s] for reasonable and available energy substitute resources, including renewable energy."[27] By encouraging the consideration of renewable energy alternatives to fossil fuel infrastructure early in the NEPA process, CEQ is pushing agencies to prioritize permitting cleaner forms of energy, consistent with the Administration's broader climate policy goals. CEQ鼓励前方社区参赛,重点是考虑环境公义对温室气体排放的影响万博体育app手机登录One of the most effective ways to accomplish this, according to CEQ, is to leverage early planning processes to integrate GHG emissions and climate change considerations into the identification of alternatives to the proposed action, as well as any reasonable mitigation efforts. CEQ recommends that agencies use the scoping process to identify potentially affected communities and provide early notice of opportunities for public engagement, which is especially important "for communities of color and low-income communities, including those who have suffered disproportionate public health or environmental harms and those who are at increased risk for climate change-related harms."[28] Community engagement should begin in the scoping process and should recognize any unique climate-related risks and concerns posed by the proposed action. For example, CEQ discusses how "chemical facilities located near the coastline could have increased risk of spills or leaks due to sea level rise or increased storm surges, putting local communities and environmental resources at greater risk."[29] In these types of scenarios, agencies should meaningfully engage with affected communities in designing the action and selecting alternatives, "including alternatives that can reduce disproportionate effects on such communities."[30] Such early project engagement, before the contours of a project are fully fixed, can assist in improving project outcomes and building greater community-level support for a project. We will continue monitoring developments pertinent to NEPA reviews of energy and infrastructure projects in the coming months, including CEQ's final guidance on GHG analysis expected in March, and other efforts by the Biden Administration and Congress to reform federal permitting processes. [1] CEQ, Final Guidance for Federal Departments and Agencies on Consideration of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and the Effects of Climate Change in National Environmental Policy Act Reviews, 81 FR 51866 (Aug.万博体育app手机登录2016年4月5日CEQ撤销2016年最终指南。CEQ撤销联邦各部门和机构在国家环境政策法评审中审议温室气体排放和气候变化影响最终指南,III.Up-Front社区参与环境公义
[7] Guidance at 1201-1202. CEQ keeps a list of these tools on their website. See CEQ, GHG Tools and Resources, https://ceq.doe.gov/guidance/ghg-tools-and-resources.html.
[8] Id. at 1201.
[9] Id. at 1205.
[10] Id. at 1206.
[11] FERC, Consideration of Greenhouse Gas Emissions in Natural Gas Infrastructure Project Reviews, Docket No.万博体育app手机登录PL21-3-000, February 18, 2022.
[12] Guidance at 1201.
[13] Id.
[14] For instance, CEQ notes that "agencies may summarize and incorporate by reference the relevant chapters of the most recent national climate assessments or reports from the USGCRP and the IPCC" and encourages them to "engage other agencies and stakeholders with knowledge of related actions to participate in the scoping process to identify relevant GHG and adaptation analyses from other actions or programmatic NEPA documents." Guidance at 1208, 1210.
[15] Specifically, the February 2021 IWG estimates places the social cost of carbon at $51/ton, while the EPA in the fall of 2022 estimated the social cost of carbon at $190/ton. This larger estimate was derived in part by using lower discount rates.万博体育app手机登录See Supplementary Material for the Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Supplemental Proposed Rulemaking, "Standards of Performance for New, Reconstructed, and Modified Sources and Emissions Guidelines for Existing Sources: Oil and Natural Gas Sector Climate Review," EPA External Review Draft of Report on the Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases: Estimates Incorporating Recent Scientific Advances, EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0317 (September 2022).
[16] Guidance at 1202.
[17] Id.
[18] CEQ further notes that in utilizing a SC-GHG, agencies should keep in mind that currently available estimates "may be conservative underestimates because various damage categories (like ocean acidification) are not currently included." Id. at 1203.
[19] Id. at 1211.
[20] Id.
[21] Id.
[22] CEQ itself recognizes that "[n]either NEPA, the CEQ Regulations, or this guidance require the decision maker to select the alternative with the lowest net GHG emissions or climate costs or the greatest net climate benefits." Id. at 1204.
[23] Id. at 1203.
[24] Id. at 1208-1209.
[25] Id.1205 id>#em>
The Fifth Circuit recently allowed the federal government to resume use of the "social cost of carbon" (SCC), after a district court enjoined reliance on the metric earlier this year. The SCC aids cost-benefit analysis of regulatory actions and can provide insights into the impacts of climate change and greenhouse gas emissions reductions. The continued legal back and forth over the SCC demonstrates that it is a highly contested and important concept, supporting much of President Biden's climate agenda and with potential spillover effects for corporate carbon pricing.
Background
The legal battles directly stem from an Executive Order President Biden issued on his first day in office, but continue a dispute that began in the last two presidential administrations.Executive Order 13990 re-established an Interagency Working Group (IWG)!指令发布SCC临时估计sCC使用并指令IWG继续开发SCC定值,原定于今年1月发布。 SCC定序部分本身响应Trump政府的行动,解散IWG并指令使用SCC估计值远低于Obama政府In February 2021, the Biden IWG issued the interim SCC, which returned to the Obama-era estimates as follows:
Source: Interagency Working Group on Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases
Litigation over the Biden SCC estimates and effects on the Federal Government
A host of state attorneys general immediately challenged the interim SCC in two separate lawsuits in Louisiana and Missouri. Among other claims, these suits alleged the interim SCC failed to comply with the Administrative Procedure Act's notice-and-comment requirements, was arbitrary and capricious, and otherwise was enacted without statutory authorization.[1] In February, a District Court Judge in the Western District of Louisiana hearing one of these challenges issued a preliminary injunction, prohibiting agencies from "adopting, employing, treating as binding, or relying upon" any SCC estimates that depart from those used in the Trump Administration.
This opinion immediately reverberated across the federal government. In a motion to stay the injunction pending further appeal, the Justice Department wrote:
The consequences of the injunction are dramatic. Pending rule-makings in separate agencies throughout the government—none of which were actually challenged here—will now be delayed. Other agency actions may now be abandoned due to an inability to redo related environmental analyses in time to meet mandatory deadlines.[2]
In light of this injunction, a host of federal rulemakings, grants, and agency processes were delayed, including federal oil and gas leasing and grants made under a $2.3 billion program for capital-intensive transportation projects. In court filings, the Justice Department further catalogued how the injunction was derailing federal operations dealing with climate change. A declaration filed by a high ranking Office of Management and Budget (OMB) official documented disruptions to at least 21 rulemakings by the Department of Energy, 5 by Environmental Protection Agency, 9 by the Department of Transportation, and 3 by the Department of the Interior.[3] The injunction would have forced the Transportation and Interior Departments to redo 60 and 27 environmental impact analyses, respectively.
Apart from its impact on agency rulemaking, the injunction threatened to implicate the White House's international climate efforts. For instance, the United States engages in regular conversations with the Canadian government to align SCC measurements across borders.[4] Multilateral discussions with the Asian Development Bank may also be affected, as its energy policy reviews often incorporate references to SCC measures.[5] The Justice Department argued the injunction would impede this international cooperation.
On March 16th, the Fifth Circuit stayed the injunction pending appeal. The Court primarily rested its decision on Plaintiff's lack of standing, noting the states' injuries are "merely hypothetical."[6] Even if an agency did consider the SCC, it would only be one factor agencies consider "in determining when, what, and how to regulate or take agency action"[7] The Fifth Circuit also considered the breadth of the impacts on government activities caused by the lower court's sweeping injunction.[8]
The SCC moving forward
The IWG will now continue its work as litigation challenging the SCC continues. This includes the Louisiana proceeding and the Fifth Circuit's stay, as well as a pending 8th Circuit appeal of a Missouri district court decision, [9] which dismissed another challenge to the interim SCC for lack of both standing and ripeness.[10]
The IWG must still promulgate updated "final" SCC figures, which are expected to be higher than the interim ones based on President Obama's IWG. It is unclear when this might occur: neither the White House nor OMB has issued an official update. Prior to the injunction, however, OMB had already solicited and received detailed public comment on how to incorporate the latest peer reviewed science and economics literature into the new SCC measure.[11] Since, technical experts across federal agencies had been synthesizing and summarizing this input, with the "goal of providing updated estimates in the next couple of months."[12] Given delays caused by the litigation, it's uncertain if the Government intends to honor this timeline. Additionally, the IWG had intended to subject their updated estimates to a peer review process and, to this end, EPA had published a request to nominate experts on January 25th.[13]
The IWG's work and the final SCC will be closely watched, both by the federal government and the private sector. Under the SEC's recently proposed climate-disclosure rule, publicly registered companies that use an internal carbon price—i.e., an "estimated cost of carbon emissions used internally within an organization"—would be required to disclose the price per metric ton of carbon dioxide equivalent used, and the company's rationale for selecting that price.[14] While not bound to do so, in setting internal carbon prices some companies may reference or even adopt the IWG's estimate of the SCC. However, with the fate of the interim SCC unclear, and an array of carbon markets around the globe setting other prices on carbon, many companies may be less inclined to adopt the IWG's SCC in their internal carbon pricing.
[1] See, e.g., Complaint, Louisiana et al., v Biden et al., 21-CV-01074 (W.D.La提交日期为2021年4月22日ECF No.unfref2名称SUPDefs运动留置mm.,21-CV-01074公元前LA,2022年2月19日ECF编号103-1.
Addressing climate change has been a priority for President Biden since his first day in office. On December 8, 2021, President Biden continued that focus by issuing Executive Order (EO) 14057, Catalyzing Clean Energy Industries and Jobs Through Federal Sustainability, which includes a number of requirements directed at introducing sustainability to federal acquisitions.
This most recent EO announces an administration policy to achieve net-zero emissions from federal procurement by 2050 and comes on the heels of the public comment period extension to January 13, 2022 in response to EO 14030, Climate-Related Financial Risk. Although the administration will likely be rolling out additional sustainability requirements in the coming months, contractors currently have an opportunity to help shape an initial requirement that may end up effectively establishing an environmental, social, and governance or "ESG" reporting requirement.具体地说,联邦获取管理委员会正征求公众评论,以考虑修改联邦获取规则:
政府当前提案类似于机构一级最近的活动,与美国Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") announcing an "all-agency approach" in response to investor demand for ESG-related information. The SEC is also seeking public comment in an effort to determine whether current climate change disclosures adequately inform investors and as of December 7, 2021 has received 5,867 comments.
In light of the rapidly evolving scope, demands, and attention placed on board and management accountability for sustainable business practices, Covington's multidisciplinary ESG and Sustainability team created an ESG and Sustainability Toolkit as an entry point for analysis, understanding, and tailored advice on this wide ranging topic.
As part of an effort to reduce federal supply chain emissions, President Biden additionally ordered the General Services Administration to "track disclosure of greenhouse gas emissions, emissions reduction targets, climate risk, and other sustainability-related actions by major Federal suppliers, based on information and data collected through supplier disclosure" of greenhouse gas emissions (as discussed in consideration (i) above).
With new reporting, tracking, and emissions reduction targets potentially on the horizon, federal contractors should consider taking the opportunity to shape aspects of new requirements, such as the preferred method of tracking and reporting emissions data, including how to evaluate the social cost of such greenhouse gases. For example, there would be a number of ways to measure the "social cost" of greenhouse gas emissions, which is generally an estimate of the monetized damages associated with incremental increases in greenhouse gas emissions. As re-established under EO 13990, the Interagency Working Group on the Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases published interim estimates of the social cost of carbon, methane, and nitrous oxide in February 2021 that reflect one method for evaluating emissions data that could ultimately inform requirements imposed on contractors. Although a coalition of states is currently challenging the administration's use of social cost estimates to calculate regulatory costs and benefits under EO 13990,[1] the notice of public comment for EO 14030 still includes the social cost of greenhouse gases as one potential factor when considering greenhouse gas emissions in federal procurement decisions.
Comments may be submitted on the following questions on or before January 13, 2022 for FAR Case 2021-016 at https://www.regulations.gov/document/FAR-2021-0016-0001:
- How can greenhouse gas emissions, including the social cost of greenhouse gases, best be qualitatively and quantitatively considered in Federal procurement decisions, both domestic and overseas?
- 什么可用并受尊重方法测量所购或租产品或所服务生命周期中的温室气体排放?
- 联邦政府通过国内外采购决策可如何考虑和尽量减少与气候有关的金融风险?
- 贵组织将如何提供温室气体排放数据供建议和/或合同性能使用?
- 联邦政府应如何验证温室气体排放报告?
- 政府应如何优先接受国内外供应商的标书或建议书,以最有效实现减少温室气体排放或降低温室气体排放社会成本? 政府可如何考虑供应商承诺减少或减少温室气体排放?
- 采购决策中考虑温室气体社会成本对小企业产生什么影响? 小企业包括处境不利小企业、妇女拥有小企业、服务性残疾老企业和历史利用不足商业区小企业FAR理事会应如何最优化地将目标与确保小企业机会的努力相匹配?
As we have described in prior posts, the social cost of carbon is a tool that expresses in dollar amounts the estimated cost to society of a one metric ton increase in CO2 emissions. Developed by a federal interagency working group (IWG) originally to aid cost benefit analysis in rulemaking context, the tool also has potential use in the project approval, by informing agency assessments of environmental impacts under the NEPA. By and large, however, courts have accepted agency decisions not to utilize the SCC in their analysis, often relying on the well-established rule that NEPA generally does not mandate cost-benefit analysis. See 40 C.F.R.1502.22.
Enter Vecinos, the most recent decision in an evolving area of law. The case concerned FERC approval of liquefied natural gas export terminals and pipelines in Texas. As it has in past projects, FERC quantified the greenhouse gas emissions associated with construction and operation of the facilities, but declined to consider the significance of those effects on the project's contribution to climate change. The Commission justified this position on the grounds that there is no "universally accepted methodology to attribute discrete, quantifiable, physical effects on the environment to" an individual source's greenhouse gas emissions. Local residents, environmental groups, and a nearby city challenged, arguing, inter alia, that the Commission was obligated to use the social cost of carbon in light of 40 C.F.R.§1502.21,CEQ执行NEPA规范要求机构评估基于理论方法或研究方法的影响,即“科学界普遍接受”,即“无法获得可合理预见重大不利影响相关信息”。
d.C电路判定委NEP分析不充分。它关于碳 < ahrf='##ftn1命名s'#ftnref1>>>[1]社会成本的决定完全取决于FERC未考虑§1502.21的潜在效果,而FERC命令或简介中则未讨论或引用该作用。Circuit decision which had upheld FERC's decision not to use the social cost of carbon in other projects, which also did not discuss the regulation.[2]
Accordingly, on remand and in the future, FERC and other agencies will have to more directly evaluate the tool and the rigor of the science behind it. Proponents will argue that the social cost of carbon is the kind of "generally accepted" theoretical approach § 1502.21 requires be incorporated into NEPA: The IWG's SCC framework is at this point over a decade old, and was designed from the start to reflect scientific consensus, incorporating the three most widely cited climate economic impact models, each of which have been extensively peer reviewed. The National Academy of Sciences has recognized the tool and provided recommendations on how to strengthen it, which the Biden Administration is actively working to incorporate through an inclusive public process with stakeholders and experts to ensure that projections are based on the "best available science."
The decision is the latest in a series of cases assessing the adequacy of FERC's NEPA analysis. The D.C.电路要求FERC更充分地考虑核准项目气候后果, 特别是s/www.sierraclub.org/files/blog/FINAL%20ORDER%202020-22-17.pdf'Circuit made clear that it was stopping short of forcing the social cost of carbon on FERC. Indeed, the Vecinos court remanded the approval without vacating it, concluding it was "reasonably likely" that the Commission would be able to reach the same result even after discussing § 1502.21, and that vacatur could "needlessly disrupt completion of the projects." Construction of the facilities continues after the ruling.
Even if Vecinos does not result in broader adoption of the social cost of carbon in project approval, changes from the executive and legislative branches may, for FERC as well as other agencies. By the end of this month, the interagency working group will submit recommendations on "areas of decision-making, budgeting, and procurement" across the federal government where the SCC should be applied, which could include project approval and NEPA analysis. Regarding FERC specifically, President Biden will soon be expected to announce his replacement for Commissioner Neil Chatterjee, potentially shifting the Commission to a Democratic majority and providing additional support to Chairman Glick, who has vocally supported having the Commission consider the significance of greenhouse gas emissions and the social cost of carbon in NEPA analyses.
[1] Vecinos separately held that the Commission's environmental justice analysis was arbitrarily limited, as it did not discuss potential disproportionate effects more than two miles away from the project site.
[2] See EarthReports, Inc.公元前FERC ,828F3d949956Cir市2016年)appalachian声音vFERC 号17-12712019WL847199Cir市二月192019SierraClub公元前FERC ,672FedAppx3839Cir市2016年)
This is the eleventh in our series on the "ABCs of the AJP."
America's kids are the beneficiaries of many of the provisions of President Biden's Jobs Plan, and several of the proposals would benefit them and their caretakers specifically. Children have become a focus point of discussions about climate change, because absent intervention they are poised to inherit a world that suffers from its negative effects without having contributed meaningfully to the emissions that bring it about. This has been a central narrative of the long-running Juliana litigation, for example. The Biden Administration has also recognized the intergenerational inequity of climate change in other policy initiatives, for example in its ongoing efforts to revise the social cost of greenhouse gases.
The AJP frames efforts related to children as an investment in the country's future, recognizing that healthy, educated, and safe youth will become productive contributors to the American economy. To this end, the AJP proposes several initiatives that would reduce child exposure to traditional pollutants: Eliminate lead pipes and service lines in drinking water systems, retire old, dirty diesel school buses, and improve indoor air quality and ventilation in classrooms. These initiatives are expected to pay significant health dividends: As EPA has recognized, children are often more vulnerable to pollutants, which can stunt their growth and development. Consistent with the environmental justice focus of the Administration, many of these improvements would go to children in the most underserved communities.
These older buildings, vehicles, and other infrastructure will be replaced, retrofitted, or improved with efficient, emissions reducing, and resilient alternatives, which will help mitigate and prepare for climate harms. For example, the plan proposes $100 billion to modernize schools and childcare facilities, in the process making them more energy efficient. Similarly, the plan invests $213 billion in sustainable places to live for families. At least twenty percent of the country's aging diesel school bus fleet will be replaced by electric vehicles.
The provisions targeted for children mirror a strategy found throughout the AJP: use federal funds and other incentives to jump start a transition to updated, climate-friendly infrastructure, with the hope that the private sector will continue the trend once the public expenditures complete. The school bus electrification target, for example, is part of a much broader Administration goal to promote adoption of EVs. Entities regulated by EPA would also be wise to watch whether this focus on children's health carries beyond the AJP to other programs the agency administers: Administrator Michael Regan recently signaled a renewed focus on such issues in an address to EPA's Children's Health Protection Advisory Committee.