1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |Biden Administration Publishes Interim Social Cost of Carbon Values

Biden Administration Publishes Interim Social Cost of Carbon Values

Client Alert | 2 min read | 03.02.21

On February 27, 2021, the Interagency Working Group on Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases (Working Group) published interim values for the Social Cost of Carbon (S-CO2), Social Cost of Nitrous Oxide (S-N2O) and Social Cost of Methane (S-CH4) (collectively referred to as the Social Costs of Greenhouse Gases (S-GHG)). As we predicted in our prior client alert, the Working Group reinstated the values that had been established for these parameters immediately before the Trump Administration disbanded the Working Group in 2017. To that end, for 2021 the Working Group set S-CO2 at $51 a ton, S-N2O at $18000 a ton and S-CH4 at $1500 based on a 3% discount rate. These rates will replace the Trump Administration’s calculation of the Social Cost of Carbon, which included values as low as $1 based on a 7% discount rate. The new figure will be used on an interim basis while a Working Group readies the final values, which are expected in early 2022.

There are two main reasons why these interim figures are so much higher than the values used in the Trump Administration. First, the Working Group reverted to the lower three discount rates (2.5 percent, 3 percent, and 5 percent) that were used in regulatory analyses between 2010 and 2016. The lower the discount rate used, the higher the value assigned to future damages. Second, the Working Group elected to take into account global damages associated with release of greenhouse gases, rather than limiting the analysis to U.S.-only damages.

As we previously noted, a higher Social Cost of Carbon will make it more difficult for agencies to approve actions that cause the release of GHGs because the benefits must outweigh the heightened costs associated with such GHGs. Consequently, we expect there will be intense scrutiny on the underpinnings of the interim Social Cost of Carbon value, in particular, the appropriate discount rate. The Working Group stated that it will soon issue a Federal Register notice with a detailed set of requests for public comments on the new information presented in its notice, and we expect that affected industries – on both sides of the issue – could be gearing up for a battle.

Contacts

Insights

Client Alert | 5 min read | 12.12.25

Eleventh Circuit Hears Argument on False Claims Act Qui Tam Constitutionality

On the morning of December 12, 2025, the Eleventh Circuit heard argument in United States ex rel. Zafirov v. Florida Medical Associates, LLC, et al., No. 24-13581 (11th Cir. 2025). This case concerns the constitutionality of the False Claims Act (FCA) qui tam provisions and a groundbreaking September 2024 opinion in which the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida held that the FCA’s qui tam provisions were unconstitutional under Article II. See United States ex rel. Zafirov v. Fla. Med. Assocs., LLC, 751 F. Supp. 3d 1293 (M.D. Fla. 2024). That decision, penned by District Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle, was the first success story for a legal theory that has been gaining steam ever since Justices Thomas, Barrett, and Kavanaugh indicated they would be willing to consider arguments about the constitutionality of the qui tam provisions in U.S. ex rel. Polansky v. Exec. Health Res., 599 U.S. 419 (2023). In her opinion, Judge Mizelle held (1) qui tam relators are officers of the U.S. who must be appointed under the Appointments Clause; and (2) historical practice treating qui tam and similar relators as less than “officers” for constitutional purposes was not enough to save the qui tam provisions from the fundamental Article II infirmity the court identified. That ruling was appealed and, after full briefing, including by the government and a bevy of amici, the litigants stepped up to the plate this morning for oral argument....

View All Insights