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 | 4 min read | 08.07.25

File First, Facts Later? Eleventh Circuit Says That Discovery Can Inform False Claims Act Allegations in Amended Complaints

On July 25, 2025, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals issued its decision in United States ex. rel. Sedona Partners LLC v. Able Moving & Storage Inc. et al., holding that a district court cannot ignore new factual allegations included in an amended complaint filed by a False Claims Act qui tam relator based on the fact that those additional facts were learned in discovery, even while a motion to dismiss for failure to comply with the heightened pleading standard under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b) is pending.  Under Rule 9(b), allegations of fraud typically must include factual support showing the who, what, where, why, and how of the fraud to survive a defendant’s motion to dismiss.  And while that standard has not changed, Sedona gives room for a relator to file first and seek out discovery in order to amend an otherwise deficient complaint and survive a motion to dismiss, at least in the Eleventh Circuit.  Importantly, however, the Eleventh Circuit clarified that a district court retains the discretion to dismiss a relator’s complaint before or after discovery has begun, meaning that district courts are not required to permit discovery at the pleading stage.  Nevertheless, the Sedona decision is an about-face from precedent in the Eleventh Circuit, and many other circuits, where, historically, facts learned during discovery could not be used to circumvent Rule 9(b) by bolstering a relator’s factual allegations while a motion to dismiss was pending.  While the long-term effects of the decision remain to be seen, in the short term the decision may encourage relators to engage in early discovery in hopes of learning facts that they can use to survive otherwise meritorious motions to dismiss....

View All Insights