Institute for Policy Integrity logo

Twitter @policyintegrity

In the News

Viewing all news in Transparency
  • Agencies Can’t Cut Corners to Pause Obama Rules, Court Says

    June 29, 2018 – Bloomberg Environment

    The Second Circuit judges said NHTSA didn’t cite any specific statute that gives it authority to delay the increasing penalties. This point will be particularly important for several pending cases challenging EPA attempts to delay Obama-era regulations, Bethany Davis Noll, litigation director at the New York University Institute for Policy Integrity, told Bloomberg Environment. “That’s not enough of a justification. Agencies are supposed to be looking at society as a whole,” she said, adding that this point could trickle into eventual litigation over agency rewrites of rules should they cite cost reductions as part of their rationale.

  • The EPA Might Change the Way It Weighs Human Health Against Industry Profit

    June 15, 2018 – Popular Science

    If the EPA were to later propose to eliminate co-benefits, “that would be a disastrously wrongheaded policy and one that won’t survive judicial scrutiny,” says director of the Institute for Policy Integrity at New York University, Richard Revesz. “To say the indirect costs of regulation have to be considered, but that the indirect benefits cannot is irrational,” says Revesz. “You could not find a single reputable economist who would say that was a plausible idea.”

  • Pruitt Would Like Us to Ignore Environmental Regulations’ Indirect Benefits

    June 13, 2018 – Slate

    Rewriting agency guidelines to ignore co-benefits might sound like a mundane accounting change, but over time it would have grave effects on public health and welfare. This change would make it appear that regulations deliver fewer benefits relative to their costs than they in fact would. This would then make it easier for Pruitt to justify repealing rules, further tilting the scales toward the powerful polluters that he insistently favors—while severely disadvantaging the families and communities that bear the heavy burden of pollution.

  • Pushing for the Public Interest

    June 6, 2018 – U.S. News and World Report

    Publicly owned lands in the United States contain many of the country’s most iconic natural areas as well as a wealth of natural resources. But these taxpayer-owned assets are on the verge of being given away for a fraction of their true value in an effort to prop up the uneconomical mining and drilling operations of some fossil-fuel companies, who clearly have the Department of the Interior’s ear.

  • Sulfur Dioxide Damages Lungs, and Scott Pruitt Is Letting More of It in Our Air

    May 15, 2018 – Mother Jones

    Congress “never intended for these [coal] plants to operate forever. This was supposed to be a temporary transition ending at the end of their useful life,” said Revesz, co-author of Struggling for Air: Power Plants and the “War on Coal.” Instead, “We’ve created a monster.”

  • Will Pruitt’s Repeal Come With Replacement Plan?

    May 9, 2018 – Scientific American

    If EPA’s replacement doesn’t come out at the same time as the final repeal, that could compound the agency’s problems, said Richard Revesz, director of New York University’s Institute for Policy Integrity. “EPA has a duty to regulate [greenhouse gas] emissions. To have a repeal without a replacement, among other problems, they are violating those duties,” he said.

  • California May Out Muscle EPA In Car Emissions Case, But Markets Rule On Electric Vehicles

    May 2, 2018 – Forbes

    “In withdrawing the 2022-2025 greenhouse-gas standards, EPA arbitrarily ignored its own prior analysis as well as the facts,” said Bethany Davis Noll, director at the Institute for Policy Integrity at New York University School of Law. “The agency is acting without clear justification and creating a lot of legal question marks.”

  • Regulatory Impact Assessment in the Age of Partisan Volatility

    May 2, 2018 – The Regulatory Review (Opinion)

    The Trump Administration has defined its policy program in terms of reversing the prior Administration’s decisions on as many fronts as possible. Although this turnabout has been particularly intense, it actually marks a continuation of a long-developing trend.

  • States Sue EPA Over Plan to Weaken Vehicle Emissions Standards

    May 1, 2018 – ThinkProgress

    The Institute for Policy Integrity at NYU School of Law has released a new report analyzing EPA’s decision to withdraw the standards that concludes the agency’s basis for withdrawing the standards is not grounded in fact or economic analysis. For example, EPA cites factors such as lower fuel prices and concerns about the growth of electric vehicles as reasons to reverse its earlier decision, but both fuel prices and electric vehicle sales are in fact rising.

  • States Sue The EPA To Protect Obama-Era Fuel Efficiency Standards

    May 1, 2018 – NPR

    A report released by the Institute for Policy Integrity at the New York University School of Law said the EPA’s reasoning was “not grounded in fact.” For instance, the EPA says lower gas prices are making fuel-efficient cars less attractive, and cites flagging demand for electric cars as a sign the current standards are unrealistic.