Institute for Policy Integrity

Twitter @policyintegrity

What We Do

Project Updates

  • Court Filings

    Briefs and Comments on Department of Education’s Borrower Defense Rule

    December 22, 2017

    Under Secretary Betsy DeVos, the Department of Education has twice delayed implementation of the Borrower Defense Rule, a 2016 regulation designed to help students who have been defrauded by for-profit educational institutions discharge their federal student loans. In our amicus brief supporting borrower and state challenges to the delay, we argue that the Department violated the Administrative Procedure Act by arbitrarily disregarding the harms that the delays impose on student borrowers. We also submitted a comment letter to the agency regarding the second delay.

    Read more

  • Court Filings

    Brief on the Bureau of Land Management’s Waste Prevention Rule

    December 22, 2017

    Our amicus brief to the United States District Court for the District of Wyoming defends the 2016 Bureau of Land Management’s “Waste Prevention Rule,” which is designed to limit methane waste from oil and gas production on public lands. In our brief, we show that the rule reasonably complied with BLM’s statutory duty to set waste-prevention rules that focus on private benefits to industry as well as on the health and environmental benefits of protecting natural public resources and the environment. We also argue that BLM’s approach to evaluating those health and environmental benefits of reducing methane emissions through the use of the Social Cost of Methane was reasonable and appropriate. The Social Cost of Methane is the best available metric for measuring damages from methane emissions. And it allowed BLM to set restrictions based on the global estimate of damages from methane emissions, which best advances U.S. interests and is consistent with BLM’s statutory mandate.

    Read more

  • Public Comments

    Comments on Arctic Drilling to the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management

    December 15, 2017

    We submitted comments on the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management’s environmental impact statement for potential offshore oil drilling and an undersea oil pipeline off Alaska’s northern coast. While expanded drilling in the Arctic presents many climate and public health concerns, BOEM did use the Social Cost of Carbon in assessing environmental impacts of the Liberty Development and Production Plan. Our comments encourage BOEM to continue using the best available methods for the Social Cost of Carbon in future environmental impacts statements, and we also recommended that BOEM use the Interagency Working Group’s Social Cost of Methane to quantify methane damages.

    Read more

  • Public Comments

    Comments on EPA Methane Rule Stay

    December 15, 2017

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recently paused certain requirements to reduce methane leaks and emissions from new oil and gas facilities. In its “notice of data availability” for the proposed stay, EPA claims that the compliance costs of reducing these emissions exceed the benefits to the public and to industry. Our comments argue that EPA manipulated economics to make this claim. EPA undervalued the social cost of methane emissions and claimed that the forgone benefits of the rule are only $5.4 to 23 million per year, when EPA’s original estimates said the rule would create public benefits of $140-180 million per year.

    Read more

  • Public Comments

    Public Comments on Regulatory Review (SBA, NCUA, FDA, DOT and USCBP)

    December 14, 2017

    Federal agencies continue to request the public’s suggestions for rules to repeal or reform, tacitly implying that most regulations stifle economic growth. In comments to several agencies, we argue that regulatory review should consider the public benefits of regulation, not just the costs to regulated industries, and should prioritize review of rules for which actual costs and benefits diverge significantly from predicted costs and benefits. We also recommend that agencies develop prospective plans for regulatory review going forward. The agencies for which we recently filed comments include Small Business Administration, Department of Transportation, National Credit Union Administration, Food and Drug Administration, and Customs and Border Control Bureau.

    Read more

  • News

    ACUS Adopts Recommendations on Marketable Permits

    December 14, 2017

    The Administrative Conference of the United States (ACUS), an independent federal agency that recommends improvements to government processes and procedures, recently approved a set of recommendations from Policy Integrity’s Jason Schwartz concerning marketable permits. Marketable permits, in the appropriate context, are a powerful tool for achieving policy objectives more efficiently, by letting market participants buy and sell compliance obligations. But like all markets, permit markets require proper oversight to prevent market manipulation. The new recommendations adopted by ACUS provide agencies with best practices on structuring and overseeing marketable permit programs.

    Read more

  • Public Comments

    Comments on the Clean Water Rule’s “Applicability Date”

    December 13, 2017

    The Environmental Protection Agency and Army Corp of Engineers’ newest attempt to delay implementation of the Clean Water Rule adds an “applicability date” to the original rule. Our comments to EPA argue that this “applicability date” is effectively an administrative stay of the Rule, which the Agency has no authority to issue. Moreover, delaying implementation of the Clean Water Rule will have substantial negative economic consequences, as detailed in our report on the rule. And the agencies have not provided an adequate justification for imposing these costs on society.

    Read more

  • Public Comments

    Comments on Scope of Bill Impact Study to New York

    December 11, 2017

    New York State is carefully considering rate design reforms that could be adopted by utilities to provide efficient incentives for adoption of distributed energy resources. Studies on customer bill impacts of such rate design changes are necessarily going to be an important factor in moving forward. Our comments on the scope of bill impact studies emphasize that the effect on consumer bills is just one of the aspects to be considered when looking at rate design changes. In addition, we suggest that DPS give more guidance on the types of rate designs it’s considering, parameters used to model consumer behavior, and the time horizon that the studies cover.

    Read more

  • News

    Presentation to New York State Policymakers on Carbon Pricing

    December 11, 2017

    Bethany Davis Noll, our litigation director, and Dr. Jeffrey Shrader, our economics fellow, participated in a Technical Conference on carbon pricing in New York wholesale markets, hosted by the New York State Department of Public Service and the New York Independent System Operator. Davis Noll participated in the roundtable discussion on how best to address any potential leakage, expressed our support for efforts to address the issue, and discussed the legal implications of any such efforts. Shrader participated in the roundtable discussion on revenue allocation, expressed our support for carbon pricing as the most economically efficient and technology neutral way of internalizing climate damages from greenhouse gases, and discussed that there are many ways to use the revenue based on policy priorities as long as the revenue allocation does not undo the incentives carbon pricing creates.

    Read more

  • Public Comments

    Comments on Religious Exemption Rule and Contraception

    December 5, 2017

    Under the Affordable Care Act, federal guidance requires most health insurance plans to cover contraceptive services. Previously only houses of worship and their “integrated auxiliaries” were exempt from this requirement, but a group of agencies recently issued a joint rule expanding this exemption to nonprofits, higher education institutions, closely held for-profit corporations, and publicly traded for-profit corporations with religious objections to providing contraceptive coverage. Our comments argue that the agencies’ cost-benefit analysis for expanding the exemption is unreasonable.

    Read more