Institute for Policy Integrity logo

Twitter @policyintegrity

In the News

  • The Firm Administering the Coronavirus Rescue Considers Climate Risks in Its Ordinary Investments

    April 20, 2020 – Slate

    Senate Republicans are worried that BlackRock could take climate change–related financial risks into account in making its securities purchase recommendations, as the firm has pledged to do when shaping its own investment strategies. If BlackRock is going to make the best decisions for American taxpayers, it must be allowed to assess these climate risks as it does for other clients.

  • States Are Facing a New Attack on Clean Energy, But They Can Evade It

    April 14, 2020 – The Hill

    While states are right that new FERC rules will needlessly increase costs and be a drag on clean energy, they shouldn’t rush to exit electricity markets yet. States could meet their climate goals while retaining the benefits of markets by pursuing another option: carbon pricing.

  • Clean Car Standards Rollback Is ‘Arbitrary and Capricious’

    April 14, 2020 – Bloomberg Law

    The Trump administration’s recent rollback of Clean Car Standards relies on a significant number of obvious analytical flaws and provides a textbook example of the type of “arbitrary and capricious” conduct prohibited by the Administrative Procedure Act.

  • Trump’s Auto Rollback Will Eliminate 13,500 Jobs

    April 13, 2020 – The Atlantic

    “Accepting the administration’s own numbers—and some of them are highly suspect, and most are just wrong, but accepting the numbers upfront—the rule is net costly,” Richard Revesz, the Lawrence King Professor of Law at NYU, told me. He is director of the university’s Institute for Policy Integrity. “This rule is actually causing deaths, even under their analysis.”

  • Trump’s Clean Car Standards Rollback Is Based on Too Many Lies to Count

    April 1, 2020 – Slate

    The Trump administration significantly weakened the most important existing regulation limiting planet-warming greenhouse gas emissions: the “Clean Car Standards,” which were also set to save consumers billions of dollars by making new cars and trucks use less fuel. If the administration’s track record is any indication, the courts are likely to see through the manipulation involved. But in the meantime, the end result will be substantial economic, climate, and public health harms.

  • Trump Administration Weakens Auto Emissions Standards

    March 31, 2020 – NPR

    “The rollback of the vehicle emissions standards is based on analysis that is shoddy even by the shockingly unprofessional standards of Trump-era deregulation,” said Richard Revesz of the Institute for Policy Integrity and dean emeritus at New York University School of Law.

  • Staff Scientists: Trump’s Environmental Rollbacks Find Opposition Within

    March 27, 2020 – The New York Times

    When the civil servants were directed to undo Obama’s Clean Power Plan and create a more coal-friendly version, some of those who remained at the EPA made sure the documents accompanying the proposed replacement included the fact that increased coal pollution would cause 1,400 new premature deaths a year. The EPA later deleted the number from the final rule, but Richard Revesz, an expert on environmental law at New York University, said it would still play a role in the legal fight against the rollback. “That number was a devastatingly bad conclusion for the administration,” he said.

  • Coronavirus Doesn’t Slow Trump’s Regulatory Rollbacks

    March 25, 2020 – The New York Times

    With an election looming, the urgency of completing regulations is real. Under the Congressional Review Act, Congress can overturn a regulation or federal rule within 60 days of it being finalized. If Democrats win control of the White House and Senate in November, and keep control of the House, any rule completed after late May or early June would be vulnerable. “The administration understands the electoral map has turned against it,” said Richard Revesz, a professor of environmental law at New York University.

  • Donald Trump’s Toolkit: The Office of Management and Budget

    March 6, 2020 – The Economist

    Some take issue with how Mr. Trump’s OIRA, which sits within OMB, conducts cost-benefit analysis of regulations. Richard Revesz of NYU Law School argues that in its deregulatory zeal, the Trump administration has “made a mockery of cost-benefit analysis [by] weighing broader indirect costs [of regulation], and insisting on ignoring any indirect benefits”. In delaying Obama-era environmental regulations, for instance, he argues that the administration has ignored or downplayed unquantified benefits, such as long-term improvements to air and water quality, while overstating the costs of compliance to industry.

  • Trump’s Response to Legal Defeats Suggests He’s Often a Paper Tiger

    February 28, 2020 – Los Angeles Times

    Dozens of rule-makings have been rejected by courts as “arbitrary and capricious,” a phrase that denotes violations of the federal Administrative Procedures Act. “The agencies are really falling down on that front,” says Bethany A. Davis Noll, litigation director at New York University’s Institute for Policy Integrity. The institute’s database shows that the Trump administration has lost 66 of the 71 cases in which its deregulatory or policy initiatives have been challenged in court.