In the News

The White House Council on Environmental Quality proposed long-awaited regulations Friday that would streamline permitting under the National Environmental Policy Act. Federal agencies would need to meet set deadlines for environmental reviews — as required by this year's debt ceiling deal — but also consider how energy projects impact climate change and communities historically overburdened by pollution. Max Sarinsky, a senior attorney at New York University's Institute for Policy Integrity, described the draft as "meaningful" but "also fairly modest and incremental."

The US Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) is a milestone on the path towards the electric vehicle (EV) era — a monumental shift with the potential to remodel not just the US automotive industry, but the global landscape. Washington is working to establish alternatives to China’s control over critical mineral resources within the Asia-Pacific region, potentially recalibrating the global EV industry.

Valuing the cost of climate pollution is tremendously useful for policymakers as they weigh the benefits and drawbacks of potential strategies to mitigate climate change. Earlier this year, Canada update its climate-damage valuations for the first time since 2016. While some politicians have mischaracterized the update for political gain, in reality this commonsense update reflects the latest advances in science and economics.

If the Supreme Court next term overrules Chevron USA v. Natural Resources Defense Council, the era of “Chevron deference” will have been displaced by what ought to be called the era of “West Virginia skepticism.”  There is, to be sure, some parallelism in the structure of the two doctrines. In simplest terms, each is offered up as a two-step test. Still, much remains to be clarified in the implementation of West Virginia. A recent study by Natasha Brunstein of the Institute for Policy Integrity found that lower court “judges have taken vastly different approaches to defining and applying the doctrine—even within the same circuit—illustrating that many judges view the doctrine as little more than a grab bag of factors at their disposal.”

EPA is delivering the coup de grace to one of the Trump administration's most ambitious — and contested — Clean Air Act initiatives. With a newly released final rule, Administrator Michael Regan completed the job of rescinding a 2020 set of requirements subjecting all significant new air rules to an assessment of their expected costs and benefits. Backing an end to the requirements was the Institute for Policy Integrity, a New York University think tank then headed by Richard Revesz. Revesz is now in charge of the White House regulations shop housed in the Office of Management and Budget.

A proposed update to decades-old White House guidance on regulatory cost-benefit analysis is sparking competing views, as regulated industries and other critics argue the plan is too sweeping and would enable overly aggressive rules but environmentalists broadly embrace the proposal while seeking further changes. The Center for Climate and Energy Solutions and a coalition of over a dozen other environmental groups, including the Institute for Policy Integrity, tout the proposal for reflecting the “evolving state of economic and scientific knowledge [that] marks a substantial improvement over the existing and outdated Circular A-4.”

Natasha Brunstein, Legal Fellow at the Institute for Policy Integrity, reflects on the impacts of West Virginia v. EPA, in which the Supreme Court expressly named and relied on the major questions doctrine for the first time, one year after the landmark decision.

Regulating drip pricing is a reasonable proposal. Studies of ticket sales and airline baggage all show that drip pricing makes it harder for consumers to compare prices efficiently. However, the downside of such a proposal stems from the costs that regulation would impose on firms. As discussed in the drip pricing petition penned by the Institute for Policy Integrity, it is important to conduct a cost-benefit analysis to determine whether the reduction in consumer search costs and deadweight loss from inefficient purchases would outweigh these regulatory costs on companies.

Rising sea levels, hotter temperatures, more disease and illnesses, and damage from more intense storms are all on the horizon. Right now, New Yorkers are on the hook for all of those costs. Despite the governor’s rightful efforts to protect the public last week, it was her Administration that earlier this year blocked a Senate plan in the state budget that would have shifted those costs onto the fabulously profitable biggest oil companies. The bill builds in protections so these costs wouldn’t fall back on consumers, according to an analysis from the think tank Institute for Policy Integrity at NYU Law.

A natural gas pipeline could face legal hurdles because the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission declined to respond to critiques about its greenhouse gas analysis, Republican members of the panel said Thursday. Jennifer Danis, federal energy policy director at the Institute for Policy Integrity at New York University School of Law, said FERC’s action on the rehearing request “provides a great opportunity” for the court to “reaffirm” that the agency must consider greenhouse gas emissions before signing off on new natural gas pipelines.