Menu
Institute for Policy Integrity logo

In the News

  • Walking Away from Paris: Trump’s Choice Between Impulsive Versus Savvy Climate Sabotage

    Trump’s final decision on Paris will still tell us a great deal about how the administration plans to go about the business of undermining climate progress, and how successful it is ultimately likely to be.

  • DOL Rule Delay Faces High Hurdle

    “A new delay would essentially amount to an effective repeal and that is something that would have to be justified,” Bethany Davis Noll, an attorney with the Institute for Policy Integrity at the New York University School of Law, tells the publication. “Labor has a huge burden to overcome if they want to delay this.”

  • State Experimentation and the Clean Power Plan

    State climate policy efforts not only help reduce emissions, but provide a means of political experimentation that offers data on what might work to escape the climate policy gridlock. There are many contexts in which well-organized and well-networked interest groups will be in a better position to learn from experimentation than public interest groups. Thus the “peril” associated with experimentation: the bad guys may often be able to translate political information into policy advantage.

  • Cutting SCC Too Costly

    New York, as a leader in energy policy, has embraced the Social Cost of Carbon in many recent landmark regulatory decisions. But now the state Public Service Commission is being wrongly attacked for using the SCC in its zero-emission credits (ZECs) program. If the Legislature halts this program, it would be a massive setback for climate change action in New York and around the country.

  • Here’s How the EPA Can Help States With Their Smog Problems

    Under Republican Gov. Larry Hogan, Maryland has petitioned the Environmental Protection Agency for help bringing ozone pollution in the state to a safe level. Granting this request should be a no-brainer for EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt.

  • Court Challenges to Trump Policies May Multiply

    “My guess is that the bulk of the litigation is ahead of us,” said Richard Revesz, an environmental and regulatory law expert at New York University School of Law. “All this litigation is going to consume the full four years.”

  • EPA Committed to Regulating Mercury 17 Years Ago. Now It’s Having Second Thoughts.

    It’s already been almost 17 years since the EPA first concluded that it should issue a rule limiting mercury emissions from coal- and oil-fired power plants. It’s been more than five years since the agency actually did issue such a rule. And it’s been more than two years since the nation’s power plants started complying with the rule. All along the way, the EPA, states, power companies, and public health and environmental groups have been fighting about the rule in court. They show no signs of stopping anytime soon.

  • Stealth Repeal: Trump’s Strategy to Roll Back Regulations Through Delay

    It’s no secret that the Trump administration would like to undo as much of Obama’s environmental legacy as possible by rescinding or repealing regulations. Under the law, that process is difficult, but Trump’s agency heads now seem to be looking for an easy way to undo rules without officially rescinding or repealing them.

  • Stealth Repeal: Trump’s Strategy to Roll Back Regulations Through Delay

    It’s no secret that the Trump administration would like to undo as much of Obama’s environmental legacy as possible by rescinding or repealing regulations. Under the law, that process is difficult, but Trump’s agency heads now seem to be looking for an easy way to undo rules without officially rescinding or repealing them. Courts have rejected this kind of behavior in the past. Let’s hope they do so this time too.

  • Litigation’s Fate Still Uncertain as Enviros Chart Options

    Richard Revesz, director of the Institute for Policy Integrity at New York University School of Law, said a D.C. Circuit ruling resolving that uncertainty would head off further courtroom wrangling over the issue. “There is no compelling reason for the D.C. Circuit to delay facing those issues for years, with the serious negative consequences that would entail, when it is likely to already have decided them,” he said.