In the News

Indeed, Pruitt’s comments on CNBC might even hurt any effort at repeal. Opponents could point to them in court as evidence that EPA’s new conclusion was being driven by the administrator’s unfounded views on science rather than careful analysis. “The comment could come to haunt Administrator Pruitt in court in the same way that the ‘Muslim ban’ comment has haunted President Trump in recent rulings,” says Richard Revesz, a law professor at New York University.

Pruitt’s right that ozone is a serious problem. But he failed to mention that the EPA already issued a major new limit on ozone pollution back in 2015, when Pruitt was still serving as Oklahoma’s attorney general. Pruitt also left out the part where, rather than praising that new ozone rule, he sued to block it.

Denise Grab, a lawyer with New York University Law School’s Institute for Policy Integrity, said Gorsuch has a “mixed bag” of rulings related to public lands and the environment, yet seems “unusually eager to throw roadblocks in the way of public interest groups who want their day in court.”

Pruitt’s attempt to cast uncertainties about climate change would still not relieve the EPA from its obligation to act, Jack Lienke, a senior attorney at the Institute for Policy Integrity at the New York University School of Law, told Bloomberg BNA.

In his Tuesday night speech, President Donald Trump made reference to regulations that have killed American jobs. But, at least in the case of the environmental regulations Trump is specifically attacking, it isn’t true. And in timely fashion, the Institute for Policy Integrity has a new brief with a clear and succinct explanation why this is so.

President Donald Trump and newly confirmed EPA administrator Scott Pruitt appear poised to make sweeping environmental policy changes. But strong environmental regulations remain widely popular. Perhaps as a result, the Trump administration may take a subtle approach in attacking environmental rules. Pruitt and other administration officials appear interested in rewriting guidelines for regulatory analysis and they could cook the books so that environmental protections appear to have few or no benefits and exaggerated costs. The results would be sinister, undermining many current and future safeguards for the environment, workplace safety and other important social issues.

“The executive order has no legal significance at all,” said Richard L. Revesz, a professor of environmental law at New York University. “It’s like the president calling Scott Pruitt and telling him to start the legal proceedings. It does the same thing as a phone call or a tweet. It just signals that the president wants it to happen.”

“The agency can’t just ignore the previous rule,” explains Richard Revesz, a law professor at New York University. “It has to make a sound argument for why its new approach is superior — and prove to the courts that it’s not just acting in an arbitrary or capricious manner.” Otherwise, the courts will knock down Pruitt’s attempts to rewrite the rule.

When EPA issues a regulation, say for mercury from power plants, it also counts as co-benefits the reductions in particulate matter that would result. Jack Lienke of New York University’s Institute for Policy Integrity says EPA uses a model that reflects smaller health gains from reductions at lower concentrations. Its model is based on peer-reviewed studies and has been reviewed by the agency’s independent Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee, he said.

Immediately after his inauguration, President Trump met with business leaders telling them he hopes to cut regulation. What does this mean for corporate growth and consumers? How do voters on the left and the right view these changes and is there common ground to be found? MPR chief economics commentator Chris Farrell spoke with Michael Mandel at the Progressive Policy Institute in Washington and Richard Revesz, director of the Institute for Policy Integrity at NYU School of Law.