In the News

For several years, Republican leaders and coal-state Democrats have railed against “Obama’s war on coal.” In reality, this supposed “war” is merely the latest stage of an effort to protect public health and welfare that began decades before President Obama took office.

At least in theory, the federal budgeting process is about rational investment. Funds are spent on programs and agencies that deliver benefits to the public, justifying their costs. However, aspects of this bill reflect congressional myopia, rather than investment in the future. Some provisions in the bill impede cost-benefit justified regulations and hinder efforts to improve public health and safety.

Tribe states that “coal has been a bedrock component of our economy and energy policy for decades” and that the Obama administration’s measure therefore “represents a drastic change in directions from previous Democratic and Republican Administrations.” He is flatly wrong.

For several years, Republican leaders and coal-state Democrats have railed against “Obama’s war on coal.” In reality, this supposed “war” is merely the latest stage of an effort to protect public health and welfare that began decades before President Obama took office.

Richard Revesz , a New York University law professor and author of “Retaking Rationality: How Cost-Benefit Analysis Can Better Protect the Environment and our Health” says the EPA has generally underestimated, not overestimated, costs. But the whole argument over costs and benefits is largely about convincing the public and the politicians.

“There are a lot of different things they can try. It’s unclear how successful they’ll be,” Jack Lienke with the Institute for Policy Integrity at the New York University School of Law says.

“There is no bar — the White House can communicate its views,” said Richard Revesz, dean emeritus at the New York University Law School. “It’s true that it can’t direct the answer, but often that’s not necessary because the White House has significant leverage over [executive and independent] agencies.”

“As the extent of … fracking has grown nationally in the past few years, public attention has grown in parallel to that,” said Jayni Foley Hein, policy director for the Institute for Policy Integrity in New York.

“There’s very little public information on the practice, and to date, we just simply don’t know a great deal about where and when it’s taking place,” said Jayni Hein, policy director at New York University’s Institute for Policy Integrity.

An Administrative Conference of the States (ACUS) panel has approved draft recommendations urging EPA and other agencies to craft written procedures to improve efficiency in responding to public petitions for rulemaking action, in order to establish better processes for analyzing and responding to the petitions in a reasonable time.