In the News

Max Sarinsky, a senior attorney at the Institute for Policy Integrity at New York University, says that the problem is going to take a lot to be solved. "Drip pricing is really not good for anyone. It creates a race to the bottom, where all ticket sellers feel like they have to advertise deceptively low fees or they'll lose out to those who do," he said.

Mark Sarinsky, a senior attorney at the Institute for Policy Integrity at New York University School of Law, also applauded the White House's move, but pushed the administration to update its carbon cost estimates. Agencies "must be aware that the current federal metrics have grown outdated and grossly underestimate the true cost of climate pollution," Sarinsky said in a press release.

“It’s a way to balance climate effects against other economic effects,” said Max Sarinksy, senior attorney at the Institute for Policy Integrity at the New York University School of Law. For example, he said, the “social cost of carbon offers even stronger support for the purchase of electric vehicles because you would add the climate cost savings to the budgetary cost savings.”

Jack Lienke, IPI's regulatory policy director who moderated the panel, recalled the group's conference last fall — held just after the IRA's passage and a few months after the Supreme Court's decision in West Virginia v. EPA, which cited the major questions doctrine to block EPA power plant rules premised on shifting to cleaner generation. At that point, "the conventional take seemed to be — the era of regulating has ended, the era of spending has begun; goodbye neoliberalism, hello industrial policy, etc.," Lienke said.

The GREET model will also need retooling to manage the broader complexities of measuring the greenhouse gas emissions of hydrogen production, many commenters to the Treasury Department have noted. For example, the Institute for Policy Integrity at the New York University School of Law has asked the Treasury Department to work quickly with DOE to develop a successor model that can accurately assess the ​“marginal emissions” impact of electrolyzers using a mix of clean and dirty grid power. 

Today, the safe transportation and storage of carbon dioxide is shaping the public debate. “There aren’t many sequestration projects that exist yet,” Derek Sylvan, with the Institute for Policy Integrity at New York University, told Jean. “So, it’s especially important for the next wave of projects to get extra scrutiny until all the necessary safety precautions are well understood.”

“I think that this is a really critical juncture,” said Derek Sylvan, strategic director at the Institute for Policy Integrity at New York University. “There aren’t many sequestration projects that exist yet. So, it’s especially important for the next wave of projects to get extra scrutiny until all the necessary safety precautions are well understood.”

By setting standards that effectively make EVs the most cost-effective route for automakers, the EPA's proposed tailpipe emissions standards have the potential to transform the transportation sector. The projected benefits, both in terms of economic savings and environmental impact, underscore the importance of addressing market failures. A more comprehensive analysis of the energy efficiency gap would further clarify the rule’s merits.

Recently, the US Supreme Court has not shied away from issuing precedent-setting decisions.  Next year, that trend may continue when they take up the case of Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo which will have deep implications for Chevron Deference. In a recent conversation, Dena Adler, Research Scholar at the Institute for Policy Integrity at NYU School of Law, remarked that, “For decades, Congress has legislated under the assumption that it can broadly authorize agencies to reasonably interpret statutes to solve problems within their sphere of expertise. The Chevron framework allows agencies to leverage their expertise to address problems and prevents Congress from getting bogged down in technical matters that are beyond its knowledge and time-intensive to address.”

The Wall Street Journal's recent editorial argues that the White House missteps in updating its approach to regulatory cost-benefit analysis. Many experts disagree. The Biden administration’s evidence-based approach to cost-benefit analysis recognizes that both benefits and costs merit evenhanded consideration. In this way, it’s a welcome update.