In the News

On Tuesday the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Entergy v. EPA, a case that pits environmentalists seeking strong clean water protections against industry and the federal Environmental Protection Agency. But beyond the basic facts of the case is the bigger issue of how to use cost-benefit analysis when setting environmental policy.

Were you holding your breath until November 20, too? Well, the big day came and went – and no word from the Department of Health and Human Service on their new, expanded ‘provider conscience’ regulations. Advocates widely speculated that the new rule – which has been denounced by women’s health groups.

Detroit is in a free fall. Some say it’s their own doing by deciding to push big gas guzzlers rather fuel efficient cars. With that choice, the Big Three maximized their short-term profits but conceded the auto market of the future to foreign companies. There is plenty of blame to pass around. Executives made exceedingly poor investment decisions. Union officials were blinded by the good times and failed to protect their members’ future. An army of lobbyists was hired to protect the industry from tighter laws.

In the past few months, we’ve seen President Bush propose a number of controversial midnight regulations. He’s suggested expanding mountaintop mining, allowing tons of rubble and refuse to be dumped into streams and valleys. He’s threatened to significantly weaken Endangered Species Act regulations. He has proposed rules that would allow increased pollution from old power plants. But none of these deregulations have been finalized yet.

In September, the Institute for [Policy Integrity] at the New York University School of Law wrote the White House to complain that at least three new rules violated the Bolten decree against what the institute called “last-minute” policymaking.

Environmentalists and public-policy watchdogs are expecting similar industry-friendly regulatory changes in the coming months. Such “midnight regulations” have become common practice in recent decades as presidents, both Republican and Democrat, seek to leave their mark on public policy.

Among the latest proposals is an October “policy brief” by Michael Livermore—an environmentalist and head of the Institute for Policy Integrity—calling for a new executive order within the first 100 days of the next administration to reform the regulatory review process and ensure “balanced cost-benefit analysis and smart, effective regulation.”

Dudley’s letter came in response to concerns raised by Richard Revesz, dean of New York University’s law school, and Michael Livermore, director of the NYU Institute for Policy Integrity. The duo wrote to the Office of Management and Budget last month outlining three regulations proposed “in violation of Mr. Bolten’s directive.”

The Oct. 9th letter to NYU Law Dean Richard L. Revesz states that a May 9th memo from White House Chief of Staff Josh Bolten to federal agencies ‘was not intended to be a moratorium on proposed regulations’ and ‘contemplates some circumstances in which it would be appropriate for individual regulations to proceed without regard to deadlines if approved by’ her office. Dudley is administrator of the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs.

In less than a week, this country will have a new President … but the old administration will still be hard at work, potentially pushing through last minute regulations for three more months. That leaves plenty of time for more bad news for the environment and public health.