In the News

If the Supreme Court next term overrules Chevron USA v. Natural Resources Defense Council, the era of “Chevron deference” will have been displaced by what ought to be called the era of “West Virginia skepticism.”  There is, to be sure, some parallelism in the structure of the two doctrines. In simplest terms, each is offered up as a two-step test. Still, much remains to be clarified in the implementation of West Virginia. A recent study by Natasha Brunstein of the Institute for Policy Integrity found that lower court “judges have taken vastly different approaches to defining and applying the doctrine—even within the same circuit—illustrating that many judges view the doctrine as little more than a grab bag of factors at their disposal.”

EPA is delivering the coup de grace to one of the Trump administration's most ambitious — and contested — Clean Air Act initiatives. With a newly released final rule, Administrator Michael Regan completed the job of rescinding a 2020 set of requirements subjecting all significant new air rules to an assessment of their expected costs and benefits. Backing an end to the requirements was the Institute for Policy Integrity, a New York University think tank then headed by Richard Revesz. Revesz is now in charge of the White House regulations shop housed in the Office of Management and Budget.

A proposed update to decades-old White House guidance on regulatory cost-benefit analysis is sparking competing views, as regulated industries and other critics argue the plan is too sweeping and would enable overly aggressive rules but environmentalists broadly embrace the proposal while seeking further changes. The Center for Climate and Energy Solutions and a coalition of over a dozen other environmental groups, including the Institute for Policy Integrity, tout the proposal for reflecting the “evolving state of economic and scientific knowledge [that] marks a substantial improvement over the existing and outdated Circular A-4.”

Natasha Brunstein, Legal Fellow at the Institute for Policy Integrity, reflects on the impacts of West Virginia v. EPA, in which the Supreme Court expressly named and relied on the major questions doctrine for the first time, one year after the landmark decision.

Regulating drip pricing is a reasonable proposal. Studies of ticket sales and airline baggage all show that drip pricing makes it harder for consumers to compare prices efficiently. However, the downside of such a proposal stems from the costs that regulation would impose on firms. As discussed in the drip pricing petition penned by the Institute for Policy Integrity, it is important to conduct a cost-benefit analysis to determine whether the reduction in consumer search costs and deadweight loss from inefficient purchases would outweigh these regulatory costs on companies.

Rising sea levels, hotter temperatures, more disease and illnesses, and damage from more intense storms are all on the horizon. Right now, New Yorkers are on the hook for all of those costs. Despite the governor’s rightful efforts to protect the public last week, it was her Administration that earlier this year blocked a Senate plan in the state budget that would have shifted those costs onto the fabulously profitable biggest oil companies. The bill builds in protections so these costs wouldn’t fall back on consumers, according to an analysis from the think tank Institute for Policy Integrity at NYU Law.

A natural gas pipeline could face legal hurdles because the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission declined to respond to critiques about its greenhouse gas analysis, Republican members of the panel said Thursday. Jennifer Danis, federal energy policy director at the Institute for Policy Integrity at New York University School of Law, said FERC’s action on the rehearing request “provides a great opportunity” for the court to “reaffirm” that the agency must consider greenhouse gas emissions before signing off on new natural gas pipelines.

The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law strengthened the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s authority to site interstate transmission projects that have been rejected or not acted upon by states. Used appropriately, this authority can help the United States build the transmission infrastructure necessary to achieve President Joe Biden’s goal of fully decarbonizing the electricity grid by 2035.

On May 15th, Policy Integrity hosted a webinar that brought together researchers focusing on energy insecurity and policymakers who may be able to use their findings. Presenters focused on interesting, yet often-overlooked questions about how energy insecurity is often measured incorrectly, how insecurity-driven transitions can end up benefiting fossil fuels, and how some relevant actors in the energy system don’t actually receive transition incentives. The answers to these questions were often surprising and may prove useful in future government decisionmaking.

Questions remain regarding whether DOE’s and FERC’s recently expanded authority under the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (“IIJA”) is enough to override historical state jurisdiction over the transmission siting processes, and whether the implementation of this federal authority can withstand judicial review. While it will likely be years before the new promulgation of this authority is tested in practice, in the short-term there are plenty of opportunities for interested entities to help shape these processes going forward. The Institute for Policy Integrity at New York University School of Law further suggest expanding the definition of environmental justice communities beyond those “overburdened by pollution” to include historically marginalized communities bearing any type of disproportionate environmental burden. Expanding these definitions would result in broadened environmental reviews and increased public participation in FERC’s review processes.