In the News

EPA last week pushed out a major rule on environmental analysis in the twilight of President Trump's term, a move that could bolster legal challenges to climate rules ushered in by the incoming Biden administration. "It seems like it's designed to set up legal challenges to EPA rules, filed by industry, that argue if one looks only to the targeted benefits ... that the statutory provision at issue contemplates, the rule is not justified," said Jack Lienke, regulatory policy director at New York University's Institute for Policy Integrity. Biden may want to get this "potential land mine" out of the way before finalizing lengthier rulemaking on emissions, said Lienke.

The deliberations come as Biden nears final decisions on a slate of nominees to lead key environment and energy posts. Also being eyed to lead the EPA is Richard Revesz, a former dean of the New York University School of Law who has been a fierce critic of the Trump administration’s environmental policy moves, according to two people familiar with the matter.

"While this rule does not - and legally cannot - prevent the agency from considering co-benefits, it tries to treat them as second-class benefits," Jason Schwartz, Legal Director at the Institute for Policy Integrity, said.

Richard Revesz, who directs the New York University School of Law’s Institute for Policy Integrity, noted that the administration’s approach is “inconsistent” with existing federal guidance, which states that “in performing a cost-benefit analysis all costs and benefits should be taken into account, whether they’re direct or indirect.” “They’re basically saying that the indirect consequences of regulation must be taken into account if they’re negative, and should be ignored if they are positive.”

The Congressional Hispanic Caucus has submitted a list of candidates for the role that includes Richard Revesz, who is Argentine American and directs New York University School of Law’s Institute for Policy Integrity.

Federal investments and procurement choices can either reinforce the status quo, or provide a template for a broader societal shift toward a low-emissions economy. Improved GSA policies could reduce emissions across the entire federal government.

Rushing the process could make the rules more vulnerable to legal challenges. A number of Trump administration rules that were finalized remain in court, where the administration has failed to successfully defend the majority of its policy changes, according to the Institute for Policy Integrity.

The Golden State could steer the country toward an electric future regardless of whether President-elect Joe Biden takes aggressive steps to promote clean cars. "You could see significant progress through a California waiver request and then the piggybacking on California standards by Section 177 states," said Jack Lienke, regulatory policy director at the Institute for Policy Integrity and an adjunct professor at NYU School of Law.

Congress enacted a law in 2005 that granted the Department of Energy the authority to designate “national interest electric transmission corridors” where new lines are needed, and it gave FERC authority to override state inaction on lines in these corridors. But this law has been ineffective, largely failing to speed up expansion of transmission lines. As shown in a report about to be issued by Columbia’s Center for Global Energy Policy and New York University’s Institute for Policy Integrity, the law can and should be revived.

For decades, there has been a bipartisan consensus that federal agencies should base their decisions on evidence, expertise, and analysis. But under the Trump Administration, inconvenient evidence has often been ignored, experts have been sidelined, and analysis has been misused to intentionally obscure important truths. In this episode, we talk to Prof. Michael Livermore (University of Virginia School of Law) and Prof. Richard Revesz (New York University School of Law) to discuss current challenges as well as considerations for the road ahead. Their new book, Reviving Rationality: Saving Cost-Benefit Analysis for the Sake of the Environment and Our Health, offers analysis on critical aspects of the regulatory process and calls for the reinstatement of expertise, sound cost-benefit analysis, and the rule of law in public administration.