Institute for Policy Integrity logo

In the News

Viewing all news in Environmental Justice and Equity
  • CEQ Turns To NASEM To Bolster Environmental Justice Screening Tool

    Peggy Shepard, the White House Environmental Justice Advisory Council co-chair, gave the administration a grade of D in September for its environmental justice work so far, telling a New York University Institute for Policy Integrity event that, in order to do something as transformative as the administration is seeking, “you have to restructure . . . but that has not happened and that is really the crux of the problem, that structurally, nothing has changed in any of these agencies.”

  • Advocates Laud EPA’s EJ Office Merger As Fears Over Agenda’s Pace Grows

    Peggy Shepard, the co-chair of the White House Environmental Justice Advisory Council (WHEJAC), gave the administration a “D” grade on its high-profile efforts to elevate EJ throughout government decision-making. She told a New York University Institute for Policy Integrity event that the WHEJAC was able to, within the first three weeks of the new administration, put together 100 pages of recommendations, “and it took a year to get a response to this and the response was, in many cases, inadequate.”

  • Industry Seeks Economic Exception From Landmark New Jersey EJ Rule

    Nicky Sheats, director of the Center for the Urban Environment at Kean University in Union, NJ, who also advises the White House on EJ issues, accused the industry of “trying to undermine the regulations by saying they should be able to trade jobs for pollution” at a Sept. 20 Institute for Policy Integrity event where the proposal was discussed. “No other community is asked to do that,” he said, calling the effort “extortion.”

  • SCOTUS Ruling on EPA Leaves US Businesses with the Devil They Don’t Know

    “Until recently, the major questions doctrine was little-used, and it remains poorly defined,” Dena Adler said in an email. The doctrine “remains the exception, not the norm. However, if it is applied more expansively by lower courts that could be problematic because Congress has legislated for decades with an expectation that it can broadly authorize agencies to use their expertise to address problems.”

  • The Supreme Court’s EPA Ruling Was the Beginning of Something Bigger

    "The major questions doctrine didn't exist until fairly recently, but in the last year or so, the Supreme Court has made it a regular part of its anti-regulatory arsenal,” said Richard Revesz. “As a result, I am sure that enterprising attorneys general for red states will use it to challenge climate regulations, environmental regulations and all kinds of other regulations."

  • US Supreme Court Ruling Limits EPA but Doesn’t Quash It Completely, Say Lawyers

    Despite the US Supreme Court's ruling against the EPA, the agency can still stimulate power sector CO2 abatement in more creative ways. Dena Adler, a research scholar at the New York University School of Law, said, “[The EPA] can consider how to make heat rate improvements more ambitious and look toward what is possible with other techniques such as co-firing and carbon capture and sequestration."

  • Court’s Ruling on Emissions Benefits Polluters

    The "generation shifting" approach, which the Supreme Court said the EPA did not have, is "environmentally effective, economically efficient, and supported by power companies", said Dena Adler, a research scholar at the Institute for Policy Integrity at New York University's School of Law. "While this is an unwelcome and unnecessary setback for addressing the urgent climate crisis, EPA still retains the authority, and an obligation, to limit greenhouse gas emissions, including from the power sector," she told China Daily.

  • What Climate Rules Are OK? No One Knows

    The "major questions" doctrine is an attempt to rein in what the court sees as regulatory overreach. The problem is the court has yet to define exactly what counts as a major question, said Richard Revesz, an environmental professor at New York University Law School. "They presented the doctrine in a kind of amorphous and unbounded way," he said. "And we just don't know what this means for the next EPA regulation or the next regulation by any other agency."

  • What the Supreme Court Ruled the EPA Can and Can’t Do

    Following the West Virginia v. EPA ruling last Thursday, the agency “still has a number of pathways to do its job to protect public health and the environment, including by limiting greenhouse gas emissions from power plants,” Dena Adler, a research scholar at New York University’s Institute for Policy Integrity, told The Hill in an email. But she and other sources agreed there are important limitations now for the EPA that weren’t there before. The ruling specifically applies to the EPA’s 2015 Clean Power Plan, which had a goal of so-called generation-shifting, or accelerating the shift from coal-fired power to renewable energy and natural gas.“That’s a significant constraint, because it was the EPA’s first choice for a reason,” said Jack Lienke, regulatory policy director at the Institute for Policy Integrity. “It reflects how the power grid actually operates and the fact that electricity is fungible.” 

  • U.S. Supreme Court Deals Blow to Climate Change Fight

    Speaking of the West Virginia v. EPA ruling, Richard Revesz said, "It's basically turning on its head decades of accepted law involving the relationship between congress and administrative agencies."