Institute for Policy Integrity logo

Twitter @policyintegrity

In the News

Viewing all news in Jobs and Regulation
  • Government Should Stay Out of Energy Market

    October 8, 2018 – The Detroit News (Opinion)

    The Institute for Policy Integrity at New York University School of Law found: “There are no well-established studies that, relying on realistic assumptions, show that increasing the availability of generators with ‘fuel security’ attributes will enhance the resilience of the electric system.” What has been analyzed is the costs of forcing the purchase of power from coal and nuclear plants. And it is substantial.

  • Carbon Pricing Talk Heats Up Amid State-Federal Policy Rift

    October 5, 2018 – Law 360

    “If designed properly, a carbon market or carbon price would always be looking for the cheapest carbon, whether it was energy efficiency or whatever the cheapest fuel source was, that’s what the carbon price would find,” Commissioner Cheryl LaFleur told Law360 at a recent energy and environmental policy conference hosted by New York University School of Law’s Institute for Policy Integrity.

  • Responding to Anti-Regulatory Tropes

    October 4, 2018 – The Regulatory Review

    Every institution, no matter how much good it brings to the American people, has room for improvement. But opponents of the regulatory state ignore the net benefits of regulation.

  • How FERC Can Protect Customers and Respect State Energy Policy Authority in its PJM Capacity Market

    September 26, 2018 – Utility Dive

    State climate policies enhance rather than detract from market efficiency, as explained by scholars at the Institute for Policy Integrity in this capacity markets report.

  • Trump Takes Aim at Obama-Era Methane Rules

    September 13, 2018 – Bloomberg (Radio)

    Richard Revesz discusses why the Trump administration is proposing to relax Obama-era rules that were meant to block rogue methane leaks from oil and gas wells.

  • Trump Stretches Meaning of Deregulation in Touting Achievements

    December 29, 2017 – Bloomberg

    In the Dec. 14 press conference, Trump said the government had taken 67 deregulatory actions through Sept. 30 — with an annual savings to society of $570 million — and had imposed just three new regulations. The administration’s cost figures ignore projected benefits for regulations it has blocked, distorting the actual impacts on society, said Denise Grab, a lawyer with the Institute for Policy Integrity at New York University’s School of Law.

  • Job-Killing Regulations: The Elephant Not in the Room

    August 16, 2017 – The Huffington Post

    The Institute for Policy Integrity in 2017 issued a fact sheet highlighting their conclusion that “regulations have little effect on aggregate employment or unemployment rates.” Since studies often rely upon models to predict effects on jobs, the fact sheet also emphasized that “job analysis models can easily be manipulated to predict either job losses or gains.”

  • Trump’s Executive Order Is a Gift to Coal Executives. It Won’t Do Anything for Coal Miners.

    March 29, 2017 – Vox

    Now there’s a window of opportunity for coal companies. Lifting the moratorium, says Jayni Foley Hein of the Institute for Policy Integrity, “will allow new lease sales to go forward using the same outdated minimum bids, rental rates, and stagnant royalty rates that have been used for decades.”

  • Do Environmental Regulations Reduce Employment? Not Really.

    March 2, 2017 – Vox

    In his Tuesday night speech, President Donald Trump made reference to regulations that have killed American jobs. But, at least in the case of the environmental regulations Trump is specifically attacking, it isn’t true. And in timely fashion, the Institute for Policy Integrity has a new brief with a clear and succinct explanation why this is so.

  • A Subtle Attack on the Environment

    March 2, 2017 – U.S. News & World Report (Opinion)

    President Donald Trump and newly confirmed EPA administrator Scott Pruitt appear poised to make sweeping environmental policy changes. But strong environmental regulations remain widely popular. Perhaps as a result, the Trump administration may take a subtle approach in attacking environmental rules. Pruitt and other administration officials appear interested in rewriting guidelines for regulatory analysis and they could cook the books so that environmental protections appear to have few or no benefits and exaggerated costs. The results would be sinister, undermining many current and future safeguards for the environment, workplace safety and other important social issues.