In the News

A bill to raise the national debt ceiling would greenlight all permits needed for the Mountain Valley pipeline’s “construction and initial operation at full capacity,” according to text released Sunday. If the bill is approved by congress, "MVP's approvals would be virtually unassailable, unless someone were to challenge the legislative provision itself," said Jennifer Danis, federal energy policy director at New York University's Institute for Policy Integrity.

Richard Revesz is changing the way the government calculates the cost and benefits of regulation, with far-reaching implications for climate change. He co-founded an N.Y.U.-affiliated think tank, the Institute for Policy Integrity, which devised the approach to analyzing the costs and benefits of environmental regulations that Mr. Revesz has brought to the White House.

Scholars discuss modernizing regulatory review, with new pieces on artificial intelligence and the duty to respond to public comments, the stochastic nature of cost-benefit analysis, and more.

Leading global experts on discount rates and cost-benefit analysis support a proposed revision to a document known as Circular A-4. As these experts explain, economic evidence and scholarship from recent years consistently support the use of lower discount rates in regulatory analysis and are consistent with the proposed updates.

Over the next two weeks, the Notice & Comment's symposium on modernizing regulatory review will feature a wide range of scholar and practitioner reactions to President Biden’s recently issued Executive Order 14,094 and related draft guidance from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). To get you situated, this introduction provides some background on the relevant documents.

The Institute for Policy Integrity recently hosted a webinar titled “Tribal Energy Transitions: Impacts, Opportunities, and Research Ethics.” The panel brought together leading researchers and policy professionals to discuss the challenges and opportunities that the energy transition presents for tribes.

The D.C. Circuit recently endorsed the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's climate change review of a massive liquefied natural gas export project, but agency watchers question how much the decision will crack a current commissioner stalemate over weaving climate into FERC's gas infrastructure approval policies. Jennifer Danis, federal energy policy director at the Institute for Policy Integrity at New York University School of Law, discussed the implications of the case.

Last year, the Supreme Court sided with West Virginia in rejecting a different (Obama-era) EPA plan. “The West Virginia decision left intact EPA’s obligations to reduce greenhouse gas emissions that endanger public health from the power sector,” says Dena Adler, an attorney at the Institute for Policy Integrity at New York University School of Law, in an emailed statement. The 2022 ruling left pathways available to the EPA, she says, and “the agency has carefully walked those lines in this proposal.”

Several attorneys and FERC watchers see an ambiguous directive in the law governing FERC’s oversight of LNG. The language was last updated in 2005, at a time when virtually no natural gas was being exported from the continental U.S. While the law — the Natural Gas Act — directs FERC to “issue or deny” applications to site LNG import and export terminals, it gives the commission “absolutely zero guidance” for how to make that decision, said Jennifer Danis, federal energy policy director at the Institute for Policy Integrity.

Through its approach to discounting, distribution, and transboundary effects — as well as numerous other updates — a proposed update to Circular A-4 would modernize regulatory review to be consistent with the latest available research and President Biden’s regulatory priorities.