In the News

As a regulatory challenge database from the New York University’s Institute for Policy Integrity shows, 94 percent of major Trump-era immigration agency actions that faced legal challenges ultimately did not survive litigation (that is, in 33 out of 35 cases). Either a judge ruled against the agency responsible for the policy, or the agency withdrew the policy after being sued.

A study by the Institute for Policy Integrity at NYU says the idea that oil companies could pass on increases in fixed costs to consumers is “unlikely.” “It is an international market and the price is not set in the United States, let alone New York State,” said the economist Peter Howard, director at the institute and co-author of the study. “If these companies started trying to manipulate prices, the market would respond and other firms would enter the market. So there’s really no ability for these companies to manipulate prices,” Howard added. The bill, Howard also points out, would charge companies different amounts according to how much carbon they emit. A scientific peer-reviewed method devised by the Climate Accountability Institute will be used to estimate how many metric tons of greenhouse gasses from each fuel company ended up in the atmosphere on an annual basis.

Jason Schwartz, legal director at New York University School of Law's Institute for Policy Integrity, told Law360 that agency officials carefully pay attention to the calendar when they plan rulemaking in the early days of a presidential administration. Schwartz served as a senior adviser at OIRA under Biden. "For a while now, agencies will have been thinking about their priorities and been coordinating with OIRA and with the policy councils in the White House to really sequence things so that the highest-priority rules made it to the finish line with time to spare," he said. Agencies also consider litigation targeting rules they issue, Schwartz said.

The transition to a clean and just energy system is a complex undertaking, requiring significant changes across the economy. To ensure that these changes don’t place disproportionate burdens on communities already bearing the brunt of harmful pollution and climate change, we must better understand the associated distributional impacts. The Institute for Policy Integrity hosted a recent webinar on this topic, bringing together researchers and policymakers to discuss the real-world challenges of implementing equitable energy policies. The panelists included Dr. Anissa Rodriguez Dickerman of Pecan Street Inc., Dr. Benjamin Sovacool of Boston University, Dr. Jonathan Colmer of the University of Virginia, Dr. Diana Hernández of Columbia University, and John Binder of the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation.

The major questions doctrine is a non-issue for Order 1920. This is simply not one of the “extraordinary cases” that the West Virginia Court cautioned might warrant skepticism under the doctrine. Without Order 1920 remedying existing planning and cost allocation practices, FERC would be playing whack-a-mole in adjudicating individual tariffs when it must eradicate systemic failures. And we would all pay the price: unjust rates and a less reliable grid.

The transition to a decarbonized energy system will require the rapid, cost-effective, resilient, and equitable electrification of homes and other buildings. Researchers and policymakers discussed the latest developments and challenges in this space during a recent webinar hosted by the Institute for Policy Integrity. The panelists included Dr. Paulo Tabares-Velasco of the Colorado School of Mines, Dr. Sergio Castellanos of the University of Texas at Austin, Dr. Ana Dyreson of Michigan Technological University, and Dr. Henry McKoy of the U.S. Department of Energy.

To be clear, we don’t dispute that eliminating or curtailing Chevron deference would have serious consequences... But equally clear—yet sometimes overlooked—is that agencies often have other avenues to adopt ambitious rules without Chevron deference. This piece highlights several of the legal principles that will endure regardless of Chevron’s fate (or the fate of other legal-deference regimes). In so doing, we highlight where regulators, advocates, and commentators can enforce the boundaries of any decision limiting or eliminating Chevron deference and so thwart efforts to leverage the decision to cripple agency actions that do not rest on Chevron deference. Applying these principles faithfully upholds legislative grants of regulatory authority.

The Institute for Policy Integrity hosts a May 13 webinar featuring researchers discussing their work on energy access and equity.

A recent peer-reviewed academic paper on transmission planning modeling (two Policy Integrity members are among the authors) has important implications for ongoing policy conversations around grid expansion. The authors’ study method exploits the idea of coordinated planning of several interrelated parts. In their model, the moving parts are transmission (onshore and offshore) as well as generation and storage capacity, and the whole system is co-planned. The paper’s focus is on holistic transmission planning (with case studies for the ISO-NE and PJM grids) that includes accounting for negative environmental externalities. The key takeaways from this paper can help inform ongoing transmission planning policy conversations.

To help achieve the state’s ambitious GHG emission reduction targets, New York is preparing to propose its own version of a cap-and-trade program called New York Cap and Invest. But if New York is to successfully comply with the CLCPA, it cannot rely on New York Cap and Invest alone. New York will need a well-designed scheme of programs and regulatory mechanisms to not only reduce GHG emissions but to also ensure that disadvantaged communities see real air quality improvements.