In the News

Reaffirming the legal basis for mercury power plant rules is a welcome move away from a controversial Trump-era rollback and should pave the way for even stronger federal regulation, clean air advocates say. “Limiting pollutants targeted by MATS inevitably curbs other pollutants like particulate matter as well, leading to enormous public health co-benefits,” NYU Institute for Policy Integrity director Richard Revesz said in a statement. “By considering both direct and indirect benefits in this decision, EPA revives analytic best practices cast aside by the Trump administration,” Revesz said.

Despite a return to its prior approach, supporters of the measure continue to back the agency’s methods. “In taking this important step, EPA emphasizes the significant neurocognitive and other direct benefits of mercury reduction. The agency also recognizes that limiting pollutants targeted by MATS inevitably curbs other pollutants like particulate matter as well, leading to enormous public health co-benefits,” Ricky Revesz, director of the Institute for Policy Integrity at New York University Law School, said in a statement.

"By considering both direct and indirect benefits in this decision, EPA revives analytic best practices cast aside by the Trump administration," Richard Revesz, director of the New York University School of Law's Institute for Policy Integrity, said in a statement. "The newly restored approach is endorsed by the Office of Management and Budget's longstanding guidance and by all respectable economists and, prior to the Trump administration, had been the norm in both Republican and Democratic administrations for decades."

Two New York utility giants last week urged the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to “promptly” approve a natural gas project proposed nearly two years ago, fueling a debate over the consideration of greenhouse gas emissions against other factors. “[The] Commission has a clear obligation to properly quantify the reasonably foreseeable upstream greenhouse gas emissions associated with production of the natural gas ConEd and National Grid are buying,” Sarah Ladin, an attorney at the Institute for Policy Integrity at the New York University School of Law, said in an email.

“I’m less optimistic about the court’s rulings in the next few years, given that the 6-3 majority seems intractable,” said Meredith Hankins, an attorney at the Institute for Policy Integrity. “Completely rejecting the idea … that these expert agencies should have the power to decide complicated questions — from an environmental/climate perspective — that’s incredibly depressing,” Hankins said. “The EPA is this expert agency that Congress has chosen to provide a lot of leeway to in issuing regulations, and if a judicial majority is going to refuse to recognize that expertise, there’s not much to be done at the margins.”

New York University School of Law professor Richard Revesz, who specializes in regulatory law and policy, spoke to Bloomberg Law about Breyer’s role in the Supreme Court’s handling of the major questions doctrine, how the doctrine has evolved, and a major environmental case set for oral argument Feb. 28 that gives the conservative justices a chance to further expand it. The following conversation has been edited for clarity.

Richard Revesz, who directs the New York University law school’s Institute for Policy Integrity calls President Joe Biden’s first year a “good beginning” with the “real test” coming this year. If significant progress is not made in 2022, it “becomes harder for rules to stick” in the second half of a term if Biden is not re-elected.

Investors focused on environmental, social and governance issues and progressives have urged the SEC to make companies report that information, while the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and other business groups have raised concerns about compliance costs. However, courts have recognized the SEC's authority to conduct such cost-benefit analysis, according to Jack Lienke, regulatory policy director at NYU's Institute for Policy Integrity, and legal fellow Alexander Song in a legal analysis released last week on a potential climate disclosure rule.

The Federal Trade Commission is accepting public comments on a proposal made by New York University academics on banning so-called “drip pricing” in ticket purchasing. “A ban on hidden fees and drip pricing would represent a huge win for consumers and improve the functioning of markets where the practice has taken root,” said Max Sarinsky, a senior attorney with the Institute in an op-ed published by the New York Times last summer. “For the commission’s new majority, which is eager to protect consumers, such a regulation should be a high priority.”

The argument made by BOEM at the time was that a decrease in federal oil and gas activity would be replaced by imports from foreign producers, and generally those imports could come from areas with a higher carbon imprint from production. Max Sarinsky, an attorney at the Institute for Policy Integrity at the New York University School of Law, told lawmakers that BOEM’s old finding flew in the face of economic principles.