In the News

Columbia Law School's Sabin Center for Climate Change Law and New York University’s Institute for Policy Integrity and State Energy & Environmental Impact Center are hosting a May 27 webinar to examine state efforts to move away from natural gas appliances to lower-emitting products. “Navigating this transformation successfully will be a monumental endeavor--one that the federal government can support, but cannot undertake itself. It is a task for the states,” the groups say.

At the Institute for Policy Integrity, a New York University think tank critical of Trump administration environmental policies, Director Richard Revesz said the forecasting requirements "sought to put a thumb on the scale in favor of deregulation and would have caused additional deaths, illnesses, and lost work days and decreased the overall welfare of Americans. The repeal of this rule is an important step to restore scientific integrity at EPA."

In a recent essay, Natasha Brunstein and Richard Revesz, who directs New York University’s Institute for Policy Integrity, charge that efforts by Republican state officials to use the so-called “major questions” doctrine in their nascent bid to reinstate the Trump-era Affordable Clean Energy (ACE) rule governing power plant GHGs should be met with “great skepticism” given the Trump administration’s distorted use of the doctrine for deregulatory purposes.

EPA faces the daunting task of tackling multiple regulations to meet the administration's ambitious climate goals. Finalizing passenger vehicle standards will likely be one of EPA's heaviest policy lifts, said Richard Revesz, director of the Institute for Policy Integrity at New York University's School of Law. "The car standards have to be done quickly," Revesz said in an interview, noting any delay could mean they will apply to fewer vehicle model years.

While it may be a while before the precise outlines of EPA’s upcoming methane rules are clear, legal experts are already noting that the Senate vote makes EPA’s task easier by essentially restoring the 2016 Obama era NSPS as a baseline for further action without the need for a fresh comment process to simply reverse the Trump rule. “You can imagine the whole process of getting this done through the comment-and-rule process could take the majority of Biden’s first term,” New York University School of Law Institute for Policy Integrity Director Richard Revesz told the Wall Street Journal.

The US Senate has voted to effectively restore a federal clampdown on methane after it was abandoned by the Trump administration. “The period for introducing resolutions of disapproval has now passed, so this is probably going to be the only one that we will see disapproved,” said Richard Revesz, director of the Institute for Policy Integrity at the New York University School of Law. “The main reason is that CRA resolutions of disapproval can take up to 10 hours of Senate debate time. And early in an administration, Senate debate time is a scarce resource.”

The Senate voted to restore regulations on methane gas that leaks into the air from U.S. oil and gas production. In a 52-42 vote Wednesday, the Senate invoked its power under the Congressional Review Act. The law’s power lies in its speed, said Richard Revesz, director of New York University School of Law’s Institute for Policy Integrity, who said that restoring methane regulations through the usual rule-making process could take two years and remain suspended for another year if challenged in court.

74%: that's the share of economists around the world who now say it’s necessary to take “immediate and drastic” action on climate change, up from 50% in 2015, a recent survey shows. The Ph.D. economists, polled by New York University School of Law’s Institute for Policy Integrity in February, came to an “overwhelming consensus that the costs of inaction on climate change are higher than the costs of action, and that immediate, aggressive emissions reductions are economically desirable,” the institute said in a report released last month.

For New York City’s next mayor, climate change presents a series of immense challenges — as well as several key opportunities for the city’s economy and improving conditions in historically neglected neighborhoods. “What I'm really encouraged to see is how much they all broadly agree on the things that need to be done,” said Justin Gundlach, a senior attorney with New York University law school’s Institute for Policy Integrity. What remains to be seen, he said, is how the candidates prioritize each of their ideas: “Not just priority among climate-related things, but priority given to climate-related issues as opposed to other issues.”

Climate change also threatens the economic wellbeing of western states. Recently, the Institute for Public Policy Integrity at the New York University School of Law conducted a survey of 738 economists, Gauging Economic Consensus on Climate Change, which found that the benefits of taking action on climate change far outweigh the costs.