In the News

Ideological leaning could make the court even more favorable toward oil and gas interests and could come into play in environmental cases as the justices resolve disputes involving climate policy and Trump administration rollbacks of environmental regulations, experts said. Trump’s administration has faced lawsuits over its regulatory rollbacks and efforts to fast-track oil and gas projects, winning 22 such cases but losing 119, according to New York University’s Institute for Policy Integrity.

As the prospects for a nationwide carbon price have waned, FERC has begun to change from a sleepy backwater to a central player in climate policy, said Jason Gundlach, a senior attorney at New York University School of Law’s Institute for Policy Integrity who co-authored a report on carbon pricing. “There’s a recognition that FERC is going to be a major fulcrum in any energy transition policy,” he said.

NYU Law School’s Institute for Policy Integrity found that Trump attempts to rewrite or revoke regulations had failed in court or been yanked after a challenge 84% of the time. In the process, an arrogant administration under the sway of a man who has said of the Constitution, “I have an Article II, where I have to the right to do whatever I want as president,” squanders political capital and breeds justifiable cynicism about every move it makes. Four years in, this is still a nation of laws.

As she did on judicial matters, such as her views on Roe v. Wade, Judge Barrett declined to state her thoughts on climate change in exchange after exchange this week. “I will not express a view on a matter of public policy, especially one that is politically controversial,” she concluded. But stating "I would not say I have firm views on climate change” in the face of so much evidence in daily life, as Judge Barrett did, is controversial. “She’s a smart and sophisticated person,” said Richard L. Revesz, director of the Institute for Policy Integrity at New York University Law School. “If she didn’t want to associate herself with the climate denial perspective, she could have used different words."

In his first term, Trump repealed the Obama administration’s signature climate policy, the Clean Power Plan, and rolled back a host of other environmental rules. But the majority of the 100-plus domestic environmental regulations he rolled back remain in limbo, after successful challenges by states and green groups, according to an analysis by the Institute for Policy Integrity.

The idea sounds great on the surface: incentivize the delivery of clean energy when demand is highest. However, a recent study co-authored by researchers from Columbia University, New York University, and the clean energy non-profit WattTime challenges the effectiveness of such programs. The study found that “[t]he Clean Peak Standard provides weak incentives for pollution abatement” and that the policy in Massachusetts “is roughly as effective as a $1 carbon tax.”

President Trump has initiated the most aggressive deregulation in modern history. Courts in the country have been the only constraint on his approach to climate deregulation. According to a database kept by New York University’s nonpartisan Institute for Policy Integrity, the Environmental Protection Agency, challenged by those concerned by the agency’s reversal of the policies adopted during the Obama period, Trump has won only 13 cases in the courts. The EPA won on nine out of 47 cases while the Interior Department has won four out of 22 cases. The Trump administration’s overall win rate has been under 16% compared with win rates of about 70% for the Obama and Bush administrations.

Several programs have tracked Trump administration rollbacks of regulations affecting the environment, including the Institute for Policy Integrity at New York University Law School, the Environmental and Energy Law Program at Harvard Law School, and a partnership between the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law at Columbia Law School and Columbia University's Earth Institute. Many rollbacks have been challenged in the courts as environmental advocates have decried the measures, saying business profits have taken precedent over human health and wildlife and resource protection.

Sylwia Bialek, an economist who specializes in energy markets at the New York University School of Law's Institute for Policy Integrity, said carbon pricing — as opposed to state clean energy mandates — allows for greater precision in rooting out emissions. "If I give subsidies to wind and solar, they might compete with each other and not push out coal or gas," she said in a recent interview. "But if I put a carbon price on fossil fuel generators, I will account for how polluting those are."

New York University’s Institute for Policy Integrity non-partisan think tank met with OMB officials Aug. 28 to reiterate its concerns about the proposed rule’s cost-benefit analysis. Former EPA officials, state drinking water regulators and water utilities have also raised concerns about the complexity of the proposed rule and whether it can be implemented well.