In the News

Recently, the US Supreme Court has not shied away from issuing precedent-setting decisions.  Next year, that trend may continue when they take up the case of Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo which will have deep implications for Chevron Deference. In a recent conversation, Dena Adler, Research Scholar at the Institute for Policy Integrity at NYU School of Law, remarked that, “For decades, Congress has legislated under the assumption that it can broadly authorize agencies to reasonably interpret statutes to solve problems within their sphere of expertise. The Chevron framework allows agencies to leverage their expertise to address problems and prevents Congress from getting bogged down in technical matters that are beyond its knowledge and time-intensive to address.”

The Wall Street Journal's recent editorial argues that the White House missteps in updating its approach to regulatory cost-benefit analysis. Many experts disagree. The Biden administration’s evidence-based approach to cost-benefit analysis recognizes that both benefits and costs merit evenhanded consideration. In this way, it’s a welcome update.

Natasha Brunstein & Donald L. R. Goodson... [give] us a solid overview of the MQD’s triggers that is increasingly being picked up by advocates and academics. In their telling, the MQD is triggered in “extraordinary” cases where an agency action is (1) “unheralded” and (2) “transformative"... Richard L. Revesz & Max Sarinsky, Regulatory Antecedents and the Major Questions Doctrine (Dec. 12, 2022). If you work at a federal agency, please, please, please read this paper.

The White House has proposed a new rule to streamline permitting for clean energy and other infrastructure projects under the National Environmental Policy Act, or NEPA, a bedrock law that requires federal agencies to conduct an environmental review before approving any major project. Max Sarinsky, senior attorney at New York University’s Institute for Policy Integrity, described the rule as “fairly modest and incremental” to E&E News. “We’re in an era where preserving the environment often means building new things,” he said. “I think these regulations are trying to be sensitive to that.”

The White House Council on Environmental Quality proposed long-awaited regulations Friday that would streamline permitting under the National Environmental Policy Act. Federal agencies would need to meet set deadlines for environmental reviews — as required by this year's debt ceiling deal — but also consider how energy projects impact climate change and communities historically overburdened by pollution. Max Sarinsky, a senior attorney at New York University's Institute for Policy Integrity, described the draft as "meaningful" but "also fairly modest and incremental."

Valuing the cost of climate pollution is tremendously useful for policymakers as they weigh the benefits and drawbacks of potential strategies to mitigate climate change. Earlier this year, Canada update its climate-damage valuations for the first time since 2016. While some politicians have mischaracterized the update for political gain, in reality this commonsense update reflects the latest advances in science and economics.

EPA is delivering the coup de grace to one of the Trump administration's most ambitious — and contested — Clean Air Act initiatives. With a newly released final rule, Administrator Michael Regan completed the job of rescinding a 2020 set of requirements subjecting all significant new air rules to an assessment of their expected costs and benefits. Backing an end to the requirements was the Institute for Policy Integrity, a New York University think tank then headed by Richard Revesz. Revesz is now in charge of the White House regulations shop housed in the Office of Management and Budget.

A proposed update to decades-old White House guidance on regulatory cost-benefit analysis is sparking competing views, as regulated industries and other critics argue the plan is too sweeping and would enable overly aggressive rules but environmentalists broadly embrace the proposal while seeking further changes. The Center for Climate and Energy Solutions and a coalition of over a dozen other environmental groups, including the Institute for Policy Integrity, tout the proposal for reflecting the “evolving state of economic and scientific knowledge [that] marks a substantial improvement over the existing and outdated Circular A-4.”

As part of the symposium on Modernizing Regulatory Review, Max Sarinsky, senior attorney at Policy Integrity, discusses the economic and legal implications of the draft update to Circular A-4.

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.