Institute for Policy Integrity logo

In the News

Viewing all news in Consumer and Healthcare Protection
  • Climate Change Is a Threat to Our Nation’s Financial Health

    Climate change — already a well-known threat to our weather patterns, infrastructure, electric grids, health and safety — also presents a profound and growing threat to our financial system. Public and private sector economic experts must — and increasingly are starting to — take steps to protect against that threat, including at the highest levels of the federal government.

  • New Enforcement Task Force on Climate and ESG

    The SEC announced that the new climate focus would not be limited to its Division of Corporate Finance—the SEC has created a new Climate and ESG Task Force in the Division of Enforcement. A recent report from the Institute for Policy Integrity at NYU and the Environmental Defense Fund contends that Corporate Finance has failed to use the review process to elicit more disclosure.

  • Advocates Make Their Voices Heard on Mandatory Climate Disclosure

    With the new Administration in Washington, many think tanks and advocacy groups are making their voices heard on crafting mandatory climate disclosure regulations. A new report from the Institute for Policy Integrity at NYU and the Environmental Defense Fund advocates adoption by the SEC of a climate disclosure mandate.

  • Report: U.S. SEC Should Mandate Climate Disclosure Risks

    Jointly penned by the nonprofit Environmental Defense Fund and New York University School of Law's Institute for Policy Integrity, a new report said the current quality of firms' climate risk disclosures is not at the same level as that for other forms of risks that publicly traded companies routinely disclose. It calls on the U.S. government to improve and mandate its current disclosure regime because it will "help not only investors deciding how to allocate capital across corporations but also the corporations themselves."

  • SEC Gets New Call to Mandate Corporate Climate Disclosures

    Guidance on voluntary disclosures the Securities and Exchange Commission issued in 2010 hasn’t led to “comparable, specific, and decision-useful” climate-risk reporting from companies, the New York University School of Law’s Institute for Policy Integrity and the Environmental Defense Fund said in the report released Thursday. “We’re trying to make a clear case for why additional regulation is needed, despite the popularity of voluntary programs, despite the existing guidance,” said report co-author Jack Lienke, the regulatory policy director at the Institute for Policy Integrity.

  • Azar’s ‘Sunset Rule’ Will Bring a Dangerous New Dawn for Health Regulation

    The Department of Health and Human Services' insidious new policy, known as the Sunset Rule, commits it to reassessing the economic impacts of almost every one of the department’s existing regulations and establishes an extreme penalty for noncompliance: If a regulation is not reviewed by its 10th anniversary, it simply blinks out of existence. HHS claims the power to repeal thousands of rules at once without so much as explaining what they do, much less justifying the harm that could arise in their absence.

  • Senate Democrats Eye Quick Repeal of Trump Rules

    The impending power shift in the Senate means Congress will once again turn to the Congressional Review Act to scrap a bevy of regulations. Hill Republicans and President Trump used the CRA to kill 16 Obama-era rules in 2017. Democrats, in contrast, have never deployed the CRA. "It's the quickest way to get rid of policies that will cause significant harms to the health of Americans and to the quality of our environment," said Ricky Revesz, a New York University professor whose name has been mentioned as a possible Biden regulatory chief.

  • Biden Team in a Bind Over Reversing EPA’s ‘Secret Science’ Rule

    EPA Administrator Wheeler said the Congressional Review Act can’t be used because the rule is “an internal housekeeping regulation that does not affect external people to the agency,” and because it isn’t economically significant, meaning it isn’t expected to have an annual effect on the economy of at least $100 million. But Richard Revesz cast doubt on that analysis. “Whether a rule qualifies for disapproval is up to Congress to determine,” Revesz said. “Wheeler’s views are entitled to no deference. The decision is not up to him.”

  • Reviving Regulatory Rationality

    For decades, there has been a bipartisan consensus that federal agencies should base their decisions on evidence, expertise, and analysis. But under the Trump Administration, inconvenient evidence has often been ignored, experts have been sidelined, and analysis has been misused to intentionally obscure important truths. In this episode, we talk to Prof. Michael Livermore (University of Virginia School of Law) and Prof. Richard Revesz (New York University School of Law) to discuss current challenges as well as considerations for the road ahead. Their new book, Reviving Rationality: Saving Cost-Benefit Analysis for the Sake of the Environment and Our Health, offers analysis on critical aspects of the regulatory process and calls for the reinstatement of expertise, sound cost-benefit analysis, and the rule of law in public administration.

  • “Reviving Rationality” with Michael Livermore and Richard Revesz

    In 2008, Michael Livermore and Richard Revesz wrote Retaking Rationality, a book arguing that cost-benefit analysis of regulations should be recognized not as an anti-regulatory weapon, but rather a nonideological tool for promoting good government. Now they return with a new book, Reviving Rationality, which analyzes developments since 2008, and proposes further reforms for cost-benefit analysis going forward. They discuss it with the C. Boyden Gray Center for the Administrative State’s Executive Director, Adam White.