In the News

Ricky Revesz, director of the Institute for Policy Integrity at New York University, said that the administration’s financial analysis of the proposal overlooks plenty of potential costs. For instance, it doesn’t account for the potential that illnesses and health expenses might climb as a result of immigrants rejecting food stamps that help them buy nutritional fare.

In the panel discussion, Richard Revesz, director of the Institute for Policy Integrity at New York University, slammed its impact on cost-benefit analysis. “[Executive Order] 13771 requires a cap on costs, suggesting the goal of the regulatory system is to minimize overall regulatory costs, not to maximize the net benefits of regulation, which is the hallmark of cost-benefit analysis,” he said.

State climate policies enhance rather than detract from market efficiency, as explained by scholars at the Institute for Policy Integrity in this capacity markets report.

Those public health costs “could be the thing that determines whether the rule is actually justified or not,” Avi Zevin, an attorney with the Institute for Policy Integrity, told Bloomberg Environment. “[EPA] should be doing a more complete consideration of what those costs of the foregone health benefits are, what they would mean, and how that factors into their decisionmaking,” Zevin said.

In a recent proposal to replace the Clean Power Plan, the Trump administration made little attempt to sugarcoat the consequences of its decision.

Richard Revesz discusses why the Trump administration is proposing to relax Obama-era rules that were meant to block rogue methane leaks from oil and gas wells.

EPA calls its Affordable Clean Energy proposal “a new rule to reduce greenhouse gas emissions” from coal-fired power plants. There are just two problems with that characterization: ACE won’t do much of anything to reduce coal plants’ CO2 emissions, and the rule isn’t really new at all.

Bucking the science on particulate matter’s health impacts could carry a legal risk, Michael Livermore told Bloomberg Environment. “Courts like deferring to agencies, but if they think the agency is untrustworthy on fundamental science, that is a huge problem for the agency,” he said. The EPA might have some discretion to adjust its co-benefit treatment, “but they might also threaten their ability to get deference in general by risking their scientific credibility.”

Environmentalists should question any move by this Administration’s EPA to reform its cost-benefit analysis.

The Trump administration’s coal and nuclear bailout proposals wouldn’t truly protect customers from damaging electricity outages. Policymakers interested in serious, evidence-based resilience improvements already have the tools they need to act—including metrics for measuring resilience, a framework for evaluating improvements, and legal authorities to implement changes.