Institute for Policy Integrity logo

Twitter @policyintegrity

In the News

Viewing all news in Transparency
  • Gina McCarthy: These Are ‘Crazy Ass’ Times

    October 1, 2018 – E&E News

    Speaking Friday at the Institute for Policy Integrity’s 10th anniversary conference at the New York University School of Law, McCarthy ticked off a long list of environmental policies that frustrate her. Some of her complaints: Climate science has been scrubbed from government websites; the administration is changing how it calculates the benefits of slashing greenhouse gases; and President Trump has said he’ll exit the Paris climate accord.

  • Next Year ‘Even Larger’ for Rollbacks — Regs Chief

    September 26, 2018 – E&E News

    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.

  • EPA Expands Clean Air Act Loopholes for Coal Plants

    September 5, 2018 – The Hill (Opinion)

    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.

  • Stars Aligning for EPA Change in Calculating Air Rules Benefits

    August 31, 2018 – Bloomberg

    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.”

  • Tainted Review

    August 29, 2018 – The Regulatory Review (Opinion)

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

  • Why Bailouts Won’t Make the Electric Grid More Resilient

    August 27, 2018 – The Hill (Opinion)

    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.

  • The 6 Things You Most Need to Know About Trump’s New Climate Plan

    August 24, 2018 – Vox

    “When an agency wants to do something that’s harmful to the American people, it typically tries to hide it,” Richard Revesz of the Institute for Policy Integrity told Johnson. “What’s unusual here is that the EPA just comes out and says it.”

  • Environmental Law Experts Find Major Legal Flaws in Trump’s Replacement for Clean Power Plan

    August 23, 2018 – ThinkProgress

    The Clean Air Act also requires the EPA to define the “best system of emission reduction” for existing facilities, such as power plants. But the EPA’s new plan “has identified a system of emission reduction that is, at best, mediocre, far from ‘best,‘” Richard Revesz, a professor of law at New York University and an expert on environmental law, told E&E News this week.

  • Trump Put a Low Cost on Carbon Emissions. Here’s Why It Matters.

    August 23, 2018 – The New York Times

    Trump officials contend that their carbon approach better reflects the way the government has traditionally done cost-benefit analyses. Critics argue that this approach is inappropriate for global, multigenerational problems like climate change, and that newer research suggests the social cost of carbon may be even higher than the Obama administration estimated. Ultimately, the courts could decide which view prevails. “This will be part of the legal challenges to these regulatory rollbacks,” said Richard L. Revesz, an expert in environmental law at New York University. “The reasons for why the Trump administration picked these numbers for the social cost of carbon are going to be scrutinized.”

  • The EPA’s Coal Plan Is a Ripoff for Americans, According to the EPA

    August 22, 2018 – Grist

    “When an agency wants to do something that’s harmful to the American people, it typically tries to hide it,” said Richard Revesz, director of the Institute for Policy Integrity at the New York University School of Law. “What’s unusual here is that the EPA just comes out and says it.”