Institute for Policy Integrity logo

Twitter @policyintegrity

In the News

Viewing all news in Transparency
  • Sulfur Dioxide Damages Lungs, and Scott Pruitt Is Letting More of It in Our Air

    May 15, 2018 – Mother Jones

    Congress “never intended for these [coal] plants to operate forever. This was supposed to be a temporary transition ending at the end of their useful life,” said Revesz, co-author of Struggling for Air: Power Plants and the “War on Coal.” Instead, “We’ve created a monster.”

  • Will Pruitt’s Repeal Come With Replacement Plan?

    May 9, 2018 – Scientific American

    If EPA’s replacement doesn’t come out at the same time as the final repeal, that could compound the agency’s problems, said Richard Revesz, director of New York University’s Institute for Policy Integrity. “EPA has a duty to regulate [greenhouse gas] emissions. To have a repeal without a replacement, among other problems, they are violating those duties,” he said.

  • California May Out Muscle EPA In Car Emissions Case, But Markets Rule On Electric Vehicles

    May 2, 2018 – Forbes

    “In withdrawing the 2022-2025 greenhouse-gas standards, EPA arbitrarily ignored its own prior analysis as well as the facts,” said Bethany Davis Noll, director at the Institute for Policy Integrity at New York University School of Law. “The agency is acting without clear justification and creating a lot of legal question marks.”

  • Regulatory Impact Assessment in the Age of Partisan Volatility

    May 2, 2018 – The Regulatory Review (Opinion)

    The Trump Administration has defined its policy program in terms of reversing the prior Administration’s decisions on as many fronts as possible. Although this turnabout has been particularly intense, it actually marks a continuation of a long-developing trend.

  • States Sue EPA Over Plan to Weaken Vehicle Emissions Standards

    May 1, 2018 – ThinkProgress

    The Institute for Policy Integrity at NYU School of Law has released a new report analyzing EPA’s decision to withdraw the standards that concludes the agency’s basis for withdrawing the standards is not grounded in fact or economic analysis. For example, EPA cites factors such as lower fuel prices and concerns about the growth of electric vehicles as reasons to reverse its earlier decision, but both fuel prices and electric vehicle sales are in fact rising.

  • States Sue The EPA To Protect Obama-Era Fuel Efficiency Standards

    May 1, 2018 – NPR

    A report released by the Institute for Policy Integrity at the New York University School of Law said the EPA’s reasoning was “not grounded in fact.” For instance, the EPA says lower gas prices are making fuel-efficient cars less attractive, and cites flagging demand for electric cars as a sign the current standards are unrealistic.

  • How Technology and Artificial Intelligence Can Improve Regulation

    April 23, 2018 – The Hill (Opinion)

    Opportunities to learn about and comment on regulation abound online, leading to an explosion of public participation. It is now common for agencies to receive over 1 million public comments on a proposed regulation. But agencies don’t have the person-power to process all that information, resulting in costly delays and undercounted perspectives.

  • Scott Pruitt Hasn’t Saved Taxpayers Anything

    April 9, 2018 – ThinkProgress

    Looking just at compliance costs also ignores the vast number of benefits — both economic and social — that regulations like the Clean Power Plan can have for society overall. According to a 2017 analysis by the Institute for Policy Integrity at New York University’s School of Law, for instance, costs of the Clean Power Plan would have been about $5.1 and $8.4 billion annually, while benefits would have been about $54 billion annually. This means that the Clean Power Plan would have created a net economic benefit of between $45.6 billion and $48.9 billion.

  • In His Haste to Roll Back Rules, Scott Pruitt, E.P.A. Chief, Risks His Agenda

    April 7, 2018 – The New York Times

    In the end, “a lot of those arguments were losers,” said Richard L. Revesz, an expert in environmental law at New York University. In particular, Mr. Revesz noted a case brought by the group against President Obama’s signature climate change regulation, the Clean Power Plan, which Mr. Pruitt is now working to overturn from within the E.P.A. The lawsuit challenged a draft proposal of the regulation, which was an unprecedented move that a federal court quickly struck down, saying that they could not legally challenge a draft.

  • Scott Pruitt’s Dirty Politics

    March 26, 2018 – The New Yorker

    Federal agencies are supposed to abide by the Administrative Procedure Act of 1946, to insure that the work informing new regulations is transparent, reasoned, and not overly politicized. Bethany Davis Noll, an environmental lawyer at the N.Y.U. Institute for Policy Integrity, said, “It’s also so you don’t have agencies turning on a dime in response to an election.” Courts hold agencies to the “arbitrary and capricious” standard: to rescind a regulation, they must demonstrate sound reasoning tied to a factual record.