Institute for Policy Integrity logo

Twitter @policyintegrity

Recent Projects

  • Public Comments

    Comments to HUD on Housing Assistance Restrictions for Immigrant Families

    July 9, 2019

    The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) recently proposed a rule that would deny housing assistance to some immigrant households. We submitted comments focusing on serious flaws in HUD’s analysis of the rule’s impacts.

    Read more

  • Public Comments

    Comments to FERC on Jordan Cove Natural Gas Project

    July 5, 2019

    We submitted joint comments to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) on its environmental assessment of the Jordan Cove natural gas exports project in Oregon. FERC failed to provide a meaningful analysis of the pipeline’s climate effects.

    Read more

  • Court Filings

    Title X Women’s Health - Ninth Circuit Amicus Briefs

    July 5, 2019

    In April, district courts in Washington State, Oregon, and California blocked a Trump administration rule that makes harmful changes to the federal funding of women’s health services. Those decisions were recently appealed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. We filed amicus briefs arguing that the preliminary injunctions should be affirmed.

    Read more

  • Public Comments

    Comments to the Army Corps of Engineers on the Pebble Mine Project

    July 1, 2019

    We submitted joint comments on the Army Corps of Engineers’ environmental assessment of the Pebble Mine Project in southwest Alaska. The Corps quantifies greenhouse gas emissions from the project but fails to provide a monetized estimate of the climate damages those emissions will produce.

    Read more

  • Court Filings

    Amicus Brief on HHS Conscience Rule

    June 24, 2019

    The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) recently finalized a rule that expands protections for healthcare workers who deny care based on moral or religious beliefs. We submitted an amicus brief in support of challenges to the rule filed by states, municipalities, medical organizations, and civil-rights advocates. The brief details how HHS’s analysis of the rule’s economic impacts ignores significant costs while touting entirely speculative benefits.

    Read more

  • Court Filings

    Amicus Brief on BLM’s Repeal of Waste Prevention Rule

    June 21, 2019

    Last year, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) repealed its Waste Prevention Rule, undoing crucial regulations that reduce natural gas waste from venting, flaring, and leaks. We submitted an amicus brief focusing on the problematic aspects of the repeal: BLM’s false understanding of its role in waste prevention and its faulty analysis of climate impacts.

    Read more

  • Public Comments

    Comments on BLM Coal Leasing Environmental Assessment

    June 10, 2019

    The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) recently issued an Environmental Assessment (EA) for its decision to lift the Obama administration’s pause on the federal coal leasing program. We submitted comments explaining how the EA provides flawed and incomplete analysis of BLM’s legal authority, alternatives to resuming leasing, and environmental effects.

    Read more

  • Public Comments

    EPA Science Advisory Board Input

    June 6, 2019

    As part of EPA’s June 5-6 meeting of the Chartered Science Advisory Board (SAB), we submitted both oral and written input on several issues, including the Clean Water Rule, power-sector emissions of air toxics, vehicle emissions standards, and the Science Transparency Rule.

    Read more

  • Public Comments

    Comments to Iowa Utilities Board on Energy Efficiency Program Benefits

    June 5, 2019

    The Iowa Utilities Board is currently reviewing its policies on energy efficiency planning. We submitted comments supporting some of the suggestions made by stakeholders to better gauge the benefits of the energy efficiency programs.

    Read more

  • Public Comments

    Additional Comments to EPA and NHTSA on Vehicle Emissions Standards Economic Analysis

    May 31, 2019

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) are proposing to weaken key fuel economy and greenhouse gas emissions standards for future vehicle models. In October, we highlighted our concerns with some of the economic analysis supporting the proposal. The Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers submitted comments that included economic analysis supporting the proposed rule prepared by NERA Economic Consulting and Trinity Consultants. In December, we wrote supplemental comments rebutting NERA and Trinity’s analysis, identifying serious flaws and unexplained departures from longstanding practices. NERA recently responded.

    Our latest comments detail how NERA’s response does not address many of the problems we previously discussed. As our comments explain, the analysis relies on unreliable modeling and methodologies, for which NERA still has not provided critical details. NERA also misstates or fails to respond to our points on a number of topics, such as scrappage and fuel savings benefits. We point out the shortcomings in NERA’s response and provide more detail on each of the topics.

    Read more