Recent Projects

In May, EPA announced its intention to rescind a 2020 rule entitled "Increasing Consistency and Transparency in Considering Benefits and Costs in the Clean Air Act Rulemaking Process." Policy Integrity submitted comments in support of this decision based on the view that the 2020 rule is unnecessary, unsupported by any evidence of need, and inconsistent with best practices for cost-benefit analysis. We attached joint comments that Policy Integrity submitted during the original rulemaking which made these arguments in addition to demonstrating specifically how the rule broke from cost-benefit best practices by (1) devaluing indirect benefits, (2) subjecting benefit calculations to stricter standards than cost calculations, and (3) raising the bar for evidence of causality in a manner that excludes studies highly significant to EPA’s cost-benefit analysis.

Our comments on the Revised Cross-State Air Pollution Rule Update for the 2008 Ozone NAAQS identify critical flaws in the proposal's design and regulatory impact analysis. The Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) unreasonably low valuation of climate effects also contributes to its selection of an inefficient policy alternative. We submitted joint comments detailing how EPA's flawed analysis harms public health and the environment.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposed airplane pollution standards that have no effect on emissions and require no technological improvements. EPA does analyze one scenario in the technical support for the proposal, however, that appears to have modest greenhouse gas emissions reduction effects. But the agency improperly monetizes and weighs those reductions. We submitted joint comments that detail flaws in EPA’s analysis and describe how the agency can correctly apply the social cost of carbon.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposed revisions to dust-lead post-abatement clearance levels. We submitted comments emphasizing how EPA, itself, concedes that the economic analysis supporting the rule is inaccurate.

We submitted joint comments to EPA and the chartered Science Advisory Board noting that the proposal is unnecessary and explaining how it breaks from best practices for cost-benefit analysis of regulations in several significant ways.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to amend the 2015 New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) for residential wood heating devices, purporting to respond to retailer needs in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic. Our comments detail how how the proposal contradicts the Clean Air Act’s mandate and longstanding agency guidance. The proposed rule will, even under the agencies’ own analysis, cause net harms to the public without providing any reasonable justification.

The Environmental Protection Agency’s chartered Science Advisory Board (SAB) invited the public to comment on its new draft Guidelines for Preparing Economic Analyses. We submitted multiple sets of comments covering different portions of the guidelines. 

Coal combustion residuals, commonly known as coal ash, are the residual substances that remain after burning coal. They contain several chemicals that are toxic to human health, including arsenic, boron, lead, and mercury. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposed a rule that amends the regulatory framework for the disposal of coal ash. We submitted comments in January detailing how EPA fails to analyze the forgone benefits of the regulatory changes, which extend deadlines and eligibility for facilities that lack appropriate disposal capacity. We also submitted comments in April focusing on the second part of EPA's proposal, which fails to assess the forgone benefits of allowing facilities to seek approval for alternative basin liners. 

The Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) for managing emissions on the Uintah and Ouray Indian Reservation in Utah proposes control requirements for new, modified, and existing oil and natural gas sources. Despite forecasting that the requirements would lead to a substantial decrease in methane emissions, EPA severely underestimates resulting benefits through the use of an “interim” social cost of methane metric that disregards the best peer-reviewed science. We submitted joint comments detailing EPA’s failure to adequately monetize and evaluate the benefits of the FIP.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposed revisions to the National Primary Drinking Water Regulation for lead and copper. Our comments ask EPA to more fully monetize the benefits and better assess the significance of non-monetized benefits of the proposal. We also submitted a letter to EPA’s Science Advisory Board (SAB) summarizing our comments and encouraging the SAB to consider our points during its review of the proposed revisions.