Menu
Institute for Policy Integrity logo

Recent Projects

Viewing recent projects in Government Transparency
  • Policy Integrity’s recommendations incorporated into EECA report

    Today, Policy Integrity received favorable feedback on comments we submitted on draft EPA Guidelines for Preparing Economic Analyses supporting positive changes made in the new draft and suggest additional improvements. The document has been an influential resource for EPA’s consideration of regulatory costs and benefits.

    Read more

  • Comments in support of the rescission of the Physician Conscience rule

    With litigation pending by ACLU, Planned Parenthood, the State of Connecticut and six other states against the physician conscience rule, the new Obama Administration proposed a rescission of the rule. Policy Integrity joined the coalition to submit comments in support of that action.

    Read more

  • Legal memorandum on stopping midnight regulations

    Shortly after his inauguration, President Obama took steps to halt the adoption or implementation of regulations that went into the pipeline during the final days of the Bush Administration.

    Read more

  • Fixing Regulatory Review Cover

    Fixing Regulatory Review

    Recommendations for the Next Administration

    Fixing Regulatory Review: Recommendations for the Next Administration provides a set of recommendations for the Obama Administration to improve the process of regulatory review. It includes ten principles that should inform regulatory review and cost-benefit analysis of regulation, as well as a detailed markup of the Executive Order signed by President William Jefferson Clinton that established the structure of review that is currently in place.

    Read more

  • Comments on EPA’s Guidelines for Preparing Economic Analyses

    In September 2008, EPA’s National Center for Environmental Economics released a new draft of its Guidelines for Preparing Economic Analyses. In the past, that document has not only been a key resource for EPA’s consideration of regulatory costs and benefits, but it has also influenced the analytical processes used by state agencies and other federal agencies.

    Read more

  • The Price of Neglect Cover

    The Price of Neglect

    The Hidden Environmental and Public Health Costs of Bad Economics

    This report examines the regulatory failures of the Bush years on issues as wide-ranging as climate change and workplace safety, and concludes that these failures did not arise because of an overuse of economics, but because economic and scientific evidence was ignored.

    Read more

  • Letter to the EPA re: easing of restrictions on mountaintop coal mining

    As part of a raft of midnight regulations, the U.S. Department of the Interior and the Environmental Protection Agency worked together to finalize regulations that ease restrictions on mountaintop coal mining—in particular how and when mining operations can deposit waste, rocks, and soil in or near streams.

    Read more

  • Letter to the OMB re: refusal of health care services on moral grounds

    In August 2008, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) proposed a regulation that would expand protections for medical professionals who refuse to provide health care services that they object to on moral grounds. Policy Integrity worked with a coalition of women’s health organizations to oppose the rule based on its finding that HHS ignored the negative consequences this policy could have on access to care, especially for women seeking reproductive health services.

    Read more

  • The Cost-Benefit Compass Cover

    The Cost-Benefit Compass

    Navigating the Perfect Storm of Economic, Environmental, and Energy Challenges

    The Cost-Benefit Compass: Navigating the Perfect Storm of Economic, Environmental, and Energy Challenges discusses how the next administration can use cost-benefit analysis to address the three great interrelated challenges facing the country.

    Read more

  • Comments re: DOL regulations around toxic chemical risks

    In August 2008, the Department of Labor (DOL) proposed a sweeping change to the way agencies treat toxic chemical risks in the workplace. The rule, which would change the assumptions about how long workers are exposed to hazardous chemicals, is extremely controversial and prompted an outcry from the public and Congress.

    Read more