Recent Projects

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit heard challenges from industry, conservative states and some environmental groups to the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Mercury and Toxic Standards (MATS) rule for coal- and oil-burning power plants.

Policy Integrity director, Richard Revesz, legal director, Jason Schwartz, and legal fellow Denise Grab were at the Supreme Court today to hear oral arguments in the case against EPA’s Cross-State Air Pollution regulation. This challenge to EPA’s rule reaches the nation’s highest court after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit decided against EPA. That decision set aside three decades-worth of consistent agency interpretation of the Clean Air Act by six administrations of both political parties, to disallow EPA from taking into account the costs of pollution reductions and using market mechanisms to allocate the pollution control burden between upwind and downwind states.

The Administrative Conference of the United States (ACUS) Committee on Judicial Review accepted a recommendation made by Policy Integrity on remand without vacatur.

Policy Integrity submitted comments on the draft statement by the Administrative Conference of the United States (ACUS) Committees on Administration and Management, and Regulation, for improving the timeliness, transparency, and effectiveness of the regulatory review process of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA).

Policy Integrity submitted comments on draft recommendations by the Administrative Conference of the United States (ACUS) Committee on Judicial Review for remand without vacatur in which a court returns a regulation to an agency for revision. This is an improvement to the traditional approach of annulling an agency action outright, which can result in creating an antiregulatory bias. But the draft recommendations could be strengthened in three ways:

Policy Integrity, along with Environmental Defense Fund, Natural Resources Defense Council, and Union of Concerned Scientists, submitted comments on the social cost of carbon (SCC) within a rule proposed by the Department of Energy regarding energy conservation for commercial refrigeration equipment. The SCC calculation is an estimate of the damage caused by each ton of carbon emissions and used in the cost-benefit analyses of regulations with greenhouse gas emissions reductions.

Policy Integrity, on behalf of the Washington, D.C.-based Center for Sustainable Economy, filed the opening brief in a lawsuit to halt illegal practices at the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management. The brief argues that incomplete and flawed economic analysis leads BOEM to sell new offshore leases too quickly and too cheaply, potentially costing the American public hundreds of billions of dollars.

Policy Integrity, along with the Environmental Defense Fund, the Natural Resources Defense Council, and the Union of Concerned Scientists submitted comments opposing a petition for correction sent to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and the other agencies involved in the Interagency Working Group on the Social Cost of Carbon (IWG).

Policy Integrity, along with the Environmental Defense Fund, the Natural Resources Defense Council, and the Union of Concerned Scientists, submitted comments on the social cost of carbon. The calculation—an estimate of the damage caused by each ton of carbon emissions—was used in a rule proposed by the Department of Energy regarding energy conservation from metal halide lamp fixtures. The joint comments show that according to cutting-edge economic research, the estimate used by the government may be too low.