Recent Projects

Following an Executive Order on reducing federal regulatory burden, the Department of Energy (DOE) is requesting the public’s suggestions for rules to repeal or reform. In our comments to DOE’s request for information, we argue that regulatory review should consider the public benefits of regulation, not just the costs to regulated industries.

Many federal agencies are requesting the public’s suggestions for rules to repeal or reform, tacitly implying that most regulations stifle economic growth. In comments to several agencies, we argue that regulatory review should consider the public benefits of regulation, not just the costs to regulated industries, and should prioritize review of rules for which actual costs and benefits diverge significantly from predicted costs and benefits.

Policy Integrity has filed comments opposing EPA’s proposal to issue a second stay of the compliance deadlines in the Effluent Rule—a rule that regulates toxic metal discharges from power plants. As we explained in our comments to EPA, EPA has no legal authority for the proposed stay. In addition, EPA failed to provide a reasoned explanation for the stay because it ignored the impact that the stay will have on the benefits of the Effluent Rule.

We recently submitted comments to California’s Public Utilities Commission, focused on the economic analysis used in its longer-term energy planning process across utilities. We ask the Commission to exercise caution in coordinating or consolidating this planning with other energy-related proceedings, as different proceedings have different goals and statutory requirements.

EPA has suspended the compliance deadlines in a regulation on power plant wastewater discharges, which limits plants from releasing certain toxic metals into lakes and rivers. We submitted a “friend of the court” brief in the legal challenge to the suspension. Our brief argues that the decision to suspend the rule was arbitrary and capricious because EPA focused only on amorphous compliance costs and ignored the effects of pollution that will continue to be discharged while the rule is suspended. As we explain in the brief, it is fundamentally irrational to make a decision based on such a one-sided analysis, and the suspension should be vacated.

We recently submitted comments to the United States Forest Service on a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) that makes problematic claims about evaluating greenhouse gas emissions. In the Pine Mountain Late-Successional Reserve Habitat Protection and Enhancement Project Draft EIS, the Forest Service gives three main reasons for not quantifying—or monetizing the effects of—greenhouse gas emissions from the proposed action. First, the Service claims that “project level emissions alone are not sufficient to cause climate change.” Second, the Service claims that the “large majority of Forest Service projects” are too “small” for it to be “presently possible to conduct quantitative analysis of actual climate change effects.” Finally, the Service questions whether “such disclosure would provide a practical or meaningful effects analysis for project decisions.” We explain why each of these reasons is wrong according to economic principles, the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act, and the Service’s own guidance regarding climate change.