Institute for Policy Integrity logo

Twitter @policyintegrity

Publications

Viewing all publications in Transparency
  • Regulation and Distribution
    Academic Article/Working Paper

    Regulation and Distribution

    By Richard Revesz
    March 2, 2018

    Most regulations seek to improve social welfare, but maximizing overall welfare may not help or protect all groups evenly. Many economists suggest handling unequal regulatory effects through the tax system. But some harms—like the disproportionately high environmental pollution felt by poor and minority communities and loss of the employment base in rural communities due to shifts in the economy—cannot be addressed by monetary compensation alone. A new article by Richard Revesz offers a blueprint for establishing a standing, broadly constituted interagency body charged with addressing serious negative consequences of regulatory measures on particular groups.

  • Deregulation: Process and Procedures That Govern Agency Decisionmaking in an Era of Rollbacks
    Academic Article/Working Paper

    Deregulation: Process and Procedures That Govern Agency Decisionmaking in an Era of Rollbacks

    By Bethany Davis Noll and Denise Grab
    November 16, 2017

    Though change might be inevitable when a new governing party comes to power, the United States’ legal system imposes a degree of predictability and regularity on that change. Since his inauguration in January 2017, President Donald Trump and his agency heads have been working to repeal many energy and environmental regulations issued under prior administrations. But these attempts are governed by a set of standard rules that limit President Trump’s freedom to roll back regulations.

  • The Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases and State Policy
    Report

    The Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases and State Policy

    A Frequently Asked Questions Guide

    By Iliana Paul, Peter Howard, and Jason A. Schwartz
    October 5, 2017

    States can benefit from using the social cost of greenhouse gases to aid in making rational policy decisions in a transparent manner. Many states are already using these metrics in their decisionmaking. This report provides information on several issues related to the social cost of greenhouse gases, including discount rates, time horizons, and the global nature of the estimate.

  • The Falling Cost of Clean Power Plan Compliance
    Report

    The Falling Cost of Clean Power Plan Compliance

    By Denise A. Grab and Jack Lienke
    October 2, 2017

    In 2015, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) released the Clean Power Plan, a Clean Air Act rule designed to address the threat of climate change by cutting carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuel-fired power plants. As part of that rulemaking, the agency prepared an estimate of compliance costs, which it found would be far outweighed by the rule’s climate and health benefits. Since that time, changes in the electric sector have made it even cheaper to meet the rule’s emission targets than EPA anticipated. This report summarizes the findings of EPA’s 2015 Regulatory Impact Analysis; discusses subsequent market and policy developments that have lowered the cost of complying with the Clean Power Plan; and surveys more recent analyses by independent groups, which have estimated substantially lower compliance costs than EPA did.

  • Muddying the Waters
    Report

    Muddying the Waters

    How the Trump administration is obscuring the value of wetlands protection from the Clean Water Rule

    By Jason Schwartz and Jeffrey Shrader
    September 28, 2017

    In 2015, the Environmental Protection Agency and Army Corps of Engineers revised the definition of the “waters of the United States” as part of the Clean Water Rule. This revised definition was expected to increase the wetland area subject to protection under the Clean Water Act, and an economic analysis conducted by the agencies at the time showed that the benefits of the rule would substantially outweigh the costs. Under the Trump administration, the agencies now propose to repeal the 2015 Clean Water Rule and have issued a revised economic analysis in support of that decision. In the new analysis, the agencies now claim that the majority of the benefits in the 2015 analysis cannot be quantified, making it appear that the Clean Water Rule is not cost-benefit justified. The agencies have violated many of their own requirements for conducting economic analysis to arrive at this conclusion, and a more comprehensive assessment of the evidence shows that the 2015 Clean Water Rule is still cost-benefit justified. Repealing the 2015 Rule would forgo substantial environmental and economic benefits.