Book contents
Part IV - America’s Regulatory Process
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 06 January 2022
Summary
A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- America's Energy GamblePeople, Economy and Planet, pp. 283 - 412Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2022
References
References
Bush, G. H.W.. “Remarks to the National Academy of Sciences.” April 23, 1990. http://bushlibrary.tamu.edu/research/papers/1990/90042301.html.Google Scholar
Kron, A.. “EPA’s Role in Implementing and Maintaining the Oil and Gas Industry’s Environmental Exemptions: A Study in Three Statutes.” Vermont Journal of Environmental Law 16 no. 4 (2014): 586–635.Google Scholar
Kovarik, W.. “Ethyl-leaded Gasoline: How a Classic Occupational Disease Became an International Public Health Disaster.” International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health 11, no. 4. (2005): 384–397. https://doi.org/10.1179/oeh.2005.11.4.384.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rosner, D. and Markowitz, G.. Deceit and Denial: The Deadly Politics of Industrial Pollution. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 2013.Google Scholar
Jacobs, C. and Kelly, W.. Smogtown: The Lung-Burning History of Pollution in Los Angeles. Woodstock, NY: Overlook Press, 2008.Google Scholar
Banerjee, N., Hasemyer, D. and Song, L.. “For Oil Industry, Clean Air Fight Was Dress Rehearsal for Climate Denial.” Inside Climate News, June 6, 2016. https://insideclimatenews.org/news/05062016/oil-industry-clean-air-fight-smog-los-angeles-dress-rehearsal-climate-change-denial-exxon.Google Scholar
“Congress Faces Hard Choices on Clean Air Act.” CQ Almanac, 31st edition (1976): 245–250. http://library.cqpress.com/cqalmanac/cqal75-1213793.Google Scholar
Hays, S.. “Clean Air: From the 1970 Act to the 1977 Amendments.” Duquesne Law Review 17, no. 1 (1977–78): 33–66.Google Scholar
Gamble, J. F.. “PM2.5 and Mortality in Long-term Prospective Cohort Studies: Cause–Effect or Statistical Associations?” Environmental Health Perspectives 106, no. 9 (September 1998): 535–549. https://doi.org/10.1289/ehp.98106535.Google Scholar
Warrick, J.. “Opponents Await Proposal to Limit Air Particulates: Industry Giants Mobilize to Block New EPA Rules.” Washington Post, November 27, 1996.Google Scholar
Warrick, J. and Yang, J. E.. “Stricter Air Quality Rules May Test Hill’s New Veto; Several GOP Chairmen Critical of EPA Move.” Washington Post, November 28, 1996.Google Scholar
Occupational Exposure to Benzene; Final Rule. Occupational Health and Safety Administration, Department of Labor. 43 Federal Register 27962–27971 (June 27, 1978).Google Scholar
American Petroleum Institute, Benzene Task Force. Summary of API’s Benzene Research Strategy (2000). www.documentcloud.org/documents/1373740-2000-api-summary-of-benzene-research-strategy.html#document/p2/a191357.Google Scholar
Infante, P.F.. “The Past Suppression of Industry Knowledge of the Toxicity of Benzene to Humans and Potential Bias in Future Benzene Research.” International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health 13, no. 3 (July 19, 2013): 268–272. https://doi.org/10.1179/oeh.2006.12.3.268.Google Scholar
American Petroleum Institute. API Toxicological Review: Benzene, Prepared under the Direction of Dr. Philip Drinker. Harvard School of Public Health (New York: September 1948). www.documentcloud.org/documents/1373098-00010795.html.Google Scholar
Lombardi, K. and Bennett, J.. A Dozen Dirty Documents: Twelve Documents That Stand Out from the Center’s New Oil and Chemical Industry Archive. Center for Public Integrity (December 2014). https://publicintegrity.org/environment/a-dozen-dirty-documents.Google Scholar
Dunlap, R. E. and McCright, A. M.. “Climate Change Denial: Sources, Actors, and Strategies.” In Routledge Handbook of Climate Change and Society, edited by Lever-Tracy, C.. 240–259 (London: Routledge, 2010).Google Scholar
Brulle, R. J.. “Institutionalizing Delay: Foundation Funding and the Creation of US Climate Change Counter-Movement Organizations.” Climatic Change 122, no. 4. (2014): 681–694. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-013-1018-7.Google Scholar
Dunlap, R. E. and Brulle, R. J.. Climate Change and Society: Sociological Perspectives. New York: Oxford University Press, 2015.Google Scholar
Supran, G. and Oreskes, N.. “Assessing ExxonMobil’s Climate Change Communications (1977–2014).” Environmental Research Letters 12, no. 8 (2017).Google Scholar
Grasso, M.. “Oily Politics: A Critical Assessment of the Oil and Gas Industry’s Contribution to Climate Change.” Energy Research & Social Science 50 (April 2019): 106–115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2018.11.017.Google Scholar
Oreskes, N.. “The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change: How Do We Know We’re Not Wrong?” In Climate Change: What it Means for You, Your Children, and Your Grandchildren, edited by DiMento, J. F. C. and Doughman, P.. 65–99. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2007.Google Scholar
Michaels, D.. Doubt Is Their Product: How Industry’s Assault on Science Threatens Your Health. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2008.Google Scholar
Oreskes, N. and Conway, E. M.. Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming. London, UK: Bloomsbury Publishing, 2011.Google Scholar
Schwartz, J.. Facts Not Fear on Air Pollution: How Regulators, Environmentalists and Scientists Exaggerate the Level and Health Risks of Air Pollution and Impose Counterproductive Regulations. National Center for Policy Analysis Policy Report No. 294 (2006). www.heartland.org/publications-resources/publications/facts-not-fear-on-air-pollution-how-regulators-environmentalists-and-scientists-exaggerate-the-level-and-health-risks-of-air-pollution-and-impose-counterproductive-regulations.Google Scholar
Crews, W. and Osorio, I.. This Liberal Congress Went to Market? A Bipartisan Policy Agenda for the 110th Congress. Competitive Enterprise Institute. January 10, 2007. www.cei.org/sites/default/files/1-CEI%20-%20This%20Liberal%20Congress%20Went%20to%20Market.pdf.Google Scholar
Feldman, H. J., senior director, Scientific and Regulatory Affairs at American Petroleum Institute. Testimony Regarding EPA’s Proposal to Change the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particulate Matter. Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2007–0492. July 17, 2012.Google Scholar
Goodman, J. E.. Testimony on the Proposed Rule: National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particulate Matter. Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2007–0492. July 17, 2012.Google Scholar
Feldman, H. J., senior director, Scientific and Regulatory Affairs at American Petroleum Institute. Testimony of Howard J. Feldman, Public Hearings for the 2015 Ozone NAAQS Proposed Rule. January 29, 2015.Google Scholar
Dockery, D. W. et al. “An Association between Air Pollution and Mortality in Six US Cities.” New England Journal of Medicine 329, no. 24 (December 9, 1993): 1753–1759. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJM199312093292401.Google Scholar
Pope, A.C. et al. “Particulate Air Pollution As a Predictor of Mortality in a Prospective Study of US Adults.” American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine 151, no. 3 (1995): 669–674.Google Scholar
FreedomWorks. “Issue Analysis 50 – The EPA’s New Clean Air Standards: A Primer.” News release. 1997. www.freedomworks.org/content/issue-analysis-50-epas-new-clean-air-standards-primer.Google Scholar
Thurston, G. D.. “Mandating the Release of Health Research Data: Issues and Implications.” Tulane Environmental Law Journal 11 (1998): 331–354.Google Scholar
Health Effects Institute. Synopsis of the Particle Epidemiology Reanalysis Project (2000). www.healtheffects.org/system/files/Reanalysis-Statement.pdf.Google Scholar
Krewski, D. et al. “Overview of the Reanalysis of the Harvard Six Cities Study and American Cancer Society Study of Particulate Air Pollution and Mortality.” Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health 66, no. 16–19 (2003): 1507–1552. https://doi.org/10.1080/15287390306424.Google Scholar
Krewski, D.. “Validation of the Harvard Six Cities Study of Particulate Air Pollution and Mortality.” New England Journal of Medicine 350 (January 8, 2004): 198–199. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJM200401083500225.Google Scholar
Smith, L.. “The EPA’s Game of Secret Science.” Wall Street Journal, July 29, 2013. www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424127887323829104578624562008231682.Google Scholar
Logomasini, A., senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute. “Pruitt’s Rule Ending Secret Science Is Pro-Science, Pro-Consumer.” The Hill, April 4, 2018. https://thehill.com/opinion/energy-environment/385411-pruitts-rule-ending-secret-science-is-pro-science-pro-consumer.Google Scholar
American Petroleum Institute, Draft Global Climate Science Communications Plan. Inside Climate News (1998).Google Scholar
Muffett, C. and Feit, S.. Smoke and Fumes: The Legal and Evidentiary Basis for Holding Big Oil Accountable for the Climate Crisis. Center for International Environmental Law (Washington, DC: November 2017). www.ciel.org/reports/smoke-and-fumes.Google Scholar
Franta, B.. “Early Oil Industry Knowledge of CO2 and Global Warming.” Nature Climate Change 8 (2018): 1024–1025. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-018-0349-9.Google Scholar
US House of Representatives. Climate Science: Assumptions, Policy Implications, and the Scientific Method. Committee on Science, Space, and Technology (2017).Google Scholar
US House of Representatives. Paris Climate Promise: A Bad Deal for America. Committee on Science, Space, and Technology (2016).Google Scholar
Freudenburg, W. R., Gramling, R. and Davidson, D. J.. “Scientific Certainty Argumentation Methods (SCAMs): Science and the Politics of Doubt.” Sociological Inquiry 78, no. 1 (February 2008): 2–38.Google Scholar
Dunlap, R. E. and McCright, A. M.. “Organized Climate Change Denial.” The Oxford Handbook of Climate Change and Society, edited by Dryzek, J. S., Norgaard, R. B. and Schlosberg, D.. 144–160. Oxford: Oxford University Press: 2011. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199566600.003.0010.Google Scholar
Turner, J. M. and Isenberg, A. C.. The Republican Reversal: Conservatives and the Environment from Nixon to Trump. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2018.Google Scholar
Dineen, K. P.. “Reading the Tea Leaves: The Tea Party Movement, the Conservative Establishment and the Collapse of Climate Change Legislation.” Massachusetts Institute of Technology Masters Dissertation (June 2011). https://dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/handle/1721.1/66804/757149232-MIT.pdf?sequence=2&isAllowed=y.Google Scholar
McGarity, T. O.. “The Disruptive Politics of Climate Disruption.” Nova Law Review 38, no. 3 (2014): 394–472. https://nsuworks.nova.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.ecosia.org/&httpsredir=1&article=1002&context=nlr.Google Scholar
Heritage Foundation. “Trump Administration Embraces Heritage Foundation Policy Recommendations.” January 23, 2018. www.heritage.org/impact/trump-administration-embraces-heritage-foundation-policy-recommendations.Google Scholar
Bharara, P. et al. Proposals for Reform. National Task Force on Rule of Law & Democracy, Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law. (2019). www.brennancenter.org/sites/default/files/2019-09/2019_10_TaskForce%20II_0.pdf.Google Scholar
Trump, D. J.. Presidential Executive Order on Promoting Energy Independence and Economic Growth. E.O. 13783, 82 Federal Register 16093–16097. Washington, DC, March 28, 2017. www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/presidential-executive-order-promoting-energy-independence-economic-growth.Google Scholar
Sussman, B.. “Back to Basics or Slash and Burn? Scott Pruitt’s Reign As EPA Administrator.” Environmental Law Institute 47, no. 109 (2017): 7–26. www.eli.org/sites/default/files/docs/47.10917.pdf.Google Scholar
Roberts, D.. “Donald Trump Is Handing the Federal Government over to Fossil Fuel Interests.” Vox, June 14, 2017. www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2017/6/13/15681498/trump-government-fossil-fuels.Google Scholar
Kravitz, D., Shaw, A. and Arnsdorf, I.. “What We Found in Trump’s Drained Swamp: Hundreds of Ex-lobbyists and DC Insiders.” ProPublica, March 7, 2018. www.propublica.org/article/what-we-found-in-trump-administration-drained-swamp-hundreds-of-ex-lobbyists-and-washington-dc-insiders.Google Scholar
Fredrickson, L. et al. “History of US Presidential Assaults on Modern Environmental Health Protection.” American Journal of Public Health 108, no. S2 (2018): S95–S103.Google Scholar
Dillon, L. et al. “The Environmental Protection Agency in the Early Trump Administration: Prelude to Regulatory Capture.” American Journal of Public Health 108, no. S2 (2018): S89–S94. https://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/10.2105/AJPH.2018.304360.Google Scholar
Whitehouse, S. et al. Comments on the Environmental Protection Agency’s Proposed Weakening of Rules Governing Methane Emissions from Oil and Natural Gas Facilities. Submitted to Environmental Protection Agency. December 17, 2018.Google Scholar
Whitman, C. T.. Statement of the Honorable Christine Todd Whitman to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce. Submitted to US House of Representatives Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations. June 11, 2019.Google Scholar
Mccarthy, G.. Written Testimony to House Committee on Energy and Commerce. Submitted to US House of Representatives Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations. June 11, 2019.Google Scholar
Oil and Natural Gas Sector: Emission Standards for New, Reconstructed, and Modified Sources Reconsideration. 40 Code of Federal Regulations 60. Environmental Protection Agency. 83 Federal Register 52056–52107 www.federalregister.gov/documents/2018/10/15/2018-20961/oil-and-natural-gas-sector-emission-standards-for-new-reconstructed-and-modified-sources.Google Scholar
Carter, J. et al. Science Under Siege at the Department of the Interior. Union of Concerned Scientists (December 2018). www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/attach/2018/12/science-under-siege-at-department-of-interior-full-report.pdf.Google Scholar
Carter, J. et al. The State of Science in the Trump Era. Center for Science and Democracy at the Union of Concerned Scientists, Union of Concerned Scientists (January 2019). www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/attach/2019/01/ucs-trump-2 yrs-report.pdf.Google Scholar
Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility. Request for an Inquiry under the Scientific Integrity Policy into Final Rule Regarding the Definition of Water of the US. Submitted to Acting Inspector General C. J. Sheehan, Office of Inspector General. January 18, 2020.Google Scholar
Environmental Protection Agency. Strengthening and Improving Membership on EPA Federal Advisory Committees. Report by E. S. Pruitt (Washington, DC: 2017). www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2017-10/documents/final_draft_fac_directive-10.31.2017.pdf.Google Scholar
Physicians for Social Responsibility v. Wheeler, 956 F.3d 634, 638 (D.C. Cir. 2020).Google Scholar
Government Accountability Office. EPA Advisory Committees – Improvements Needed for the Member Appointment Process. Report by J. Alfredo Gómez. GAO-19-280 (July 2019). www.gao.gov/assets/710/700171.pdf.Google Scholar
Hornblower, M.. “Businessmen Launch Drive to Soften Clean Air Rules.” Washington Post, January 9, 1979.Google Scholar
Hornblower, M.. “Major Industries Map New Attack on Clean Air Act.” Washington Post, January 15, 1979.Google Scholar
Stern, A. C.. “History of Air Pollution Legislation in the United States.” Journal of Air Pollution Control Association 32, no. 1 (January 1982): 44–61. https://doi.org/10.1080/00022470.1982.10465369.Google Scholar
Feldman, H. J., senior director Scientific and Regulatory Affairs, American Petroleum Institute. Regulatory Reform Task Force’s Evaluation of Existing Regulations EPA-HQ-OA-2017-0190 (82 FR 17793). Submitted to S. K. Dravis, regulatory reform officer and associate administrator for Environmental Protection Agency Office of Policy. May 15, 2017.Google Scholar
Feldman, H. J., senior director Scientific and Regulatory Affairs, American Petroleum Institute. Appendices to API Comments on Specific Regulations. Submitted to S. K. Dravis, regulatory reform officer and associate administrator for Environmental Protection Agency Office of Policy. May 15, 2017.Google Scholar
“Former CASAC Chair Says Panel Dismissals Will Weaken NAAQS’ Legality.” Clean Air Report (October 18, 2018).Google Scholar
Murray Energy Corp. v. Environmental Protection Agency, 936 F.3d 597 (D.C. Cir. 2019).Google Scholar
Cox, L. A., Jr. Statements on EPA’S Proposed Ozone Rule: Potential Impacts on Manufacturing. Submitted to Subcommittee on Energy and Power and Subcommittee on Commerce, Manufacturing, and Trade. June 16, 2015.Google Scholar
Cox, L. A., Jr. “Do Causal Concentration–Response Functions Exist? A Critical Review of Associational and Causal Relations between Fine Particulate Matter and Mortality.” Critical Reviews in Toxicology 47, no. 7 (2017): 609–637. https://doi.org/10.1080/10408444.2017.1311838.Google Scholar
US House of Representatives. EPA’s Proposed Ozone Rule: Potential Impacts on Manufacturing. Subcommittee on Energy and Power; Subcommittee on Commerce, Manufacturing, and Trade; Committee on Energy and Commerce. 114th Cong. 1st Sess. June 16, 2015.Google Scholar
Cox, L. A., Jr., and Popken, D. A.. “Has Reducing Fine Particulate Matter and Ozone Caused Reduced Mortality Rates in the United States?” Annals of Epidemiology 25, no. 3 (2015): 162–173. www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25571792.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Frey, H. C. et al. CASAC Review of EPA’s Integrated Science Assessment (ISA) for Particulate Matter (External Review Draft – October 2018). Submitted to Dr. L. A. Cox, Jr. and the Environmental Protection Agency. December 10, 2018.Google Scholar
Goldman, G. and Dominici, F.. “Don’t Abandon Evidence and Process on Air Pollution Policy.” Science 363, no. 6434 (March 29, 2019): 1398–1400. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaw9460.Google Scholar
Vanderberg, J.. John Vanderberg Response to Dr. Louis Anthony Cox, Jr. Submitted to Dr. L. A. Cox, Jr. February 20, 2019.Google Scholar
Waldman, S.. “Science Adviser Allowed Oil Group to Edit Research.” E&E News, December 10, 2018. www.eenews.net/stories/1060109129.Google Scholar
Plautz, J.. “Trump’s Air Pollution Adviser: No Proof Cleaning Up Smog Saves Lives.” Reveal from the Center for Investigative Reporting, October 24, 2018. www.revealnews.org/article/trumps-air-pollution-adviser-clean-air-saves-no-lives.Google Scholar
Frey, C. H., Futrell, P. J. and Futrell, G. E.. Public Comment on the CASAC Review of EPA’s Integrated Science Assessment for Particulate Matter (External Review Draft – October 2018). Submitted to Environmental Protection Agency. December 12, 2018.Google Scholar
Environmental Protection Network. Written Comments of John Bachmann on Behalf of the Environmental Protection Network. Submitted to Environmental Protection Agency Acting Administrator A. Wheeler and Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee. December 9, 2018.Google Scholar
Boylan, D. J. et al. Preliminary Draft Comments from Members of the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC). December 10, 2018.Google Scholar
Cox, L. A., Jr., Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee chair. CASAC Review of the EPA’s Integrated Science Assessment for Particulate Matter (External Review Draft – October 2018). Submitted to A. R. Wheeler. April 11, 2019.Google Scholar
Reilly, S.. “Documents Expose Ties among EPA’s Panel Experts.” E&E News, February 7, 2020. www.eenews.net/stories/1062289617.Google Scholar
Frey, C. H.. Context and Charge Questions for October 10–11, 2019 Meeting to Review the EPA Draft Policy Assessment for Particulate Matter. Submitted to Members of the Independent Particulate Matter Review Panel. September 20, 2019.Google Scholar
Hogue, C.. “US EPA’s Science Advisers Split on Tightening Air Pollution Limit.” Chemical and Engineering News 97, no. 44 (November 10, 2019): 20–21. https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/cen-09744-feature2.Google Scholar
Independent Particulate Matter Review Panel. Letter on EPA’s Policy Assessment for the Review of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particulate Matter (External Review Draft–September 2019). Submitted to A. R. Wheeler, administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency. October 22, 2019.Google Scholar
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. Policy Assessment for the Review of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particulate Matter. Environmental Protection Agency. EPA-452/R-20-002. Research Triangle Park, NC: 2020. www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2020-01/documents/final_policy_assessment_for_the_review_of_the_pm_naaqs_01-2020.pdf.Google Scholar
Review of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particulate Matter: Final Action. 40 Code of Federal Regulations 50. Environmental Protection Agency. 85 Federal Register 82684–82748 (December 18, 2020) www.federalregister.gov/documents/2020/12/18/2020-27125/review-of-the-national-ambient-air-quality-standards-for-particulate-matter.Google Scholar
Cox, L. A., Jr. “Re: ‘Best Practices for Gauging Evidence of Causality in Air Pollution Epidemiology.’” American Journal of Epidemiology 187, no. 6 (March 23, 2018): 1338–1339. https://doi.org/10.1093/aje/kwy034.Google Scholar
Cox, L. A., Jr. “Modernizing the Bradford Hill Criteria for Assessing Causal Relationships in Observational Data.” Critical Reviews in Toxicology 48, no. 8 (January 13, 2018): 682–712. https://doi.org/10.1080/10408444.2018.1518404.Google Scholar
Fedak, K. M. et al. “Applying the Bradford Hill Criteria in the 21st Century: How Data Integration Has Changed Causal Inference in Molecular Epidemiology.” Emerging Themes in Epidemiology 12, no. 1 (2015): 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12982-015-0037-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dominici, F. and Zigler, C.. “Best Practices for Gauging Evidence of Causality in Air Pollution Epidemiology.” American Journal of Epidemiology 186, no. 12 (2017): 1303–1309. www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29020141.Google Scholar
Greenbaum, D. S. and Shaikh, R.. “Air Quality and Human Health: The Role of Health Science in Setting National Ambient Air Quality Standards.” Magazine for Environmental Managers, December 2018. http://pubs.awma.org/flip/EM-Dec-2018/greenbaum.pdf.Google Scholar
Saiyid, A. H.. “EPA Advisers Can’t Agree on Revising Ozone Limits.” Bloomberg Law, December 6, 2019. https://news.bloomberglaw.com/environment-and-energy/epa-advisers-cant-agree-on-what-to-do-about-ozone-limits.Google Scholar
Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee. Consensus Responses to Charge Questions on the EPA’s Policy Assessment for the Review of the Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards (External Review Draft – October 2019). Environmental Protection Agency. Washington, DC: February 19, 2020. https://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/264cb1227d55e02c85257402007446a4/4713D217BC07103485258515006359BA/$File/EPA-CASAC-20-003.pdf.Google Scholar
Members of the Former Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee Ozone Review Panel (2009–14). Letter on CASAC Advice on the EPA’s Integrated Review Plan for the Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards (External Review Draft). Submitted to Dr. L. A. Cox, Jr., Chair of Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee. November 26, 2018.Google Scholar
Members of the Former Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee Ozone Review Panel (2009–14). Letter on EPA’s Integrated Science Assessment for Ozone and Related Photochemical Oxidants and EPA’s Policy Assessment for the Review of the Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards. Submitted to A. R. Wheeler, administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency. December 2, 2019.Google Scholar
Environmental Protection Agency. Policy Assessment for the Review of the Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards. Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Health and Environmental Impacts Division Research. Research Triangle Park, NC: May 2020. www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2020-05/documents/o3-final_pa-05-29-20compressed.pdf.Google Scholar
Carbon Pollution Emission Guidelines for Existing Stationary Sources: Electric Utility Generating Units; Proposed Rule. 40 Code of Federal Regulation 60. Environmental Protection Agency. 79 Federal Regulations 34829–34958 (June 18, 2014). www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2014-06-18/pdf/2014-13726.pdf.Google Scholar
American Petroleum Institute et al. Comments on the Carbon Pollution Emission Guidelines for Existing Stationary Electric Utility Generation Units, Proposed Rule (published in the Federal Register 79: 34,830 (June 18, 2014)). Submitted to Environmental Protection Agency. 2014.Google Scholar
Environmental Protection Agency. Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Proposed Emission Guidelines for Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Existing Electric Utility Generating Units; Revisions to Emission Guideline Implementing Regulations; Revisions to New Source Review Program. Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Health and Environmental Impact Division. Washington, DC: August 2018. www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2018-08/documents/utilities_ria_proposed_ace_2018-08.pdf.Google Scholar
Krupnick, A. and Keyes, A.. “Hazy Treatment of Health Benefits: The Case of the Clean Power Plan.” Resources for the Future, October 13, 2017. www.resourcesmag.org/common-resources/hazy-treatment-of-health-benefits-the-case-of-the-clean-power-plan.Google Scholar
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants from Coal and Oil-Fired Electric Utility Steam Generating Units and Standards of Performance for Fossil-Fuel-Fired Electric Utility, Industrial-Commercial Institutional, and Small Industrial Commercial-Institutional Steam Generating Units. 40 Code of Federal Regulations Parts 60 and 63. Environmental Protection Agency. 77 Federal Register 32 (February 16, 2012). www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2012-02-16/pdf/2012-806.pdf.Google Scholar
Todd, M., chair of the Residual Risk Coalition. Comments on “The National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutant Emissions: Coal-and Oil-Fired Electric Utility Steam Generating Units – Reconsideration of Supplemental Finding and Residual Risk and Technology Review: Proposed Rule.” Submitted to Environmental Protection Agency. Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2018–0794. April 17, 2019.Google Scholar
Proposed Rule: National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Coal- and Oil-Fired Electric Utility Steam Generating Units – Reconsideration of Supplemental Finding and Residual Risk and Technology Review. 40 Code of Federal Regulations 60. Environmental Protection Agency. 84 Federal Register 2670–2704 (February 7, 2019). www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2019-02-07/pdf/2019-00936.pdf.Google Scholar
External Environmental Economics Advisory Committee. Report on the Proposed Changes to the Federal Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (December 2019). www.belfercenter.org/sites/default/files/files/publication/E-EEAC%20Report%20120320191330.pdf.Google Scholar
Regulation of HAP Emissions from Coal- and Oil-fired Electrical General Units Is Not “Appropriate and Necessary”: Final Rule. 40 Code of Federal Regulations 63. Environmental Protection Agency. 85 Federal Register 31286–31320 (May 22, 2020). www.federalregister.gov/documents/2020/05/22/2020-08607/national-emission-standards-for-hazardous-air-pollutants-coal–and-oil-fired-electric-utility-steam.Google Scholar
Eilperin, J. and Dennis, B.. “The EPA Is about to Change a Rule Cutting Mercury Pollution. The Industry Doesn’t Want It.” Washington Post, February 17, 2020. www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/the-epa-is-about-to-change-a-rule-cutting-mercury-pollution-the-industry-doesnt-want-it/2020/02/16/8ebac4e2-4470-11ea-b503-2b077c436617_story.html.Google Scholar
Beitsch, R.. “EPA’s Independent Science Board Says Agency Ignored Its Advice on Mercury Rule.” The Hill, December 31, 2019. https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/476374-epas-independent-science-board-says-agency-ignored-their-advice-on.Google Scholar
Environmental Protection Agency. Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Final Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (December 2011). www3.epa.gov/ttnecas1/regdata/RIAs/matsriafinal.pdf.Google Scholar
Lewis, M., Logomasini, A. and Yeatman, W.. “First Steps for the Trump Administration: Champion Affordable Energy.” Competitive Enterprise Institute (December 15, 2016). https://cei.org/sites/default/files/First%20Steps%20for%20the%20Trump%20Administration%20-%20Chamption%20Affordable%20Energy.pdf.Google Scholar
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Health and Environmental Impact Division, and Air Benefit-Cost Group. Summary of Expert Opinions on the Existence of a Threshold in the Concentration-Response Function for PM2.5-related Mortality. Environmental Protection Agency. Washington, DC: 2010. www3.epa.gov/ttnecas1/regdata/Benefits/thresholdstsd.pdf.Google Scholar
Shi, L. et al. “Low-Concentration PM2.5 and Mortality: Estimating Acute and Chronic Effects in a Population-Based Study.” Environmental Health Perspectives 124, no. 1 (2015): 46–52. https://doi.org/10.1289/ehp.1409111.Google Scholar
Makar, M. et al. “Estimating the Causal Effect of Fine Particulate Matter Levels on Death and Hospitalization: Are Levels below the Safety Standards Harmful?” Epidemiology 28, no. 5 (2017): 627–634.Google Scholar
Awad, Y. A. et al. “Change in PM2. 5 Exposure and Mortality among Medicare Recipients: Combining a Semi-randomized Approach and Inverse Probability Weights in a Low Exposure Population.” Environmental Epidemiology 3, no. 4 (2019). doi:10.1097/EE9.0000000000000054.Google Scholar
Cong Liu, M. S. et al. “Ambient Particulate Air Pollution and Daily Mortality in 652 Cities.” New England Journal of Medicine 381 (August 22, 2019): 705–715. www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1817364?query=featured_home#article_comments.Google Scholar
Castle, K. M. and Revesz, R. L.. “Environmental Standards, Thresholds, and the Next Battleground of Climate Change Regulations.” Minnesota Law Review 103 (2019): 1349–1437. www.minnesotalawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/4Revesz_FINAL.pdf.Google Scholar
Office of Transportation and Air Quality. Final Regulatory Analysis: Control of Emissions from Nonroad Diesel Engines. Environmental Protection Agency EPA420-R-04-007. Washington, DC: US Environmental Protection Agency, 2004. https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPDF.cgi/P100K5U2.PDF?Dockey=P100K5U2.PDF.Google Scholar
Natural Resources Defense Council. Comments of Natural Resources Defense Council on “Strengthening Transparency in Regulatory Science.” Submitted to A. R. Wheeler, acting administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency. Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OA-2018-0259. August 15, 2018.Google Scholar
Bennett, K., Science policy director for Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility. Comments on the US Environmental Protection Agency’s Proposed “Strengthening Transparency in Regulatory Science” Rule. Submitted to A. R. Wheeler, acting administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency. Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OA-2018-0259-0001. August 15, 2018.Google Scholar
Strengthening Transparency in Regulatory Science. 40 Code of Federal Regulations 30. Environmental Protection Agency. 83 Federal Register 18768–18774 (April 30, 2018). www.federalregister.gov/documents/2018/04/30/2018-09078/strengthening-transparency-in-regulatory-science.Google Scholar
Clarifications, Modifications and Additions to Certain Provisions in the Strengthening Transparency in Regulatory Science Proposed. 40 Code of Federal Regulations 30. Environmental Protection Agency. 85 Federal Register 15396–15406 (March 18, 2020). www.federalregister.gov/documents/2020/03/18/2020-05012/strengthening-transparency-in-regulatory-science.Google Scholar
Wheeler, A. R., administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency. Testimony. Submitted to House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology. 2019.Google Scholar
Lavelle, M.. “Pruitt’s Own Scientist Appointees Challenge EPA Science Restrictions.” Inside Climate News, May 17, 2018. https://insideclimatenews.org/news/17052018/scott-pruitt-epa-secret-science-health-fossil-fuel-industry.Google Scholar
Green, M. and Beitsch, R.. “EPA Delays Advisers’ Review of ‘Secret Science’ Rules.” The Hill, November 18, 2019. https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/470968-epa-delays-advisors-review-of-secret-science-rules.Google Scholar
Frey, C. H., former member of the Science Advisory Board, Futrell, G. E. and Futrell, P. J., EPA Has a Statutory Responsibility to Use Properly Developed and Reviewed Science. Submitted to Science Advisory Board, Environmental Protection Agency. June 5, 2019.Google Scholar
United States Code, Title 42, Section 4365.Google Scholar
McNutt, M., president of the National Academy of Sciences, et al. Strengthening Transparency in Regulatory Science (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OA-2018-0259). Submitted to A. R. Wheeler, acting administrator, Environmental Protection Agency. July 16, 2018.Google Scholar
Honeycutt, M., Science Advisory Board chair. Draft Report: Science Advisory Board (SAB) Consideration of the Scientific and Technical Basis of EPA’s Proposed Rule Titled Strengthening Transparency in Regulatory Science. Submitted to A. R. Wheeler, administrator, Environmental Protection Agency. EPA-SAB-20-xxx. October 16, 2019.Google Scholar
Eilperin, J.. “EPA’s Scientific Advisors Warn Its Regulatory Rollbacks Clash with Established Science.” Washington Post, January 1, 2020. www.washingtonpost.com/climate-solutions/epas-scientific-advisers-warn-its-regulatory-rollbacks-clash-with-established-science/2019/12/31/a1994f5a-227b-11ea-a153-dce4b94e4249_story.html.Google Scholar
Ioannidis, J.. “All Science Should Inform Policy and Regulation.” PLoS Medicine 15, no. 5 (2018). https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article/citation?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.1002576.Google Scholar
Nosek, B., co-founder and executive director, Center for Open Science. Testimony at Hearing on Strengthening Transparency or Silencing Science? The Future of Science in EPA Rulemaking, 116th Congress. Submitted to House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology. November 13, 2019.Google Scholar
Teytelman, L., Gunn, W., and Kamens, J.. “The EPA’s Proposed ‘Transparency Rule’ Will Harm Health, Safety, and the Environment.” Stat News, December 9, 2019. www.statnews.com/2019/12/09/epa-transparency-rule-bad-for-science-health-safety-environment.Google Scholar
Thomas, W.. “Science Committee Renews Scrutiny of EPA Science Transparency Rule.” FYI Bulletin, November 20, 2019. www.aip.org/fyi/2019/science-committee-renews-scrutiny-epa-science-transparency-rule.Google Scholar
Hiar, C.. “In Battle over Pesticide Ban, Trump’s EPA Aims to Undermine the Science.” E&E News, August 23, 2018. www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/08/battle-over-pesticide-ban-trump-s-epa-aims-undermine-science.Google Scholar
“Researchers Must Unite against US Environment Agency’s Attack on Scientific Evidence.” Nature 575, no. 415 (2019). www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-03526-z.Google Scholar
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. Reproducibility and Replicability in Science. Washington, DC: National Academies Press, 2019. doi:10.17226/25303.Google Scholar
Jacobs, W. B., Emmett clinical professor of Environmental Law and clinic director. Comments on Proposed Rule Strengthening Transparency in Regulatory Science. Submitted to A. Wheeler, acting administrator, Environmental Protection Agency. 2018.Google Scholar
Honeycutt, M., Science Advisory Board chair. Consultation on Mechanisms for Secure Access to Personally Identifying Information (PII) and Confidential Business Information (CBI) Under the Proposed Rule, Strengthening Transparency in Regulatory Science. Submitted to A. R. Wheeler, administrator, Environmental Protection Agency. EPA-SAB-19-005. September 30, 2019.Google Scholar
Allison, D. B. and Fineberg, H. V.. “EPA’s Proposed Transparency Rule: Factors to Consider, many; Planets to Live On, One.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 117, no. 10 (March 10, 2020): 5084–5087. www.pnas.org/content/117/10/5084.Google Scholar
Sweeney, L.. “Only You, Your Doctor, and Many Others May Know.” Technology Science no. 2015092903 (2015). https://techscience.org/a/2015092903.Google Scholar
Sweeney, L. et al. “Re-identification Risks in HIPAA Safe Harbor Data: A Study of Data from One Environmental Health Study.” Technology Science no. 2017082801 (2017). https://techscience.org/a/2017082801.Google Scholar
Rocher, L., Hendrickx, J. M. and de Montjoye, Y.-A.. “Estimating the Success of Re-identifications in Incomplete Datasets Using Generative Models.” Nature Communications 10, no. 1 (July 23, 2019): 1–9. www.nature.com/articles/s41467-019-10933-3#citeas.Google Scholar
National Research Council. Improving Access to and Confidentiality of Research Data: Report of a Workshop. Washington, DC: National Academies Press, 2000. https://doi.org/10.17226/9958.Google Scholar
Gostin, L. O., Levit, L. A., Nass, S. J.. Beyond the HIPAA Privacy Rule: Enhancing Privacy, Improving Health through Research. Washington, DC: National Academies Press, 2009. www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK9578/.Google Scholar
Sherer, T.. Testimony on Behalf of the Michael J. Fox Foundation for Parkinson’s Research. Submitted to E. B. Johnson, chairwoman, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, and F. Lucas, ranking member, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology. November 13, 2019.Google Scholar
Goodwin, J.. “The EPA’s ‘Censored Science’ Rule Isn’t Just Bad Policy, It’s Also Illegal.” Union of Concerned Scientists Blog, November 22, 2019. https://blog.ucsusa.org/guest-commentary/the-epas-censored-science-rule-isnt-just-bad-policy-its-also-illegal.Google Scholar
Johnson, E. B., chair of House of Representatives Committee on Science, Space, and Technology. Opening Statement: Strengthening Transparency or Silencing Science? The Future of Science in EPA Rulemaking. Submitted to House of Representatives Committee on Science, Space, and Technology. November 13, 2019.Google Scholar
Michaels, D.. The Triumph of Doubt: Dark Money and the Science of Deception. New York: Oxford University Press, 2020.Google Scholar
Christopher, C. H., Bracewell & Patterson, LLP. Background and Proposed Program to Address Federal Agency Science. Submitted to T. Hyde and R. Johnson, RJ Reynolds Tobacco Company. December 23, 1996.Google Scholar
Lerner, S.. “Republicans Are Using Big Tobacco’s Secret Science Playbook to Gut Health Rules.” The Intercept, February 5, 2017. https://theintercept.com/2017/02/05/republicans-want-to-make-the-epa-great-again-by-gutting-health-regulations/.Google Scholar
Kothari, Y.. “Internal EPA Emails Confirm That Scott Pruitt’s Secret Science Proposal Is Entirely Driven by Politics.” Union of Concerned Scientists, April 19, 2018. https://blog.ucsusa.org/yogin-kothari/internal-epa-emails-confirm-that-scott-pruitts-secret-science-proposal-is-entirely-driven-by-politics?_ga=2.73012819.1119798374.1584912229-994550056.1584912229.Google Scholar
National Task Force on Rule of Law and Democracy. Proposals for Reform. Report by P. Bharara et al. (2019). www.brennancenter.org/sites/default/files/2019-09/2019_10_TaskForce%20II_0.pdfGoogle Scholar
Parkes, D.. “Basic Science, Agricultural Research, NASA Would Finish Strong in FY 2019 Omnibus.” American Association for the Advancement of Science, February 14, 2019. www.aaas.org/news/basic-science-agricultural-research-nasa-would-finish-strong-fy-2019-omnibus.Google Scholar
Frelinghuysen, R., chair, House Committee on Appropriations. Opening Statement at the Hearing on the FY 2018 Budget for the Environmental Protection Agency. Submitted to House Committee on Appropriations. June 15, 2017.Google Scholar
Calvert, K., chair of the Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies, House Committee on Appropriations. Opening Statement at the Hearing on the FY 2018 Budget for the Environmental Protection Agency. Submitted to House Committee on Appropriations. June 15, 2017.Google Scholar
Collins, S.. “Senator Collins to Oppose EPA Administrator Nominee’s Confirmation.” News release, February 15, 2017. www.collins.senate.gov/newsroom/senator-collins-oppose-epa-administrator-nominee%E2%80%99s-confirmation.Google Scholar
Collins, S.. “Senator Collins to Oppose EPA Administrator Nominee’s Confirmation.” News release, February 27, 2019. www.collins.senate.gov/newsroom/senator-collins-oppose-epa-administrator-nominee%E2%80%99s-confirmation-0.Google Scholar
Green, M.. “Senate Confirms Wheeler to Lead EPA.” The Hill, February 28, 2019. https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/432033-senate-confirms-wheeler-to-lead-epa.Google Scholar
Cama, T.. “Two GOP Senators Oppose Trump’s EPA Chemical Safety Nominee.” The Hill, November 15, 2017. https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/360615-2-gop-senators-oppose-trumps-epa-chemical-safety-nominee.Google Scholar
Lydersen, K.. “EPA Toxics Nominee Provided Koch-Funded Study in Chicago Petcoke Battle.” Energy News Network, September 7, 2017. https://energynews.us/2017/09/07/midwest/epa-toxics-nominee-provided-koch-funded-study-in-chicago-petcoke-battle/.Google Scholar
Editorial Board. “Mr. Trump’s Conflicted Regulators.” New York Times, October 18, 2017.Google Scholar
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry and Division of Community Health Investigations. Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) Frequently Asked Questions. Center for Disease Control and Prevention (2017). www.atsdr.cdc.gov/pfas/docs/pfas_fact_sheet.pdf.Google Scholar
Hopkins, Z. R. et al. “Recently Detected Drinking Water Contaminants: GenX and Other Per‐and Polyfluoroalkyl Ether Acids.” American Water Works Association 110, no. 7 (2018). https://awwa.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/awwa.1073.Google Scholar
Lee, T. S., London, I. and Kindschuh, J.. “PFAS in the Upstream Oil and Gas Industry.” Lexology, August 2, 2019. www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=ca7bf9a5-b0f7-4089-a993-6ca387c47f3f.Google Scholar
Wittenberg, A.. “After Controversy, US Releases Report Showing Elevated Health Risks from Nonstick Chemicals.” E&E News, June 20, 2018. www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/06/after-controversy-us-releases-report-showing-elevated-health-risks-nonstick-chemicals.Google Scholar
Patterson, B.. “Previously Blocked Federal Study Raises Alarm about Chemicals Like C8.” Ohio Valley Resource, June 20, 2018. https://ohiovalleyresource.org/2018/06/20/previously-blocked-federal-study-raises-alarm-pfas-chemicals/.Google Scholar
Department of Health and Human Services. Toxicological Profile for Perfluoroalkyls – Draft for Public Comment (2018). www.eenews.net/assets/2018/06/20/document_gw_08.pdf.Google Scholar
House of Representatives Committee on Energy and Commerce. Letter of Concern Regarding Rollback Measures. Submitted to A. Wheeler. 2019.Google Scholar
House of Representatives. Letter of Concern Regarding NAAQS and CAA. Submitted to A. Wheeler. 2019.Google Scholar
Mervis, J. and Cornwall, W.. “Lamar Smith, the Departing Head of the House Science Panel, Will Leave a Controversial and Complicated Legacy.” Science, November 5, 2017. www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/11/lamar-smith-departing-head-house-science-panel-will-leave-controversial-and-complicated.Google Scholar
Leiter, A. C.. Reversing Course: Administrative Law in a Time of Change. American University Washington College of Law (2018). www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/administrative/environment_energy_resources/2018/fall/course_materials/8_Leiter.pdf.Google Scholar
US Congress. Letter of Concern on Strengthening Transparency in Regulatory Science Rule. Submitted to S. Pruitt. 2018.Google Scholar
Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works. A Letter to Administrator Pruitt, EPA. Submitted to S. Pruitt. 2018.Google Scholar
Mervis, J.. “Scientific Integrity Bill Advances in US House with Bipartisan Support.” Science, October 17, 2019. www.sciencemag.org/news/2019/10/scientific-integrity-bill-advances-us-house-bipartisan-support.Google Scholar
Showstack, R.. “Scientific Integrity Act Passes House Committee.” Eos, October 18, 2019. https://eos.org/articles/scientific-integrity-act-passes-house-committee.Google Scholar
US Congress. Senate. Scientific Integrity Act. S. 775, 116th Congress, 1st Sess. Introduced in Senate March 12, 2019.Google Scholar
Krauss, L. M.. “Trump’s Anti-Science Campaign.” New Yorker, August 21, 2016. www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/trumps-anti-science-campaign.Google Scholar
Acrivos, A. et al. An Open Letter to President-Elect Trump and the 115th Congress on Science and the Public Interest. Submitted to President D. J. Trump, 115th Congress. November 30, 2016.Google Scholar
Goldman, G. et al. “Ensuring Scientific Integrity in the Age of Trump.” Science 355, no. 6326 (2017): 696–698. https://science.sciencemag.org/content/355/6326/696.Google Scholar
Berg, J., Campbell, P., Kiermer, V., Raikhel, N. and Sweet, D.. “Joint Statement on EPA Proposed Rule and Public Availability of Data.” Science 360, no. 6388 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aau0116.Google Scholar
Thorp, H. H. et al. “Joint Statement on EPA Proposed Rule and Public Availability of Data.” Science 366, no. 6470 (2019): 2. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aba3197.Google Scholar
Academy of Integrative Health & Medicine et al. “Public Health, Medical, Academic, and Scientific Groups Oppose EPA Transparency Rule.” News release, https://mcmprodaaas.s3.amazonaws.com/s3fs-public/EPA%20Transparency%20Rule%20FINAL.pdf?oNbdIjRo8Ick2LxdMeWaqWuYu4NM3unc.Google Scholar
Kirch, D. G., president and CEO, AAMC, et al. Re: Docket Number EPA-HQ-OA-2018-0259-0025, Strengthening Transparency in Regulatory Science. Submitted to Andrew R. Wheeler, acting administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency. July 11, 2018.Google Scholar
Oreskes, N.. “Beware: Transparency Rule Is a Trojan Horse.” Nature, May 22, 2018. www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-05207-9.Google Scholar
Powell, A.. “Letter Opposes Possible EPA Shift.” Harvard Gazette, August 10, 2018. https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2018/08/harvard-officials-hospital-leaders-call-on-epa-to-withdraw-transparency-rule-which-they-say-would-bar-use-of-best-science-data.Google Scholar
Cullen, A., chair, SAB Work Group on EPA Planned Actions for SAB Consideration of the Underlying Science. Preparations for Chartered Science Advisory Board (SAB) Discussions of Proposed Rule: Strengthening Transparency in Regulatory Science RIN (2080-AA14). Submitted to Members of the Chartered SAB and SAB Liaisons. 2018.Google Scholar
Science Advisory Board. SAB Review of the Science Supporting EPA Planned Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions. Submitted to A. R. Wheeler. 2019.Google Scholar
Bachmann, J., former associate director for Science/Policy in EPA’s Air Office. Statement of John Bachmann for the Public Meeting of the EPA Chartered Science Advisory Board (SAB), Re: June 5–6 SAB Discussions about EPA Planned Actions and Their Supporting Science. Submitted to Science Advisory Board. June 5, 2019.Google Scholar
Honeycutt, M., Science Advisory Board chair. Science Advisory Board (SAB) Consideration of EPA Proposed Rule: Strengthening Transparency in Regulatory Science. Submitted to E. S. Pruitt, administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency. EPA-SAB-18-003. June 28, 2018.Google Scholar
Honeycutt, M., Science Advisory Board chair. Commentary on the Proposed Rule Defining the Scope of Waters Federally Regulated Under the Clean Water Act Submitted to A. R. Wheeler. EPA-SAB-20-002. February 27, 2020.Google Scholar
Honeycutt, M., Science Advisory Board chair. Science Advisory Board (SAB) Consideration of the Scientific and Technical Basis of the EPA’s Proposed Rule titled The Safer Affordable Fuel-Efficient (SAFE) Vehicles Rule for Model Years 2021–2026 Passenger Cars and Light Trucks. Submitted to A. R. Wheeler, administrator, Environmental Protection Agency. EPA-SAB-20-003. February 27, 2020.Google Scholar
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. Policy Assessment for the Review of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particulate Matter, External Review Draft. Environmental Protection Agency EPA-452/P-19-001. Research Triangle Park, NC: 2019. www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2019-09/documents/draft_policy_assessment_for_pm_naaqs_09-05-2019.pdf.Google Scholar
Davenport, C.. “Trump’s Environmental Rollbacks Find Opposition Within: Staff Scientists.” New York Times, March 27, 2020. www.nytimes.com/2020/03/27/climate/trumps-environmental-rollbacks-staff-scientists.html.Google Scholar
Eilperin, J., Dawsey, J. and Dennis, B.. “White House Blocked Intelligence Agency’s Written Testimony Calling Climate Change ‘Possibly Catastrophic.’” Washington Post, June 8, 2019. www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2019/06/08/white-house-blocked-intelligence-aides-written-testimony-saying-human-caused-climate-change-could-be-possibly-catastrophic.Google Scholar
Friedman, L.. “White House Tried to Stop Climate Science Testimony, Documents Show.” New York Times, June 8, 2019. www.nytimes.com/2019/06/08/climate/rod-schoonover-testimony.html.Google Scholar
Schoonover, R.. “The White House Blocked My Report on Climate Change and National Security.” New York Times, July 30, 2019. www.nytimes.com/2019/07/30/opinion/trump-climate-change.html.Google Scholar
US House of Representatives. Scientific Integrity in Federal Agencies. Subcommittee on Research and Technology (Committee on Science, Space, and Technology); Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight (Committee on Science, Space, and Technology) 2019.Google Scholar
US House of Representatives. When Science Gets Trumped: Scientific Integrity at the Department of the Interior. Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigation, Committee on Natural Resources. July 25, 2019.Google Scholar
Carper, T. R. et al. Letter to Trump re, Request for Documents Pertaining to Kevin Chmielewski’s Whistleblower Complaint. Submitted to President D. J. Trump. April 12, 2018.Google Scholar
Eilperin, J. and Dennis, B.. “EPA Watchdog Closes Two Probes into Scott Pruitt’s Conduct, Citing His Resignation.” Washington Post, November 30, 2018. www.washingtonpost.com/energy-environment/2018/11/29/epa-watchdog-closes-two-probes-into-scott-pruitts-conduct-citing-his-resignation.Google Scholar
Halpern, M., deputy director of Center for Science and Democracy, Union of Concerned Scientists. Testimony at the Hearing on Scientific Integrity in Federal Agencies. Submitted to the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, and Joint Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight and Subcommittee on Research and Technology. July 17, 2019.Google Scholar
Rosenberg, A.. “The EPA’s Science Restrictions Go from Bad to Worse.” Scientific American, November 13, 2019. https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/the-epas-science-restrictions-go-from-bad-to-worse/.Google Scholar
Union of Concerned Scientists. Comments in Disagreement with the Environmental Protection Agency’s Draft Replacement for the Clean Power Plan, the Proposed Affordable Clean Energy Rule. Submitted to A. R. Wheeler, acting administrator, Environmental Protection Agency. Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0355. October 31, 2018.Google Scholar
Union of Concerned Scientists et al. Comments on Quantifying and Monetizing Greenhouse Gas Emissions in the Environmental Impact Statement for Model Year 2022–2025 Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards. Submitted to C. J. Tamm, Fuel Economy Division at the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Docket: NHTSA-2017-0069. September 25, 2017.Google Scholar
Goldman, G.. “Here’s One More Political Assault on Public Health.” Scientific American, June 17, 2019. https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/heres-one-more-political-assault-on-public-health.Google Scholar
The Safer Affordable Fuel-Efficient (SAFE) Vehicles Rule for Model Years 2021-2026 Passenger Cars and Light Trucks: Proposed Rules. 40 Code of Federal Regulations 85 and 86; 49 Code of Federal Regulations 523, 531, 533, 536 and 537. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration; Environmental Protection Agency. 83 Federal Register 42986–43500 (August 24, 2018). www.federalregister.gov/documents/2018/08/24/2018-16820/the-safer-affordable-fuel-efficient-safe-vehicles-rule-for-model-years-2021-2026-passenger-cars-and.Google Scholar
The Safer Affordable Fuel-Efficient (SAFE) Vehicles Rule for Model Years 2021–2026 Passenger Cars and Light Trucks: Final Rule. 49 Code of Federal Regulations Parts 523, 531, 533, 536 and 537. Environmental Protection Agency and National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. 85 Federal Register 84: 24174–25278 (April 30, 2020). www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2020-04-30/pdf/2020-06967.pdf.Google Scholar
Bento, A. M. et al. “Flawed Analyses of US Auto Fuel Economy Standards.” Science 362, no. 6419 (December 7, 2018): 1119–1121. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aav1458.Google Scholar
Knickmeyer, E.. “EPA Challenged Safety of Administration Mileage Freeze.” Associated Press, August 14, 2018. https://apnews.com/1a7551fca3294ec49029b93e994cd7f9.Google Scholar
Joselow, M.. “Researchers Decry ‘Misrepresented’ Findings in Fuel-Efficiency Rollback Plan.” E&E News, December 7, 2018. www.scientificamerican.com/article/researchers-decry-misrepresented-findings-in-fuel-efficiency-rollback-plan.Google Scholar
Tabuchi, H.. “The Oil Industry’s Covert Campaign to Rewrite American Car Emissions Rules.” New York Times, December 13, 2018. www.nytimes.com/2018/12/13/climate/cafe-emissions-rollback-oil-industry.html?auth=login-google.Google Scholar
Tabuchi, H.. “Climate Change Denialists Dubbed Auto Makers the ‘Opposition’ in Fight over Trump’s Emissions Rollback.” New York Times, July 2, 2019. www.nytimes.com/2019/07/02/climate/climate-deniers-auto-emissions-rollback.html.Google Scholar
Strengthening Transparency in Pivotal Science Underlying Significant Regulatory Actions and Influential Scientific Information: Final Rule. 40 Code of Federal Regulations 30. Environmental Protection Agency. 86 Federal Register 469–473 (January 6, 2021). www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2021-01-06/pdf/2020-29179.pdf.Google Scholar
Supplemental Finding That It Is Appropriate and Necessary to Regulate Hazardous Air Pollutants from Coal- and Oil-Fired Electric Utility Steam Generating Units. 40 Code of Federal Regulations Part 63. Environmental Protection Agency. 81 Federal Register 79 (April 25, 2016).Google Scholar
Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 US 497 (Supreme Court 2007).Google Scholar
Michigan v. Environmental Protection Agency, 576 US 743 (Supreme Court 2015).Google Scholar
Strengthening Transparency in Pivotal Science Underlying Significant Regulatory Actions and Influential Scientific Information. 40 Code of Federal Regulations 30. Environmental Protection Agency. 86 Federal Register 469–493 (January 6, 2020). www.federalregister.gov/documents/2021/01/06/2020-29179/strengthening-transparency-in-pivotal-science-underlying-significant-regulatory-actions-and.Google Scholar
Environmental Defense Fund v. EPA, 515 F. Supp. 3d 1135 (D. Mont. 2021).Google Scholar
References
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. Valuing Climate Damages: Updating Estimation of the Social Cost of Carbon Dioxide. Washington, DC: National Academies Press, 2017.Google Scholar
Congressional Research Service. Clean Air Act Issues in the 115th Congress: In Brief. Report by J. E. McCarthy. R44744 (Washington, DC: 2018). https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R44744.pdf.Google Scholar
Michigan v. Environmental Protection Agency, 576 US 743 (Supreme Court 2015).Google Scholar
Sinden, A.. “Supreme Court Remains Skeptical of the ‘Cost–Benefit State.’” The Regulatory Review, September 26, 2016. www.theregreview.org/2016/09/26/sinden-cost-benefit-state/.Google Scholar
Clinton, W. J. Revised Executive Order 12,886 Regulatory Planning and Review. 58 Federal Register 190 (October 4, 1993). www.reginfo.gov/public/jsp/Utilities/EO_12866.pdf.Google Scholar
Ackerman, F. and Heinzerling, L.. Priceless: On Knowing the Price of Everything and the Value of Nothing. New York: New Press, 2004.Google Scholar
Fischhoff, B.. “The Realities of Risk–Cost–Benefit Analysis.” Science 350, no. 6260 (2015): 527–534. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaa6516.Google Scholar
Arrow, K. J. et al. “Is There a Role for Benefit–Cost Analysis in Environmental, Health, and Safety Regulation?” Science 272, no. 6398 (1996): 221–222. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aar7204.Google Scholar
Brent, R.. Cost–Benefit Analysis and Health Care Evaluations. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar, 2014.Google Scholar
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. Cost Benefit Analysis and the Environment: Further Developments and Policy Use. Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (Paris: 2018).Google Scholar
Sinden, A.. “The Cost–Benefit Boomerang.” American Prospect, July 25, 2019. https://prospect.org/economy/cost-benefit-boomerang.Google Scholar
Sinden, A.. “The Problem of Unquantified Benefits.” Environmental Law 49 (2019): 73–129.Google Scholar
American Petroleum Institute. API Recommends that the US Retain the NAAQS Ozone Standards: Executive Summary (March 13, 2015). www.api.org/~/media/Files/Policy/Ozone-NAAQS/API-Recommendations-NAAQS-Ozone-Executive-Summary.pdf.Google Scholar
Banerjee, N., Hasmeyer, D. and Song, L.. “For Oil Industry, Clean Air Fight Was Dress Rehearsal for Climate Denial.” Inside Climate News, June 6, 2016. https://insideclimatenews.org/news/05062016/oil-industry-clean-air-fight-smog-los-angeles-dress-rehearsal-climate-change-denial-exxon.Google Scholar
Office of Management and Budget, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs. 2018, 2019 and 2020 Draft Report to Congress on the Benefits and Costs of Federal Regulations and Agency Compliance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (Washington, DC: 2019). www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/2019-CATS-5899-REV_DOC-Draft2018_2019_2020Cost_BenefitReport11_20_2019.pdf.Google Scholar
Office of Management and Budget, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs. 2013 Report to Congress on the Benefits and Costs of Federal Regulations and Unfunded Mandates on State, Local, and Tribal Entities (Washington, DC: 2013). www.whitehouse.gov/sites/whitehouse.gov/files/omb/inforeg/inforeg/2013_cb/2013_cost_benefit_report-updated.pdf.Google Scholar
Porter, M. E. and van der Linde, C.. “Toward a New Conception of the Environment-Competitiveness Relationship.” Journal of Economic Perspectives 9, no. 4 (1995): 97–118.Google Scholar
Harrington, W., Morgenstern, R. D. and Nelson, P.. “On the Accuracy of Regulatory Cost Estimates.” Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 19, no. 2 (2000): 297–332.Google Scholar
Popp, D.. “Pollution Control Innovations and the Clean Air Act of 1990.” Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 22, no. 4 (2003): 641–660.Google Scholar
Environmental Protection Agency. Retrospective Study of the Costs of EPA Regulations: A Report of Four Case Studies. National Center for Environmental Economics, Office of Policy, Environmental Protection Agency (2014). www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2017-09/documents/ee-0575_0.pdf.Google Scholar
Bridbord, K. and Hanson, D.. “A Personal Perspective on the Initial Federal Health-based Regulation to Remove Lead from Gasoline.” Environmental Health Perspectives 117, no. 8 (2009): 1195–1201.Google Scholar
Newell, R. G. and Rogers, K.. “Leaded Gasoline in the United States: The Breakthrough of Permit Trading.” In Choosing Environmental Policy: Comparing Instruments and Outcomes in the United States and Europe, edited by Harrington, W., Morgenstern, R. and Sterner, T.. 175–191. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future, 2004. Reprint.Google Scholar
Environmental Defense Fund. “Finding, Fixing Leaks is a Cost-Effective Way to Cut Oil and Gas Methane Emissions.” Environmental Defense Fund Fact Sheet, n.d. www.edf.org/sites/default/files/content/ldar_fact_sheet_final.pdf?utm_source=forbes&utm_campaign=edf_methane_upd_dmt&utm_medium=cross-post&utm_id=1478794987&utm_content=br161110.Google Scholar
Feldman, H. J., senior director of Regulatory and Scientific Affairs at the American Petroleum Institute. Comment on the US Environmental Protection Agency’s Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on “Increasing Consistency and Transparency in Considering Costs and Benefits in the Rulemaking Process” 83 Fed. Reg. 27,524 (June 13, 2018). Submitted to Environmental Protection Agency, National Center for Environmental Economics. Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OA-2018-0107. April 13, 2018.Google Scholar
McGillis, J., Institute for Energy Research. Comments on Increasing Consistency and Transparency in Considering Costs and Benefits in Rulemaking Process Advanced Notice of Proposed Rule-Making 83 Fed. Reg. 27524–27528 (June 13, 2018). Submitted to Environmental Protection Agency. Docket No. EPA-HQ-OA-2018-0107-1244 RIN 2010-AA12. 2018.Google Scholar
Boyle, K. J. and Kotchen, M. J.. “Policy Brief – The Need for More (Not Less) External Review of Economic Analysis at the US EPA.” Review of Environmental Economics and Policy 13, no. 2 (2019): 308–316. https://doi.org/10.1093/reep/rez006.Google Scholar
Boyle, K. J. and Kotchen, M.. “Retreat on Economies at the EPA.” Science 361, no. 6404 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aav0896.Google Scholar
Belton, K. B. and Graham, J. D.. “Trump’s Deregulation Record: Is It Working?” Administrative Law Review 71, no. 4 (2019): 803–880. www.administrativelawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/ALR_71.4-Graham-Belton.pdf.Google Scholar
Improving Consistency and Transparency of Cost Considerations in Rulemaking: Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. 40 Code of Federal Regulations chapter undefined. Environmental Protection Agency. 83 Federal Register 27524–27528 (June 13, 2018). www.federalregister.gov/documents/2018/06/13/2018-12707/increasing-consistency-and-transparency-in-considering-costs-and-benefits-in-the-rulemaking-process.Google Scholar
Increasing Consistency and Transparency in Considering Benefits and Costs in the Clean Air Act Rulemaking Process: Final Rule. 40 Code of Federal Regulations. Environmental Protection Agency. 83 Federal Register 247: 84130–84157 (December 23, 2020). www.federalregister.gov/documents/2020/12/23/2020-27368/increasing-consistency-and-transparency-in-considering-benefits-and-costs-in-the-clean-air-act.Google Scholar
Rescinding the Rule on Increasing Consistency and Transparency in Considering Benefits and Costs in the Clean Air Act Rulemaking Process: Interim Final Rule. 40 Code of Federal Regulations 83. Environmental Protection Agency. 86 Federal Register 26406–26419 (May 14, 2021). www.federalregister.gov/documents/2021/05/14/2021-10216/rescinding-the-rule-on-increasing-consistency-and-transparency-in-considering-benefits-and-costs-in.Google Scholar
Biden, J. R.. E.O. 13990 Protecting Public Health and the Environment and Restoring Science to Tackle the Climate Crisis. Executive Office of the President. 86 Federal Register 7037–7043 (January 20, 2021). www.federalregister.gov/documents/2021/01/25/2021-01765/protecting-public-health-and-the-environment-and-restoring-science-to-tackle-the-climate-crisis.Google Scholar
Waste Prevention, Production Subject to Royalties, and Resource Conservation; Rescission or Revision of Certain Requirements: Final Rule. 43 Code of Federal Regulations Parts 3160 and 3170. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. 83 Federal Register no. 189 (September 28, 2018). www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2018-09-28/pdf/2018-20689.pdf.Google Scholar
Repeal of the Clean Power Plan; Emission Guidelines for Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Existing Electric Utility Generating Units; Revisions to Emission Guidelines Implementing Regulations. Final Rule. 40 Code of Federal Regulations 60. Environmental Protection Agency. 84 Federal Register 32520–32584 (September 6, 2018). www.federalregister.gov/documents/2019/07/08/2019-13507/repeal-of-the-clean-power-plan-emission-guidelines-for-greenhouse-gas-emissions-from-existing.Google Scholar
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Coal- and Oil-Fired Electric Utility Steam Generating Units – Reconsideration of Supplemental Finding and Residual Risk and Technology Review: Final Rule. 40 Code of Federal Regulations Part 63. Environmental Protection Agency (22 May 2020). www.federalregister.gov/documents/2020/05/22/2020-08607/national-emission-standards-for-hazardous-air-pollutants-coal--and-oil-fired-electric-utility-steam.Google Scholar
Waste Prevention, Production Subject to Royalties, and Resource Conservation: Final Rule. 43 Code of Federal Regulations 3100, 3160, 3170. Bureau of Land Management, Department of the Interior. 81 Federal Register no. 223, 83008–83089 (November 18, 2016). www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2016-11-18/pdf/2016-27637.pdf.Google Scholar
Castle, K. M. and Revesz, R. L.. “Environmental Standards, Thresholds, and the Next Battleground of Climate Change Regulations.” Minnesota Law Review 103 (2019): 1349–1437.Google Scholar
Institute for Policy Integrity. Brief by Institute for Policy Integrity at New York University School of Law As Amicus Curiae in Support of Respondents in Michigan v. EPA, March 2015. https://policyintegrity.org/documents/SCOTUS_brief_MATS_March2015.pdf.Google Scholar
Environmental Protection Agency. Final Regulatory Impact Analysis: Control of Emissions from Nonroad Diesel Engines. EPA420-R-04-007 (2004).Google Scholar
Environmental Protection Agency. Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Final Clean Air Interstate Rule (March 2005).Google Scholar
National Research Council. Science and Decisions: Advancing Risk Assessment. Washington, DC: National Academies Press, 2009. doi:10.17226/12209.Google Scholar
Environmental Protection Agency. Summary of Expert Opinions on the Existence of a Threshold in the Concentration-Response Function for PM2.5-Related Mortality (Washington, DC: 2010). www3.epa.gov/ttnecas1/regdata/Benefits/thresholdstsd.pdf.Google Scholar
Abt, E. R., Rodricks, J. V., Levy, J. I., Zeise, L. and Burke, T. A. “Science and Decisions: Advancing Risk Assessment.” Risk Analysis 30, no. 7 (2010): 1028–1036. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2010.01426.x.Google Scholar
Feldman, H. J., director of Regulatory and Scientific Affairs at the American Petroleum Institute. Testimony Regarding EPA’s Proposal to Change the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particulate Matter. Submitted to EPA Public hearings in Philadelphia. Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2007–0492. July 17, 2012.Google Scholar
Goodman, J. E., toxicologist at Gradient, an environmental consulting firm. Testimony on “National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particulate Matter: Proposed Rule” 78 Federal Register 3085. Submitted to Environmental Protection Agency. Public hearings in Philadelphia. Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2007–0492. July 17, 2012.Google Scholar
Lewis, M., Logomasini, A. and Yeatman, W.. First Steps for the Trump Administration: Champion Affordable Energy: Free Market Reforms to Protect the Environment and Promote Plentiful, Reliable Energy. Competitive Enterprise Institute (December 15, 2016). https://cei.org/sites/default/files/First%20Steps%20for%20the%20Trump%20Administration%20-%20Chamption%20Affordable%20Energy.pdf.Google Scholar
Furchtgott-Roth, D., senior fellow and director, Economics21 of the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research. The Environmental Protection Agency’s Flawed Cost-Benefit Analysis Methodology. Submitted to testimony at the hearing by the Subcommittee on Superfund Waste Management and Regulatory Oversight, Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works. October 21, 2015.Google Scholar
American Petroleum Institute et al. Carbon Pollution Emission Guidelines for Existing Stationary Sources: Electric Utility Generation Units, Proposed Rule, 79 Fed. Reg. 34,830. Submitted to Environmental Protection Agency. Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2013–0602; FRL–9910-86-OAR. June 18, 2014.Google Scholar
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air and Radiation. Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Review of the Clean Power Plan: Proposal (Research Triangle Park, NC: 2017). www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2017-10/documents/ria_proposed-cpp-repeal_2017-10.pdf.Google Scholar
Graham, J. D. and Wiener, J. B.. Risk Versus Risk: Tradeoffs in Protecting Health and the Environment. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1995.Google Scholar
Office of Management and Budget. Circular A-4: Guidance to Federal agencies on the Development of Regulatory Analysis As Required under Section 6(a)(3)(c) of Executive Order 12866, a Regulatory Planning and Review, the Regulatory Right-to-Know Act, and a Variety of Related Authorities (Washington, DC: 2003). www.whitehouse.gov/sites/whitehouse.gov/files/omb/circulars/A4/a-4.pdf.Google Scholar
Perkins, J.. “The Case for Co-Benefits: Regulatory Impact Analyses, Michigan v. EPA, and the Environmental Protection Agency’s Mercury and Air Toxics Standards.” 2015–16 Olaus and Adolph Murie Award-winning paper (co-winner), Stanford Law School (2016). https://law.stanford.edu/publications/the-case-for-co-benefits-regulatory-impact-analyses-michigan-v-epa-and-the-environmental-protection-agencys-mercury-and-air-toxics-standards.Google Scholar
United States Sugar Corp. v. Environmental Protection Agency, No 11-1108 (D.C. Cir. 2016).Google Scholar
Bakst, D.. “Will EPA Stop Its Abuse of Costly Pollution-Control ‘Co-Benefits’ Assessments?” Heritage Foundation Commentary, October 4, 2018. www.heritage.org/agriculture/commentary/will-epa-stop-its-abuse-costly-pollution-control-co-benefits-assessments.Google Scholar
Beaulier, S. and Sutter, D.. “The New ‘Benefits’ of Environmental Regulation.” American Energy Alliance, October 11, 2012. www.americanenergyalliance.org/2012/10/11/the-new-benefits-of-environmental-regulation.Google Scholar
Todd, M., chair of the Residual Risk Coalition (this coalition includes the American Petroleum Institute). Comments on “The National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutant Emissions: Coal- and Oil-Fired Electric Utility Steam Generating Units – Reconsideration of Supplemental Finding and Residual Risk and Technology Review,” 84 Fed. Reg. 2,670 (Feb. 7, 2019). Submitted to Environmental Protection Agency. Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2018–0794. April 17, 2019.Google Scholar
Supplemental Finding That It Is Appropriate and Necessary to Regulate Hazardous Air Pollutants from Coal-and Oil-Fired Electric Utility Steam Generating Units. 40 Code of Federal Regulations 63. Environmental Protection Agency. 81 Federal Register 24419–24452 (April 25, 2016). www.federalregister.gov/documents/2016/04/25/2016-09429/supplemental-finding-that-it-is-appropriate-and-necessary-to-regulate-hazardous-air-pollutants-from.Google Scholar
Burtraw, D. and Keyes, A.. “10 Big Little Flaws in EPA’s Affordable Clean Energy Rule.” Issue Brief 19-05. July 22, 2019. www.rff.org/publications/issue-briefs/10-big-little-flaws-in-epas-affordable-clean-energy-rule.Google Scholar
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air and Radiation. Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Repeal of the Clean Power Plan, and the Emission Guidelines for Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Existing Electric Utility Generating Units (Research Triangle Park, NC: 2019). www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2019-06/documents/utilities_ria_final_cpp_repeal_and_ace_2019-06.pdf.Google Scholar
Driesen, D.. “Is Cost–Benefit Analysis Neutral?” University of Colorado Law Review 77, no. 2 (2006): 339–342.Google Scholar
McGartland, A. et al. “Estimating the Health Benefits of Environmental Regulations.” Science 357, no. 6350 (2017): 457–458. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aam8204.Google Scholar
Environmental Protection Agency. Guidelines for Preparing Economic Analyses. National Center for Environmental Economics, Office of Policy, Environmental Protection Agency (December 17, 2010; updated May 2014). EPA 240-R-10-001. www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2017-08/documents/ee-0568-50.pdf.Google Scholar
Mazzota, M. et al. Non-monetary Benefits without Apology: The Economic Theory and Practice of Ecosystem Service Benefit Indicators. Northeast Agricultural and Resource Economics Association (Newport, RI: June 27–30, 2015).Google Scholar
Congressional Research Service. Clean Air Act Issues in the 116th Congress. Report by J. E. McCarthy, R. K. Lattanzio and K. C. Shouse (Washington, DC: 2019).Google Scholar
Goffman, J.. “MATS, Cost–Benefit Analysis, and the Appropriate and Necessary Finding.” Environmental Energy and Law Program (2018). https://eelp.law.harvard.edu/2018/12/mats-cost-benefit-analysis-and-the-appropriate-and-necessary-finding.Google Scholar
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Coal- and Oil-Fired Electric Utility Steam Generating Units – Reconsideration of Supplemental Finding and Residual Risk and Technology Review: Proposed Rule. 40 Code of Federal Regulations 63. Environmental Protection Agency. 84 Federal Register 2670–2704 (February 7, 2019). www.federalregister.gov/documents/2019/02/07/2019-00936/national-emission-standards-for-hazardous-air-pollutants-coal–and-oil-fired-electric-utility-steam.Google Scholar
Roman, H. et al. “Evaluation of the Cardiovascular Effects of Methylmercury Exposures: Current Evidence Supports Development of a Dose–Response Function for Regulatory Benefits Analysis.” Environmental Health Perspectives 119, no. 5 (2011): 607–614. https://doi.org/10.1289/ehp.1003012.Google Scholar
Sunderland, E. et al. “Benefits of Regulating Hazardous Air Pollutants from Coal and Oil-Fired Utilities in the United States.” Environmental Science & Technology 50, no. 5 (February 5, 2016): 2117–2120. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.6b00239.Google Scholar
Giang, A. and Selin, N.. “Benefits of Mercury Controls for the United States.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 113, no. 2 (2015): 286–291. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1514395113.Google Scholar
Edison Electric Institute et al. Request for Expeditious Completion of the Residual Risk and Technology Review per CAA sections 112(d)(6) and (f)(2) by April 16, 2020. Submitted to W. L. Wehrum, assistant administrator, Environmental Protection Agency. July 10, 2018.Google Scholar
Brady, D. and Eilperin, J.. “EPA Overhauls Mercury Pollution Rule despite Opposition from Utilities.” Washington Post, April 17, 2020.Google Scholar
Beitsch, R.. “EPA’s Independent Science Board Says Agency Ignored Its Advice on Mercury Rule.” The Hill, December 31, 2019. https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/476374-epas-independent-science-board-says-agency-ignored-their-advice-on+&cd=12&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-b-1-d.Google Scholar
Center for Biological Diversity v. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 508 F.3d 508 (9th Cir. 2007).Google Scholar
Government Accountability Office. Regulatory Impact Analysis: Development of Social Cost of Carbon Estimates. Report by J. A. Gómez GAO-14-663 (Washington, DC: 2014). www.gao.gov/assets/670/665016.pdf.Google Scholar
Sierra Club v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, No. 16-1329 (D.C. Cir. 2017).Google Scholar
Environmental Protection Agency. Technical Support Document: Social Cost of Carbon for Regulatory Impact Analysis under Executive Order 12866. Report by Interagency Working Group on Social Cost of Carbon (Washington, DC: 2010).Google Scholar
Environmental Protection Agency. Interagency Working Group on Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases, United States Government. Technical Support Document: Technical Update of the Social Cost of Carbon for Regulatory Impact Analysis under Executive Order 12866 (Washington, DC: 2016).Google Scholar
American Petroleum Institute et al. Comments on “Technical Update of the Social Cost of Carbon for Regulatory Impact Analysis under Executive Order No. 12866,” 78 Fed. Reg. 70,586 (Nov. 26, 2013). Submitted to H. Shelanski, administrator, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs. Docket ID OMB-OMB-2013-0007. February 26, 2014.Google Scholar
Lewis, M. et al., Competitive Enterprise Institute and other organizations. Technical Update of the Social Cost of Carbon for Regulatory Impact Analysis under Executive Order No. 12866. Submitted to H. Shelanski, administrator, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs. Docket ID OMB-OMB-2013-0007. February 26, 2014.Google Scholar
American Energy Alliance et al. Statement in Support of the Transparency and Honesty in Energy Regulations Act of 2016. Submitted to E. Jenkins, Representative of West Virginia and Justice of the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia. July 2016.Google Scholar
US House of Representatives. Hearing on at What Cost? Examining the Social Cost of Carbon. Committee on Science, Space, and Technology. 115th Congress, 1st Sess. February 28, 2017.Google Scholar
Trump, D. J.. Presidential Executive Order on Restoring the Rule of Law, Federalism, and Economic Growth by Reviewing the “Waters of the United States” Rule. 82 Federal Register 16093. 2017. www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/presidential-executive-order-restoring-rule-law-federalism-economic-growth-reviewing-waters-united-states-rule.Google Scholar
Bureau of Land Management. Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Final Rule to Suspend or Delay Certain Requirements of the 2016 Waste Prevention Rule. Docket ID: BLM-2017-0002 (2017).Google Scholar
Environmental Protection Agency. Addendum to Technical Support Document on Social Cost of Carbon for Regulatory Impact Analysis under Executive Order 12866: Application of the Methodology to Estimate the Social Cost of Methane and the Social Cost of Nitrous Oxide. Report by Interagency Working Group on Social Cost of Carbon (2016).Google Scholar
Congressional Research Service. EPA’s Proposal to Repeal the Clean Power Plan: Benefits and Costs. Report by K. Shouse. R45119 (Washington, DC: 2018). https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R45119.pdf.Google Scholar
Sunstein, C. R.. “On Not Revisiting Official Discount Rates: Institutional Inertia and the Social Cost of Carbon.” American Economic Review 104, no. 5 (2014): 547–551.Google Scholar
Greenstone, M.. “Assessing Approaches to Updating the Social Cost of Carbon.” Presentation at the National Academies Fifth Meeting of the Committee on Assessing Approaches to Updating the Social Cost of Carbon. May 5, 2017.Google Scholar
Weitzman, M. L.. “Fat Tails and the Social Cost of Carbon.” American Economic Review 104, no. 5 (2014): 544–546. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.104.5.544.Google Scholar
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The Summary for Policymakers of the Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5°C (SR15). World Meteorological Organization (Geneva, Switzerland: 2018). www.ipcc.ch/sr15.Google Scholar
Kopp, R. E. et al. “Tipping Elements and Climate-Economic Shocks: Pathways Toward Integrated Assessment.” Earth’s Future 4, no. 8 (2016): 346–372.Google Scholar
Council of Economic Advisers. Discounting for Public Policy: Theory and Recent Evidence on the Merits of Updating the Discount Rate. White House (Washington, DC: 2017). https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/page/files/201701_cea_discounting_issue_brief.pdf.Google Scholar
Broome, J.. Climate Matters: Ethics in a Warming World. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 2012.Google Scholar
Burke, M., Hsiang, S. M. and Miguel, E.. “Global Non-linear Effect of Temperature on Economic Production.” Nature 527 (2015): 235–239. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature15725.Google Scholar
Stern, N.. The Economics of Climate Change: The Stern Review. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2007.Google Scholar
Cowen, T. and Parfit, D.. “Against the Social Discount Rate.” In Justice between Age Groups and Generations, edited by Fishkin, J. S. and Laslett, P.. 144–168. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1992.Google Scholar
Gardiner, S. M.. A Perfect Moral Storm: The Ethical Tragedy of Climate Change. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2011.Google Scholar
Clark, P. U. et al. “Consequences of Twenty-First-Century Policy for Multi-millennial Climate and Sea-Level Change.” Nature Climate Change 6 (2016): 360–369. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2923.Google Scholar
Global Carbon Project. “Carbon Budget and Trends 2019” (2019). www.globalcarbonproject.org/carbonbudget/index.htm.Google Scholar
Brown, D.. Climate Change Ethics: Navigating the Perfect Moral Storm. London, UK: Routledge, 2013.Google Scholar
Howard, P. and Sylvan, D.. The Economic Climate: Establishing Expert Consensus on the Economics of Climate Change. Institute for Policy Integrity, New York University School of Law (2015). http://policyintegrity.org/files/publications/EconomicClimateConsensus.pdf.Google Scholar
Howard, P. and Schwartz, J.. “Think Global: International Reciprocity as Justification for a Global Social Cost of Carbon.” Columbia Journal of Environmental Law 42, no. S (2017): 203–294. https://doi.org/10.7916/cjel.v42iS.3734.Google Scholar
Revesz, R. L. et al. “The Social Cost of Carbon: A Global Imperative.” Review of Environmental Economics and Policy 11, no. 1 (2017): 172–173.Google Scholar
Gayer, T. and Viscusi, W. K.. “Determining the Proper Scope of Climate Change Policy Benefits in US Regulatory Analyses: Domestic versus Global Approaches.” Review of Environmental Economics and Policy 10, no. 2 (2016): 245–263.Google Scholar
Gayer, T. and Viscusi, W. K.. “Letter – The Social Cost of Carbon: Maintaining the Integrity of Economic Analysis – A Response to Revesz et al. (2017).” Review of Environmental Economics and Policy 11, no. 1 (2017): 174–175. https://doi.org/10.1093/reep/rew021.Google Scholar
Reagan, R.. Statement on Signing the Montreal Protocol on Ozone-Depleting Substances. American Presidency Project, University of California, Santa Barbara. April 5, 1988. www.presidency.ucsb.edu/node/253878.Google Scholar
Benedick, R. E.. Ozone Diplomacy New Directions in Safeguarding the Planet. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1998.Google Scholar
Bush, G.. Statement on Signing the Instrument of Ratification for the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. American Presidency Project, University of California, Santa Barbara. October 13, 1992. www.presidency.ucsb.edu/node/266987.Google Scholar
Zero Zone, Inc. v. United States Department of Energy, 832 F.3d 654 (7th Cir. 2016).Google Scholar
Jones, N.. “China Tops CO2 Emissions.” Nature, June 20, 2007. https://doi.org/10.1038/news070618-9.Google Scholar
Burger, M. et al. “Legal Pathways to Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions under Section 115 of the Clean Air Act.” Georgetown Environmental Law Review 28 (2016): 359–423.Google Scholar
Tollefson, J. and Weiss, K. R.. “Nations Adopt Historic Global Climate Accord: Agreement Commits World to Holding Warming ‘Well Below’ 2°C.” Nature 582, no. 7582 (2015): 315–317.Google Scholar
Dudley, S. and Mannix, B.. “The Social Cost of Carbon.” Engage: Journal of the Federalist Society Practice Group 15, no. 1 (June 24, 2014): 14–18.Google Scholar
Fraas, A. et al. “Social Cost of Carbon: Domestic Duty.” Science 351, no. 6273 (2016): 569. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.351.6273.569-b.Google Scholar
Rickie, K. et al. “Country-level Social Cost of Carbon.” Nature Climate Change 8 (2018): 895–900. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-018-0282-y.Google Scholar
Government Accountability Office. The Federal System for Collecting Oil and Gas Revenues Needs Comprehensive Reassessment. Report by F. Rusco. GAO-08-691 (Washington, DC: 2008). www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-691.Google Scholar
Government Accountability Office. Federal, Oil and Gas Leases: Opportunities Exist to Capture Vented and Flared Natural Gas, Which Would Increase Royalty Payments and Reduce Greenhouse Gases. Report by F. Rusco. GAO-11-34 (Washington, DC: 2010). www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-34.Google Scholar
Ranger, R., senior policy advisor, Upstream. American Petroleum Institute’s Comments on “Waste Prevention, Production Subject to Royalties, and Resource Conservation; Rescission or Revision of Certain Requirements,” 83 Fed. Reg. 7924 (Feb. 22, 2018). Submitted to B. Steed, deputy director of Programs and Policy, Bureau of Land Management. RIN 1004-AE53. April 23, 2018.Google Scholar
Todd, M., senior policy advisor, American Petroleum Institute. Statement for the Public Hearing on “Oil and Natural Gas Sector: Emission Standards for New, Reconstructed, and Modified Sources Reconsideration Proposed Amendments to NSPSOOOOa,” 83 Fed. Reg. 52056-52107. Submitted to public hearing. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0483. November 14, 2018.Google Scholar
Olsen, B. and Matthews, C. M.. “Trump Rollback of Methane Regulations Splits Energy Industry, Big Oil-and-Gas Companies Support Restrictions on the Powerful Greenhouse Gas, While Smaller Companies Worry about Cost.” Wall Street Journal, August 29, 2019. www.wsj.com/articles/trump-rollback-of-methane-regulations-splits-energy-industry-11567098375.Google Scholar
Alvarez, R. et al. “Assessment of Methane Emissions from the US Oil and Gas Supply Chain.” Science 361, no. 6398 (2018): 186–188. https://science.sciencemag.org/content/361/6398/186.Google Scholar
Krupnick, A. and Echarte, I.. The 2016 BLM Methane Waste Prevention Rule: Should It Stay or Should It Go? Resources for the Future (2018). https://media.rff.org/documents/RFF-Rpt-Oil26GasRegs-BLM20methane20rule.pdf.Google Scholar
Bureau of Land Management. Regulatory Impact Analysis for: Revisions to 43 CFR 3100 (Onshore Oil and Gas Leasing) and 43 CFR 3600 (Onshore Oil and Gas Operations) Additions of 43 CFR 3178 (Royalty-Free Use of Lease Production) and 43 CFR 3179 (Waste Prevention and Resource Conservation). Docket ID: BLM-2016-0001 (2016). www.regulations.gov/document?D=BLM-2016-0001-9127.Google Scholar
Bureau of Land Management. Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Final Rule to Rescind or Revise Certain Requirements of the 2016 Waste Prevention Rule. (Washington, DC: 2018).Google Scholar
Bennet, M., US senator for Colorado. “Bennet Introduces Bill to Lock in a Science-Based Method to Determine the Cost of Carbon Pollution.” News release, 2019. www.bennet.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2019/6/bennet-introduces-bill-to-lock-in-a-science-based-method-to-determine-the-cost-of-carbon-pollution.Google Scholar
US Congress. Senate. Carbon Pollution and Transparency Act. S. 1745, 116th Congress, 1st Sess. Introduced in Senate June 5, 2019.Google Scholar
Roberts, D.. “A Closer Look at Washington’s Superb New 100% Clean Electricity Bill.” Vox, April 18, 2019. www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2019/4/18/18363292/washington-clean-energy-bill.Google Scholar
Kohler, J.. “‘Transformative,’ ‘Substantial,’ ‘Turducken’? Colorado Lawmakers Approve a Bevy of Energy Bills in 2019 Session.” Denver Post, May 19, 2019. www.denverpost.com/2019/05/19/colorado-clean-energy-legislature-xcel.Google Scholar
Climate Leadership Council. “The Conservative Case for Carbon Dividends.” Briefing by J. A. Baker III, M. Feldstein, T. Halstead, N. G. Mankiw, H. M. Paulson, Jr., G. P. Shultz, T. Stephenson and R. Walton. 2017.Google Scholar
US Congress. House. Transparency and Honesty in Energy Regulations Act of 2017. H.R. 3117, 115th Congress, 1st Sess. Introduced in House June 26, 2017.Google Scholar
US Congress. Senate. Transparency and Honesty in Energy Regulations. S. 1512, 115th Congress, 1st Sess. Introduced in Senate June 29, 2017.Google Scholar
Congressional Research Service. An Introduction to Judicial Review of Federal Agency Action. Report by J. P. Cole. R44699 (Washington, DC: 2016). https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R44699.pdf.Google Scholar
Congressional Research Service. A Brief Overview of Rulemaking and Judicial Review. Report by T. Garvey. R41546 (Washington, DC: 2017). https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R41546.pdf.Google Scholar
Heinzerling, L.. “Unreasonable Delays: The Legal Problems (So Far) of Trump’s Deregulatory Binge.” Harvard Law and Policy Review 12 (2018): 13–48.Google Scholar
Stanberry, R.. “The APA As an Environmental Law.” Environmental Law 49, no. 3 (2019). https://law.lclark.edu/live/files/28857-493stansberry.Google Scholar
Kassop, N.. “Legal Challenges to Trump Administration Policies: The Risks of Executive Branch Lawmaking That Fails to ‘Take Care’” In Presidential Leadership and the Trump Presidency, edited by Lamb, C. M. and Neiheisel, J. R.. 41–90. Cham, Switzerland: Palgrave Macmillan, 2019.Google Scholar
Clean Air Council v. Pruitt, No. 17-1145 (D.C. Cir. 2017).Google Scholar
State of California, et al. v. Bureau of Land Management, et al., No.3:17-cv-07187-WHO (District Court for the Northern District of California 2018).Google Scholar
Chevron USA., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 US 837 (Supreme Court 1984).Google Scholar
Federal Communications Commission v. Fox Television Stations, Inc., 556 US 502 (Supreme Court 2009).Google Scholar
Indigenous Environmental Network v. US Department of State, 347 F. Supp. 3d 561, 591 (District Court of the District of Montana 2018).Google Scholar
Adair, K. E. and Akroyd, R. R.. “Tucson Herpetological Society v. Salazar Decision and its Progeny: A Move Away from Blind Deference to Agency Decision-making.” California Water Law & Policy Reporter, March 2012.Google Scholar
Buzbee, W. W.. “The Tethered President: Consistency and Contingency in Administrative Law.” Boston University Law Review 98 (2018): 1357–1442. https://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3084&context=facpub.Google Scholar
Cecot, C.. “Deregulatory Cost–Benefit Analysis and Regulatory Stability.” Duke Law Journal 68, no. 8 (2018–19): 1594–1650.Google Scholar
Buzbee, W. W.. “Deregulatory Splintering the Trump Administration and Administrative Law.” Chicago-Kent Law Review 94 (2019): 439–486.Google Scholar
Tucson Herpetological Society v. Salazar, 566 F.3d 870 (9th Cir. 2009).Google Scholar
Fisher, E., Pascual, P. and Wagner, W.. “Rethinking Judicial Review of Expert Agencies Symposium: Science Challenges for Law and Policy.” Texas Law Review 93 (2014–15): 1681–1722.Google Scholar
Wagner, W., Fisher, E. and Pascual, P.. “Whose Science? A New Era in Regulatory ‘Science Wars.’” Science 362, no. 6415 (2018): 636–639.Google Scholar
McGarity, T. O.. “Judicial Review of Scientific Rulemaking.” Science, Technology, & Human Values 9, no. 1 (1984): 97–106.Google Scholar
Kozel, R. J. and Pojanowski, J.. “Administrative Change.” UCLA Law Review 59 (2011): 112–169.Google Scholar
Baltimore Gas & Electric Co. v. Natural Resource Defense Council, Inc., 462 US 87 (Supreme Court 1983).Google Scholar
Kuhn., E. “Science and Deference: The ‘Best Available Science’ Mandate Is a Fiction in the Ninth Circuit.” Environmental Law Review Syndicate, 2016. http://elawreview.org/environmental-law-review-syndicate/science-and-deference-the-best-available-science-mandate-is-a-fiction-in-the-ninth-circuit.Google Scholar
Dana, D. and Barsa, M.. “Judicial Review in an Age of Hyper-Polarization and Alternative Facts.” San Diego Journal of Climate and Energy Law 9 (2017–18): 231–263. www.law.berkeley.edu/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/Judicial-Review-in-an-Age-of-Hyper-Polarization-and-Alternative-F.pdf.Google Scholar
California v. Bureau of Land Management, No 4:18-cv-00521 (9th Circ. 2020).Google Scholar
Gilmer, E.. “Trump Environmental Record Marked by Big Losses, Undecided Cases.” Bloomberg Law, January 11, 2021.Google Scholar
Jacobs, J. P. and King, P.. “Biden Races Courts for Chance to Torpedo Trump Water Rule.” E&E News, April 28, 2021.Google Scholar
Farber, D. A.. “Rethinking the Role of Cost–Benefit Analysis.” University of Chicago Law Review 76 (2009): 1355–1380.Google Scholar
Lautenberg, Frank R. Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act §6, Pub L No 114–182, 130 Stat 448, 460 (2016), codified at 15 USC § 2605.Google Scholar
Chestnut, L. G. and Mills, D. M.. “A Fresh Look at the Benefits and Costs of the US Acid Rain Program.” Journal of Environmental Management 77 no. 3 (2005): 252–266.Google Scholar
Gilmer, E.. “Trump’s 2-for-1 Regulations Order Survives States’ Legal Attack.” Bloomberg Law, April 2, 2020.Google Scholar
Whitman v. American Trucking Association, 531 US 457 (Supreme Court 2001).Google Scholar
Corrosion Proof Fittings v. EPA, 947 F.2d 1201 (5th Cir. 1991).Google Scholar
30 U.S.C. § 225.Google Scholar
Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association v. State Farm Auto Mutual Insurance Co., 463 US 29 (Supreme Court 1983).Google Scholar
References
Congressional Research Service. Congress’s Authority to Influence and Control Executive Branch Agencies. Report by T. Garvey, legislative attorney and D. Sheffner, legislative attorney. R45442 (December 19, 2018). https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R45442.pdf.Google Scholar
Gerrard, M. B.. “Emergency Exemptions from Environmental Laws.” In Law in the Time of COVID-19, edited by Pistor, K.. New York: Columbia Law School, 2020.Google Scholar
Michaels, J. D.. Constitutional Coup: Privatization’s Threat to the American Republic. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2017.Google Scholar
Southworth, A.. Lawyers of the Right: Professionalizing the Conservative Coalition. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 2008.Google Scholar
Teles, S. M.. The Rise of the Conservative Legal Movement: The Battle for Control of the Law. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2010.Google Scholar
Hollis-Brusky, A.. Ideas with Consequences: The Federalist Society and the Conservative Counterrevolution. New York: Oxford University Press, 2015.Google Scholar
Avery, M. and McLaughlin, D.. The Federalist Society: How Conservatives Took the Law Back from Liberals. Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University Press, 2013.Google Scholar
Barnes, R. and Mufson, S.. “White House Counts on Kavanaugh in Battle against ‘Administrative State.’” Washington Post, August 12, 2018. www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/brett-kavanaugh-and-the-end-of-the-regulatory-state-as-we-know-it/2018/08/12/22649a04-9bdc-11e8-8d5e-c6c594024954_story.html.Google Scholar
Metzger, G. E.. “1930s Redux: The Administrative State under Siege.” Harvard Law Review 131, no. 1 (November 10, 2017): 1–95. https://harvardlawreview.org/2017/11/1930s-redux-the-administrative-state-under-siege.Google Scholar
Southworth, A.. “Lawyers and the Conservative Counterrevolution.” Law & Social Inquiry 43, no. 4 (September 24, 2018): 1698–1728. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/lsi.12363.Google Scholar
Squillace, M. et al. “Presidents Lack the Authority to Abolish or Diminish National Monuments.” Virginia Law Review Online 103 (June 9, 2017): 55–71. www.virginialawreview.org/sites/virginialawreview.org/files/Hecht%20PDF.pdf.Google Scholar
Hein, J.. “Monumental Decisions: One-Way Levers Towards Preservation in the Antiquities Act and Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act.” Environmental Law 48, no. 125 (April 11, 2018): 126–166.Google Scholar
Trump, D. J.. Presidential Executive Order on Accelerating the Nation’s Economic Recovery From the COVID-19 Emergency by Expediting Infrastructure Investments and Other Activities. Executive Order 13927, 85 Federal Register 35165–35170 (2020). www.federalregister.gov/documents/2020/06/09/2020-12584/accelerating-the-nations-economic-recovery-from-the-covid-19-emergency-by-expediting-infrastructure.Google Scholar
Davenport, C. and Friedman, L.. “Trump, Citing Pandemic, Moves to Weaken Two Key Environmental Protections.” New York Times, June 4, 2020. www.nytimes.com/2020/06/04/climate/trump-environment-coronavirus.html.Google Scholar
Reeves, D.. “Trump Suspends Environmental Rules for Infrastructure, Citing Pandemic.” Energy Washington Week, June 4, 2020. https://insideepa.com/daily-news/trump-suspends-environmental-rules-infrastructure-citing-pandemic.Google Scholar
Glicksman, R. L.. “The Firm Constitutional Foundation and Shaky Political Future of Environmental Cooperative Federalism.” In Controversies in American Federalism and Public Policy, edited by Banks, C. P.. 132–150. London, UK: Routledge, 2018.Google Scholar
Duncan, D. and Ellis, C.. “Clean Water Act Section 401: Balancing States’ Rights and the Nation’s Need for Energy Infrastructure.” Hastings Environmental Law Journal 25, no. 2 (2019): 235–262. https://repository.uchastings.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1568&context=hastings_environmental_law_journal.Google Scholar
Congressional Research Service. Clean Water Act Section 401: Background and Issues. Report by C. Copeland, specialist in Resources and Environmental Policy. 97–488 (Washington, DC: 2015). https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/97-488.pdf.Google Scholar
Clean Water Act Section 401 Certification Rule: Final Rule. 40 Code of Federal Regulations Part 121. Environmental Protection Agency. 85 Federal Register 42210–42287 (July 13, 2020). www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2020-06/documents/pre-publication_version_of_the_clean_water_act_section_401_certification_rule_508.pdf.Google Scholar
Attorneys General of California, Connecticut, Maryland, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington and Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection. Objection to “Clean Water Act Section 401 Guidance for Federal Agencies, States and Authorized Tribes” Issued by the US Environmental Protection Agency. Submitted to A. Wheeler, administrator, Environmental Protection Agency. July 25, 2019.Google Scholar
Carper, T., ranking member of the Committee on Environment and Public Works, Duckworth, T., ranking member of the Subcommittee on Fisheries, Water, and Wildlife, and Booker, C. A., ranking member of the Subcommittee on Superfund, Waste, Management, and Regulatory Oversight. Comments on Proposed Clean Water Act Section 401 Certification Rule. Submitted to A. Wheeler, administrator, Environmental Protection Agency. October 21, 2019.Google Scholar
Parenteau, P.. “EPA’s Latest Power Grab Is Aimed at States’ Rights.” The Hill, August 14, 2019. https://thehill.com/opinion/energy-environment/457426-epas-latest-power-grab-is-aimed-at-states-rights.Google Scholar
Nasmith, M., staff attorney of Earthjustice, et al. Comments on EPA Proposed Rule Updating Regulations on Water Quality Certification. Submitted to A. Wheeler, administrator, Environmental Protection Agency. October 21, 2019.Google Scholar
PUD No. 1 of Jefferson County v. Washington Department of Ecology, 511 US 700 (Supreme Court 1994).Google Scholar
S. D. Warren Co. v. Maine Board of Environmental Protection, 547 US 370 (Supreme Court 2006).Google Scholar
Buzbee, W. W.. “Agency Statutory Abnegation in the Deregulatory Playbook.” Duke Law Journal 68, no. 8 (2019): 1509–1591. https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/dlj/vol68/iss8/1.Google Scholar
Waste Prevention, Production Subject to Royalties, and Resource Conservation: Final Rule. 43 Code of Federal Regulations Parts 3100, 3160 and 3170. I. Bureau of Land Management. 81 Federal Register 83008–83089 www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2016-11-18/pdf/2016-27637.pdf.Google Scholar
Wyoming v. US Department of Interior, No. 2:16-CV-0280-SWS, 2017 WL 161428 (D. Wyo. Jan. 16, 2017).Google Scholar
Waste Prevention, Production Subject to Royalties, and Resource Conservation; Rescission or Revision of Certain Requirements: Final Rule. 43 Code of Federal Regulations Parts 3160 and 3170. Bureau of Land Management. 83 Federal Register 49184–49214. www.regulations.gov/document?D=BLM-2018-0001-223600.Google Scholar
League of Conservation Voters v. Trump, 363 F. Supp. 3d 1013 (D. Alaska 2019), vacated and remanded sub nom. League of Conservation Voters v. Biden, 843 F. Appendix 937 (9th Cir. 2021).Google Scholar
California v. Bernhardt, 472 F. Supp. 3d 573 (N.D. Cal 2020).Google Scholar
County of Maui, Hawaii v. Hawaii Wildlife Fund, 140 S. Ct. 1462 (Supreme Court 2020).Google Scholar
Heinzerling, L.. “Opinion Analysis: The Justices’ Purpose-full Reading of the Clean Water Act.” SCOTUSblog. 2020. www.scotusblog.com/2020/04/opinion-analysis-opinion-analysis-the-justices-purpose-full-reading-of-the-clean-water-act.Google Scholar
California v. US Bureau of Land Management, No. 18-CV-00521-HSG, 2018 WL 3439453 (N.D. Cal. July 17, 2018).Google Scholar
Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency 549 US 497 (Supreme Court 2007).Google Scholar
Sherman, M.. “Roberts, Trump Spar in Extraordinary Scrap over Judges.” Associated Press News, November 21, 2018. https://apnews.com/c4b34f9639e141069c08cf1e3deb6b84.Google Scholar
Baum, L. and Devins, N.. The Company They Keep: How Partisan Divisions Came to the Supreme Court. New York: Oxford University Press, 2019.Google Scholar
Cannon, J. Z.. Environment in the Balance: The Green Movement and the Supreme Court. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2015.Google Scholar
Revesz, R. L.. “Environmental Regulation, Ideology, and the DC Circuit.” Virginia Law Review Online 83, no. 8 (November 1997): 1717–1772. https://doi.org/10.2307/1073657.Google Scholar
Epstein, L., Landes, W. M. and Posner, R. A.. The Behavior of Federal Judges: A Theoretical and Empirical Study of Rational Choice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2013.Google Scholar
Sunstein, C. R. et al. Are Judges Political? An Empirical Analysis of the Federal Judiciary. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press, 2006.Google Scholar
Sunstein, C. R. and Miles, T. J.. “Do Judges Make Regulatory Policy? An Empirical Investigation of Chevron.” University of Chicago Law Review 73 (June 2006): 1–55.Google Scholar
Sunstein, C.. “Beyond Marbury: The Executive’s Power to Say What the Law Is.” Yale Law Journal 115, no. 371 (2004): 1–34. https://doi.org/10.2307/20455706.Google Scholar
Lawrence, O., Gostin, J. D. and Hodge, J. G. Jr. “Substantial Shifts in Supreme Court Health Law Jurisprudence.” JAMA 320, no. 14 (October 9, 2018): 1431–1432. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2018.12331.Google Scholar
Hodge, J. G., Jr. et al. “Public Health Law and Policy Implications: Justice Kavanaugh.” Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics 47, no. 2 suppl. (July 12, 2019): 59–62. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073110519857319.Google Scholar
Gostin, L. O., Parmet, W. E. and Rosenbaum, S.. “Health Policy in the Supreme Court and a New Conservative Majority.” JAMA 324, no. 21 (2020): 2157–2158. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2020.21987.Google Scholar
Freeman, J.. “What Amy Coney Barrett’s Confirmation Will Mean for Joe Biden’s Climate Plan.” Vox, October 26, 2020. www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/21526207/amy-coney-barrett-senate-vote-environmental-law-biden-climate-plan.Google Scholar
Edsall, T. B.. “The Right’s Relentless Supreme Court Justice Picking Machine.” New York Times, October 1, 2020. www.nytimes.com/2020/10/01/opinion/amy-coney-barrett-supreme-court.html.Google Scholar
Ryan, E.. “Environmentalists: Brace for Preemption, Propertization, and Problems of Political Scale.” In Environmental Law, Disrupted, edited by Owley, J. and Hirokawa, K.. Washington, DC: Environmental Law Institute, 2019.Google Scholar
Heinzerling, L.. “The Power Cannons.” William & Mary Law Review 58, no. 6 (October 7, 2017): 1932–2004. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2757770.Google Scholar
Beerman, J. M.. “The Never-Ending Assault on the Administrative State.” Notre Dame Law Review 93, no. 4 (July 2018): 1599–1652.Google Scholar
Calabresi, S. G. and Lawson, G.. “The Depravity of the 1930s and the Modern Administrative State.” Notre Dame Law Review 94, no. 2 (January 2019): 821–866. https://scholarship.law.nd.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4825&context=ndlr.Google Scholar
Metzger, G. E.. “The Roberts Court and Administrative Law.” Supreme Court Review, no. 1 (2020): 1–71.Google Scholar
Rodriguez, D. B. and Weingast, B. R.. “Engineering the Modern Administrative State, Part I: Political Accommodation and Legal Strategy in the New Deal Era.” Northwestern Public Law Research Paper, no. 19-03 (February 15, 2019): 1–65.Google Scholar
Galperin, J. “The Death of Administrative Democracy.” University of Pittsburgh Law Review 82, no. 1 (2020).Google Scholar
Mortenson, J. D. and Bagley, N.. “Delegation at the Founding.” University of Michigan Public Law Research Paper, no. 658 (December 31, 2019). https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3512154.Google Scholar
Mortenson, J. D. and Bagley, N.. “There’s No Historical Justification for One of the Most Dangerous Ideas in American Law.” The Atlantic, May 26, 2020. www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/05/nondelegation-doctrine-orliginalism/612013.Google Scholar
Bazelon, E.. “How Will Trump’s Supreme Court Remake America?” New York Times, February 27, 2020. www.nytimes.com/2020/02/27/magazine/how-will-trumps-supreme-court-remake-america.html.Google Scholar
Mashaw, J. L.. Creating the Administrative Constitution: The Lost One Hundred Years of American Administrative Law. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2012.Google Scholar
Novak, W.. “Law and the Social Control of American Capitalism.” Emory Law Journal 60 (2010): 377–405. https://law.emory.edu/elj/_documents/volumes/60/2/symposium/novak.pdf.Google Scholar
Hacker, J. S. and Pierson, P.. American Amnesia: How the War on Government Led Us to Forget What Made America Prosper. New York: Simon & Schuster, 2017.Google Scholar
Lochner v. New York, 198 US 45 (Supreme Court 1905).Google Scholar
West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish, 300 US 379 (Supreme Court 1937).Google Scholar
Seila Law LLC v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, 140 S. Ct. 2183 (Supreme Court 2020).Google Scholar
Fligstein, N. and Roehrkasse, A. F.. “The Causes of Fraud in the Financial Crisis of 2007 to 2009: Evidence from the Mortgage-Backed Securities Industry.” American Sociological Review 81, no. 4 (June 23, 2016): 617–643. https://doi.org/10.1177/0003122416645594.Google Scholar
Gundy v. United States, 139 S. Ct. 2116 (Supreme Court 2019).Google Scholar
Kennedy, L., McCoy, P. A. and Bernstein, E.. “The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau: Financial Regulation for the 21st Century.” Cornell Law Review 98, no. 5 (2012): 1141–1176.Google Scholar
McCoy, P. A.. “Inside Job: The Assault on the Structure of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.” Minnesota Law Review 103, no. 6 (2018): 2543–2615.Google Scholar
Sharkey, C. M.. “The Administrative State and the Common Law: Regulatory Substitutes or Complements.” Emory Law Journal 65, no. 6 (2016): 1705–1740. https://law.emory.edu/elj/content/volume-65/issue-6/articles-essays/administrative-state-common-law-substitutes-complements.html.Google Scholar
PHH Corporation, et al., v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, No 15-1177 (D.C. Cir. 2016).Google Scholar
Sarkar, S. and Rosenthal, J. A.. “PHH Corporation v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau: Financial Fairness and Administrative Anxiety.” University of Pennsylvania Law Review Online 166, no. 14 (2018): 265–272. https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/penn_law_review_online/vol166/iss1/14.Google Scholar
Harrington, S.. “Kavanaugh on the Executive Branch: PHH Corp. v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.” SCOTUSblog, 2018. www.scotusblog.com/2018/08/kavanaugh-on-the-executive-branch-phh-corp-v-consumer-financial-protection-bureau.Google Scholar
Fallon, R. H.. “Three Symmetries between Textualist and Purposivist Theories of Statutory Interpretation – and the Irreducible Roles of Values and Judgment within Both.” Cornell Law Review 99, no. 4 (May 2014): 685–734. https://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4628&context=clr.Google Scholar
Kaswan, A.. “Our New Pro-Liberty Justice–and What That Means for Environmental Law.” Trends 50, no. 3 (January/February 2019): 4–7. www.americanbar.org/groups/environment_energy_resources/publications/trends/2018-2019/january-february-2019/our-new-pro-liberty.Google Scholar
Congressional Research Service. Chevron Deference: A Primer. Report by V. C. Brannon, legislative attorney and J. P. Cole, legislative attorney. R44954 (Washington, DC: September 19, 2017). https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R44954.pdf.Google Scholar
Congressional Research Service. Deference and its Discontents: Will the Supreme Court Overrule Chevron? Report by V. C. Brannon, legislative attorney and J. P. Cole, legislative attorney. LSB10204 (Washington, DC: October 11, 2018). https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/LSB10204.pdf.Google Scholar
Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council. 467 US 837 (Supreme Court 1984).Google Scholar
Congressional Research Service. The DC Circuit Rejects EPA’s Mercury Rules: New Jersey v. EPA. RS22817 (Washington, DC: April 9, 2008). www.everycrsreport.com/reports/RS22817.html.Google Scholar
Morales, N.. “New Jersey v. Environmental Protection Agency.” Harvard Environmental Law Review 33 (2009): 263–282. https://harvardelr.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/12/2019/07/33.1-Morales.pdf.Google Scholar
Pojanowski, J. A.. “Without Deference.” Missouri Law Review 81 (February 24, 2017): 1076–1094.Google Scholar
Siegel, J. R.. “The Constitutional Case for Chevron Deference.” Vanderbilt Law Review 71, no. 3 (2018): 937–993.Google Scholar
Take Back the Court. The Roberts Court Would Likely Strike Down Climate Change Legislation. Report by S. Moyn and A. Belkin (September 2019). https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5ce33e8da6bbec0001ea9543/t/5d7d429025734e4ae9c92070/1568490130130/Supreme+Court+Will+Overturn+Climate+Legislation+FINAL.pdf.Google Scholar
Environmental Law Institute. “Challenges to Environmental Protection in the Courts Continued.” www.eli.org/constitution-courts-and-legislation/challenges-environmental-protection-courts-continued#commerce.Google Scholar
Biber, E. and O’Dea, E.. “Is the Endangered Species Act Constitutional? How the Utah Prairie Dog Case May Impact California.” State Bar of California Environmental Law News 24, no. 1 (Summer 2015).Google Scholar
Biber, E.. “The ESA and the Commerce Clause.” Legal Planet, 2014. https://legal-planet.org/2014/11/18/the-esa-and-the-commerce-clause.Google Scholar
Dunec, J. L.. “Book Review: Global Chemical Control Handbook: A Guide to Chemical Management Programs, Lynn L. Bergeson, ed.” Review of Natural Resources & Environment (Spring 2016): 61–62.Google Scholar
Parker, B., executive director at Earthjustice. The Commerce Clause and the Environment. Analysis for Judging the Environment (2015). www.judgingtheenvironment.org/library/reports_analysis/the-commerce-clause-and-the-environment.pdf.Google Scholar
Kendall, D. T. and Lord, C. P.. “The Takings Project: A Critical Analysis and Assessment of the Progress So Far.” Boston College Environmental Affairs Law Review 25, no. 3 (May 1, 1998): 509–587. https://lawdigitalcommons.bc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1280&context=ealr.Google Scholar
Pollack, J.. “The Takings Project Revisited: A Critical Analysis of This Expanding Threat to Environmental Law.” Harvard Environmental Law Review 44 (2020): 235–278.Google Scholar
Mikva, A.. “The Wooing of Our Judges.” New York Times, August 28, 2000. www.nytimes.com/2000/08/28/opinion/the-wooing-of-our-judges.html.Google Scholar
Barnhizer, D.. “On the Make: Campaign Funding and the Corrupting of the American Judiciary.” Catholic University Law Review 50, no. 2 (Winter 2001): 361–428.Google Scholar
Wheeler, R.. “How Close Is President Trump to His Goal of Record-Setting Judicial Appointments?” Brookings Institution Blog, May 5, 2020. www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2020/05/05/how-close-is-president-trump-to-his-goal-of-record-setting-judicial-appointments.Google Scholar
Nevitt, M.. “The Remaking of the Supreme Court Implications for Climate Change Litigation and Regulation.” Cardozo Law Review 42, no. N (2020): 101–115.Google Scholar
Hulse, C.. “Protégé Confirmed, McConnell Is One Judge Closer to His Goal.” Washington Post, June 19, 2020. www.nytimes.com/2020/06/18/us/mcconnell-courts-justin-walker.html.Google Scholar
Zengerle, J.. “How the Trump Administration Is Remaking the Courts.” New York Times, August 22, 2018. www.nytimes.com/2018/08/22/magazine/trump-remaking-courts-judiciary.html.Google Scholar
Montgomery, D.. “Conquerors of the Courts.” Washington Post Magazine, January 2, 2019. www.washingtonpost.com/news/magazine/wp/2019/01/02/feature/conquerors-of-the-courts.Google Scholar
Rao, N.. “Administrative Collusion: How Delegation Diminishes the Collective Congress.” New York University Law Review 90, no. 5 (October 16, 2015): 1463–1526.Google Scholar
Rao, N.. “The Trump Administration’s Deregulation Efforts Are Saving Billions of Dollars.” Washington Post, October 17, 2018. www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-trump-administration-is-deregulating-at-breakneck-speed/2018/10/17/09bd0b4c-d194-11e8-83d6-291fcead2ab1_story.html.Google Scholar
Revesz, R. L.. “Destabilizing Environmental Regulation: The Trump Administration’s Concerted Attack on Regulatory Analysis.” Ecology Law Quarterly 47 (2020): 887–956.Google Scholar
Frazin, R.. “Court Strikes Down EPA Suspension of Obama-Era Greenhouse Gas Rule.” The Hill, April 7, 2020. https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/491568-court-strikes-down-epa-suspension-of-obama-era-hfc-rule.Google Scholar
Gerhardt, M. J. and Painter, R. W.. “Majority Rule and the Future of Judicial Selection.” Wisconsin Law Review 2017, no. 2 (2017): 263–284.Google Scholar
Ruiz, R. R. et al. “Trump Stamps GOP Imprint on the Courts.” New York Times, March 15, 2020. https://static01.nyt.com/images/2020/03/15/nytfrontpage/scan.pdf.Google Scholar
Hollis-Brusky, A.. “‘It’s the Network’: The Federalist Society As a Supplier of Intellectual Capital for the Supreme Court.” In Studies in Law, Politics, and Society, edited by Sarat, A.. 137–178. Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing, 2013.Google Scholar
Scherer, N. and Miller, B.. “The Federalist Society’s Influence on the Federal Judiciary.” Political Research Quarterly 62, no. 2 (May 1, 2009): 366–378. https://doi.org/10.1177/1065912908317030.Google Scholar
González, J., Goodman, A. and Lipton, E.. “Inside How the Federalist Society & Koch Brothers Are Pushing for Trump to Reshape Federal Judiciary.” Democracy Now!, March 21, 2017. www.democracynow.org/2017/3/21/inside_how_the_federalist_society_koch.Google Scholar
Lipton, E. and Peters, J.. “Conservatives Press Overhaul in the Judiciary.” New York Times, March 19, 2017.Google Scholar
O’Harrow, R., Jr. and Boburg, S.. “The Activist behind the Push to Reshape US Courts.” Washington Post, May 21, 2019. www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2019/investigations/leonard-leo-federalists-society-courts.Google Scholar
Whitehouse, S., senator, and Durbin, R. J., senator. Request for Communications at the Department of Justice Pertaining to Mr. Leo Involvement in Potential, Actual, or Suggested Judicial Nominations. Submitted to Attorney General W. Barr. March 4, 2020.Google Scholar
Brennan Center for Justice. Who Pays for Judicial Races? The Politics of Judicial Elections 2015–16. Report by A. Bannon (December 14, 2017). www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/who-pays-judicial-races-politics-judicial-elections-2015-16.Google Scholar
Fang, L. and Surgey, N.. “Koch Document Reveals Laundry List of Policy Victories Extracted from the Trump Administration.” The Intercept, February 25, 2018. https://theintercept.com/2018/02/25/koch-brothers-trump-administration/.Google Scholar
Pienta, A.. Update to Report on “The Federalist Society’s Takeover of George Mason University’s Public Law School” (December 2018). https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5400da69e4b0cb1fd47c9077/t/5c1d302b4fa51a38153ac07e/1545416751164/Update+to+Report+on+Federalist+Society+Takeover+of+GMU+Law+12+17+2018.pdf.Google Scholar
Pienta, A.. New Evidence Suggests Chicago Billionaire “Closely Allied” with the Koch Brothers and Implicated in Funding Climate-Change Denial and Islamophobia Is Anonymous “Dark Money” Donor behind Renaming of George Mason University’s Law School (December 16, 2019). https://medium.com/@acaalim/new-evidence-suggests-chicago-billionaire-closely-allied-with-the-koch-brothers-and-implicated-2abc9bcbd102.Google Scholar
Mayer, J.. “How Mitch McConnell Became Trump’s Enabler-in-Chief.” New Yorker Magazine, April 12, 2020. www.newyorker.com/magazine/2020/04/20/how-mitch-mcconnell-became-trumps-enabler-in-chief.Google Scholar
Frum, D.. Trumpocracy: The Corruption of the American Republican. New York: Harper Collins, 2018.Google Scholar
Stevens, S.. It Was All a Lie: How the Republican Party Became Donald Trump. New York: Knopf, 2020.Google Scholar
Annenberg Public Policy Center. “Most Americans Trust the Supreme Court, But Think It Is ‘Too Mixed Up in Politics.’” News release, 2019, www.annenbergpublicpolicycenter.org/most-americans-trust-the-supreme-court-but-think-it-is-too-mixed-up-in-politics.Google Scholar
Staff to Sheldon Whitehouse. “Senate Democrats Request Documents Related to Leonard Leo’s Work Leading Trump Administration Judicial Selections.” News release, March 5, 2020, www.whitehouse.senate.gov/news/release/senate-dems-request-docs-related-to-leonard-leos-work-leading-trump-admin-judicial-selections-say-leo-hand-picked-trump-judges-while-raking-in-undisclosed-sums-from-related-advocacy-groupsa-potential-conflict-of-interest-and-violation-of-federal-ethics-law.Google Scholar
Whitehouse, S.. “Dark Money and US Courts: The Problem and Solutions.” Harvard Journal on Legislation 57, no. 2 (2020): 273–301. https://harvardjol.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/17/2020/05/Sen.-Whitehouse_Dark-Money.pdf.Google Scholar
Foran, C. and Barrett, T.. “Senate Passes Sweeping Conservation Legislation in Bipartisan Vote.” CNN Politics, June 17, 2020. www.cnn.com/2020/06/17/politics/conservation-legislation-senate/index.html.Google Scholar
US Congress. House. Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny Act of 2019. H.R. 3972, 116th Congress, 1st Sess. Introduced in House August 15, 2019.Google Scholar
Coglianese, C. and Scheffler, G.. “What Congress’s Repeal Efforts Can Teach Us about Regulatory Reform.” Administrative Law Review Accord 3 (November 29, 2017): 43–58.Google Scholar
Meyer, R.. “The EPA Needs Lots of Money to Gut Itself.” The Atlantic, March 20, 2017. www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/03/the-paradox-of-defunding-the-epa/520002.Google Scholar
Freeman, J. and Vermeule, A.. “Massachusetts v. EPA: From Politics to Expertise.” Supreme Court Review 2007 (2007): 51–110. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1086/655170.Google Scholar
Rapanos v. United States, 547 US 715 (Supreme Court 2006).Google Scholar
Wittenberg, A.. “Clean Water Rule: Will Scalia’s Dictionary Haunt Trump’s WOTUS Overhaul?” E&E News, May 15, 2017. www.eenews.net/stories/1060054554+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ca.Google Scholar
Utility Air Regulatory Group v. Environmental Protection Agency, 573 US 302 (Supreme Court 2014).Google Scholar
Environmental Protection Agency v. EME Homer City Generation, 572 US 489 (Supreme Court 2014).Google Scholar
Serfess, A.. “EPA v. EME Homer City Generation, LP: Supreme Court Upholds Transport Rule – Third Time’s a Charm for Good Neighbor Provision Enforcement.” Tulane Environmental Law Journal 28, no. 1 (2014): 115–126.Google Scholar
Panama Refining Company v. Ryan, 293 US 388 (Supreme Court 1935).Google Scholar
ALA Schechter Poultry Corporation v. United States, 295 US 495 (Supreme Court 1935).Google Scholar
Whitman v. American Trucking Associations, Inc., 531 US 457 (Supreme Court 2001).Google Scholar
Hall, J.. “The Gorsuch Test: Gundy v. United States, Limiting the Administrative State, and the Future of Nondelegation.” Duke Law Journal 70, no. 1 (March 9, 2020): 175–215. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3550906.Google Scholar
Sohoni, M.. “Opinion Analysis: Court Refuses to Resurrect Nondelegation Doctrine.” SCOTUSblog, 2019. www.scotusblog.com/2019/06/opinion-analysis-court-refuses-to-resurrect-nondelegation-doctrine.Google Scholar
Farber, D.. “Just in From the Supreme Court.” Legal Planet, 2019. https://legal-planet.org/2019/11/25/just-in-from-the-supreme-court.Google Scholar
Farber, D.. “Justice Gorsuch Versus the Administrative State.” Center for Progressive Reform Blog, 2019. http://progressivereform.org/cpr-blog/justice-gorsuch-versus-the-administrative-state.Google Scholar
Tortorice, M. D.. “Nondelegation and the Major Questions Doctrine: Displacing Interpretive Power.” Buffalo Law Review 67, no. 4 (August 1, 2019): 1075–1131.Google Scholar
United States v. Alfonso D. Lopez, Jr., 514 US 549 (Supreme Court 1995).Google Scholar
Rancho Viejo LLC v. Norton, 334 F.3d 1158 (D.C. Cir. 2003).Google Scholar
People for Ethical Treatment of Property Owners v. United States Fish & Wildlife, 852 F.3d 990 (10th Cir. 2017).Google Scholar
Blumm, M. C.. “Defending the Constitutionality of the Endangered Species Act: The Case of the Utah Prairie Dog.” On the Merits (Washington Legal Foundation), June 5, 2015. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2615357.Google Scholar
May, J. R.. “Healthcare, Environmental Law, and the Supreme Court: An Analysis under the Commerce, Necessary and Proper, and Tax and Spending Clauses.” Environmental Law 43, no. 2 (2013): 233–254.Google Scholar
Morehead v. New York ex rel. Tipaldo, 298 US 587 (Supreme Court 1936).Google Scholar
Murr v. Wisconsin, 137 S. Ct. 1933 (Supreme Court 2017).Google Scholar
Kisor v. Wilkie, 139 S. Ct. 2400 (Supreme Court 2019).Google Scholar
King v. Burwell, 576 US 473 (Supreme Court 2015).Google Scholar
United States Forest Service v. Cowpasture River Preservation Association, 140 S. Ct. 1837 (Supreme Court 2020).Google Scholar
Kitrosser, H.. “Accountability in the Deep State.” UCLA Law Review 65 (2018): 1532–1550.Google Scholar
Paul v. United States, 140 S. Ct. 342 (Supreme Court 2019).Google Scholar
Peterson, C. L. “Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Law Enforcement: An Empirical Review.” Tulane Law Review 90 (2015): 1057–1112.Google Scholar
Perez v. Mortgage Bankers Association, 135 S. Ct. 1199 (Supreme Court 2015).Google Scholar
Gutierrez-Brizuela v. Lynch, 834 F.3d 1142, 1149 (10th Cir. 2016).Google Scholar
Manning, J. F.. “What Divides Textualists from Purposivists?” Columbia Law Review 106 (2006): 70–111.Google Scholar
Michigan v. EPA, 576 US 743 (Supreme Court 2015).Google Scholar
Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia, 140 S. Ct. 1731 (Supreme Court 2020).Google Scholar
Calabrese, S.. “Trump Might Try to Postpone the Election. That’s Unconstitutional.” New York Times, July 30, 2020.Google Scholar
Scher, B.. “The GOP Traded Its Principles for Conservative Judges.” Washington Post, July 5, 2020.Google Scholar
Whittington, K. E. and Iuliano, J.. “The Myth of the Nondelegation Doctrine.” University of Pennsylvania Law Review 165, no. 2 (2017): 379–431.Google Scholar
SAS Institute Inc. v. Iancu,138 S. Ct. 1348, 1358–59 (Supreme Court 2018).Google Scholar
New Jersey v. EPA, 517 F.3d 574 (D.C. Cir. 2008).Google Scholar
Koch Seminar Network. Efforts in Government: Advancing Principled Public Policy. n.d. www.documentcloud.org/documents/4364737-Koch-Seminar-Network.html.Google Scholar