Join us.

We’re working to create a just society and preserve a healthy environment for future generations. Donate today to help.

Donate

Biden Has Fallen Behind on Regulatory Policy. Revesz’s Confirmation Won’t Change That.

What does President Joe Biden believe on regulatory policy? It is striking that after 20 months of his administration, we still do not know. Unfortunately, rather than shed light on this crucial issue, tomorrow's Senate confirmation hearing to consider the nomination of law professor Richard Revesz as the next administrator of the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) is likely to raise more uncertainty. This, in turn, will make it harder for Biden to defend his regulatory agenda going forward, both in the hostile federal courts and the “gettable” court of public opinion.

But it didn’t have to be this way. Early in his administration, Biden had a golden opportunity to do something that the American political left has failed to do for 40 years: stake out a positive vision of regulation in our democracy and our economy. He had memorably teed up the issue with his memorandum on “Modernizing Regulatory Review,” which promised to overhaul how OIRA reviewed pending rules and how agencies would evaluate those rules. At the time, I characterized the memo as having “the potential to be the most significant action Biden took on day one.”

For almost two years, though, the Biden administration has squandered that potential — an unforced error that could be one of its most enduring legacies on domestic policy. In retrospect, this shouldn’t have been a surprise. The Modernizing Regulatory Review memo itself seemed to be crafted as a kind of ink blot test, permitting everyone to see in its vague and at times contradictory provisions whatever they wanted to see. And with the deafening silence that has followed the memo’s release, the administration has continued to allow everyone to define its own regulatory vision for it.

This dynamic is certain to continue during Revesz’s confirmation hearing, where the conservative members of the committee will seek to portray the Biden administration’s regulatory agenda in overwrought and blatantly inaccurate terms. They will no doubt use these false claims to attack the regulatory system more broadly and to justify their legislative proposals for permanently kneecapping the regulatory system so that it is no longer able to deliver the essential safeguards that the public expects and deserves.

Biden, of course, could have averted all of this by setting forth a progressive vision of the regulatory system and by using implementation of the Modernizing Regulatory Review memo as a vehicle for institutionalizing this vision in a durable and meaningful fashion. His regulatory agenda was always going to face stiff opposition from small government ideologues and corporate special interests, and from the decades of accumulated “conventional wisdom” that had mischaracterized regulation as a necessary evil, at best.

By failing to build a principled foundation for that agenda — by failing to weave some overarching narrative that explains in a clear and compelling manner how it is using the power of the presidency to make our lives better — the Biden administration has made the already difficult challenge of achieving its policy goals through regulations even harder.

Critically, Revesz’s hearing could have and should have provided a powerful platform for proclaiming and amplifying that progressive vision of regulation.

I have no doubt Revesz will be a good OIRA administrator — likely the best in the history of the agency. I expect that under his watch, rules will be cleared expeditiously and many will even emerge stronger — rather than weaker — as a result of the OIRA process. These are all outcomes that would have been unthinkable in the past.

But as an advocate for a stronger regulatory system — one that is more robust, responsive, and inclusive — it is not my job to worry about the past, or even just about the remainder of the Biden administration. I, like all advocates of progressive regulatory policy, have to worry about what happens after the Biden administration. And that means we need some indication that the current administration intends to leave OIRA and the institution of regulatory review substantially better off than it found it. Based on my experience over the last 20 months, I have very little confidence left that this will take place. The potential I once celebrated has been squandered. And I doubt very much that anything that is discussed during Revesz’s confirmation hearing will shake me of my pessimism.

The American political left has a long history of being its own worst enemy on regulatory policy. The Revesz hearing will go simply down as another chapter in that history.

You can stay up to date on the Center's work and advocacy related to progressive regulatory reform and responsive government by subscribing to our email list and following us on Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, and LinkedIn.

Showing 2,822 results

James Goodwin | September 28, 2022

Biden Has Fallen Behind on Regulatory Policy. Revesz’s Confirmation Won’t Change That.

What does President Joe Biden believe on regulatory policy? It is striking that after 20 months of his administration, we still do not know. Unfortunately, rather than shed light on this crucial issue, September 29th's Senate confirmation hearing to consider the nomination of law professor Richard Revesz as the next administrator of the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) is likely to raise more uncertainty.

The Founders of the Center stand together

Alexandra Rogan, Allison Stevens | September 28, 2022

The Center’s “Battery Pack”: Toasting our Member Scholars on Our 20th Anniversary

This month, three Member Scholars – Dave Owen, Rob Fischman, and Rob Glicksman – take center stage in the latest edition of Land Use and Environment Law Review (LUELR), an anthology of last year’s best writing on environmental law. In August, Member Scholar Rebecca Bratspies, earned the 2022 International Human Rights Award from the Centre for International Sustainable Development Law, and […]

A construction worker wipes sweat from his forehead

Marcha Chaudry, Sidney A. Shapiro | September 26, 2022

Congress Must Protect Workers from Extreme Heat — Now

As Cole Porter crooned in 1948, “It’s too darn hot.”  California and other parts of the American West are heading into another week of excessive heat that not only threatens public health and safety but also power shortages, which would cut millions off from the energy they need to fuel their lives. Workers, particularly those […]

Daniel Farber | September 22, 2022

Cost-Benefit Analysis and Deep Uncertainty

Since 1981, cost-benefit analysis has been at the core of the rulemaking process. The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), the so-called “regulatory czar” in the White House, must approve every significant regulation based on a review of its cost-benefit analysis. But cost-benefit analysis has had a major blind spot. It embodies techniques for analyzing possible harmful outcomes when the probability of those outcomes can be quantified with reasonable confidence. When those probabilities cannot be quantified (“deep uncertainty”), the analytic path is more difficult. This issue is especially important in the context of climate change, given the potential for tipping points to produce disastrous outcomes.

Collage of images and the Center's logo

Allison Stevens | September 13, 2022

A New Look for a New Era

The founding of the United States was far from perfect, reflecting the deep flaws and exploitative practices of the founders themselves. But there was one thing they got right: They created a government charged, in part, with protecting the general welfare. That includes you, me, the American people writ large, and our environment. We at […]

Katlyn Schmitt | September 12, 2022

EPA’s Chemical Disaster Rule: Small Steps Forward When Environmental Justice Demands Giant Leaps

At the end of August, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposed a draft rule to better protect people who live near industrial facilities with hazardous chemicals on site. The rule would strengthen EPA’s Risk Management Program (RMP), which regulates more than 12,000 facilities in the United States that store, use, and distribute significant amounts of dangerous chemicals.

Daniel Farber | September 9, 2022

Climate Policy: What’s Happening at the State Level?

States have played a critical role in U.S. climate policy. The federal government is now supporting that role with federal funding for states. In the meantime, a number of states have moved a step further in plans to phase out gas and diesel vehicles. Two key states have ramped up their plans for carbon neutrality, while offshore wind made a big step forward in the Midwest.

laptop hands typing

Sophie Loeb | September 8, 2022

Duke Energy Carbon Plan Public Comments: Your Voice Matters

The Center for Progressive Reform recently launched the Campaign for Energy Justice to ensure that North Carolina’s transition to a clean energy economy serves all North Carolinians regardless of wealth or background. The campaign puts equity at the center of the state’s transition to clean sources of energy like wind and solar power. Unfortunately, a plan submitted to the North Carolina Utility Commission (NCUC) by Duke Energy to reduce carbon emissions fails to take equity into account.

Sophie Loeb | September 8, 2022

Memo Summarizes Faults in Duke Energy’s Decarbonization Plan in North Carolina

In the spring of 2022, Duke Energy submitted a Carbon Plan to help North Carolina achieve goals laid out in recently enacted laws to curb climate change. The plan ostensibly aims to achieve the state's climate goals to curb carbon emissions. Under this plan, however, low-wealth North Carolinians, who are disproportionately people of color, risk losing access to reliable, affordable electricity.