Blog

On May 1, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear a case on whether the U.S. Department of Commerce has the authority to require fishermen to allow inspectors on board. At stake is the ability of agencies to write regulations that reasonably interpret laws even when they are ambiguous.   

Earlier this year, the Richmond Times Dispatch reported that Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) scientists are working to reduce the daily flow of cancer-causing PCBs into the James River and keep the commonwealth's water clean and safe to drink.

Six years ago, Smithsonian Magazine was among those decrying the death of public intellectuals (“the egghead is dead”). Where are today’s Ralph Waldo Emersons or James Baldwins or Susan Sontags, they mourned. The article went on to offer a fascinating insight. History shows that “public intellectuals always emerged when the country was sharply divided: during the Civil War, the Vietnam War, the fights for civil rights and women’s rights.” In this moment of ever-deepening divide, it gives me great pleasure to announce that the Center for Progressive Reform welcomes five prominent academics to our network. The toll for the death of expertise may have been premature; long live public intellectuals!

Testifying before Congress, releasing new books, engaging with the news media — our Member Scholars packed virtually a year’s worth of advocacy on climate justice, clean air and water, and worker health and safety into the first three months of 2023.

Ever since the Supreme Court decided West Virginia v. EPA, conservatives and industry interests have claimed that just about every new regulation violates the major question doctrine. When the Biden administration ramped up fuel efficiency requirements through 2026, ideologues such as the Heritage Foundation and states like Texas were quick to wheel out this attack. No doubt the same attack will be made on the administration's ambitious proposed post-2026 standard. Maybe Judge Kacsmaryk in Amarillo, crusader against abortion pills and all things liberal, would buy that argument. But opponents won’t be able to handpick their judge this time, and the chances that this argument will win in the D.C. Circuit are slim to none.

Nevada is considered one of the hottest states in America, and it consistently tops the list of places with the most heat-related deaths per year in the country. But what a lot of people don’t know is that it is also the second most polluted state, with wildfires, vehicles, factories, and the mining industry being the biggest sources. The deadly combination of scorching heat and poor air quality makes Nevada a hazardous place to work, especially for migrants who work under the heat of the sun. Even those working indoors are exposed to poor air quality with no climate controls every single day.

On April 18, congressional conservatives turned their favorite anti-regulatory weapon toward a new target: the Endangered Species Act (ESA). At a hearing of the Water, Wildlife and Fisheries Subcommittee of the House Natural Resources Committee, the majority pushed no less than three Congressional Review Act (CRA) resolutions aimed at blocking ESA protections. Testifying at the hearing in response to these attacks was Center for Progressive Reform Member Scholar Rob Fischman, a law professor at Indiana University Maurer School of Law and a widely recognized ESA expert.

As you’ve probably heard, the Biden administration has proposed aggressive new targets for greenhouse gas emissions from new vehicles. That’s great news. One really important aspect of the proposal relates to the justification for the proposal rather than the proposal itself. Following a recent trend, the justification is based on the factors specified by Congress rather than on a purely economic analysis. That may not sound like much, but it’s a really big deal. Among other things, this will shift influence on the regulatory process somewhat away from economists and toward lawyers.

On April 6, the Biden White House released proposed changes in the way the government does cost-benefit analysis (CBA). CBA has been a key part of rulemaking for 40 years. The proposal is very technical and low-key, but the upshot will be that efforts to reduce carbon emissions will get a leg up. In particular, the changes will support higher estimates of the harm done by each ton of carbon emissions (the “social cost of carbon” in economics lingo).