Regulatory Policy

Regulatory safeguards play a vital role in protecting us from hazards and ensuring that companies that pollute, make unsafe products, and create workplace hazards bear the cost of cleaning up their messes and preventing injuries and deaths. Still, the regulatory system is far from perfect: Rules take too long to develop; enforcement is often feeble; and political pressure from regulated industries has led to weak safeguards.

These systemic problems are made all the more severe by the determination of the Trump administration to undercut sensible safeguards across virtually all aspects of federal regulation. Moreover, the President and his team have taken aim at the the process by which such safeguards are developed, aiming to take a system already slanted in favor of industry profit at the expense of health, safety and the environment, and make it even less protective. For example, where critics of the use of cost-benefit analysis see a system that understates the value of safeguards and overstates the cost of implementing them -- making it difficult to adopt needed protections -- the Trump administration seeks simply to ignore benefits of safeguards, pretending they do not exist. The result is a regulatory system that fails to enforce landmark laws like the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act and more.

CPR exposes and opposes efforts by opponents of sensible safeguards to undermine the regulatory system, fighting back against knee-jerk opposition to environmental, health, and safety protections. Below, see what CPR Members Scholars and staff have had to say in reports, testimony, op-eds and more. Use the search box to narrow the list.

Whose science? A new era in regulatory 'science wars'

Wendy Wagner, Elizabeth Fisher, and Pasky Pascual, writing in Science, look at the renewed fight over clean science

Type: Op-Eds (Nov. 1, 2018)
Read PDF
Author(s): Wendy Wagner
Can a hovercraft navigate the shoals of Yukon-Charley?

CPR's Sandi Zellmer previews a case over regulation of navigable waters and public lands.

Type: Op-Eds (Oct. 29, 2018)
Read PDF
Author(s): Sandra Zellmer
Justices may consider role of legislative motive in preemption analysis

In SCOTUSblog, Emily Hammond previews a preemption case before the Supreme Court.

Type: Op-Eds (Oct. 29, 2018)
Read PDF
Joint Letter from CPR Member Scholars and staff to Sen. Elizabeth Warren in support of the Anti-Corruption and Public Integrity Act, September 6, 2018.

Joint Letter from CPR Member Scholars and staff to Sen. Elizabeth Warren in support of the Anti-Corruption and Public Integrity Act, September 6, 2018.

Type: Legislative Testimony (Sept. 6, 2018)
Read PDF
Author(s): Alejandro Camacho
Brett Kavanaugh's opportunistic corner-cutting

Rena Steinzor examines Brett Kavanaugh's selective citations.

Type: Op-Eds (Aug. 29, 2018)
Read PDF
Author(s): Rena Steinzor
Trump’s Proposal to Replace the Clean Power Plan Endangers Public Health

Joel Mintz, writing for The Revelator, examines the Trump EPA's feeble substitute for the Clean Power Plan.

Type: Op-Eds (Aug. 29, 2018)
Read PDF
Author(s): Joel Mintz
What will protect Houston's air from Trump's EPA?

Writing in the Houston Chronicle, Victor Flatt challenges Trump's EPA.

Type: Op-Eds (Aug. 27, 2018)
Read PDF
Author(s): Victor Flatt
Joint Letter to EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler re Regulatory Science Proposal

Joint Letter to EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler re Regulatory Science Proposal. CPR joins in comments from 77 organizations calling on Wheeler to withdraw a proposal from his predecessor, Scott Pruitt, that would distort the science used in the agency's rulemaking, August 15, 2018.

Type: Letters to Agencies (Aug. 15, 2018)
Read PDF
Joint Letter to EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler re Cost-Benefit Analysis Proposal

Joint Letter to EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler re Cost-Benefit Analysis Proposal from CPR Member Scholars. Nineteen CPR Member Scholars joined in comments calling on Wheeler to withdraw an Advance Notice of Public Rulemaking on cost-benefit analysis. August 13, 2018.

Type: Letters to Agencies (Aug. 13, 2018)
Read PDF
Author(s): Alejandro Camacho, Kirsten Engel, Victor Flatt, Alexandra Klass, Thomas McGarity, Rebecca Bratspies, Heather Elliott, Daniel Farber, Robert Glicksman, Martha McCluskey, Joel Mintz, Richard Murphy, Amy Sinden, Rena Steinzor, Robert Verchick, Sidney Shapiro, Karen Sokol, Joseph Tomain
A Real, Not Faux, Transparency Proposal for Regulatory Science

"No matter how many times the word, 'transparency,' is repeated to characterize" a Trump administration proposal on the use of science in regulation, "its effects would reverse progress," write Rena Steinzor and Wedny Wagner on The Regulatory Review's pages.

Type: Op-Eds (Aug. 1, 2018)
Read Online
Author(s): Wendy Wagner, Rena Steinzor

Advanced Search Filters

Reset Filters