Environment

Requiring EPA cost-benefit analysis could ensure that regulations do more good than harm.

Recent proposed rule can be better understood by considering the fate of the Clean Power Plan in the Supreme Court.

EPA’s advance notice raises fundamental questions about how the agency should weigh costs and benefits.

Experts debate EPA’s recent move to consider regulating its own cost-benefit analyses.

Expert argues that courts should not strike down state programs that subsidize nuclear power plants.

Expert argues that suits under California’s environmental law undercut housing and climate change goals.

A real EPA transparency rule should be grounded in scientific practices, not constituency interests.

Former EPA Administrator’s last action may foreshadow the agency’s future plans for regulating pollution.

Ruling may lead to protracted and conflicting litigation over EPA’s Clean Water Rule.

Public access to data behind regulations should not be a political question.

Proposed limits to EPA’s consideration of scientific data threaten timely, sound policymaking.

Despite concerns, environmental agency’s “transparent science” proposed rule supports existing guidelines.