{"query_echo":{"q":"","filters":{"organization":["Institute for Policy Integrity"]},"warnings":[]},"total":{"value":102,"relation":"eq"},"page":3,"page_size":20,"self":"https://climateinsightsdirectory.org/api/v1/search?organization=institute-for-policy-integrity&page=3","next":"https://climateinsightsdirectory.org/api/v1/search?organization=institute-for-policy-integrity&page=4","stability":"beta","ai_marking":{"digital_source_type":{"uri":"http://cv.iptc.org/newscodes/digitalsourcetype/trainedAlgorithmicMedia","name":"Created using Generative AI"},"notice":"Summary and key insights are generated using artificial intelligence."},"results":[{"id":"polint-000020","url":"https://climateinsightsdirectory.org/document/polint-000020","title":"Interiors Authority to Consider Downstream Emissions from Offshore Leasing","publisher":{"name":"Institute for Policy Integrity","organization":"institute-for-policy-integrity"},"document_type":"policy brief","language":"en","date_published":"2022-10-06","source_url":"https://policyintegrity.org/publications/detail/interiors-authority-to-consider-downstream-emissions-from-offshore-leasing","generator":"Climate Insights Directory","generated_fields":["summary","key_insights","climate_tags","analysis_type"],"summary":{"text":"The Institute for Policy Integrity asserts that the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) is incorrectly relying on a 2009 D.C. Circuit case, Center for Biological Diversity v. Department of the Interior (CBD), to claim it cannot consider downstream greenhouse gas emissions in its 2023–2028 leasing program. The brief argues that while CBD established that the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA) does not require such consideration, it does not prohibit it, and that considering these effects aligns with OCSLA's text, legislative history, and regulatory history.","ai_generated":true,"unit":"polint-000020#summary","date_modified":"2026-10-23"},"key_insights":[{"text":"The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) claims it is unable to consider downstream greenhouse gas emissions for its 2023–2028 Outer Continental Shelf oil and gas leasing program based on the 2009 D.C. Circuit case Center for Biological Diversity v. Department of the Interior (CBD).","ai_generated":true,"unit":"polint-000020#insight-1","date_modified":"2026-10-23"},{"text":"The case Center for Biological Diversity v. Department of the Interior (CBD) only determined that the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA) does not mandate the consideration of downstream effects, rather than forbidding it.","ai_generated":true,"unit":"polint-000020#insight-2","date_modified":"2026-10-23"},{"text":"There is no case law, including CBD, that prevents BOEM from considering downstream effects, and doing so is consistent with the regulatory history, legislative history, and text of OCSLA.","ai_generated":true,"unit":"polint-000020#insight-3","date_modified":"2026-10-23"}],"climate_tags":["greenhouse gas emissions","climate policy","environmental law"],"geography_discussed":[],"frame_perspective":[],"analysis_type":["legal analysis"]},{"id":"polint-000063","url":"https://climateinsightsdirectory.org/document/polint-000063","title":"Presidential Transitions: The New Rules","publisher":{"name":"Institute for Policy Integrity","organization":"institute-for-policy-integrity"},"document_type":"research paper","language":"en","date_published":"2022-08-22","source_url":"https://policyintegrity.org/publications/detail/presidential-transitions-the-new-rules","generator":"Climate Insights Directory","generated_fields":["summary","key_insights"],"summary":{"text":"The author contends that the 'norm-breaking' regulatory tools used by the Trump Administration to undo previous policies—such as Congressional Review Act disapprovals and suspensions of final regulations—have been adopted and in some cases used more aggressively by the Biden Administration. This shift suggests that the ability of a president to implement durable regulatory policy has decreased, with the window of protection from a successor's undoing shrinking from approximately three-and-a-half years to about two years. This trend is critical because presidents currently rely on regulations as their primary means of implementing domestic policy due to congressional gridlock.","ai_generated":true,"unit":"polint-000063#summary","date_modified":"2026-10-23"},"key_insights":[{"text":"The Biden Administration has aggressively utilized the same regulatory rollback toolkit employed by the Trump Administration, suggesting these tactics are now standard components of the administrative state rather than an aberration.","ai_generated":true,"unit":"polint-000063#insight-1","date_modified":"2026-10-23"},{"text":"The period during which a president's regulations are likely to be protected from being undone by a successor of the opposite party has decreased from roughly three-and-a-half years to approximately two years.","ai_generated":true,"unit":"polint-000063#insight-2","date_modified":"2026-10-23"},{"text":"Due to congressional gridlock, presidents are increasingly dependent on regulations as the main mechanism for implementing domestic policy programs.","ai_generated":true,"unit":"polint-000063#insight-3","date_modified":"2026-10-23"}],"climate_tags":[],"geography_discussed":[],"frame_perspective":[],"analysis_type":[]},{"id":"polint-000086","url":"https://climateinsightsdirectory.org/document/polint-000086","title":"Measuring the Benefits of Power Plant Effluent Regulation","publisher":{"name":"Institute for Policy Integrity","organization":"institute-for-policy-integrity"},"document_type":"report","language":"en","date_published":"2022-06-27","source_url":"https://policyintegrity.org/publications/detail/measuring-the-benefits-of-power-plant-effluent-regulation","generator":"Climate Insights Directory","generated_fields":["summary","key_insights","climate_tags","analysis_type"],"summary":{"text":"The report advocates for the EPA to improve its benefit analysis for power plant wastewater regulations, reviewing economic frameworks and literature from the Obama-era rule and the 2020 Steam Electric Reconsideration Rule to identify neglected impacts.","ai_generated":true,"unit":"polint-000086#summary","date_modified":"2026-10-23"},"key_insights":[{"text":"The report calls for the EPA to provide a more robust assessment of the benefits of power plant wastewater regulations than the analysis performed during the Obama era.","ai_generated":true,"unit":"polint-000086#insight-1","date_modified":"2026-10-23"}],"climate_tags":["environmental regulation"],"geography_discussed":[],"frame_perspective":[],"analysis_type":["policy review"]},{"id":"polint-000092","url":"https://climateinsightsdirectory.org/document/polint-000092","title":"Costs, Confusion, and Climate Change","publisher":{"name":"Institute for Policy Integrity","organization":"institute-for-policy-integrity"},"document_type":"research paper","language":"en","date_published":"2022-06-14","source_url":"https://policyintegrity.org/publications/detail/costs-confusion-and-climate-change","generator":"Climate Insights Directory","generated_fields":["summary","key_insights","climate_tags","geography_discussed","analysis_type"],"summary":{"text":"The article examines the use of the social cost of carbon (SCC) and marginal abatement cost (MAC) in climate policy, specifically addressing proposals to use MAC as an alternative to SCC in the United States. It argues that while MAC-based approaches are used in some jurisdictions like the U.K., MAC is not a substitute for the SCC. The text frames this discussion within the broader debate of prices versus quantities in policy formulation and the distinction between cost-benefit analysis and cost-effectiveness analysis.","ai_generated":true,"unit":"polint-000092#summary","date_modified":"2026-10-23"},"key_insights":[{"text":"The social cost of carbon (SCC) serves as the primary tool in the United States for valuing greenhouse gas emissions reductions within cost-benefit analysis by estimating the monetary damages of climate change.","ai_generated":true,"unit":"polint-000092#insight-1","date_modified":"2026-10-23"},{"text":"Although some experts suggest using a \"marginal abatement cost\" (MAC) as an alternative to the SCC, and the U.K. has integrated MAC-based approaches into its policymaking, the MAC is not a substitute for the SCC.","ai_generated":true,"unit":"polint-000092#insight-2","date_modified":"2026-10-23"}],"climate_tags":["greenhouse gas emissions reduction","climate policy"],"geography_discussed":["United Kingdom"],"frame_perspective":[],"analysis_type":["conceptual analysis"]},{"id":"polint-000037","url":"https://climateinsightsdirectory.org/document/polint-000037","title":"Regulating Immortal Accounts","publisher":{"name":"Institute for Policy Integrity","organization":"institute-for-policy-integrity"},"document_type":"report","language":"en","date_published":"2022-05-27","source_url":"https://policyintegrity.org/publications/detail/regulating-immortal-accounts","generator":"Climate Insights Directory","generated_fields":["summary","key_insights"],"summary":{"text":"The report advocates for FTC regulation to end \"immortal accounts,\" where companies make account deletion difficult to maintain data profits and subscription fees, arguing that clear cancellation guidelines would protect consumers and competition.","ai_generated":true,"unit":"polint-000037#summary","date_modified":"2026-10-23"},"key_insights":[{"text":"The phenomenon of \"immortal accounts\" occurs when entities make it difficult or impossible for consumers to delete accounts, allowing the entities to continue charging subscriptions and profiting from user data, which results in a waste of consumer time and money.","ai_generated":true,"unit":"polint-000037#insight-1","date_modified":"2026-10-23"}],"climate_tags":[],"geography_discussed":[],"frame_perspective":[],"analysis_type":[]},{"id":"polint-000056","url":"https://climateinsightsdirectory.org/document/polint-000056","title":"Ensuring Robust Consideration of Climate Change Under NEPA","publisher":{"name":"Institute for Policy Integrity","organization":"institute-for-policy-integrity"},"document_type":"policy brief","language":"en","date_published":"2022-04-22","source_url":"https://policyintegrity.org/publications/detail/ensuring-robust-consideration-of-climate-change-under-nepa","generator":"Climate Insights Directory","generated_fields":["summary","key_insights","climate_tags","analysis_type"],"summary":{"text":"The document argues for the necessity of specific regulatory updates to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) framework to ensure federal agencies adequately assess how proposed actions contribute to climate change and how climate change impacts those actions.","ai_generated":true,"unit":"polint-000056#summary","date_modified":"2026-10-23"},"key_insights":[{"text":"The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) completed a \"Phase 1\" rulemaking in April 2022 to restore NEPA regulation features that were removed in 2020, and intends to further revise regulations to support environmental justice, climate change mitigation, and resilience.","ai_generated":true,"unit":"polint-000056#insight-1","date_modified":"2026-10-23"},{"text":"The author suggests six regulatory priorities for the upcoming \"Phase 2\" rulemaking to ensure environmental reviews account for both the contribution of a proposed action to climate change and the negative impacts of climate change on the action and the environment.","ai_generated":true,"unit":"polint-000056#insight-2","date_modified":"2026-10-23"}],"climate_tags":["climate change mitigation","climate resilience","environmental justice","environmental impact assessment"],"geography_discussed":[],"frame_perspective":[],"analysis_type":["policy recommendation"]},{"id":"polint-000013","url":"https://climateinsightsdirectory.org/document/polint-000013","title":"Reforming Pipeline Review","publisher":{"name":"Institute for Policy Integrity","organization":"institute-for-policy-integrity"},"document_type":"report","language":"en","date_published":"2022-02-15","source_url":"https://policyintegrity.org/publications/detail/reforming-pipeline-review","generator":"Climate Insights Directory","generated_fields":["summary","key_insights","climate_tags","analysis_type"],"summary":{"text":"The Institute for Policy Integrity argues that FERC's current process for certifying interstate pipelines is flawed and fails the public interest. The report recommends that FERC move beyond relying on shipper contracts to instead incorporate regional need analysis, coordination with electric transmission, climate-related transition risks and stranded asset costs, and monetized climate damage estimates.","ai_generated":true,"unit":"polint-000013#summary","date_modified":"2026-10-23"},"key_insights":[{"text":"The current certification process used by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) to evaluate the necessity of long-lasting gas infrastructure, such as interstate pipelines, is flawed and does not serve the public interest.","ai_generated":true,"unit":"polint-000013#insight-1","date_modified":"2026-10-23"},{"text":"To improve the determination of project need, FERC should shift from its current practice of primarily considering whether developers have secured contracts with gas shippers to a broader approach including four specific reforms: regional analysis to prevent overbuilding and unfair rates, holistic coordination with electric transmission, accounting for climate-related transition risks and stranded assets, and the use of monetized damage estimates for climate impacts.","ai_generated":true,"unit":"polint-000013#insight-2","date_modified":"2026-10-23"}],"climate_tags":["stranded asset","climate impact","electric power transmission"],"geography_discussed":[],"frame_perspective":[],"analysis_type":["policy analysis","regulatory reform"]},{"id":"polint-000027","url":"https://climateinsightsdirectory.org/document/polint-000027","title":"comments-to-epa-on-oil-and-gas-sector-methane-standards","publisher":{"name":"Institute for Policy Integrity","organization":"institute-for-policy-integrity"},"document_type":"statement","language":"en","date_published":"2022-01-31","source_url":"https://policyintegrity.org/projects/update/comments-to-epa-on-oil-and-gas-sector-methane-standards","generator":"Climate Insights Directory","generated_fields":["summary","key_insights","climate_tags","analysis_type"],"summary":{"text":"The Institute for Policy Integrity supports the EPA's November 2021 proposed standards for methane emissions in the oil and natural gas sector but urges the agency to expand the scope of regulated sources to include abandoned wells and flares. The organization further recommends enhancing the EPA's regulatory analysis through distributional analysis, extended time frames, and the quantification of co-benefits. Additionally, it advocates for a more robust justification of discount rates and the inclusion of global damages within the social cost of greenhouse gases (SC-GHG), asserting that the SC-GHG represents a lower bound of climate impacts.","ai_generated":true,"unit":"polint-000027#summary","date_modified":"2026-10-23"},"key_insights":[{"text":"Policy Integrity supports the EPA's proposed methane standards but suggests expanding the regulation to cover additional leaky sources, specifically flares and abandoned wells.","ai_generated":true,"unit":"polint-000027#insight-1","date_modified":"2026-10-23"},{"text":"The organization recommends that the EPA improve its regulatory analysis by quantifying co-benefits, extending the analysis time frame, conducting a distributional analysis of impacts, and disaggregating costs and benefits.","ai_generated":true,"unit":"polint-000027#insight-2","date_modified":"2026-10-23"},{"text":"Policy Integrity and a coalition of environmental groups recommend that the EPA expand its justification for discount rates and the inclusion of global damages in the social cost of greenhouse gases (SC-GHG), stating the SC-GHG is a lower bound of projected impacts.","ai_generated":true,"unit":"polint-000027#insight-3","date_modified":"2026-10-23"}],"climate_tags":["methane emissions"],"geography_discussed":[],"frame_perspective":[],"analysis_type":["policy recommendation"]},{"id":"polint-000024","url":"https://climateinsightsdirectory.org/document/polint-000024","title":"Regulating New Fossil Fuel Appliances","publisher":{"name":"Institute for Policy Integrity","organization":"institute-for-policy-integrity"},"document_type":"report","language":"en","date_published":"2021-10-15","source_url":"https://policyintegrity.org/publications/detail/regulating-new-fossil-fuel-appliances","generator":"Climate Insights Directory","generated_fields":["summary","key_insights","climate_tags","analysis_type"],"summary":{"text":"The report highlights a regulatory gap where residential fossil-fuel appliances emit significantly more nitrogen oxides than gas-fired power plants despite the latter being regulated. It asserts that the EPA can use Section 111(b) of the Clean Air Act to establish nationwide performance standards for these appliances, citing electric-heat-pump technology as a demonstrated means of emission reduction and suggesting a system of emissions averaging and trading for manufacturers.","ai_generated":true,"unit":"polint-000024#summary","date_modified":"2026-10-23"},"key_insights":[{"text":"Fossil fuel-powered appliances in residential and commercial buildings produce nearly three times the smog-forming nitrogen oxides of the United States' gas-fired power plants and a comparable amount of carbon dioxide.","ai_generated":true,"unit":"polint-000024#insight-1","date_modified":"2026-10-23"},{"text":"The EPA possesses the authority under Section 111(b) of the Clean Air Act to implement nationwide performance standards for new fossil-fuel appliances in both commercial and residential sectors, with electric-heat-pump technology serving as a demonstrated method for reducing emissions.","ai_generated":true,"unit":"polint-000024#insight-2","date_modified":"2026-10-23"},{"text":"The EPA could implement standards that permit the averaging and trading of emissions across the appliance fleets of different manufacturers.","ai_generated":true,"unit":"polint-000024#insight-3","date_modified":"2026-10-23"}],"climate_tags":["carbon dioxide","Emissions trading"],"geography_discussed":[],"frame_perspective":[],"analysis_type":["legal analysis","policy assessment"]},{"id":"polint-000078","url":"https://climateinsightsdirectory.org/document/polint-000078","title":"Petition for Rulemaking for the Federal Trade Commission to Ban Drip Pricing","publisher":{"name":"Institute for Policy Integrity","organization":"institute-for-policy-integrity"},"document_type":"statement","language":"en","date_published":"2021-07-07","source_url":"https://policyintegrity.org/projects/update/petition-for-rulemaking-for-the-federal-trade-commission-to-ban-drip-pricing","generator":"Climate Insights Directory","generated_fields":["summary","key_insights"],"summary":{"text":"The Institute for Policy Integrity is petitioning the Federal Trade Commission to ban 'drip pricing', a practice where sellers advertise low prices and reveal mandatory fees late in the transaction process. The petition argues that this practice, common in event tickets and vacation rentals, exploits cognitive biases and hinders comparison shopping. The proposal suggests requiring full price disclosure upfront and asserts that the Commission has the authority to ban the practice as a deceptive trade practice, unfair trade practice, or unfair method of competition.","ai_generated":true,"unit":"polint-000078#summary","date_modified":"2026-10-23"},"key_insights":[{"text":"Drip pricing is described as a strategy where sellers advertise deceptively low prices and only reveal mandatory fees when a consumer is nearly finished with a transaction, which increases search time and complicates comparison shopping.","ai_generated":true,"unit":"polint-000078#insight-1","date_modified":"2026-10-23"},{"text":"The practice of drip pricing is noted as being pervasive in the sectors of hotel and vacation rentals, as well as concert and event ticket sales.","ai_generated":true,"unit":"polint-000078#insight-2","date_modified":"2026-10-23"},{"text":"The petition proposes a rule requiring all sellers to disclose the total price of a product or service upfront, including all mandatory surcharges, and identifies three legal bases for the Commission to act: deceptive trade practices, unfair trade practices, and unfair methods of competition.","ai_generated":true,"unit":"polint-000078#insight-3","date_modified":"2026-10-23"}],"climate_tags":[],"geography_discussed":[],"frame_perspective":[],"analysis_type":[]},{"id":"polint-000049","url":"https://climateinsightsdirectory.org/document/polint-000049","title":"Distributional Consequences and Regulatory Analysis","publisher":{"name":"Institute for Policy Integrity","organization":"institute-for-policy-integrity"},"document_type":"research paper","language":"en","date_published":"2021-04-15","source_url":"https://policyintegrity.org/publications/detail/distributional-consequences-and-regulatory-analysis","generator":"Climate Insights Directory","generated_fields":["summary","key_insights","climate_tags","analysis_type"],"summary":{"text":"The article examines the requirements for the Biden administration to successfully integrate environmental justice into regulatory decision-making, contrasting this with previous efforts under the Clinton and Obama administrations. It posits that a lack of standardized methodologies for distributional analysis contributed to past failures and asserts that agencies must rigorously analyze the distributional consequences of different regulatory alternatives to determine when such benefits can outweigh higher net benefits of other options.","ai_generated":true,"unit":"polint-000049#summary","date_modified":"2026-10-23"},"key_insights":[{"text":"The author argues that the failure of environmental justice efforts under the Clinton and Obama administrations was partly due to the absence of a standardized approach to distributional analysis, and that the Biden administration will need clear guidance on these methodologies to succeed.","ai_generated":true,"unit":"polint-000049#insight-1","date_modified":"2026-10-23"}],"climate_tags":["environmental justice"],"geography_discussed":[],"frame_perspective":[],"analysis_type":["policy analysis"]},{"id":"polint-000057","url":"https://climateinsightsdirectory.org/document/polint-000057","title":"Gauging Economic Consensus on Climate Change","publisher":{"name":"Institute for Policy Integrity","organization":"institute-for-policy-integrity"},"document_type":"research paper","language":"en","date_published":"2021-03-30","source_url":"https://policyintegrity.org/publications/detail/gauging-economic-consensus-on-climate-change","generator":"Climate Insights Directory","generated_fields":["summary","key_insights","climate_tags","analysis_type"],"summary":{"text":"A global survey of 738 economists who publish in top-tier academic journals reveals a strong consensus that the economic costs of climate inaction exceed the costs of action. The findings indicate that climate change will likely cause major GDP losses, reduce long-term economic growth, and increase economic inequality both within and between nations. Furthermore, the surveyed experts expressed optimism regarding the affordability of zero-emissions technologies and agreed that aggressive targets to achieve net-zero emissions by midcentury are economically justified.","ai_generated":true,"unit":"polint-000057#summary","date_modified":"2026-10-23"},"key_insights":[{"text":"There is a strong consensus among surveyed economists that the economic costs of failing to act on climate change are greater than the costs of taking action, making immediate and aggressive emissions reductions economically desirable.","ai_generated":true,"unit":"polint-000057#insight-1","date_modified":"2026-10-23"},{"text":"Economists predict that climate change will lead to significant GDP losses, a decline in long-term economic growth, and an increase in economic inequality both globally and domestically.","ai_generated":true,"unit":"polint-000057#insight-2","date_modified":"2026-10-23"},{"text":"The surveyed experts believe that zero-emissions technologies are viable and affordable, and that pursuing net-zero emissions by midcentury is justified by a cost-benefit analysis.","ai_generated":true,"unit":"polint-000057#insight-3","date_modified":"2026-10-23"}],"climate_tags":["greenhouse gas emissions reduction","gross domestic product","Net-zero emissions"],"geography_discussed":[],"frame_perspective":[],"analysis_type":["expert survey"]},{"id":"polint-000018","url":"https://climateinsightsdirectory.org/document/polint-000018","title":"An Evaluation of the Benefit-Cost Analysis in the 2020 Steam Electric Reconsideration Rule","publisher":{"name":"Institute for Policy Integrity","organization":"institute-for-policy-integrity"},"document_type":"report","language":"en","date_published":"2021-03-25","source_url":"https://policyintegrity.org/publications/detail/an-evaluation-of-the-benefit-cost-analysis-in-the-2020-steam-electric-reconsideration-rule","generator":"Climate Insights Directory","generated_fields":["summary","key_insights","climate_tags","analysis_type"],"summary":{"text":"The Institute for Policy Integrity argues that the EPA's benefit-cost analysis for the 2020 Steam Electric Reconsideration Rule is flawed because it failed to provide quantitative estimates for many harms resulting from steam electric power plant wastewater streams. The report suggests that these unquantified forgone benefits likely undervalued the rule's harms to a degree that would undermine the decision to finalize the rule.","ai_generated":true,"unit":"polint-000018#summary","date_modified":"2026-10-23"},"key_insights":[{"text":"The EPA failed to provide sufficient quantitative estimates for various harms associated with wastewater streams from steam electric power plants, leading to conclusions that are undermined by a lack of fair assessment of these unquantified impacts.","ai_generated":true,"unit":"polint-000018#insight-1","date_modified":"2026-10-23"},{"text":"Because the agency left a significant number of benefits unquantified, it likely undervalued the harms of the 2020 Rule by a large amount, which could invalidate the decision to finalize the rule.","ai_generated":true,"unit":"polint-000018#insight-2","date_modified":"2026-10-23"}],"climate_tags":["wastewater treatment","environmental regulation"],"geography_discussed":[],"frame_perspective":[],"analysis_type":["regulatory evaluation"]},{"id":"polint-000008","url":"https://climateinsightsdirectory.org/document/polint-000008","title":"Not So Clean Peak Energy Standards","publisher":{"name":"Institute for Policy Integrity","organization":"institute-for-policy-integrity"},"document_type":"research paper","language":"en","date_published":"2021-03-15","source_url":"https://policyintegrity.org/publications/detail/not-so-clean-peak-energy-standards","generator":"Climate Insights Directory","generated_fields":["summary","key_insights","climate_tags","analysis_type"],"summary":{"text":"The research finds that the \"Clean Peak Standard\" is largely ineffective at reducing emissions because it reinforces existing storage operator incentives and fails to account for high-frequency changes in marginal operating emissions rates. The authors suggest that alternative policies, such as a carbon tax, would be more effective.","ai_generated":true,"unit":"polint-000008#summary","date_modified":"2026-10-23"},"key_insights":[{"text":"The \"Clean Peak Standard\" policy, which incentivizes storage discharge during high-demand periods to offset high-pollution generators, is largely ineffective at achieving its emissions reduction goal.","ai_generated":true,"unit":"polint-000008#insight-1","date_modified":"2026-10-23"},{"text":"The policy fails to significantly alter discharging behavior because it reinforces existing incentives for storage operators and cannot capture high-frequency changes in marginal operating emissions rates.","ai_generated":true,"unit":"polint-000008#insight-2","date_modified":"2026-10-23"},{"text":"Alternative policy mechanisms, specifically a carbon tax, are more effective than Clean Peak-style policies at reducing the emissions increase caused by electricity storage.","ai_generated":true,"unit":"polint-000008#insight-3","date_modified":"2026-10-23"}],"climate_tags":["carbon tax"],"geography_discussed":[],"frame_perspective":[],"analysis_type":["policy assessment"]},{"id":"polint-000073","url":"https://climateinsightsdirectory.org/document/polint-000073","title":"Building a New Grid Without New Legislation","publisher":{"name":"Institute for Policy Integrity","organization":"institute-for-policy-integrity"},"document_type":"research paper","language":"en","date_published":"2020-12-14","source_url":"https://policyintegrity.org/publications/detail/building-a-new-grid-without-new-legislation","generator":"Climate Insights Directory","generated_fields":["summary","key_insights","climate_tags","analysis_type"],"summary":{"text":"The document argues that critical long-distance transmission can be developed using existing federal legal authorities, though state siting requirements remain a potential obstacle.","ai_generated":true,"unit":"polint-000073#summary","date_modified":"2026-10-23"},"key_insights":[{"text":"Long-distance transmission development is possible without new legislation by utilizing current federal legal authorities and implementing specific regulatory and commercial measures, such as streamlining planning, upgrading components, undergrounding lines, and utilizing existing highway and railroad rights-of-way.","ai_generated":true,"unit":"polint-000073#insight-1","date_modified":"2026-10-23"},{"text":"Despite the availability of federal solutions, state-level siting requirements may still act as a significant barrier to the creation of an efficient national transmission grid.","ai_generated":true,"unit":"polint-000073#insight-2","date_modified":"2026-10-23"}],"climate_tags":["electric power transmission","energy transition","land use"],"geography_discussed":[],"frame_perspective":[],"analysis_type":["legal analysis"]},{"id":"polint-000040","url":"https://climateinsightsdirectory.org/document/polint-000040","title":"Enhancing the Social Benefits of Regulatory Review","publisher":{"name":"Institute for Policy Integrity","organization":"institute-for-policy-integrity"},"document_type":"report","language":"en","date_published":"2020-10-28","source_url":"https://policyintegrity.org/publications/detail/enhancing-the-social-benefits-of-regulatory-review","generator":"Climate Insights Directory","generated_fields":["summary","key_insights","climate_tags","analysis_type"],"summary":{"text":"The document asserts that federal leadership has compromised the integrity of the regulatory review process coordinated by the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), leading to deregulatory actions that harm public health, safety, the environment, and financial stability. It proposes a path forward that involves removing these distortions, reaffirming established best practices, and implementing corrections to ensure regulations maximize net social welfare.","ai_generated":true,"unit":"polint-000040#summary","date_modified":"2026-10-23"},"key_insights":[{"text":"Recent federal leadership has undermined the government's regulatory review structure and the role of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), resulting in a high volume of deregulatory actions that negatively impact the health, safety, environment, and financial well-being of the American people.","ai_generated":true,"unit":"polint-000040#insight-1","date_modified":"2026-10-23"},{"text":"The report recommends a two-step reform process for regulatory review: first, removing recent distortions, and second, reaffirming previous best practices while introducing necessary enhancements to help agencies maximize net social welfare.","ai_generated":true,"unit":"polint-000040#insight-2","date_modified":"2026-10-23"}],"climate_tags":["environmental regulation"],"geography_discussed":[],"frame_perspective":[],"analysis_type":["policy recommendation"]},{"id":"polint-000035","url":"https://climateinsightsdirectory.org/document/polint-000035","title":"A Path Forward for the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission","publisher":{"name":"Institute for Policy Integrity","organization":"institute-for-policy-integrity"},"document_type":"report","language":"en","date_published":"2020-09-18","source_url":"https://policyintegrity.org/publications/detail/a-path-forward-for-the-federal-energy-regulatory-commission","generator":"Climate Insights Directory","generated_fields":["summary","key_insights","climate_tags","analysis_type"],"summary":{"text":"The report advocates for the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) to actively align its regulatory practices with climate policies, accelerate the development of transmission infrastructure, and reform energy market rules to support a clean energy transition.","ai_generated":true,"unit":"polint-000035#summary","date_modified":"2026-10-23"},"key_insights":[{"text":"The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) is urged to take an active role in three key areas: aligning regulatory practices with climate policies, accelerating the development of necessary transmission infrastructure, and reforming energy market rules.","ai_generated":true,"unit":"polint-000035#insight-1","date_modified":"2026-10-23"},{"text":"FERC's actions or inaction in these three areas are identified as critical factors that will influence the success of the next administration's clean energy and climate policies.","ai_generated":true,"unit":"polint-000035#insight-2","date_modified":"2026-10-23"},{"text":"FERC possesses the legal authority to implement these reforms under the National Environmental Policy Act, the Natural Gas Act, or the Federal Power Act.","ai_generated":true,"unit":"polint-000035#insight-3","date_modified":"2026-10-23"}],"climate_tags":["climate policy","electric power transmission","energy transition"],"geography_discussed":[],"frame_perspective":[],"analysis_type":["policy analysis"]},{"id":"polint-000003","url":"https://climateinsightsdirectory.org/document/polint-000003","title":"A Roadmap to Regulatory Strategy in an Era of Hyper-Partisanship","publisher":{"name":"Institute for Policy Integrity","organization":"institute-for-policy-integrity"},"document_type":"report","language":"en","date_published":"2020-08-17","source_url":"https://policyintegrity.org/publications/detail/a-roadmap-to-regulatory-strategy-in-an-era-of-hyper-partisanship","generator":"Climate Insights Directory","generated_fields":["summary","key_insights"],"summary":{"text":"The report outlines regulatory strategies for new U.S. administrations, including White House officials and agency transition teams. It specifically examines the tools used by the Trump administration to roll back Obama-era regulations and suggests these tactics will likely be employed by future administrations.","ai_generated":true,"unit":"polint-000003#summary","date_modified":"2026-10-23"},"key_insights":[{"text":"The report provides strategic advice for various stakeholders during a presidential transition, including White House officials, the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, agency transition teams, and advocates, with a specific focus on rolling back rules during inter-party transitions.","ai_generated":true,"unit":"polint-000003#insight-1","date_modified":"2026-10-23"},{"text":"The document identifies that the Trump administration utilized a variety of tactics to reverse regulations from the Obama era, especially those enacted toward the end of Obama's term, and predicts these tools will be used again in the future.","ai_generated":true,"unit":"polint-000003#insight-2","date_modified":"2026-10-23"}],"climate_tags":[],"geography_discussed":[],"frame_perspective":[],"analysis_type":[]},{"id":"polint-000043","url":"https://climateinsightsdirectory.org/document/polint-000043","title":"Markets, Externalities, and the Federal Power Act","publisher":{"name":"Institute for Policy Integrity","organization":"institute-for-policy-integrity"},"document_type":"legal commentary","language":"en","date_published":"2020-08-07","source_url":"https://policyintegrity.org/publications/detail/environmental-law-reporter-markets-externalities-and-the-federal-power-act","generator":"Climate Insights Directory","generated_fields":["summary","key_insights","climate_tags","analysis_type"],"summary":{"text":"The text asserts that because electricity generation is a primary source of greenhouse gas emissions, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) should use its authority as an economic regulator to address the CO2 externality. It argues that carbon pricing is not merely an environmental issue but a core market concern necessary for a functional and efficient interstate transmission and wholesale electricity market.","ai_generated":true,"unit":"polint-000043#summary","date_modified":"2026-10-23"},"key_insights":[{"text":"Electricity generation in the United States is a primary contributor to greenhouse gas emissions, which result in severe climate change-related harms, yet the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) has not addressed this issue.","ai_generated":true,"unit":"polint-000043#insight-1","date_modified":"2026-10-23"},{"text":"Addressing the CO2 externality via a carbon price is within FERC's authority because the agency's role as an economic regulator includes the responsibility to fix market failures and ensure market efficiency.","ai_generated":true,"unit":"polint-000043#insight-2","date_modified":"2026-10-23"},{"text":"The consideration of CO2 emissions is framed as a fundamental market concern essential for a functional market, rather than solely an environmental regulatory matter.","ai_generated":true,"unit":"polint-000043#insight-3","date_modified":"2026-10-23"}],"climate_tags":["greenhouse gas emissions","carbon price","electricity market"],"geography_discussed":[],"frame_perspective":[],"analysis_type":["legal commentary","economic analysis"]},{"id":"polint-000083","url":"https://climateinsightsdirectory.org/document/polint-000083","title":"Beneath the Surface","publisher":{"name":"Institute for Policy Integrity","organization":"institute-for-policy-integrity"},"document_type":"report","language":"en","date_published":"2020-04-27","source_url":"https://policyintegrity.org/publications/detail/beneath-the-surface","generator":"Climate Insights Directory","generated_fields":["summary","key_insights","climate_tags","analysis_type"],"summary":{"text":"The report asserts that the Environmental Protection Agency and Army Corps of Engineers failed to meaningfully assess the environmental harms resulting from two regulatory rollbacks of the Clean Water Act. It argues that the agencies' claims that compliance-cost savings outweigh environmental harms are based on severe methodological flaws, and that correcting these analyses would likely reveal the rollbacks are net costly to society, potentially depriving the public of billions of dollars in annual benefits.","ai_generated":true,"unit":"polint-000083#summary","date_modified":"2026-10-23"},"key_insights":[{"text":"The Environmental Protection Agency and Army Corps of Engineers claim that the compliance-cost savings from two Clean Water Act regulatory rollbacks exceed the environmental harms, but the report asserts these analyses contain severe methodological flaws.","ai_generated":true,"unit":"polint-000083#insight-1","date_modified":"2026-10-23"},{"text":"Correcting the agencies' analyses would likely demonstrate that the rollbacks are net costly to society, with the public potentially losing billions of dollars in annual benefits.","ai_generated":true,"unit":"polint-000083#insight-2","date_modified":"2026-10-23"},{"text":"The failure of the agencies to meaningfully assess the substantial harms caused by the rollbacks is a violation of both legal obligations and regulatory precedent.","ai_generated":true,"unit":"polint-000083#insight-3","date_modified":"2026-10-23"}],"climate_tags":["environmental regulation"],"geography_discussed":[],"frame_perspective":[],"analysis_type":["policy analysis","legal analysis"]}]}