If environmental policies are changing at breakneck speed, then understanding the economics of the change needs to be as fast—but also rigorous.
The core mission of Resources for the Future (RFF) is to improve environmental, energy, and climate policy through impartial economic research. Decisionmakers have come to rely on our research to understand the implementation and economic outcomes of environmental policy since RFF’s founding over 70 years ago. Since then, RFF scholars have analyzed all manner of policy changes, including suggested regulations, potential rules, and the evaluation of enacted laws.
But the policy world is rapidly evolving in ways that counter the traditional research enterprise. The frequency of “policy actions”—our catchall phrase for any statement about proposed or implemented policy—has increased drastically, while the language and delivery of policy actions has become more variable. RFF is committed to its core function—and how do we do that in the current moment?
Into this context, RFF is launching its If/Then series, a multi-channel project that presents timely insights about substantive developments in environmental and energy policy, grounded in economics expertise and shared in ways that are easily accessible and user friendly.
The “If/Then” label for this effort is meant to evoke the use of evidence, models, experience, and causal inference based on logic and economic theory to link actions to consequences: If such an action is taken, Then consequences are likely to ensue. A select range of RFF products that include blog posts, explainers, issue briefs, short videos, and related materials will carry the If/Then brand and underlying logic.
This initiative builds on RFF’s reputation and research expertise. We have proudly stood by our nonpartisan research under all regulatory and political scenarios. In fact, providing timely analysis is within our DNA. But providing timely and rigorous evidence for policymaking has proven challenging in recent days for three new reasons that have led us to embark on this effort:
1. The pace and reach of new policy actions is unprecedented, often leaving little bandwidth for deep analysis.
With any new federal administration comes an array of policy actions. But the quantity of late is far greater than anything we have witnessed before. RFF researchers have been following several key actions, starting with the executive orders issued since the first day of the current administration, regarding (as just a few examples):
- US energy conditions, energy sources (including resources in Alaska), and cabinet-level working groups addressing those ends
- revising international environmental agreements
- reforming the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the federal role in disaster management writ large, particularly in relation to recent events like the Los Angeles wildfires
- deregulatory requirements for new regulations
- the opening of federal lands for a number of uses, including mineral mining
The pace and scope of these orders have challenged the ability to provide rapid, deep analysis, but in many cases, RFF researchers have built an archive of research products that shed light on the developments. For example, in response to the Trump administration’s repeal of the Biden administration’s pause on liquefied natural gas exports, we turn to our original analysis of the pause that RFF researchers conducted in the waning days of the Biden administration. As details emerge about how these directives may change program rules or lead to new legislation, additional research needs will arise.
2. Policy actions are now less formalized. In some cases, such as with many of the executive orders, policy changes have been articulated through traditional vehicles such as likely rule changes or federal litigation and, eventually, legislation. But less traditional channels for policy action can include public statements; media signals; grant freezes; and program and staff cuts that will shape the nature of environmental laws, program rules, and implementation. These latest versions of policy actions often are slim on the types of details that typically are needed for substantive research or analysis. Defining a policy change of interest can be elusive, so traditional methods of analyzing the effects or trade-offs of a change do not always apply.
In this wider pool of nontraditional actions, RFF is tracking the rollback of energy-efficiency rules at the US Department of Energy and the 31 deregulatory actions that have been proposed by the US Environmental Protection Agency, including the legal actions for striking down the 2009 endangerment finding that underpins much of the US framework for regulating greenhouse gas emissions. We also are monitoring wider efforts to repeal specific programs that had been authorized and appropriated during the previous administration—for example, what a repeal of the Clean Power Plan regulation (which is enabled by the endangerment finding) would mean for future emissions—as details of repeal come to light.
3. Different policies significantly interact with one another, including somewhat unrelated regulations and program statutes, in some cases due to the grouping of many policy actions into single legislative acts that preceded the current administration. For example, the Inflation Reduction Act originally incentivized electric vehicle manufacturing, consumer purchases of electric vehicles, and related charging infrastructure. Actions that look to repeal policies wholesale, such as the Inflation Reduction Act, would have multiple effects across a wide range of categories. Even if the more likely scenario of changes to individual statutes or rules happens within these wide-reaching laws, economic consequences will affect the outcomes of the remaining provisions in the laws.
Consequently, a combination of actions from the executive, legislative, and judiciary branches of the federal government—as well as possible effects on US states in terms of environmental, energy, and economic outcomes—are likely to evolve, given the variability and pace of actions. Teasing out individual actions and their broader economic implications in areas of RFF expertise will be another focus of our If/Then effort.
More than ever, decisionmakers and stakeholders across the policy landscape are looking for independent, expert views on the economic implications of policy actions. Pulling out the necessary evidence as often from previous RFF research as from new analysis—and presenting that evidence through the full range of RFF communications and media tools—will help fill the gaps. We invite you to follow these pieces at https://www.rff.org/if-then/.
