The GW Regulatory Studies Center scholars regularly conduct applied research to understand regulatory policy and practice from a public interest perspective. Our content often takes the form of public interest comments, formal testimony, working papers, policy insights, and short commentaries analyzing the most pressing issues in regulatory policy. View the rest of our material by the different types of publications listed on this page or our research areas.
Scholarly analysis of the potential effects of particular rulemakings from federal agencies, and advice to Congress on how to improve the rulemaking process.
Formal publications, often completed with other leading organizations and individuals, providing a thorough understanding of regulations and the rulemaking process.
The weekly Regulation Digest contains everything you need to know about regulatory policy today, and our monthly Center Update gives you all of the latest from our team.
For accessible charts and supporting data that you can use in your own publications or presentations, visit the Reg Stats page.
Last month, the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs released its semiannual Unified Agenda of Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions. The documents lay out a priority set for the Biden administration as it enters into its second year.
President Biden has made regulation a priority during his first year in office. On Day One, he carried through on campaign promises and signed several executive orders, memorandums and directives charging agencies to reverse much of his predecessor’s actions and to “modernize” regulatory review. Since then, he has also aggressively pursued new regulatory priorities, including those related to racial equity, climate change, employment, and the pandemic.
The first few days of the Biden administration were replete with regulatory news. Not only did the new president direct agencies to halt and undo Trump policy changes, he charted his own course with a series of ambitious regulatory goals.
We served as members of the National Academy of Sciences Committee on Review of Methods for Setting Building and Equipment Performance Standards, and offer these comments based on the peer review we conducted between the fall of 2019 and spring of 2021.
The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine provide independent, objective analysis and advice to the nation and conduct other activities to solve complex problems and inform public policy decisions.
We served as members of the National Academy of Sciences Committee on Review of Methods for Setting Building and Equipment Performance Standards. We write to request that the Committee’s report and recommendations, “Review of Methods Used by the U.S. Department of Energy in Setting Appliance and Equipment Standards,”1 be placed on the rulemaking docket for rule EERE–2021–BT–STD–0003, “Energy Conservation Program for Appliance Standards: Procedures, Interpretations, and Policies for Consideration in New or Revised Energy Conservation Standards and Test Procedures for Consumer Products and Commercial/Industrial Equipment.”
In a new study, we aim to learn more about the effect of Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) review of Treasury Department regulations interpreting the Internal Revenue Code. What contributions does OIRA review offer the tax regulatory process? What are its limitations?
This commentary examines the history of the phrase “regulatory reform,” tracking the phrase from the early 20th century to its proliferation during the Ford administration to today.