Adam Gustafson
Senior Counsel for Environmental and Regulatory Affairs
Boeing
Adam Gustafson
Senior Counsel for Environmental and Regulatory Affairs
Boeing
Adam Gustafson is a Senior Counsel for Environmental and Regulatory Affairs at Boeing.
Prior to joining Boeing, he served as Deputy General Counsel at the Environmental Protection Agency. Prior to that, he was a partner at Boyden Gray & Associates, where he represented States, federal judges, environmental groups, biofuel producers, agricultural interests, and public policy organizations, on such issues as the constitutional separation of powers, the First Amendment, automotive regulations, environmental computer models, healthcare regulation, and judicial deference to federal agencies.
Mr. Gustafson received his J.D. in 2009 from Yale Law School, where he was an editor of the Yale Law Journal, a managing editor of the Yale Journal of Law & the Humanities, and an executive editor of the symposium issue of the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy.
Mr. Gustafson served as a Vice President of the Yale Law School Federalist Society. He was a Coker Fellow, and his legal writing won the Joseph A. Chubb Competition Prize and the Edward D. Robbins Memorial Prize.
Mr. Gustafson graduated with high distinction in 2005 from the University of Virginia, where he was an Echols Scholar, a member of the Raven Society, a member of the rowing team, and a Lawn resident.
Before joining Boyden Gray & Associates, Mr. Gustafson was an associate at Cooper & Kirk, where he specialized in appellate litigation. Mr. Gustafson served as a law clerk to Judge Richard R. Clifton of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, and to Judge Janice Rogers Brown of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.
A person listed as a contributor has spoken or otherwise participated in Regulatory Transparency Project events, publications, or multimedia presentations. A person's appearance on the website does not imply an endorsement or relationship between the person and the Regulatory Transparency Project. The Regulatory Transparency Project takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues. All expressions of opinion by a contributor are those of the contributor.
Contributions
Deep Dive Episode 257 – A Discussion on the FAR Council’s Federal Supplier Climate Risks and Resilience Proposed Rule
Experts discuss the origins as well as the potential benefits and risks of this innovation in government contracting policy.
Listen to this podcastA Discussion on the FAR Council’s Federal Supplier Climate Risks and Resilience Proposed Rule
An expert panel discusses the origins as well as the potential benefits and risks of this innovation in government contracting policy.
Watch this videoWest Virginia v. EPA and the Major Questions Doctrine
An expert panel discusses the historic decision of West Virginia v. EPA, the Supreme Court’s “major questions doctrine,” and the implications for future regulatory innovation.
Watch this videoDeep Dive Episode 231 – West Virginia v. EPA and the Major Questions Doctrine
An expert panel discusses the historic decision of West Virginia v. EPA, the Supreme Court’s “major questions doctrine,” and the implications for future regulatory innovations.
Listen to this podcastDeep Dive Episode 43 – Re-Considering Co-Benefits in Environmental Regulation
In this episode, Adam Gustafson and Daniel Farber discuss various approaches to considering co-benefits in the cost-benefit analyses of new air pollution regulations, and whether the standing approach is the most efficient and cost-effective.
Listen to this podcastEPA Reconsiders its Use of Co-Benefits in Cost-Benefit Analysis
Adam Gustafson
In the last days of 2018, EPA invited comment on a proposal (the revised Supplemental Cost Finding for the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards) that could change the way regulatory benefits are calculated for some of its biggest rules. The immediate reach of the proposal is narrow. But it raises important questions about the proper consideration of regulatory costs and benefits, and its implications should be considered carefully.
Read this articleDeep Dive Episode 23 – En Banc D.C. Circuit Upholds CFPB Constitutionality
Amb. C. Boyden Gray and Adam Gustafson (Boyden Gray & Associates) discuss the recent en banc decision in PHH v. CFPB, which considers the constitutionality of the CFPB, and whether the case is likely to reach the Supreme Court of the United States.
Listen to this podcast