In the News

The Institute for Policy Integrity, a nonprofit advocacy arm of the New York University School of Law, filed a 29-page petition (pdf) to EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson outlining the reasons why she already has the authority to set up a cap-and-trade system to curb greenhouse gases from motor vehicle fuels, nonroad vehicles and aircraft. Michael Livermore, the group’s executive director, called the document a “friendly petition” designed to nudge the Obama administration into regulatory action on climate change, a move that could also spur action on Capitol Hill.

The climate-change bill that passed the House last month and is currently being considered by the Senate represents America’s last chance to seriously address its contributions to global warming before we head to the international climate talks in Copenhagen this December. But the current legislative debate also offers an opportunity to reshape the broader conversation over the costs and benefits of environmental regulation—and environmentalists should not let the opportunity pass them by.

The Institute for Policy Integrity (IPI) at New York University, which generally supports expanded use of cost-benefit analysis, applauded the changes to the guidelines, and also pointed out that the SAB encouraged the use of cost-benefit analysis when looking at deregulatory or non-regulatory proposals. A source with the IPI says that, during the last administration, economic analysis was not conducted for many deregulatory actions, including changes to the new source review rules, which require new or modified sources to install strict pollution controls. The source says it is “important that the SAB realized the systemic problem about how cost-benefit analysis has been used in the past” by pointing out the need for analysis for deregulatory actions.

As I’ve mentioned before, Sunstein’s appointment is pivotal for environmental regulation and green advocates should be looking forward to his first official day on the job. His inbox is probably overflowing with tasks, but here are the top three that he should work on first.

The board also recommends that the agency better account for technological innovation when estimating the costs of compliance, according to Michael Livermore, executive director at New York University’s Institute for Policy Integrity, who read its draft. Typically, said Livermore, EPA inflates compliance costs, because it does not account for industries’ motivation to innovate once actually faced with costly restrictions.

Michael Livermore, executive director of New York University’s Institute for Policy Integrity, said he expects the Obama administration to ultimately adopt most, if not all, of the science advisory board’s recommendations. “I’d be surprised if they disagreed with the [Science Advisory Board],” he said. The full board is expected to consider the draft report in August before sending its final comments to EPA.

EPA has been quietly working on some serious changes to the guidelines it uses to conduct cost-benefit analysis. Tweaks to the powerful but low-profile Guidelines for Preparing Economic Analyses could have major impacts on the environment. The Guidelines is little known outside of EPA, but is used in the design of every major environmental regulation.

If climate change legislation doubles as a plan to avoid a fiscal crisis back home, there will be a new powerful constituency behind a yes vote—an unusual marriage of convenience between state budget offices and environmentalists that may be the key to getting ACES over the hump.

“The fact that he’s not a stereotype is definitely a good thing, both for public health and the environment and for businesses,” says Michael Livermore, executive director of the Institute for Policy Integrity at New York University’s School of Law. “If you fit him in the stereotype, he’s either going to be bad for business or bad for the environment, and that’s not a choice we want to have to make. He’s going to be looking to make sure we achieve our environmental public health goals in a way that gives companies maximum flexibility to achieve our social goals at the lowest possible costs.”

[A] recent study by the Institute for Policy Integrity (IPI), a non-partisan think tank based in New York City, found the benefits of upgrading disposal sites would exceed the costs of tougher regulations by almost 10 to 1. The research focused mostly on coal ash ponds like the one that failed in Kingston, Tenn., in December. The costs for quarries to upgrade would be much lower than the costs for ponds, according Scott Holladay, an economist who researched the issue for IPI.