In the News

The Institute for Policy Integrity, on the other hand, endorses Professor Sunstein to head OIRA, arguing that cost-benefit analysis, if done in an unbiased way, could be used to support progressive environmental and public safety regulations.

The question of the cost of climate change legislation has rightly emerged as a major theme of the debate on the Hill. Most recently, Charlie Rangel, Chairman of the powerful House Ways and Means Committee announced last week that he would insist on using auction revenues to reimburse American families for increases in energy prices.

According to new analysis from the Institute for Policy Integrity at New York University School of Law, when the EPA issues its final declaration on global warming being an endangerment to human health, the Obama administration could press forward with a cap-and-trade program without having to go through Congress:

Sempre più simile a un supereroe da fumetti, Barack Obama per vincere la sfida climatica avrebbe ora anche un’arma segreta, un superpotere. E’ quanto afferma l’Institute for policy integrity della facoltà di Legge dell’Università di New York.

According to a groundbreaking new analysis from New York University, the administration could even unilaterally establish a cap-and-trade system very similar to what Congress is considering.

‘The Road Ahead: EPA’s Options and Obligations for Regulating Greenhouse Gases,’ notes a report on the Policy Integrity site. This detailed legal analysis provides an in-depth and thorough discussion of greenhouse gas regulation under the Clean Air Act. The main finding of the report is that the Obama Administration has the ability to create a cap-and-trade system entirely through EPA regulation- complete with auctions and the ability to sign an international agreement.

There’s some question as to how far the Environmental Protection Agency’s recent “endangerment” finding with regard to climate pollution allows the agency to go in terms of protecting the climate without further enabling legislation. Over at Grist, Michael Livermore points to a new report from the Institute for Policy Integrity at NYU Law School that argues the EPA can go far indeed—all the way to implementing a full-bore nationwide cap and trade system.

The new Congress has been making up for lost time on climate change. Senators and Representatives have been rushing to get a cap-and-something passed this year. At the same time there are fears that it may be impossible to build a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate for a good climate bill, leaving greens with two options: either accept a bad bill, or accept inaction.

So just out from NYU yesterday: a roadmap for regulating four of the six GHGs under the CAA as currently structured (assuming the finding is finalized as planned). The NYU report outlines (1) the legal arguments that the CAA fully authorizes EPA to create a “cap-and-trade” program for the six major GHGs, (2) the way that such a program could operate at or near an “economy wide” scale, and finally (3) that standard cost/benefit analyses would support EPA moving forward with such a program quickly.