Menu
Institute for Policy Integrity logo

In the News

  • US EPA Backers Call Up Bush, Clinton Presidencies to Justify Clean Power Plan

    In an amicus brief filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit on Jan. 30, the Institute for Policy Integrity at New York University of Law argues that ever since the current version of Section 111(d) was enacted in the 1990 Clean Air Act amendments, Republican and Democratic administrations have interpreted a so-called Section 112 exclusion in a way that is consistent with the EPA’s authority to regulate carbon dioxide.

  • Obama’s Carbon Rule Hangs on this One Legal Question

    But is 111(d) language ambiguous or flatly contradictory? As Jack Lienke noted in a Grist post last year, the Supreme Court faced a similar dilemma in a case last session called Scialabba v. Cuellar de Osorio, which dealt with contradictory statutory language. Kagan, Ginsburg, and Kennedy invoked Chevron and deferred to the Board of Immigration Appeals, the executive agency charged with implementing the statute.

  • EPA Consistently Interprets Clean Air Act Authority, Institute Tells Court

    The agency’s consistent and longstanding interpretation of the Clean Air Act is due deference, particularly in the context of the proposed Clean Power Plan, the Institute for Policy Integrity told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in a Jan. 30 brief. The institute filed an amicus brief in support of the EPA.

  • New EPA Methane Rules Are a Good Start, but Work Isn’t Done

    The EPA announced that it will regulate methane emissions from the oil and gas sector directly, rather than relying on voluntary programs or regulating associated pollutants. This a commonsense action that reduces a very potent greenhouse gas while directing valuable natural gas back into the supply chain. The rules, which will be unveiled this summer, will apply to all new oil and natural gas wells, but they will not address emissions from existing sources.

  • EPA Emission Regs Ignore 1.1 Million Existing Sources

    EPA’s announcement marks incremental progress, but thus far, the agency fails to regulate existing oil and gas sources, which are projected to be responsible for up to 90 percent of emissions in 2018,” Jayni Hein, policy director at the Institute for Policy Integrity at the NYU School of Law, said in a statement. “This is a major concern in states like North Dakota, where oil production is booming, yet methane capture technology remains far behind.”

  • The Economic Cost of Carbon Pollution Is Much Greater Than Estimated, Say Stanford Researchers

    “Results like this should give a pause that maybe we should start being more cautious,” Peter Howard, an economist at NYU Law School’s Institute for Policy Integrity, told VICE News. “Maybe this doesn’t happen, but if it does it could be quite costly, and we should take this risk into account.”

  • Are Low Oil Prices an Opening for a Carbon Tax?

    The price of gasoline today is wrong. It does not include the cost of carbon dioxide pollution from burning it. This is the baseline case for taxing carbon emissions. Without it, fossil fuels are underpriced, argues law professor Michael Livermore at the University of Virginia

  • Curbing Fugitive Methane Costs Little, Buys Time on Climate Change

    While critics of climate regulations often complain that the costs of pollution controls are too high, directly regulating methane would buy time on climate change and redirect natural gas back into the supply chain, at little net cost, due to the commercial value of the captured gas.

  • The Energy Buzzwords People Misuse and Misunderstand

    For several years, Republican leaders and coal-state Democrats have railed against “Obama’s war on coal.” In reality, this supposed “war” is merely the latest stage of an effort to protect public health and welfare that began decades before President Obama took office.

  • In Cromnibus, a Penny Saved, but Sensible Policies Lost

    At least in theory, the federal budgeting process is about rational investment. Funds are spent on programs and agencies that deliver benefits to the public, justifying their costs. However, aspects of this bill reflect congressional myopia, rather than investment in the future. Some provisions in the bill impede cost-benefit justified regulations and hinder efforts to improve public health and safety.