In the News

Last week, the Institute for Policy Integrity staked out its position in a formal petition submitted to the agency, which argues that EPA should move to increase the coverage and efficiency of its regulatory response by building a more comprehensive, market-based approach. Policy Integrity’s petition argues that certain largely ignored but potentially powerful provisions of the Clean Air Act—in particular, Section 115—are ideally suited for greenhouse gas regulation. Section 115 was designed specifically to address U.S. emissions that harm the health or welfare of foreign countries—i.e., international air pollution.

But the Institute for Policy Integrity (IPI) at New York University last week petitioned EPA to regulate GHGs more broadly under section 115 of the law — a never-before-used provision that grants the agency authority to limit emissions that cause harm internationally — arguing it could provide more flexibility than 111. But the approach is considered legally questionable.

Michael Livermore, executive director of the Institute for Policy Integrity at New York University, lauded the report’s call for a set of best practices that economists could use to forecast the effects of regulation on the job market. But he agreed with Bivens that NERA’s model relies heavily on assumption.

A New York-based institute has asked U.S. EPA to consider a little-used section of the Clean Air Act to cut greenhouse gases, a move it says will give states more control over how to curb climate change.

The Institute for Policy Integrity at New York University sent a petition to acting EPA Administrator Bob Perciasepe yesterday, requesting that the agency consider using Section 115 of the Clean Air Act to require states to formulate plans to reduce emissions

An environmental group affiliated with New York University’s law school is petitioning the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to wield a seldom-used section of the Clean Air Act to require greenhouse gas emissions curbs.

The petition urges EPA to act under Section 115 of the air law, which enables EPA to demand action to curb pollution that’s endangering public health or welfare in foreign countries.

Seizing on signals the White House could move unilaterally to combat climate change, a New York think tank petitioned the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency on Tuesday to pursue far-reaching antipollution measures, arguing that such action is required under the Clean Air Act.

Michael Livermore, executive director at the Institute for Policy Integrity at the New York University School of Law, said in a statement Monday that the Clean Air Act gives Obama plenty of running room.

He said Section 111 of the law, which addresses stationary pollution sources, “easily gives the President the power to use market mechanisms (like a cap) to drive down carbon emissions from power plants.”

What are the global trends for cost-benefit analysis, and how is this policy tool affecting environmental regulations? During today’s OnPoint, Michael Livermore, executive director of the Institute for Policy Integrity and co-editor of the new book “The Globalization of Cost-Benefit Analysis in Environmental Policy,” discusses the growing global use of cost-benefit analysis and its impact on environmental policy. He explains why he believes cost-benefit analysis is effective and highlights a recent case, relating to EPA’s mercury rule, where cost-benefit analysis was called into question.

The Institute for Policy Integrity and the New York University School of Law sought in a brief filed yesterday to rebut industry claims that EPA’s economic analysis of the rule’s costs and benefits was flawed.

“While EPA did not rely on cost-benefit analysis to justify the [rule], the Agency acted consistently with federal law and best economic practices by assessing all significant economic impacts — both direct and indirect, quantifiable and unquantifiable — in its regulatory impact analysis,” the group wrote in the brief to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

But while Kerry discussed climate change briefly during his confirmation hearing last week, he spent much more time on issues of international conflict like Syria. And it is equally likely that they might take precedence after he is confirmed.

“He’s not going to be the climate secretary,” said Michael Livermore, executive director of the Institute for Policy Integrity at the New York University School of Law, in a recent interview.