In the News

As Nathan Richardson rightly notes, debate over the best legal tools to craft climate regulations can sound dry, yet the real-world implications could not be more vital. At stake are the breadth, efficiency, and legality of EPA’s response to the most pressing environmental crisis of our time. I thank Nathan for hosting this online debate to explore the boundaries of EPA’s statutory authority.

Policy Integrity staked out our position in a recent petition to EPA: Section 115 provides straightforward authority to build comprehensive, market-based regulations. Other provisions of the Clean Air Act are also available, but they are no more legally sound and are less comprehensive. In Nathan’s response to our petition, he argues that Section 115 presents unnecessary legal risks, and claims that the provision is too short, too scant on details, and too untested to provide independent regulatory authority. Instead, Nathan sees Section 115 as a subordinate supplement to other, more established regulatory programs.

Jason Schwartz and Michael Livermore at Policy Integrity are first-rate Clean Air Act scholars and I’m honored to have the chance to debate with them. We agree on the most important points – above all that the EPA has ample authority under the existing statute to craft real, flexible, and effective carbon regulation. We do disagree some over the best way to get there. For some, this seems like legal arcana, but it matters. EPA’s choice of regulatory tool will do more than any other decision to shape the environmental ambition, cost-effectiveness, and legal vulnerability of its carbon regulation.

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.