In the News

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.

Federal regulation of coal ash from power plants will help protect the environment and could also help electric utilities save billions of dollars, according to a study released yesterday. The New York University School of Law policy brief says requiring utilities to keep coal ash in dry, covered, synthetically lined storage areas would reduce risks of catastrophic spills, water pollution and respiratory ailments caused by airborne particles.

Real regulation of toxic ash from coal-fired power plants would not only protect the environment, but would make economic sense. That’s the conclusion of a new report issued today by New York University School of Law’s Institute for Policy Integrity.

Immediately after word came out that Sonia Sotomayor was the President’s pick for the Supreme Court, the environmental community (this author included) immediately went searching for the green angle. We found it in one decision: Riverkeeper v. EPA, which was seized upon as proof of Judge Sotomayor having a modicum of green cred. However, in a new Huffington Post piece Richard Revesz (dean of the NYU School of Law) and Michael Livermore (executive director of NYU’s Institute for Policy Integrity) think the green community might be reading too much into things.

Be careful about reading too much into Sonia Sotomayor’s environmental leanings from one cost-benefits case, warn Richard Revesz and Michael Livermore in the Huffington post: “Some environmentalist have seized on the Riverkeeper opinion as proof that Sotomayor bleeds eco-green, while industry is afraid that she is insensitive to the costs imposed by green regulation. But both sides are misreading the Judge’s opinion.”