In the News

“The reason there is all this focus is that this is arguably the most important environmental regulation ever,” said Richard L. Revesz, the director of the Institute for Policy Integrity at the New York University School of Law. This week, the institute and several other groups will file briefs in support of the E.P.A.’s position in the case.

“If Scalia’s seat remains vacant when the Clean Power Plan reaches the high court, a 4-4 vote would result in an automatic affirmance of the D.C. Circuit’s decision on the rule,” says Jack Lienke, an attorney with the Institute for Policy Integrity at the New York University School of Law.

Last month scholars from the law schools of Columbia University, New York University and the University of California, Los Angeles, released a report that suggested there is a provision in the Clean Air Act that would allow the E.P.A. to require states to reduce emissions that endangered other countries if such countries provided reciprocal protections to the United States.

Richard Revesz spoke with Marketplace about the Supreme Court’s unprecedented ruling, staying the Clean Power Plan until a lower court can rule on its legality.

A few weeks ago, a group of 13 prominent environmental law professors and attorneys released a 91-page report outlining this new approach, which would allow EPA to use existing laws to quickly and efficiently regulate all pollution sources, in all states — not just power plants and cars. The experts concluded, “It could provide one of the most effective and efficient means to address climate change pollution in the United States.”

A group of legal scholars have recently drawn attention to a somewhat obscure section of the Clean Air Act that they say could unlock greater executive authority — which even the economy-wide system wonks so fervently desire.The analysis, from the Institute for Policy Integrity, the Sabin Center for Climate Change, and the Emmett Institute on Climate Change and the Environment, focuses on Section 115 of the Clean Air Act, the provision on “international air pollution.”

In managing federal lands, Interior has the statutory obligation to earn “fair market value” for the American public when developing natural resources, and to balance energy production with environmental preservation. By using modern economic tools, Interior can illuminate coal’s hidden costs and make straightforward reforms to the federal coal program, benefiting the American public.

“The federal government really does have market share,” says Jayni Hein, policy director for New York University’s Institute for Policy Integrity and co-author of a recent report, “Illuminating the Hidden Costs of Coal.” While a similar move for oil and gas leases might simply shift more of the production to private land, she says, the coal industry doesn’t have that flexibility.

“This is a major shift that helps modernize the federal coal program,” said Jayni Hein, policy director at the Institute for Policy Integrity. “This planning process will disclose the environmetal and social impacts of coal leasing, which are extensive.”

Any economist will tell you that disagreement is a hallmark of the discipline, but we found a surprisingly high degree of consensus on many critical topics. According to the economists who’ve studied these issues, the economic case for strong, near-term U.S. climate action is compelling