In the News

Some legal experts warn that under the status quo – four Republican appointees and three Democratic appointees among active judges – Obama’s plan to bypass a deeply partisan Congress to address climate change using existing authorities will not be easy.

“There is really no moving forward with regulation without going to the DC Circuit and the decision of the court could really have major consequences,” said Michael Livermore, executive director of the Institute for Policy Integrity at New York University’s law school.

This debate has been about where we disagree – we have real differences over where Section 115 fits into the Clean Air Act and over how (and even whether) EPA should use it to regulate carbon pollution. But the areas where we agree are much larger than those where we disagree. We agree on most of the crucial legal questions here and on the big picture: EPA, using the Act, can and should build a robust and cost-effective regulatory regime for greenhouse gases. How effective that regime will be remains to be seen, but if EPA is smart and creative, it has powerful and flexible tools available to it. We also agree that performance standards for existing sources under §111(d) can and should play an important role in EPA carbon regulation, fulfilling EPA’s legal obligations.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

Michael Livermore, executive director of the Institute for Policy Integrity at the New York University School of Law, said the public accepted that higher fuel economy standards would save them at the pump. “They have a lot of environmental benefits, but they also generate a lot of savings for consumers,” he said. “And that’s different from what you’re talking about with greenhouse gases” from power plants.

While the greenhouse gas rules are economically justified, especially when considering the cost of adapting to climate change, “it’s not like putting money in consumers’ pockets,” Livermore said.

“She definitely was willing to go and take criticism,” said Michael Livermore, executive director of the Institute for Policy Integrity at the New York University School of Law. “She wanted to use her position to achieve results for the American public.”