In the News

The Institute for Policy Integrity, a non-partisan advocacy organization and policy cost-benefit analysis think tank sponsored by the New York University School of Law, is seeking expert contributors for a wiki recently launched to evaluate the actual cost of energy tax credits and how the credits impact applicable businesses.

“We can’t make smart tax policy with respect to energy development until we at least know what’s going on,” said Michael Livermore, executive director of the Institute for Policy Integrity. As many in the ethanol industry have discovered during the past year’s energy subsidies debate, it is difficult to pinpoint the precise amount of tax credits that are being provided to one specific energy sector, and even more difficult to determine how the tax credit affects the industry’s performance.

So how does Exxon get away with paying such a relatively low rate? Along with other oil companies, it enjoys the rather generous tax breaks and subsidies the federal government—and the American taxpayer—sends its way. The Institute for Policy Integrity has set up a new Wiki that reveals information about many of these breaks, and how much money they help oil companies save.

President Obama’s state of the union address said a surprising amount about energy and the environment in a year where a sour economy is still his worst electoral enemy. That’s an encouraging sign, especially since opponents have been attacking him on some of his green-related decisions.

His speech was mostly focused, as expected, on job creation. The nation’s employment situation continues to be the biggest economic fallout from the economic crisis that began in 2008. For both political and policy reasons, the President is right to train his laser of attention onto getting people back to work.

Naturally, most waterfront dwellings aren’t owned by the poor. If you don’t count 2005, the year of hurricanes Katrina and Rita, in the years from 1998 to 2008, the wealthiest counties in the country filed 3 1/2 times more claims and received more than a billion dollars in claim payments than the poorest counties, reported the Institute for Policy Integrity.

In a similar way, the dean of NYU’s law school, Richard Revesz, and his colleague Michael Livermore argue that the REINS Act puts undue emphasis on the “costs” of regulation. On the Huffington Post, they write:

“By focusing exclusively on the downsides of regulation, and not the benefits, the implication of this proposed legislation is that protecting the health and safety of Americans is not worth the costs that regulated entities must pay. But in fact, the opposite is often true: These rules can produce billions of dollars in net benefits.”

Jason Schwartz, legal director for the Institute for Policy Integrity, said Friday that an additional requirement of the REINS Act that puts a time limit on how long Congress has to consider a major new rule is especially troubling.

“Congress does not need the REINS Act to help it review rules, and in fact the REINS Act is not likely to help Congress review rules; the more likely fate for rules will either be a pro forma approval by Congress, which just adds an unnecessary step to the already lengthy rulemaking process, or else death by congressional inaction or political bickering,” Schwartz said.

Considered collectively, President Obama’s clean air rules will have relatively small negative impact on the economy and a major positive impact on health and the environment. Those claiming otherwise are likely looking only at the costs of these clean air regulations and not considering the benefits.

How does the Obama administration’s pace on new regulations compare to those of previous administrations? During today’s OnPoint, Michael Livermore, executive director of the Institute for Policy Integrity at the New York University School of Law, explains why he believes the Obama EPA’s rollout of new rules is in line with previous administrations. Livermore also discusses why this round of air regulations has garnered so much attention.

“Industry will favor that approach, states will favor it, environmental groups will favor it—and we believe the EPA has the legal power to do it,” says Michael Livermore, a law professor at New York University and the executive director of the Institute for Policy Integrity. The IPI released a paperr earlier this year that makes the case that the EPA has power under the Clean Air Act to recognize state cap-and-trade programs. “The only question,” says Livermore, “is how risk-averse the EPA is.”