In the News

On the same day the Florida Legislature is poised to pass a bill that will require lawmakers to put a giant roadblock before some of the state’s broadest regulations — by ratifying every rule that has a collective cost of $200,000 a year — a New York think tank has blasted Florida for its “bargain basement” regulatory structure and for “disproportionately focusing on costs while failing to adequately account for economic benefits.”

Most states are lagging when it comes to rulemaking procedures that include setting environmental and public health standards, according to a new report out today from the Institute for Policy Integrity at New York University’s School of Law. The study assigns each of the 50 states a letter grade according to how well their regulatory systems promote sound and rational decision-making. No state got an A and most were in the D range. Iowa ranked the highest with a B+. The worst: Alaska, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Georgia, Louisiana, New Mexico and Texas all scored a D-.

News of Lisa Heinzerling’s departure from her position as head of the EPA’s Office of Policy and Planning doesn’t need to mean the winding-down of aggressive action at the EPA.

Fuel economy standards and promoting electric cars are piecemeal policies that cost too much and gain too little. If fiddling around the edges of greenhouse gas restrictions is all we can hope for in the current contentious political environment, so be it, but for the biggest impact at the lowest cost, what is needed is a wholesale cap-and-trade on motor vehicle fuels.

Yesterday, the White House lambasted Louisiana Sen. Mary Landrieu (D) for her hold on their nominee to head up the Office of Management and Budget. Her goal: to force the president to lift the offshore drilling moratorium put in place in the wake of the largest oil spill in U.S. history so that the regulations governing offshore drilling could be examined and overhauled.

The Federal Communications Commission’s proposed rules for net neutrality would do more to insure economic stability than the proposal from Google and Verizon, according to a new report from New York University think-tank.

As economists who study network neutrality, we have watched the debate over the future of the Internet closely. The new policy proposal from Google and Verizon opens the possibility that some Websites will be treated better than others. This might not be such good news for Internet users.

A report out of New York University’s law school stresses a key – and oft-misunderstood – point: Today’s Internet evolved under net-neutrality rules. The wide-open Web that spurred so much U.S. innovation and growth occurred in a net-neutral environment because it was governed by the same content- and device-neutral rules that governed the nation’s phone networks after the early-‘80s breakup of the old AT&T monopoly.

In August, Verizon and Google agreed on principles to help create a better Internet for the future. But a new paper (.pdf) on net neutrality from New York University Law School’s Institute for Policy Integrity finds a few flaws with the plan. Although much of the paper titled “The Value of Open: An Update on Net Neutrality” is controversial, there is one point in particular that’s quite strong. It assets that ruling proactively on pricing strategies is better than ruling reactively.

When the Clean Air Act was passed, forty years ago this week, climate change was a theory. Since then, the scientific community has reached a consensus about the greenhouse effects of carbon pollution. We are now aware that these gases pose a serious threat to the environment and economy and therefore, must be regulated under the law.