Institute for Policy Integrity logo

Twitter @policyintegrity

In the News

Viewing all news in Transparency

    November 16, 2010 – Politico’s Morning Energy

    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-.

  • Senator blocks budget director nominee over offshore drilling ban

    October 1, 2010 – Grist

    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.

  • Disasters show flawed system of oversight

    August 16, 2010 – San Antonio News

    First came the explosions. Then the funerals. Then the calls for reform. Five years ago, it was the Texas City explosion that killed 15 workers and cast the spotlight on the Chemical Safety Board, the chronically underfunded agency assigned to oversee worker safety at American refineries.

  • Safety regulators caught in revolving doors

    August 15, 2010 – Houston Chronicle

    “It’s as though the nation is walking into a casino and spinning the roulette wheel every day,” says Michael Liver­more, a government regulation specialist and executive director of the Institute for Policy Integrity at New York University law school. “It’s only a matter of time before we’re going to come up with snake eyes and have another disaster.”

  • Scrutinizing Inaction

    July 15, 2010 – Huffington Post

    With the announcement earlier this week that President Obama will nominate Jacob Lew to replace Peter Orszag at the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), it is worth taking a fresh look at how decisions are made within that agency. When the Environmental Protection Agendy (EPA), or any other federal agency, promulgate a significant regulation, the decision is pored over and scrutinized by OMB’s Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) to ensure it is a wise course of action. But when the government fails to regulate, little attention is paid, even when the stakes are high. To lessen the imbalance, there should be a formal process that reviews inaction.

  • Obama Overhaul of Regulatory Reviews Now Seen as Unlikely

    July 14, 2010 – The New York Times Online via Greenwire

    If the Obama administration is finding itself able to achieve its goals under the current executive order, it might prefer to avoid issuing a new directive that could prompt a political fight and force the White House to commit scarce resources, said Michael Livermore, executive director of the Institute for Policy Integrity. Livermore, who has argued that cost-benefit analysis can be reconciled with environmental regulation, said he supports a revised executive order that would apply the administration’s transparency initiative to regulatory policy. Though it is hard to “look behind the curtain” of the White House, he said he understands that the administration might want to maintain the balance struck by the Clinton-era policy.

  • In a bizarre self-inflicted wound, The New Republic hires right-wing misinformer to debunk its artic

    July 8, 2010 – Climate Progress

    For a cost-benefit analysis of just focusing on US legislation, New York University School of Law’s Institute for Policy Integrity demonstrated last year that the Waxman-Markey American Clean Energy and Security Act (H.R. 2454) is “cost‐benefit justified under most reasonable assumptions about the likely social cost of carbon.’”

  • All Cost, No Benefit Is No Way To Do An Analysis

    June 17, 2010 – The New Republic’s The Vine Blog

    According to an EPA analysis released Monday, the Kerry-Lieberman climate bill—also known as the American Power Act—would cost $146 per year per household. The only catch? The EPA didn’t assess the benefits of the bill, particularly the fact that it’s a necessary step for averting the worst effects of climate change. And that’s unfortunate, because when you look at what the $146 per year would buy us, it’s a pretty good deal.

  • Climate-energy bill cost for consumers: up to $146 a year

    June 16, 2010 – The Christian Science Monitor

    Some have tried to assess such impacts. In a study of energy-climate legislation last year, the nonpartisan Institute for Policy Integrity found that the House bill would generate between $750 billion and $1 trillion in total benefits between 2012 and 2050.

  • American Power Act Starts to Look Even Better

    June 15, 2010 – Washington Monthly’s Political Animal Blog

    Some consumers would see modest cost increases — we’re talking about literally $7 a month — but the legislation includes mechanisms to help consumers offset those costs. As Dave Roberts explained, “Cost is simply not a credible reason to oppose a carbon cap.”