Institute for Policy Integrity logo

Twitter @policyintegrity

Recent Projects

  • Public Comments

    Public Comments on the Economics of Coal Ash Disposal

    November 19, 2010

    In many places around the nation the toxic sludge leftovers of the coal combustion process are stored in vast unlined pools where poisons can leak into groundwater. Sometimes, like in Kingston, Tennessee, these holding pens break letting loose an avalanche of black poisonous muck.

    Read more

  • News

    Memo on Myths of Net Neutrality

    November 19, 2010

    In the discourse over net neutrality there are some important facts getting lost in the shuffle. There are strong arguments that weigh in favor of net neutrality, and there are reasonable arguments that caution against it. There is no reason for either side to rely on myths to win support.

    Read more

  • Reports

    52 Experiments with Regulatory Review

    November 16, 2010

    After more than a year of research, surveys, and analysis, Policy Integrity is the first to compile the regulatory practices of all fifty states in one document. Comparing each set of laws and guidelines on paper to direct feedback from leaders on the ground, the report assigns states a grade based on the quality of their review process.

    Read more

  • Public Comments

    Comments on specialized services and wireless in the net-neutrality debate

    November 4, 2010

    Recently, the FCC asked for feedback on two issues: how so-called “specialized services” should be exempted from neutrality protections, if at all, and whether open Internet rules should be applied to wireless services in addition to wireline broadband services.

    Read more

  • Academic Articles/Working Papers

    Regulatory Change and Optimal Transition Relief

    October 30, 2010

    Grandfathering has become a common practice in regulating industries like coal power generation. But it is not clear that phasing out polluting plants is beneficial. The costs of retrofitting existing plants to comply with new standard can be higher than the compliance costs for a new plant. Since the costs of shifting to new technology must be borne at some point, (since granfathering can’t be indefinite) it might be best not to grandfather at all so that society can benefit from lower pollution levels earlier. That’s just one of the arguments examined in this working paper.

    Read more

  • Public Comments

    Public Comments to EPA and NHTSA on the Economics of CAFE Standards

    October 29, 2010

    In their first notice of intent to propose new fuel economy standards for light-duty vehicles Model Year 2017 and later, EPA and NHTSA ask for comments on their research plan for the coming months and raise crucial questions, such as why the private market does not currently provide for more fuel-efficient vehicles and whether there are any “unidentified additional costs” of fuel-efficient

    Read more

  • Public Comments

    Comments submitted to DOE on appliance energy savings rule

    October 19, 2010

    The U.S. Department of Energy is planning to use an expanded way of estimating the energy savings of appliances. It would incorporate the costs of everything from fuel extraction to distribution and also estimate the greenhouse gas impacts of the machine.

    Read more

  • Public Comments

    Comments on EPA’s Transport Rule

    October 1, 2010

    Today, Policy Integrity offered suggestions on the EPA’s plans to reduce certain kinds of air pollutants that waft across state lines.

    Read more

  • Public Comments

    Response to the European Commission on Net Neutrality

    September 24, 2010

    Today, Policy Integrity submitted comments on net neutrality to the European Commission, Directorate-General for Information Society and Media, (EC) in response to the EC’s “Public Consultation on the Open Internet and Net Neutrality in Europe.”

    Read more

  • Academic Articles/Working Papers

    Climate Change and Future Generations

    September 22, 2010

    Efforts to reduce greenhouse gases and control climate change implicate a wide range of social, moral, economic, and political issues, none of them simple or clear. But when regulators evaluate the desirability of climate change mitigation through cost-benefit analysis, one factor typically determines whether mitigation is justified: the discount rate or the rate at which future benefits are converted to their present value.

    This working paper evaluates the four principal justifications for intergenerational discounting, which often are conflated in the literature. It shows that none of these justifications supports the prevalent approach of discounting benefits to future generations at the rate of return in financial markets and, more generally, that discounting cannot substitute for a moral theory setting forth our obligations to future generations.

    Read more