Recent Projects

The CLEAR Act, sponsored in the Senate by Maria Cantwell (D-WA) and Susan Collins (R-ME), would place a price on carbon, auction 100% of the pollution permits, and refund most of the revenue back to consumers. This brief found that pricing carbon would spur investment and innovation in new energy technologies, giving a substantial boost to industries like manufacturing and construction—both hit hard in the recent financial crisis. Relatively well-paying jobs would be generated in these sectors, helping to mop up the slack created by the recession.

In about 9,000 big apartment and commercial buildings in Manhattan, Brooklyn, Queens, and the Bronx, boilers burn a dirty fuel to heat their units. “Residual Risks” analyses the health, environmental, and economic benefits of switching away from this dirty fuel to cleaner alternatives like natural gas.

It is hard to imagine a future where the value of the Web takes a downward spiral: where less content is created, online access is less useful, and fewer people log on. In Free to Invest, the Institute for Policy Integrity warns of negative economic consequences if net neutrality is weakened. The report arrived at five main findings that describe the trade-offs of revoking net neutrality.

Economists and Climate Change: Consensus and Open Questions describes and analyzes the results of a survey sent to 289 economic experts on climate change. Over 84% of the respondents to the poll said that the effects of global warming will create significant risks to important sectors of the United States and global economies.

There is a dearth of studies about the effects of the proceduralization of the rulemaking process on state regulations. In the Regulatory Weeds of the Garden State focuses on regulations promulgated in New Jersey, both prior to and following major procedural changes enacted in the state in 2001.

This brief compiles estimates from several different federal agencies, and calculates that the economic benefits of the emissions cap in the Waxman-Markey bill likely dwarf the costs by as much as 9-to-1 or more. The benefit to cost ratio was determined using the EPA’s previously released (and peer reviewed) cost estimates and a newly released “social cost of carbon” estimate from an interagency process which provides a conservative dollar figure for the benefits of greenhouse gas reductions.

No More Excuses: The Economic Case for Coal Ash Regulation is a brief but careful analysis which reveals several compelling findings on the regulation of the toxic by-product of coal combustion. In broad strokes, it is clear that the benefits of regulating coal ash storage facilities would far outweigh the costs. The benefits of a regulation requiring coal ash to be stored in dry conditions and in synthetically-lined, covered facilities could save tens or even hundreds of millions of dollars per storage facility.

In Regulatory Cost-Benefit Analysis and Collective Action, Daniel H. Cole describes the influence of cost-benefit analysis and explains how and why it is a politically useful tools for agencies, even when those agencies are not required by law to prepare regulatory cost-benefit analyses (RCBA). As Cole says in his introduction, “For better or for worse, RCBAs have significantly influenced policies for dealing with, or not dealing with, collective action problems ranging from airport enlargement to global climate change.”

In Federalism Accountability: “Agency Forcing” Measures, author Catherine M. Sharkey advocates a variety of “agency-forcing” measures designed to enhance the ability of Congress, the executive, and especially the courts to ensure that agencies abide by executive mandates and other reforms, and to provide a check on overt politicization or inaction on agencies’ part.

This detailed legal analysis provides an in-depth and thorough discussion of greenhouse gas regulation under the Clean Air Act answering the questions: What are EPA’s obligations under the Clean Air Act, and how far can and should the agency go to regulate greenhouse gases?