Menu
Institute for Policy Integrity logo

Recent Projects

  • Shifting Gears Cover

    Shifting Gears

    A New Approach to Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions from the Transportation Sector

    To overcome a stall out of “command-and-control” regulations for biofuels, EPA should move towards a flexible, market-based emissions trading system for the transportation sector.

    Read more

  • Global Warming: Improve Economic Models of Climate Change Cover

    Global Warming: Improve Economic Models of Climate Change

    Costs of carbon emissions are being underestimated, but current estimates are still valuable for setting mitigation policy, say Richard L. Revesz, Peter H. Howard, Kenneth Arrow, Lawrence H. Goulder, Robert E. Kopp, Michael A. Livermore, Michael Oppenheimer, and Thomas Sterner in Nature.

    Read more

  • Omitted Damages: What's Missing from the Social Cost of Carbon Cover

    Omitted Damages: What’s Missing from the Social Cost of Carbon

    The social cost of carbon is an estimate of the economic damage done by each ton of carbon dioxide spewed into the air. Howard examines the Integrated Assessment Models used to produce the social cost of carbon estimate and gives a comprehensive review of what each model accounts for and what each model misses.

    Read more

  • Comments Submitted to OMB in Support of the Social Cost of Carbon

    Policy Integrity submitted comments to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) voicing our support for the Administration’s continued use of the social cost of carbon (SCC) as it provides an important, if conservative, estimate of the costs of climate change and the benefits of reducing carbon pollution.

    Read more

  • Policy Integrity Staff Attend Supreme Court Oral Arguments on EPA PSD Permitting Case

    Policy Integrity director, Richard Revesz, legal director, Jason Schwartz, and legal fellow Denise Grab were at the Supreme Court today to hear oral arguments in the case challenging the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from stationary sources under the prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) program.

    Read more

  • Supreme Court Amicus Brief on EPA’s PSD Permitting Case

    Policy Integrity filed an amicus brief with the U.S. Supreme Court supporting the authority of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from stationary sources under the prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) program.

    Read more

  • Comments on EPA Proposed 2014 Standards for the Renewable Fuel Standard Program

    Policy Integrity submitted comments to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on the agency’s proposed 2014 standards for the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) program. EPA proposes to reduce renewable fuel targets from 2013 levels, due to concerns regarding industry’s ability to produce sufficient quantities of qualifying fuel and consumers’ ability to use the fuel. This backsliding highlights the RFS program’s inability to guarantee steady reductions in greenhouse gas emissions.

    Read more

  • Comments on Con Edison Storm Hardening and Resilience Collaborative Report

    On January 10, Policy Integrity, along with New York University’s Guarini Center, submitted comments on Con Edison’s Storm Hardening and Resilience Collaborative Report. The comments urge New York’s Public Service Commission (PSC) to extend the charter of the cost-benefit analysis working group convened as part of the collaborative process surrounding Con Edison’s latest ratemaking proceeding.

    Read more

  • Quantifying Regulatory Benefits Cover

    Quantifying Regulatory Benefits

    The author responds to an argument made by Cass Sunstein that administrative agencies should use breakeven analysis when unable to quantify benefits of a specific regulation. Breakeven analysis seeks to determine how high nonquantifiable benefits of a regulation would have to be for the benefits to justify the costs. In this Comment, the author argues that breakeven analysis can be useful but is always a second-best technique. The first-best approach is to quantify the benefit.

    Read more

  • Cost-Benefit Analysis and Agency Independence Cover

    Cost-Benefit Analysis and Agency Independence

    In “Cost-Benefit Analysis and Agency Independence,” Professor Michael A. Livermore argues that cost-benefit analysis provides a standard that constrains the exercise of OIRA’s power, helping to preserve the autonomy of government agencies in the face of White House review. This argument challenges the prevailing view that cost-benefit analysis is a tool for the President to impose authority over executive agencies.

    Read more