Law and the Environment : Environmental Lawyer & Attorney : Foley Hoag Law Firm : Boston, Washington D.C.

On Wednesday, EPA promulgated the final Utility MACT rule. I doubt that anyone reading this blog isn’t already aware of the big news.

As seems frequently to be the case with EPA rules, this one, weighing in at 2.4MB and 1,117 pages, cannot easily be summarized here. In fact, the rule is so complicated – and controversial – that EPA had to generate four separate fact sheets to summarize the rule and its impacts: (1) Costs and Benefits (or, as EPA carefully puts it, “Benefits and Costs”); (2) Summary of the Rule; (3) Clean Air and Reliable Electricity (I wonder why EPA thought this one necessary?); and (4) Adjustments from Proposal to Final.

We live in a complex world, so there is not much use in complaining about how overwhelming this rule is, and about the problems inherent in a system in which rules with costs of approximately $10B annually and benefits ranging from $37B to $90B annually are this complicated and are probably truly understood by a very small number of people. As I tell my Libertarian friends, even Jefferson wouldn’t be a Jeffersonian today. Nonetheless, it is troubling.

The issues worth noting in a blog post are probably the changes from the proposal. Significant changes include:

·         Use of filterable PM for the particulate emissions limit, rather than total PM (which would include condensables).

·         Use of work practice standards, rather than emission limits, during start-up and shut-down. This is an important change, which will make life much easier for regulated units.

·         Greater flexibility in facility-wide averaging.

Reliability has obviously been the big issue for EPA. Units will generally have three years to comply. Permitting authorities may grant a 4^th year, if necessary, and EPA has said that they expect the extra year to be “broadly available.” EPA has also provided a mechanism for “units that are shown to be critical for reliability to obtain” a 5^th year to comply – though EPA has said that it does not expect many units to require or qualify for the 5^th year.

My predictions on the rule’s fate and impact?

·         I’ll be stunned if the rule does not survive judicial review. Of course, in an 1,117 page rule, there may be some obscure provision that is struck down, but the basic provisions will be upheld.

·         The sky will not fall. Significant numbers of jobs will not be lost, and the increase in electricity prices will be smaller than predicted. Since I whack EPA often enough, I’ll defend it here – to a limited extent. I don’t think that there has been a single big rule ever promulgated by EPA where the implementation costs haven’t been less than expected. That’s been true for one simple reason. When industry has clear rules to follow (even if they are not the cost-effective rules I would prefer), industrial innovation works to bring down compliance costs in ways that were not imagined, either by EPA or industry, when the rule was promulgated.

·         Of course, if there is a Republican President and a Republican Congress, all bets are off. Of course, when Mitt Romney was Governor of Massachusetts, he supported regulations by MassDEP that were essentially a state version of the Utility MACT rule, notwithstanding his criticism today of EPA for wanting to promulgate job-killing regulations. Of course, Mitt Romney has been known to change his mind. Of course,… oh, never mind. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

E&E Daily reported this week that Congressional Democrats are opposing the Regulatory Accountability Act of 2011. H.R. 3010 would codify a requirement for cost-benefit analysis of major regulations in the Administrative Procedures Act. According to the report, John Conyers, ranking member on the House Judiciary Committee stated that the RAA

would amend the Administrative Procedure Act in ways that would effectively halt agency rulemaking and undermine public health and safety rules.

Excuse me?

The guts of the RAA would be to:

·         Require cost-benefit analysis for all rules expected to cost more than $100,000,000

·         Require cost-effectiveness for rules going beyond statutory minimum requirements – If EPA wants to impose rules that would cost more than the minimum requirements necessary to implement a statutory requirement, it must demonstrate that the marginal cost of the increased stringency is outweighed by the marginal benefit.

·         Set some limits on agency promulgation of guidance. I am particularly taken with the provision that would authorize the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs to “issue guidelines for use by the agencies in the issuance of major guidance and other guidance.” My Massachusetts readers will recall the effort by NAIOP to require that our MassDEP issue “Guidance on Guidance”, setting ground rules on the use of guidance. The NAIOP ground rules are fairly similar to those in the RAA.

I’m sorry. I am not a political consultant, but I still don’t get the Democrats’ opposition to this. There is definitely stuff in the RAA that is easy not to like. That’s fine, but when Democrats oppose cost-benefit analysis, it just sounds dumb. It plays into the anti-regulatory crowd’s hands. It suggests that there isn’t a regulation out there that Democrats don’t like and that Democrats don’t care whether regulations actually benefit society.

My advice, for what it’s worth? The Democrats should take up the mantle of cost-benefit analysis. Challenge the GOP to demonstrate that they are not simply using cost-benefit analysis as a cudgel to stop all regulations, by making clear that the Democrats regard cost-benefit analysis, not as a way to end regulation, but as a valuable tool to make sure the regulatory process works as it should.

I remain an optimist.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Does anyone remember cost benefit analysis? As I recall, it was an economic tool that many in the academic and business communities wanted to use to discipline EPA’s more grandiose regulatory efforts. EPA has now used it for years; it routinely provides analyses showing that the benefits of its rules far exceed the costs that they impose.

As I have previously pointed out, that really shouldn’t be the end of the story, because unless EPA goes farther, and performs rigorous cost-effectiveness analysis, we could still be wasting big bucks. Even if a regulation provides $100B in benefits for only $90B in costs, wouldn’t we want to know if a different regulatory structure could obtain $90B in benefits for only $10B in costs? While that might be a hypothetical, it’s not a totally unreasonable one. Nonetheless, at least EPA is doing some C-B analysis and I think it likely that most, if not all, of EPA’s rules do result in greater benefits than costs.

These musings were triggered by the announcement by EPA yesterday that it would not be revising the coarse particulate matter, or PM₁₀, standard, the result of which will apparently be to allow dust emissions from farming operations to escape federal regulation. I don’t have a view on the merits of tougher PM₁₀ regulation. Based on a quick review of EPA’s technical analysis, it appears to be a close question. Either way, though, I’m confident that Congressional opposition to a more stringent PM10 standard stems from a new development – opposition to cost-benefit analysis from those opposed to environmental regulation. 

The new approach, seen in the North Carolina legislation on which I commented earlier this year, opposes costly regulation, regardless of its benefits. The rhetoric is that this is not the time to impose new regulations, because the economy cannot afford it – as though there is a time when people can afford to get cancer or heart disease. 

So, where are we today? Environmentalists support environmental regulation, looking only at the benefits it provides. Others oppose environmental regulation, looking only at the costs it imposes. Altogether, a sad state of affairs.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

I’ve spent a lot time in this space arguing for increased use of cost-benefit analysis and cost-effectiveness analysis before environmental regulations are promulgated. As difficult as it can be, there’s simply no avoiding it. If we don’t do so explicitly, we do so implicitly – and I vote for explicitness, every time.

The opposition to cost-benefit analysis usually comes from the left, based on concerns that the cost-benefit requirement will hamstring regulators and that the benefits will be understated. The right is normally seen as a fan of cost-benefit analysis.  Now, however, the notion of cost-benefit analysis is being challenged from the right – though I doubt that they would acknowledge it. North Carolina has just passed a law prohibiting until July 1, 2012 promulgation of new regulations that would cost more than $500,000, unless they either result from “a serious and unforeseen threat to the public health, safety, or welfare,” or they are required by federal or state statute or federal regulation. 

Do the North Carolina legislature and Governor Perdue realize that they have just said that cost-benefit analysis doesn’t matter? We don’t want any new regulations if they cost $500,001, even if they have $10 million in benefits? My economist friends must be going nuts, though at least the scorn heaped upon them is now equally balanced on the right and left.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (2)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

As almost everyone knows by now, EPA finally issued its long-awaited final rule on Boilers, Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste Incinerators (CISWI), and Sewage Sludge Incinerators (SSI) yesterday. The rule is too complicated even to summarize here. EPA has a useful fact sheet for that purpose.

I’d like to focus on a few broader issues. The rule has widely been seen as the Obama administration’s first formal acknowledgment of the anti-regulation political climate currently sweeping Washington. Indeed, the Times began its story as follows:

Responding to a changed political climate and a court-ordered deadline, the Obama administration issued significantly revised new air pollution rules on Wednesday that will make it easier for operators of thousands of industrial boilers and incinerators to meet federal air quality standards.

It’s not obvious to me that the instant punditry analysis is correct. EPA had received an enormous number of comments on the rule prior to the November elections. The regulated community had made a fairly strong case that the proposed standards simply couldn’t be met. EPA faced a real possibility of losing in court if it went forward with the proposed rule. Only time will tell if EPA has truly developed a new-found concern for the economic impacts of its rules.

Regardless of the reason for EPA’s change of heart, I think it is fair to say that the rule represents a triumph of the rule-making process. EPA issued a proposed rule, took thousands of comments, and – whatever its motivation – changed the rule in response to the comments, making compliance significantly less costly, while still achieving most of the benefits of the original proposal. 

The boiler rule was never one that could have been issued as guidance – it was statutorily mandated, for one thing – but I think that the boiler rule still provides a stark contrast with agency development of guidance. Guidance is not subject to the formal notice and comment process. Moreover, even where agencies do take comment on guidance documents, the very flexibility guidance supposedly provides makes agencies less responsive to comments. They can always say that the guidance will be interpreted flexibly in light of adverse comments.

Finally, to the extent that the economic concerns were part of EPA’s motivation, I can only say, hurray! Not simply because EPA considered the cost of the rule, but because EPA considered the cost-effectiveness of the rule. EPA can almost always generate an analysis demonstrating that the benefits of a rule exceed its costs, but that’s not really the proper criterion. If EPA could obtain 90% of the benefits of a rule with an alternative rule that would impose only 10% of the costs, I would vote for the alternative rule. If the boiler rule represents one small step towards increased use of cost-effectiveness analysis by EPA, then it will be worth its costs, even aside from the substantial health benefits EPA projects to result from its implementation.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

It may be an apocryphal story, but my understanding as to why so many small municipal landfills in New Hampshire ended up on the NPL is that some bright light in the Granite State thought that Superfund was a public works program and that the fund would pay for the landfill closures. The result? Small towns became PRPs, responsible for Superfund response costs which, in some cases, approximated their annual municipal budget.

I recall going to a public meeting concerning EPA’s preferred alternative at one site. At most sites, the public pleads for EPA to require more cleanup – because someone else will be paying, of course. Here, the public was begging for less cleanup, because they thought that they had better ways to spend the money. Even if the money had to be devoted to public health and safety, they were confident that spending money on traffic lights and police and fire departments would yield a greater return.

I was reminded of this episode by EPA’s announcement last week of the release of guidance recommending the removal of PCB-containing light ballasts from schools. According to a report in the Wall Street Journal, New York City estimates that the cost to remove the ballasts will be $1 billion. Anyone think that NYC might have a better use for $1 billion in school spending?

There are really two points to this story. The first is that legislation in response to panics is not a good idea. The notion that there are special legislative provisions for PCBs, unlike the myriad of other toxic chemicals which are handled under provisions of general application is, to use a technical term, nuts. It has led to a separate PCB program within EPA which, in the bureaucratic nature of things, has to justify its existence, leading to costly recommendations such as those made last week.

Second, what if it really would be better to spend money on fire trucks, or traffic lights, or anti-drug programs in schools? To be fair to EPA, this is not a question the agency is tasked with answering. However, shouldn’t somebody be asking and answering such questions before regulations with such potential consequences are promulgated? 

This is not about cost-benefit analysis, which simply asks whether the benefit of the requirement is worth its costs. It’s not even cost-effectiveness analysis, at least as EPA normally thinks about it. Such analysis would normally only try to determine the most cost-effective way to eliminate PCBs. I’m after something deeper. Even after we’ve determined the most cost-effective way to eliminate PCBs from light ballasts, I want to know how much that would cost, how much risk reduction it would achieve, and whether more risk reduction could be obtained by spending the money elsewhere. 

I can dream, can’t I?

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (3)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Seemingly just in time to lend support to the revived idea of a carbon tax that we noted on Monday, an Obama Administration inter-agency workgroup has released a report that attempts to do the critical math necessary to put a price tag on CO₂ emissions.

The report sets out four dollar figures that represent the “social cost of carbon,” or the potential damages associated with not stopping the emissions of each incremental ton of CO₂. The figures, which differ due to the use of different models and discount rates, designed to capture different views about the impact of climate on future decisions, include such damages as changes in net agricultural productivity, human health, property damages from increased flood risk, and the value of ecosystem services. 

Not surprisingly, the numbers vary widely – spanning, in 2007 dollars, from $5 to $65 per ton for 2010 emissions, up to as high as $136 per ton for 2050 emissions.   The report outlines the potential shortcomings of the figures in detail, for instance, the potential impact of the other 5 greenhouse gases included in the EPA’s endangerment finding which have not yet been quantified, and the possibility of  “tipping point” scenarios in climate systems that could drastically change the marginal impact of each ton of emissions.  

However, even given these limitations, this valuation could be a critically important step towards determining such figures for use in policies like a carbon tax.  After all, internalizing the externality and cost to society is one main purpose of a carbon tax.

The more immediate impact of the report may also be significant.  Federal agencies are required, by Executive Order 12866, to assess the costs and benefits of regulations before deciding to act.  These figures will be used to incorporate the social cost of carbon into this analysis for all agency decisions, even those which might only have a small impact on global emissions.  As most federal agency decisions will have some impact on global emissions, even if only marginal, adding in the cost of CO₂ could have wide-ranging implications.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

As many readers of this blog will have already learned, the Supreme Court issued its long-awaited decision in Entergy v. Riverkeeper yesterday. The Court reversed the Second Circuit Court of Appeals and held that EPA was within its authority to consider cost-benefit analysis in setting standards for cooling water intake structures under § 316(b) of the Clean Water Act.

I’m definitely getting on my soapbox here, but this should not be news and it should not be controversial – though I certainly realize that it is. If current conditions tell us anything, it is that resources are not infinite. The irony here is that it is environmentalists who tend to make this point most frequently. Unfortunately, they don’t like to acknowledge that, because resources are not infinite, cost-benefit decisions get made implicitly, even when EPA does not utilize cost-benefit analysis in its regulations.

When I was just a poor Superfund lawyer, I attended a public meeting in Somersworth, New Hampshire, as local residents tried in vain to persuade EPA that they could save more lives by installing traffic signals and hiring public safety personnel than by spending millions of dollars cleaning up an old landfill to the nth degree. The simple truth is that when we force regulated industries to incur costs without regard to the associated benefits, other spending gets displaced. It may be better to have power plant owners spend money on closed cycle cooling than on worker health benefits or, God forbid, payments to shareholders, but let’s make the decision honestly and not ignore the trade-offs.

I still don’t understand why the debate can’t be about how fairly to define costs and benefits. There are serious issues here, but there’s certainly no free lunch. I posted recently about my disappointment regarding early indications that the Obama administration will not be a friend to common sense regulatory reform. The same issues arise here. The Obama administration, because of its undoubted credibility, could advance the cause of cost-benefit analysis and cost-effectiveness analysis. I fear it is not going to happen.

For the same reason, it’s quite possible that the Riverkeeper decision may be much ado about nothing. Riverkeeper holds that EPA may consider costs and benefits, but does not require it. Environmentalists are already clamoring for EPA to rewrite the 316(b) rules and I wouldn’t be surprised if the agency does so.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

President Obama continues to surprise some of his progressive backers. This time, it was his selection of Cass Sunstein to head the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs at OMB. The Center for Progressive Reform called Sunstein’s views “conservative” and similar to those of the Bush administration.

How did the appointment of a known progressive annoy the progressives? Sunstein’s sin is the support of the use of cost-benefit analysis in regulatory decision-making. Sunstein also rejects the precautionary principle.

I truly hope that this is a Nixon in China moment for cost-benefit analysis. Given that Obama has already appointed an aggressive – and progressive – regulatory team, given that he has already signaled that EPA will reverse the Bush administration’s rejection of California’s waiver request, given that he has also signaled that EPA will probably move quickly to regulate CO₂ as a pollutant, perhaps he will have earned sufficient credibility with most progressives – if not the Center for Progressive Reform – to move to make regulation more efficient and to make better use of science in regulation.  This would include adoption of cost-benefit analysis as a cornerstone of analysis.

As long as Republicans push for cost-benefit analysis, it is easy to say it’s a tool of the devil. Professor Sunstein himself referred to environmentalists’ Manichaean view of the world. If President Obama supports cost-benefit analysis, will the same criticism stick? Let’s hope not. Perhaps this administration can indeed bring industry and environmentalists together, satisfying environmentalists with strong regulation and industry with the assurance that such regulations will be soundly grounded in science, including careful risk analysis and cost benefit analysis.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks (1)
• Share Link