Category Archives: Environment

Thinking like an Economist Means Thinking about Tradeoffs

This week, I’ve written two articles about different types of tradeoffs that economists think about when they evaluate the likely effectiveness of proposed public policies. One type of tradeoff relates to the costs that consumers and businesses incur in exchange for the benefits policies will achieve, while a second type of tradeoff involves countervailing risks that sometimes increase as policies aim to reduce other risks.

An example of the first type of tradeoff, involving benefits and costs, comes from energy efficiency regulations for appliances. These regulations do produce some benefits involving reduced emissions, but entire classes of very important costs are routinely overlooked by regulatory agencies. When an agency doesn’t count what consumers give up in exchange for the good things policies produce, there is a greater chance people will be made worse off by a policy. That’s bad news.

Here is a relevant portion of an op-ed I wrote published in the Washington Times:

The Department of Energy sets energy conservation standards that limit the amount of electricity that can be used by home appliances like refrigerators and air conditioners. These sweeping regulations affect nearly every American consumer. The department claims its rules address an imminent problem — environmental degradation — and argues that its conservation rules produce two main benefits: First, more energy-efficient appliances use less energy, so we all release fewer emissions into the atmosphere. Second, by using less energy, consumers may save money over time on monthly utility bills.

Sounds like a win-win situation, right? Not so fast.

We haven’t considered the costs of these regulations. Consumers care about their utility bills and the environment, but they also care about how well a product works, its appearance, whether the product comes with or without a warranty, the purchase price, and countless other things. When product attributes change as a result of regulations, these are costs to consumers. But the costs are ignored by regulators at the Energy Department. Regulators do consider some costs, like how much more appliance makers will have to pay when they are forced to comply with new rules, but the costs to consumers — whom we should care most about — are systematically overlooked.

In a second article, published in US News and World Report, I show how tradeoffs can involve more than just benefits and costs (which are valued in monetary terms). Tradeoffs can also involve risks. An example of a risk tradeoff comes from proposed legislation in New Jersey that targets distracted driving. The bill would ban drivers from engaging in “any” activity unrelated to driving that might interfere with the safe operation of a vehicle in the state. Some have said the bill’s language is so expansive that drinking a cup of coffee while driving would be banned.

The distracted driving bill has the potential to create what economists call “risk tradeoffs,” which occur when the mitigation of one risk simultaneously increases the risk of another. This bill addresses an all-too-real danger, but any law that prevents people from drinking coffee behind the wheel is going to increase at least one other risk: the risk created by drowsy drivers on the roads.

With fewer people drinking coffee on the roads, that means more sleepy truck drivers hauling sixteen wheelers at 2am. Is that a risk worth bearing in exchange for fewer distracted drivers? That’s a difficult question that will involve careful analysis to answer.

Risk tradeoffs are actually pretty ubiquitous, and involve far more than just Jersey drivers.

One of the most common ways new policies create risk tradeoffs is through “substitution effects.” For example, when a pesticide is banned, farmers usually switch to a different pesticide instead. The new chemical may be safer than the banned one, but it could also be more dangerous. Sometimes risks are simply shifted from one group of people to another. A new pesticide might reduce the risk from eating residue left on fruit in the supermarket, but at the same time, it could create new risks for farmers who work among the sprayed fruit.

Considering these kinds of tradeoffs—benefit/cost and risk/risk—is what rational decision making is all about. Any good economists is trained to think about these things when evaluating proposed policies. If legislators and regulators are going to use the resources we entrust them with wisely, we should all demand they think like economists too.

Northern Cities Need To Be Bold If They Want To Grow

Geography and climate have played a significant role in U.S. population growth since 1970 (see here, here, here, and here). The figure below shows the correlation between county-level natural amenities and county population growth from 1970 – 2013 controlling for other factors including the population of the county in 1970, the average wage of the county in 1970 (a measure of labor productivity), the proportion of adults in the county with a bachelor’s degree or higher in 1970 and region of the country. The county-level natural amenities index is from the U.S. Department of Agriculture and scores the counties in the continental U.S. according to their climate and geographic features. The county with the worst score is Red Lake, MN and the county with the best score is Ventura, CA.

1970-13 pop growth, amenities

As shown in the figure the slope of the best fit line is positive. The coefficient from the regression is also given at the bottom of the figure and is equal to 0.16, meaning a one point increase in the score increased population growth by 16 percentage points on average.

The effect of natural amenities on population growth is much larger than the effect of the proportion of adults with a bachelor’s degree or higher, which is another strong predictor of population growth at the metropolitan (MSA) and city level (see here, here, here, and here). The relationship between county population growth from 1970 – 2013 and human capital is depicted below.

1970-13 pop growth, bachelors or more

Again, the relationship is positive but the effect is smaller. The coefficient is 0.026 which means a 1 percentage point increase in the proportion of adults with a bachelor’s degree or higher in 1970 increased population growth by 2.6 percentage points on average.

An example using some specific counties can help us see the difference between the climate and education effects. In the table below the county where I grew up, Greene County, OH, is the baseline county. I also include five other urban counties from around the country: Charleston County, SC; Dallas County, TX; Eau Claire County, WI; San Diego County, CA; and Sedgwick County, TX.

1970-13 pop chg, amenities table

The first column lists the amenities score for each county. The highest score belongs to San Diego. The second column lists the difference between Green County’s score and the other counties, e.g. 9.78 – (-1.97) = 11.75 which is the difference between Greene County’s score and San Diego’s score. The third column is the difference column multiplied by the 0.16 coefficient from the natural amenity figure e.g. 11.75 x 0.16 = 188% in the San Diego row. What this means is that according to this model, if Greene County had San Diego’s climate and geography it would have grown by an additional 188 percentage points from 1970 – 2013 all else equal.

Finally, the last column is the actual population growth of the county from 1970 – 2013. As shown, San Diego County grew by 135% while Greene County only grew by 30% over this 43 year period. Improving Greene County’s climate to that of any of the other counties except for Eau Claire would have increased its population growth by a substantial yet realistic amount.

Table 2 below is similar to the natural amenities table above only it shows the different effects on Greene County’s population growth due to a change in the proportion of adults with a bachelor’s degree or higher.

1970-13 pop chg, bachelor's table

As shown in the first column, Greene County actually had the largest proportion of adults with bachelor’s degree or higher in 1970 – 14.7% – of the counties listed.

The third column shows how Greene County’s population growth would have changed if it had the same proportion of adults with a bachelor’s degree or higher as the other counties did in 1970. If Greene County had the proportion of Charleston (11.2%) instead of 14.7% in 1970, its population growth is predicted to have been 9 percentage points lower from 1970 – 2013, all else equal. All of the effects in the table are negative since all of the counties had a lower proportion than Greene and population education has a positive effect on population growth.

Several studies have demonstrated the positive impact of an educated population on overall city population growth – often through its impact on entrepreneurial activity – but as shown here the education effect tends to be swamped by geographic and climate features. What this means is that city officials in less desirable areas need to be bold in order to compensate for the poor geography and climate that are out of their control.

A highly educated population combined with a business environment that fosters innovation can create the conditions for city growth. Burdensome land-use regulations, lengthy, confusing permitting processes, and unpredictable rules coupled with inconsistent enforcement increase the costs of doing business and stifle entrepreneurship. When these harmful business-climate factors are coupled with a generally bad climate the result is something like Cleveland, OH.

The reality is that the tax and regulatory environments of declining manufacturing cities remain too similar to those of cities in the Sunbelt while their weather and geography differ dramatically, and not in a good way. Since only relative differences cause people and firms to relocate, the similarity across tax and regulatory environments ensures that weather and climate remain the primary drivers of population change.

To overcome the persistent disadvantage of geography and climate officials in cold-weather cities need to be aggressive in implementing reforms. Fiddling around the edges of tax and regulatory policy in a half-hearted attempt to attract educated people, entrepreneurs and large, high-skill employers is a waste of time and residents’ resources – Florida’s cities have nicer weather and they’re in a state with no income tax. Northern cities like Flint, Cleveland, and Milwaukee that simply match the tax and regulatory environment of Houston, San Diego, or Tampa have done nothing to differentiate themselves along those dimensions and still have far worse weather.

Location choices reveal that people are willing to put up with a lot of negatives to live in places with good weather. California has one of the worst tax and regulatory environments of any state in the country and terrible congestion problems yet its large cities continue to grow. A marginally better business environment is not going to overcome the allure of the sun and beaches.

While a better business environment that is attractive to high-skilled workers and encourages entrepreneurship is unlikely to completely close the gap between a place like San Diego and Dayton when it comes to being a nice place to live and work, it’s a start. And more importantly it’s the only option cities like Dayton, Buffalo, Cleveland, St. Louis and Detroit have.

When Regulatory Agencies Ignore Comments from the Public

A few days ago, the Department of Energy (DOE) finalized a rule setting energy efficiency standards for metal halide lamp fixtures. Last October I wrote a public interest comment to the DOE to point out several problems with the agency’s preliminary economic analysis for the rule. As part of the Administrative Procedure Act, agencies are required to solicit, and respond to, comments from the public before finalizing regulations. Unfortunately, the DOE failed to even acknowledge many of the points I made in my submission.

As evidence, here are some of the main takeaways from my comment:

1)      The DOE claims consumers and businesses are acting in an irrational manner when purchasing metal halide lamp fixtures because they forgo modest long term energy savings in order to pay a low upfront price for lamp fixtures. Yet the agency offers no convincing evidence to support the theory that consumers act irrationally when purchasing metal halide lamp fixtures. At the same time, roughly 70% of the estimated benefits of the rule are the supposed benefits bestowed upon the public when products people would purchase otherwise are removed from the market.

2)      The DOE is currently adding together costs and benefits that occur in the future but that are discounted to present value using different discount rates. It makes no sense to add together costs and benefits calculated in this manner.

3)      The DOE is using a new value of the Social Cost of Carbon (SCC), a way to measure benefits from reducing carbon dioxide emissions, that may be of questionable validity since the analysts who arrived at the estimate ignored recent scientific evidence. Additionally, the DOE is using the new SCC in its analysis before the public has even had a chance to comment on the validity of the new number.

4)      In its analysis, the DOE is including benefits to foreign countries as a result of reduced carbon dioxide emissions, even while the costs of the metal halide lamp fixture regulation will be borne largely by Americans.

Regarding #1 above, the DOE provided no direct response to my comment in the preamble to its final rule. This even though #1 puts in doubt roughly 70% of the estimated benefits of the rule.

The DOE also failed to respond to #2 above, even though I cited as support a very recent and relevant paper on the subject that appeared in a reputable journal and was coauthored by Nobel laureate Kenneth Arrow.

Regarding #3 and #4, the DOE had this to say:

On November 26, 2013, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) announced minor technical corrections to the 2013 SCC values and a new opportunity for public comment on the revised Technical Support Document underlying the SCC estimates. Comments regarding the underlying science and potential precedential effect of the SCC estimates resulting from the interagency process should be directed to that process. See 78 FR 70586. Additionally, several current rulemakings also use the 2013 SCC values and the public is welcome to comment on the values as applied in those rulemakings just as the public was welcome to comment on the use and application of the 2010 SCC values in the many rules that were published using those values in the past three years.

In other words, the DOE is committed to continuing to use a value of the SCC that may be flawed since the public has the opportunity to complain to the Office of Management and Budget. At the same time, the DOE tells us we can comment on other regulations that use the new SCC value, so that should reassure anyone whose comment the DOE ignored related to this regulation!

All of this is especially troubling since the DOE is required by statute to ensure its energy efficiency rules are “economically justifiable.” It is hard to argue this rule is economically justifiable when roughly 94% of the rule’s benefits are in doubt. This is the proportion of benefits justified on the basis of consumer irrationality and on the basis that Americans should be paying for benefits that will be captured by citizens in other countries. Without these benefits, the rule fails a benefit-cost test according to the DOE’s own estimates.

The requirement that agencies respond to public comments is designed to ensure a level of democratic accountability from regulators, who are tasked with serving the American public. A vast amount of power is vested in these agencies, who are largely insulated from Congressional oversight. As evidence, Congress has only used its Congressional Review Act authority to overrule major regulations once in its history. If agencies ignore the public, and face little oversight from Congress, what faith can we have that regulators will be held accountable for any harms that inevitably arise from poorly designed regulations?

Environmental Injustice at the EPA

This past week, the EPA’s science advisory board held a public hearing on efforts to measure the “environmental justice” (EJ) impacts of EPA rules. EJ refers to adverse human health and environmental effects of government policies on minority and low income populations in the US. The EPA has released draft guidance to agency analysts who measure these effects, and this hearing was intended to find ways to improve the guidance before it is finalized.

While holding a public hearing is a sign that the EPA is committed to getting this issue right, significant improvements need to be made to the EJ guidance if the EPA does not want the entire EJ project to backfire. Specifically, closer attention should be paid to the costs EPA rules impose on low income and minority populations. Further, improvements in the transparency of agency procedures will help ensure that those with modest incomes are allowed to participate in decisions that will have significant impacts on their health and well-being.

Currently, the EPA is focusing far more on the benefits of its rules to low income and minority groups than on the costs. As evidence, the 81-page draft guidance document contains only two pages related to costs of EPA regulations. In those two pages, the agency argues that costs are often not relevant to environmental justice issues, saying:

Consideration of the distribution of costs in the context of EJ is not always necessary. Often the costs of regulation are passed onto consumers as higher prices that are spread fairly evenly across many households.

This is a striking statement because regulatory costs are regressive exactly in the instances that the EPA describes in this statement. Any time costs of a policy are spread evenly across all citizens, the dollar amount paid to implement a regulation consumes a larger percentage of a poor person’s income than a wealthy person’s income. This is precisely why sales taxes are regressive.

Additionally, as incomes fall due to the costs imposed on citizens complying with regulations, people have fewer resources available to use toward risk reduction and outlays related to improving health. Meanwhile, there is evidence that private risk reduction can be much more effective than public methods of risk reduction, especially when regulations are addressing very small risks that are dwarfed by the other risks individuals face in their everyday lives.

A step in the right direction would be to ask analysts to identify the distribution of costs of EPA regulations, especially for rules that increase the prices of products that EJ populations purchase (e.g. rent, fuel, food, electricity).

Another important component of EJ is to gather meaningful feedback from low income and minority persons before implementing policies. The notice announcing last week’s public hearing was published in the Federal Register on Christmas Eve, making it unlikely that many in the EJ community, especially those with little political influence and low alertness to EPA actions, will even be aware this hearing is taking place, let alone will participate in the event.

If the EPA’s science advisory board is truly committed to improving the lot of the less well-off, it should tell the EPA to do more to measure the costs of environmental rules on low income and minority persons, and to improve transparency of agency procedures so those with less political clout can participate equally in the democratic process.

Markets Fail and Governments Do Too

We often hear that markets fail when it comes to preserving the environment, so government regulation is needed to protect natural resources from the ravages of capitalism. But what happens when government regulations themselves get in the way of innovative ideas that move us towards a cleaner and more environmentally sustainable future?

This is exactly what happened in Logan City, Utah when the local government built a small hydropower turbine and ran into a nightmare of regulatory red tape that led to large cost overruns and far more time committed to the project than was originally anticipated. In the end, the project was delayed four years and ended up costing twice as much as planned.

This abstract from a recent working paper from the Mercatus Center describes what happened:

In 2004 Logan, Utah, saw the opportunity to place a turbine within the city’s culinary water system. The turbine would reduce excess water pressure and would generate clean, low-cost electricity for the city’s residents. Federal funding was available, and the city qualified for a grant under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. Unfortunately, Logan City found that a complex and costly federal nexus of regulatory requirements must be met before any hydropower project can be licensed with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. This regulation drove up costs in terms of time and money and, as a result, Logan City is not planning to undertake any similar projects in the future. Other cities have had similar experiences to Logan’s, and we briefly explore these as well. We find that regulation is likely deterring the development of small hydropower potential across the United States, and that reform is warranted.

This wouldn’t be the first time that regulations have led to perverse environmental outcomes. To prevent these problems in the future, agencies need to take better account of the expected costs and benefits of their rules before finalizing them. For example, recent analysis by myself and my colleague Richard Williams shows that agencies only rarely estimate dollar values for both benefits and costs of their regulations.

Another improvement would be for agencies to consider more flexible approaches when regulating. For example, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration recently proposed a rule to reduce silica exposure for workers. The rule requires businesses to consider gas masks or other personal protection equipment only as a last resort. Other methods of controlling silica dust, like enclosing work areas or using sprays and vacuums, should be considered first. These methods are likely to be more burdensome than asking workers to wear a gas mask. The agency should consider offering more flexibility to businesses and workers if it wants to relieve some unnecessary burden in its proposed rule.

Of course it’s true that markets can fail. But it’s important to remember that governments often fail too. Only an approach that considers both market failure and government failure can illuminate the best course of action when addressing a serious social problem like environmental degradation. Furthermore, until regulators start acting more like the experts we expect them to be, government is likely to fail just as much, if not more often, than markets.

A New Year’s Gift from the Department of Energy

On New Year’s Eve, the Department of Energy (DOE) announced it will be denying a petition brought to the agency by the Landmark Legal Foundation. The petition had requested the DOE reconsider a regulation related to energy efficiency standards for microwave ovens on the grounds that the Energy Department used a new, much higher, estimate of the social cost of carbon (SCC) in the final analysis of the regulation than had been used in the proposed version of the rule. The SCC is a number the Department uses to estimate benefits to society from reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. The public was denied the opportunity to comment on the higher estimate of the SCC since the new estimate was not used until after the time the public was allowed to comment on the regulation.

Here’s some of the DOE’s reasoning for denying the petition:

In the microwave oven rule, the SCC analysis did not affect DOE’s decision regarding the standards that were published in the Federal Register at either the proposed rule or final rule stage because the estimated benefits to consumers of the standard exceeded the costs of the standard, even without considering the SCC values. [emphasis added]

However, as I and others have stated before, these “benefits to consumers” are not benefits at all, and should be excluded from consideration when determining whether the DOE’s energy efficiency standards produce benefits in excess of costs. In a comment I wrote to the DOE as the agency considered this petition, I said:

The preponderance of the rule’s benefits, nearly 80 percent, are not related to reductions in carbon emissions, or even to any environmental effects at all. Instead, these benefits are based on the assumption that consumers behave in an irrational manner when purchasing microwave ovens and that the Department will be able to “fix” this behavior by issuing a regulation, thereby resulting in benefits to consumers. These “savings” should be excluded from the agency’s final analysis of benefits resulting from the regulation.

So the DOE is partly right. The new SCC really doesn’t make a difference in this particular case. However, this is because the regulation produces net costs to society with or without the higher estimate of the social cost of carbon. Thus, the rule can’t be justified on a cost-benefit basis even with the new social cost of carbon number the DOE uses. As I explained in my comment:

Given that the primary estimate of the total benefits resulting from this regulation is estimated at $294 million per year (2011$), and total costs are estimated at $66.4 million per year, subtracting the consumer “irrationality” benefits of $234 million produces net costs to society of $6.4 million per year (2011$).12 If DOE used a lower value of the SCC, like the estimate used in the proposed version of this regulation, that net cost figure would be even higher. The problem is further compounded if benefits to other countries are excluded from the estimates.

The DOE made no effort to respond to this particular critique in its response to the Landmark Legal Foundation petition. The agency does not view the questionable nature of its estimated benefits to consumers as within the scope of the issue it sought comment on. Perhaps this is so. However, there will be more such regulations in the future where this controversial technique is employed by the DOE. Indeed, at Mercatus we have already commented on such regulations. Additionally, the agency’s decision to slip this notice out on New Year’s Eve leads one to question the degree to which the agency is committed to transparent practices. As a result, an inefficient regulation will be implemented and Americans will be made worse off.

 

Energy Efficiency as Foreign Aid?

A recent suite of energy efficiency regulations issued by the Department of Energy (DOE) have been criticized due to the DOE’s claim that consumers and businesses are behaving irrationally when purchasing appliances and other energy using devises. The Department believes it is bestowing benefits on society by “correcting” these faulty decisions. Mercatus Center scholars have written about this extensively here, here, and here.

However, even if we set aside the Department’s claims of consumer and business “irrationality,” a separate rationale for these regulations is also very problematic. The vast majority of the environmental benefits of these rules stem from reductions in CO2 emissions due to lower emissions from power plants. However, in a 2010 report, the US government estimated only 7 to 23 percent of these benefits will be captured by Americans. The rest will go to people in other countries.

Here’s a recent example. In August, the DOE proposed a rule setting energy efficiency standards for metal halide lamp fixtures. In the agency’s analysis, it estimated total benefits from CO2 emission reductions at $1,532 million. Using the more optimistic estimate of the percentage of CO2 related benefits going to the US citizens (23%), Americans should capture about $450 million in environmental benefits from the rule (once we include benefits from reductions in NOx emissions as well). At the same time, the DOE estimates the rule will cost $1,294 million, much of which will be paid by American consumers and businesses. How can the DOE, which is tasked with serving the American public, support such a policy?

One might argue America is imposing costs on the rest of the world with its carbon emissions, and therefore should pay a type of tax to internalize this external cost we impose on others. However, the rest of the world is also imposing costs on us. In fact, US emissions are actually in decline, while global emissions are on the rise.

Even if we assume it is a sensible policy for Americans to compensate other countries for our carbon emissions, is paying for more expensive products like household appliances the best way to accomplish this goal? Given that no amount of carbon dioxide emission reductions in the US will do much of anything to reduce anticipated global warming, wouldn’t the rest of the world be better off with resources to adapt to climate change, instead of (at best) the warm feeling they might get from knowing Americans are buying more expensive microwave ovens? A more efficient policy would be a cash transfer to other countries, or the US could create a fund the purpose of which would be to help other countries adapt to climate change.

Energy efficiency regulations from the DOE are already difficult enough to justify. Knowing they are really just a roundabout form of foreign aid makes these rules look even less sensible.

“Regulatory Certainty” as a Justification for Regulating

A key principle of good policy making is that regulatory agencies should define the problem they are seeking to solve before finalizing a regulation. Thus, it is odd that in the economic analysis for a recent proposed rule related to greenhouse gas emissions from new power plants, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) cites “regulatory certainty” as a justification for regulating. It seems almost any regulation could be justified on these grounds.

The obvious justification for regulating carbon dioxide emissions would be to limit harmful effects of climate change. However, as the EPA’s own analysis states:

the EPA anticipates that the proposed Electric Generating Unit New Source Greenhouse Gas Standards will result in negligible CO2 emission changes, energy impacts, quantified benefits, costs, and economic impacts by 2022.

The reason the rule will result in no benefits or costs, according to the EPA, is because the agency anticipates:

even in the absence of this rule, existing and anticipated economic conditions will lead electricity generators to choose new generation technologies that meet the proposed standard without the need for additional controls.

So why issue a new regulation? If the EPA’s baseline assessment is correct (i.e. it is making an accurate prediction about what the world would look like in absence of the regulation), then the regulation provides no benefits since it causes no deviations from that baseline. If the EPA’s baseline turns out to be wrong, a “wait and see” approach likely makes more sense. This approach may be more sensible, especially given all the inherent uncertainties surrounding predicting future energy prices and all of the unintended consequences that often result from regulating.

Instead, the EPA cites “regulatory certainty” as a justification for regulating, presumably because businesses will now be able to anticipate what emission standards will be going forward, and they can now invest with confidence. But announcing there will be no new regulation for a period of time also provides certainty. Of course, any policy can always change, whether the agency decides to issue a regulation or not. That’s why having clearly-stated goals and clearly-understood factors that guide regulatory decisions is so important.

Additionally, there are still costs to regulating, even if the EPA has decided not to count these costs in its analysis. Just doing an economic analysis is a cost. So is using agency employees’ time to enforce a new regulation. News outlets suggest “industry-backed lawsuits are inevitable” in response to this regulation. This too is a cost. If costs exceed benefits, the rule is difficult to justify.

One might argue that because of the 2007 Supreme Court ruling finding that CO2 is covered under the Clean Air Act, and the EPA’s subsequent endangerment finding related to greenhouse gases, there is some basis for the argument that uncertainty is holding back investment in new power plants. However, if this is true then this policy uncertainty should be accounted for in the agency’s baseline. If the proposed regulation alleviates some of this uncertainty, and leads to additional power plant construction and energy creation, that change is a benefit of the regulation and should be identified in the agency’s analysis.

The EPA also states it “intends this rule to send a clear signal about the current and future status of carbon capture and storage technology” because the agency wants to create the “incentive for supporting research, development, and investment into technology to capture and store CO2.”

However, by identifying the EPA’s preferred method of reducing CO2 emissions from new power plants, the agency may discourage businesses from investing in other promising new technologies. Additionally, by setting different standards for new and existing power plants, the EPA is clearly favoring one set of companies at the expense of another. This is a form of cronyism.

The EPA needs to get back to policymaking 101. That means identifying a problem before regulating, and tailoring regulations to address the specific problem at hand.

Do Energy Efficiency Regulations Create Jobs?

Earlier this year, the Department of Energy (DOE) finalized a regulation setting energy efficiency standards for microwave ovens. At the time, Heather Zichal, the Deputy Assistant to the President for Energy and Climate Change, had this to say about the regulation:

…in his State of the Union Address this year, the President set a bold new goal: to cut in half the energy wasted in our homes and businesses over the next 20 years. Part of how we will achieve that goal is by making appliances more energy efficient. Not only will that help Americans keep more money in their pockets, it will also curb pollution and spark innovation that creates jobs and ultimately brings better products to the marketplace. That’s why we are proud to announce today that the Department of Energy has finalized new energy efficiency standards for microwaves… (emphasis added)

I’ve written elsewhere about why Americans should be skeptical of the environmental benefits from this regulation, as well as other energy efficiency regulations emanating from the Department of Energy. Putting that aside for a moment, I’d like to focus on the last part of Ms. Zichal’s comment, that energy efficiency regulations will create jobs.

As an example, let’s look at the microwave oven regulation that Ms. Zichal cites in her blog post. According to the Department of Energy’s own employment analysis, the employment effects of this regulation are negligible. Since American consumers import roughly 99% of microwaves purchased, the DOE expects that effects on domestic production jobs will be virtually zero.

In addition, DOE models indirect employment effects on other industries as a result of changes in consumer behavior and investment decisions resulting from the regulation. While these numbers are highly uncertain given the inherent difficulty in predicting these things, the DOE estimated the rule will probably eliminate jobs in the short term, estimating between 551 jobs destroyed and 17 jobs created by 2016. In the long run, employment effects may be positive, with the regulation potentially creating between 153 and 697 jobs by 2020. However, the DOE notes there are limitations inherent in its model when calculating these effects, especially when trying to predict jobs created years in the future. For example, the DOE states:

Because [the agency’s model] does not incorporate price changes, the employment impacts predicted by [the model] would over-estimate the magnitude of actual job impacts over the long run for this rule.

The DOE goes on:

…in long-run equilibrium there is no net effect on total employment since wages adjust to bring the labor market into equilibrium. Nonetheless, even to the extent that markets are slow to adjust, DOE anticipates that net labor market impacts will be negligible over time due to the small magnitude of the short-term effects.

Creating jobs should never be the primary reason for justifying a regulation.  In most cases, jobs created by regulations are compliance jobs, which constitute a cost of regulating, not a benefit. More importantly, these types of predictions about jobs created and destroyed ignore the true employment costs of regulation that occur when individuals lose their jobs because of a rule. These costs include things like lost earnings, loss of health insurance, stress, additional health effects, etc. Despite this, by the DOE’s own estimates job creation does not appear to be a solid justification for this particular energy efficiency standard.

Will The EPA’s Environmental Justice Agenda Backfire?

In May, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposed new guidelines for incorporating “environmental justice” into its rulemaking procedures. Environmental justice is the idea that all people, regardless of income or race, should be treated equally with respect to environmental laws, regulations and policies. Sounds pretty good, right? Unfortunately, it’s not quite as simple as waving a magic wand and making low income and minority communities cleaner and safer. Instead, EPA’s new guidelines may have unintended effects that harm the very people they are supposed to protect. Perversely, the poor may end up paying for a cleaner environment they won’t get to enjoy, while wealthier people enjoy it instead.

In the new guidelines, the EPA talks at length about how lower income and heavily minority areas are often correlated with environmental problems and a whole host of health risks. It may be that the poor are less politically organized than wealthier people and interest groups. Perhaps for this reason there are companies that purposefully pollute in poor and minority neighborhoods because the companies know they can get away with it. That seems plausible.

But there may be other reasons that poor people tend to live in more polluted areas. For example, the poor may move to polluted areas because those areas are less expensive to live in. I myself am a case in point.

When I was in my younger twenties, I tried to make a go at being a musician in New York City. I spent most of my time practicing with my band, so I generally worked odd jobs at off hours, living month to month and paycheck to paycheck. That way I could focus most of my time on music. When I first moved to New York, I lived in the Lower East Side of Manhattan. Then I moved to Harlem because it was cheaper. Finally, to save even more money, I moved to Greenpoint, a neighborhood in northern Brooklyn.

Most people don’t know this, but Greenpoint sits over one of the largest oil spills in North American history. In fact, there was a sign down the road from my house that signaled the end of my street was a “dumping station” where there was a physical pipe coming out of the ground dumping waste into a river, Newtown Creek. You could literally smell the oil in the air.

So why would I live like this? I paid $480 a month for a gigantic room with huge bay windows in a 3-bedroom apartment that was $1,300 a month in total, dirt cheap by NYC standards. My two roommates, also musicians, paid even less in rent than I did. We knew it wasn’t the best neighborhood; we weren’t stupid. We just thought the tradeoff was worth it.

So what does the EPA think will happen if it cleans up a neighborhood like Greenpoint? Would starving artists like myself and my old roommates benefit as we are finally freed from the exploitation of evil oil companies? Maybe, maybe not. The reasoning should be obvious to anyone who has ever lived in New York City.

Greenpoint is prime real estate situated extremely close to Manhattan. When the neighborhood gets cleaned up, real estate prices will rise as wealthier people, who previously wouldn’t tolerate the pollution, move in. Rents will go up as well. Those who own land will be better off, and some of them may currently be poor. But most low income people rent and don’t own property. Those people will have to move out as the area gets more expensive, or if they stay they will face a higher cost of living. Perhaps if they move, they will choose another polluted area to live in. Almost certainly, they will have a much longer commute if they work in Manhattan like I did.

The point of this story isn’t to say we should never clean up polluted areas. We should. But the EPA shouldn’t claim it is helping low income and minority populations when it is far from clear that they are the primary groups that will benefit from EPA rules. Regulations claiming to help the poor can be highly misleading if analysts don’t make an attempt to forecast (and analyze retroactively) adjustments in human behavior that result from regulatory changes.

There’s even more to the story. While the benefits to low income groups as a result of regulations justified on the basis of “environmental justice” can be highly uncertain, the costs are all too real. Costs of regulations are often spread evenly across everyone in society, much like the costs of regressive sales taxes are spread evenly across everyone who purchases a taxed product, and this includes the poor. We could end up in a perverse situation where the poor are actually paying to gentrify their own neighborhoods.

This is far from the only problem with the EPA’s new environmental justice guidelines, but it may be the most perverse. If the EPA really wants to help the poor, the agency should pay closer attention to changes in prices and human behavior that will result from its actions. The EPA should also seek feedback from, and provide detailed information on expected benefits and costs to, impacted communities before moving forward with a regulation. Otherwise, the EPA could be wasting a whole bunch of time with little to show for its efforts.