Tag Archives: Department of Energy

How effective are HUD programs? No one knows.

The Department of Housing and Urban Development, or HUD, has been in the news lately due to its policy proposal to ban smoking in public housing. HUD usually flys under the radar as far as federal agencies are concerned so many people are probably hearing about if for the first time and are unsure about what it does.

HUD was created as a cabinet-level agency in 1965. From its website, HUD’s mission:

“…is to create strong, sustainable, inclusive communities and quality affordable homes for all.” 

HUD carries out its mission through numerous programs. On the HUD website over 100 programs and sub-programs are listed. Running that many programs is not cheap, and the graph below depicts the outlays for HUD and three other federal agencies for reference purposes from 1965 – 2014 in inflation adjusted dollars. The other agencies are the Dept. of Energy (DOE), the Dept. of Justice (DOJ), and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

HUD outlays graph

HUD was the second largest agency by outlays in 2014 and for many years was consistently as large as the Department of Energy. It was larger than both the DOJ and the EPA over this period, yet those two agencies are much better known than HUD. Google searches for the DOJ, EPA and HUD return 566 million, 58.3 million, and 25.7 million results respectively.

For such a large agency HUD has managed to stay relatively anonymous outside of policy circles. This lack of public scrutiny has contributed to HUD being able to distribute billions of dollars through its numerous programs despite little examination into their effectiveness. To be fair HUD does make a lot of reports about their programs available, but these reports are often just stories about how much money was spent and what it was spent on rather than evaluations of a program’s effectiveness.

As an example, in 2009 the Partnership for Sustainable Communities program was started. It is an interagency program run by HUD, the EPA, and the Dept. of Transportation. The website for the program provides a collection of case studies about the various projects the program has supported. The case studies for the Euclid corridor project in Cleveland, the South Lake Union neighborhood in Seattle, and the Central Corridor Light Rail project in Minneapolis are basically descriptions of the projects themselves and all of the federal and state money that was spent. The others contain similar content. Other than a few anecdotal data points the evidence for the success of the projects consists of quotes and assertions. In the summary of the Seattle project, for example, the last line is “Indeed, reflecting on early skepticism about the city’s initial investments in SLU, in 2011 a prominent local journalist concluded, “It’s hard not to revisit those debates…and acknowledge that the investment has paid off”. Yet there is no benchmarking in the report that can be used to compare the area before and after redevelopment along any metric of interest such as employment, median wage, resident satisfaction, tax revenue, etc.

The lack of rigorous program analysis is not unique to the Sustainable Communities program. The Community Development Block Grant Program (CDBG) is probably the best known HUD program. It distributes grants to municipalities and states that can be used on a variety of projects that benefit low and moderate income households. The program was started in 1975 yet relatively few studies have been done to measure its efficacy. The lack of informative evaluation of CDBG projects has even been recognized by HUD officials. Raphael Bostic, the Assistant Secretary of the Office of Policy Development and Research for HUD from 2009 – 2012, has stated “For a program with the longevity of the CDBG, remarkably few evaluations have been conducted, so relatively little is known about what works” (Bostic, 2014). Other government entities have also taken notice. During the Bush administration (2001 – 08) the Office of Management and Budget created the Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART). Several HUD programs were rated as “ineffective” – including CDBG – or “moderately effective”. The assessments noted that “CDBG is unable to demonstrate its effectiveness” in developing viable urban communities and that the program’s performance measures “have a weak connection to the program purpose and do not focus on outcomes”.

Two related reasons for the limited evaluation of CDBG and other HUD programs are the lack of data and the high cost of obtaining what data are available. For example, Brooks and Sinitsyn (2014) had to submit a Freedom of Information Act request to obtain the data necessary for their study. Furthermore, after obtaining the data, significant time and effort were needed to manipulate the data into a usable format since they “…received data in multiple different tables that required linking with little documentation” (p. 154).

HUD has significant effects on state and local policy even though it largely works behind the scenes. Regional economic and transportation plans are frequently funded by HUD grants and municipal planning agencies allocate scarce resources to the pursuit of additional grants that can be used for a variety of purposes. For those that win a grant the amount of the grant likely exceeds the cost of obtaining it. For the others, however, the resources spent pursuing the grant are largely wasted since they could have been used to advance the agency’s core mission. The larger the grant the more applicants there will be which will lead to greater amounts of resources being diverted from core activities to pursuing grants. Pursuing government grants is an example of rent-seeking and wastes resources.

Like other federal agencies, HUD needs to do a better job of evaluating its abundant programs. Or better yet, it needs to make more data available to the public so that individual researchers can conduct and duplicate studies that measure the net benefits of its programs. Currently much of the data that are available are usually only weakly related to the relevant outcomes and often are outdated or missing.

HUD also needs to specify what results it expects from the various grants it awards. Effective program evaluation starts with specifying measurable goals for each program. Without this first step there is no way to tell if a program is succeeding. Many of the goals of HUD programs are broad qualitative statements like “enhance economic competitiveness” which are difficult to measure. This allows grant recipients and HUD to declare every program a success since ex post they can use whatever measure best matches their desired result. Implementing measurable goals for all of its programs would help HUD identify ineffective programs and allow it to allocate more scarce resources to the programs that are working.

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?

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.