Tag Archives: regulation

The Sharing Economy and Consumer Protection

(It has been a busy few weeks and I haven’t had much time for blogging).

In early December, my colleagues Chris Koopman, Adam Thierer, and I published a piece on the sharing economy and consumer protection regulation. Here is a summary.

A few days later, I was on the Diane Rehm Show talking about the sharing economy with Alvaro Bedoya (@alvarombedoya) and Nancy Scola (@nancyscola). Alvaro is the executive director of the Center on Privacy and Technology at Georgetown University Law School and Nancy is a reporter covering the intersections of technology and public policy, politics, and governance for The Washington Post.

During the course of our conversation, Diane also spoke with Sunil Paul, the co-founder and CEO of Sidecar and with Donna Blythe-Shaw, the spokesperson for the Boston Taxi Drivers’ Association.

It was a great conversation and I very much enjoyed meeting Diane, Alvaro and Nancy.

You can listen to it here.

Also check out Adam’s comments on the sharing economy at a Congressional Internet Caucus Advisory Committee here.

An interesting development in state regulation of wine shipment

Can one state enforce another state’s laws that prohibit direct-to-consumer wine shipment from out-of-state retailers while allowing it by in-state retailers?  That’s the question posed in a recent New York case.

The New York State Liquor Authority has a rule that prohibits licensees from engaging in “improper conduct.”  The liquor regulator argues that direct shipments by retailers that violate other states’ laws constitute improper conduct.  It has fined, revoked licenses, and filed charges against New York retailers that it believes have shipped wine illegally to customers in other states. One retailer, Empire Wine, refused to settle and has sued the liquor authority in state court, claiming that the “improper conduct” rule is unconstitutionally vague and that the liquor authority cannot enforce other states’ laws that discriminate against interstate commerce.

Many states continue to prohibit direct shipment from out-of-state retailers. For example, 40 states do not allow New York retailers to ship directly to consumers.  This harms consumers, because it is usually out-of state-retailers, rather than wineries, that offer significant savings compared to in-state retailers. In a 2013 article published in the Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, Alan Wiseman and I identified two different anti-consumer effects of laws that allow out-of-state wineries to ship direct to consumer but prohibit out-of-state retailers from doing so. First, these laws deprive consumers of price savings from buying many bottles online: “Online retailers consistently offered price savings on much higher percentages of the bottles in each year—between 57 and 81 percent of the bottles when shipped via ground and between 32 and 48 percent when shipped via air. Excluding retailers from direct shipment thus substantially reduces—but does not completely eliminate—the price savings available from purchasing wine online.” Second, these laws reduce competitive pressure on bricks-and-mortar wine stores, since they exclude lower-priced out-of-state retailers from the local market. Thus, the laws likely harm consumers who buy from their local wine shops, not just consumers who want to buy online. (The published version of the paper is behind a paywall, but you can read the working paper version at SSRN.)

(Photo credit: http://srxawordonhealth.com/2011/07/11/exercise-in-a-bottle/)

 

The Sharing Economy

Over at the Tech Liberation Front, my colleague Adam Thierer has sketched out a few themes in the debate over the sharing economy. His discussion of leveling the regulatory playing field is particularly important. Here is my favorite part:

Alternative remedies exist: Accidents will always happen, of course. But insurance, contracts, product liability, and other legal remedies exist when things go wrong. The difference is that ex postremedies don’t discourage innovation and competition like ex ante regulation does. By trying to head off every hypothetical worst-case scenario, preemptive regulations actually discourage many best-case scenarios from ever coming about.

Adam asks for comments and additional reading suggestions. In that spirit, here are my own additional talking points on the issue:

  • Reviving dead capital: Something that Dan Rothschild has emphasized in a lot of his writings and that I’ve tried to stress when I can is that the “peer production economy” breathes life into otherwise dead capital. Cars, tools, apartments, planes, kitchens, and even dogs are now creating value for people when they otherwise would just be collecting dust (or fleas). This may help to explain the extraordinary value investors see in firms like Uber.
  • Exposing regulatory failure: Another—though not mutually-exclusive—view is that these new firms are making lots of money not because they are doing anything particularly revolutionary. Instead, they are doing well because they have found a way around traditional regulations which have rendered incumbent services truly abysmal and consumers are rewarding them for this. In this sense, Uber is profitable because it isn’t a cartelized taxi company. This is generally the view that Mike Munger expresses in his EconTalk with Russ Roberts. This is probably more applicable to Uber and Lyft than to AirBnB or 1000Tools.com since the ride-sharing firms compete with an industry that has obviously captured its regulator.
  • Transitional gains trap: The whole experience offers us an opportunity to illustrate one of Gordon Tullock’s most-valuable and least-appreciated points. When regulators contrive some artificial exclusivity, they allow incumbent firms to earn above-normal profits (rents). But often these firms are only able to earn above-normal profits for a time (a transitional period). That’s because eventually, the value of the rent is “capitalized” into whatever assets must be purchased in order to enter the industry. These assets may include taxi medallions, specially-outfitted cabs, well-connected lobbyists, or any other asset that is necessary to gain access to the exclusive club. This is important because it means that many of the current incumbents had to pay large sums of money for their exclusive position and, net of these payments, they really aren’t cleaning up. Just as Adam is right to say that “regulatory asymmetry is real” we should also acknowledge that, in many cases, taxi regulations that started out as privileges are now more like burdens.
  • Value is subjective: No two customers have the same values and interests. I may want the windows down on a hot day and you may want them up. It’s simply absurd to think that regulators could devise an objective quality-control checklist for firms to follow or that they could properly vet cab drivers better than consumers. Yet that is exactly the approach they’ve taken (see here for just how clumsy it’s been in VA). The customer rating systems are really revolutionary because they collapse these subjective, multidimensional quality scales down to one simple 5-point rating that captures a driver’s ability to tailor his or her services to the subjective needs of each customer. Your Uber ride begins with a conversation between you and your driver about what is important to you (music, temperature, windows, speed, route, etc.) and ends with a 1 to 5 rating. It’s as simple as that.
  • True competition is a discovery process: Regulations “lock in” the status quo technology (again, because they attempt to objectively state every possible quality that customers might care about). But this misses the whole point of competition. As Hayek taught us, true competition is about discovering things you never knew (and never knew you didn’t know), such as that customers like being able to order cars from their smartphones.
  • Empowering Diffuse Interests: Traditional public choice models predict that small, concentrated interests such as an incumbent taxi industry willtypically prevail in a political battle with a large, diffuse interest such as taxi customers. This time may be different though. Wherever it goes, the peer-production economy has quickly developed a large and happy base of tech-savvy customers. Since the firms themselves have tended to innovate without asking for permission, this has often meant that a city will have tens of thousands of loyal peer-production customers long before its regulators can say “cease and desist.” So in a number of places, we’ve seen regulators move to shut down the peer production economy, then we’ve seen customers protest en masse and regulators withdraw their proposals.
  • Safety: Uber and Lyft drivers carry no cash. Customers have an electronic record of the ride and their driver. Drivers have an electronic record of the customer. These simple solutions accomplish what reams of taxi regulations never could: they ensure that both the customer and the driver are as safe as possible.
  • Flexibility: Because they don’t work for the companies, Uber and Lyft drivers work when they want to. Most of them seem to report that this is one of the best features of the job.
  • Beware of Uber too!: As Milton Friedman put it, one must be careful to distinguish being “pro-free enterprise” from being “pro-business.” The goal here is not to allow Uber to be profitable but to allow competition which will enhance the customer experience. We have already seen that when given the chance, Uber—like most firms—will take an exclusive privilege when one is offered. We must be very careful that Uber isn’t let inside the regulatory velvet rope only to put it back up behind them.

How Complete Are Federal Agencies’ Regulatory Analyses?

A report released yesterday by the Government Accountability Office will likely get spun to imply that federal agencies are doing a pretty good job of assessing the benefits and costs of their proposed regulations. The subtitle of the report reads in part, “Agencies Included Key Elements of Cost-Benefit Analysis…” Unfortunately, agency analyses of regulations are less complete than this subtitle suggests.

The GAO report defined four major elements of regulatory analysis: discussion of the need for the regulatory action, analysis of alternatives, and assessment of the benefits and costs of the regulation. These crucial features have been required in executive orders on regulatory analysis and OMB guidance for decades. For the largest regulations with economic effects exceeding $100 million annually (“economically significant” regulations), GAO found that agencies always included a statement of the regulation’s purpose, discussed alternatives 81 percent of the time, always discussed benefits and costs, provided a monetized estimate of costs 97 percent of the time, and provided a monetized estimate of benefits 76 percent of the time.

A deeper dive into the report, however, reveals that GAO did not evaluate the quality of any of these aspects of agencies’ analysis. Page 4 of the report notes, “[O]ur analysis was not designed to evaluate the quality of the cost-benefit analysis in the rules. The presence of all key elements does not provide information regarding the quality of the analysis, nor does the absence of a key element necessarily imply a deficiency in a cost-benefit analysis.”

For example, GAO checked to see if the agency include a statement of the purpose of the regulation, but it apparently accepted a statement that the regulation is required by law as a sufficient statement of purpose (p. 22). Citing a statute is not the same thing as articulating a goal or identifying the root cause of the problem an agency seeks to solve.

Similarly, an agency can provide a monetary estimate of some benefits or costs without necessarily addressing all major benefits or costs the regulation is likely to create. GAO notes that it did not ascertain whether agencies addressed all relevant benefits or costs (p. 23).

For an assessment of the quality of agencies’ regulatory analysis, check out the Mercatus Center’s Regulatory Report Card. The Report Card evaluation method explicitly assesses the quality of the agency’s analysis, rather than just checking to see if the agency discussed the topics. For example, to assess how well the agency analyzed the problem it is trying to solve, the evaluators ask five questions:

1. Does the analysis identify a market failure or other systemic problem?

2. Does the analysis outline a coherent and testable theory that explains why the problem is systemic rather than anecdotal?

3. Does the analysis present credible empirical support for the theory?

4. Does the analysis adequately address the baseline — that is, what the state of the world is likely to be in the absence of federal intervention not just now but in the future?

5. Does the analysis adequately assess uncertainty about the existence or size of the problem?

These questions are intended to ascertain whether the agency identified a real, significant problem and identified its likely cause. On a scoring scale ranging from 0 points (no relevant content) to 5 points (substantial analysis), economically significant regulations proposed between 2008 and 2012 scored an average of just 2.2 points for their analysis of the systemic problem. This score indicates that many regulations are accompanied by very little evidence-based analysis of the underlying problem the regulation is supposed to solve. Scores for assessment of alternatives, benefits, and costs are only slightly better, which suggests that these aspects of the analysis are often seriously incomplete.

These results are consistent with the findings of other scholars who have evaluated the quality of agency Regulatory Impact Analyses during the past several decades. (Check pp. 7-10 of this paper for citations.)

The Report Card results are also consistent with the findings in the GAO report. GAO assessed whether agencies are turning in their assigned homework; the Report Card assesses how well they did the work.

The GAO report contains a lot of useful information, and the authors are forthright about its limitations. GAO combed through 203 final regulations to figure out what parts of the analysis the agencies did and did not do — an impressive accomplishment by any measure!

I’m more concerned that some participants in the political debate over regulatory reform will claim that the report shows regulatory agencies are doing a great job of analysis, and no reforms to improve the quality of analysis are needed. The Regulatory Report Card results clearly demonstrate otherwise.

Conservatives, Liberals, and Privilege

Utah Senator Mike Lee (R) delivered an important, and timely address at the Heritage Foundation this week. It was focused squarely on what he called “America’s crisis of crony capitalism, corporate welfare, and political privilege.”

It is a problem, he said, that “simultaneously corrupts our economy and our government.” He pointed to a number of ways in which it manifests itself, including “direct subsidies,” “indirect subsidies, like loan guarantees,” “tax carve-outs and loopholes,” “bailouts,” the implicit bailout of “too big to fail,” and “complicated regulations.”

The Senator is careful to point out that the problem has a long history:

Just like the crises of lower-income immobility and middle class insecurity, the crisis of special-interest privilege is not Barack Obama’s fault. It predates his presidency. And though his policies have made it worse, past Republican presidents and Congresses share some of the blame.

He also stresses that the problem is bipartisan:

Too many in Washington have convinced themselves that special-interest privilege is wrong only when the other side does it.

And he’s willing to call Republicans to task for the part they have played:

We [Republicans] have tried being a party of corporate connections and special-interest deal-making. And we’ve lost five of the six presidential popular votes since [Reagan left office].

But though he believes Republicans bear some blame, the Senator contends that government-granted privilege is fundamentally incompatible with conservatism:

Properly considered, there is no such thing as a conservative special interest.

While I agree, I have a more ecumenical view of the issue.

Yes, privilege is incompatible with properly-considered conservatism, but I also think it incompatible with properly-considered progressivism (and properly-considered libertarianism, for that matter). The Senator, on the other hand, believes that “Liberals have no problem privileging special interests, so long as they’re liberal special interests.” As evidence, he quotes progressive thinker Herbert Croly, who wrote:

In economic warfare, the fighting can never be fair for long, and it is the business of the state to see that its own friends are victorious.

I won’t dispute that many progressives continue to view things this way. But I think there is value in framing the elimination of government-granted privilege in terms that attract progressives to the cause rather than in terms that seem destined to repel them.

And there is plenty of evidence that many progressives are at least open to the anti-privilege agenda. As I note in the beginning of the Pathology of Privilege, both the Tea Party and the Occupy movements oppose corporate bailouts. Consider the way progressive economist and Nobel Laureate Joseph Stiglitz framed the issue in Zuccotti Park:

Our financial markets have an important role to play. They are supposed to allocate capital and manage risk. But they’ve misallocated capital and they’ve created risk. We are bearing the cost of their misdeeds. There’s a system where we socialized losses and privatized gains. That’s not capitalism, that’s not a market economy, that’s a distorted economy and if we continue with that we won’t succeed in growing, and we won’t succeed in creating a just society.

Those words could have come out of Milton Friedman’s mouth.

Or consider the way progressives Mark Green and Ralph Nader framed regulatory capture in 1973:

The verdict is nearly unanimous that economic regulation over rates, entry, mergers, and technology has been anticompetitive and wasteful.

The result, they wrote, is a system which “undermines competition and entrenches monopoly at the public’s expense.”

Green and Nader’s concern about regulatory capture wasn’t just an academic exercise. It helped propel one of the most successful eliminations of government-granted privilege in U.S. history: the deregulation of trucking, air travel, and freight rail in the late 1970s. To the considerable benefit of consumers, these industries were substantially deregulated and de-cartelized. And it happened because liberals like Ted Kennedy and Jimmy Carter eventually joined the cause.

Our task today is to get modern libertarians, conservatives, and progressives to once again rally against government-granted privilege.

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.

The farm bill: a lesson in government failure

As a consumer and as a taxpayer, the farm bill is a monstrosity. But as someone who teaches public finance and public choice economics, it is a great teaching tool.

Want to explain the concept of dead-weight loss? The farm bill’s insurance subsidies are a perfect illustration of the concept. They transfer resources from taxpayers to farm producers; but taxpayers lose more than producers gain.

Want to illustrate the folly of price controls? Sugar supports which force Americans to pay twice what global consumers pay are a fine illustration.

Want to explain Gordon Tullock’s transitional gains trap? Walk your students through the connection between subsidies and land prices: much of the value of the subsidy is “capitalized” into the price of farmland, meaning that new farmers have to pay exorbitant prices to buy an asset that entitles them to subsidies. This means new farmers are no better off as a result of the subsidies. As David Friedman puts it, “the government can’t even give anything away.” The only ones to gain are those who owned the land when the laws were created. But those who paid for the land with the expectation that it would entitle them to subsidies would howl if politicians tried to do right by consumers and taxpayers and get rid of the privileges.

Want to illustrate Mancur Olson’s theory of interest group formation? Look no further than sugar loans. Taxpayers loan about $1.1 billion to producers every year. Spread among 313 million of us, that is a cost of about $3.50 per taxpayer. And who benefits? Last year just three (!) firms received the bulk of these subsidies, each benefiting to the tune of $200 million. As Olson taught us long ago, the numerous and diffused losers face a significant obstacle in organizing in opposition to this while the small and concentrated winners have every incentive to get organized in support.

Want to show how a “legislative logroll” works? Explain to your students that members representing dairy and peanut interests are statistically significantly likely to vote in the interests of peanut farmers and vice versa.

Want to explain Bruce Yandle’s bootlegger and Baptist theory of regulation? Note that catfish farmers want inspection of “foreign” catfish in the name of safety (the Baptist rationale) when the real reason for supporting additional inspections is self-interested protectionism (the bootlegger motivation).

This week’s lesson is on the power of agenda setters to block even modest reforms. Buried in the dross of privileges to wealthy farmers, both the Senate and the House versions of the bill contained a small glimmer of reform. Both included language capping the amount of subsidies that farmers and their spouses receive at “only” $250,000 per year. Right now, House and Senate conferees are working to reconcile the two versions of the Farm Bill passed this summer. And according to the latest reports, they plan to strip these modest reforms that were agreed to by both chambers.

Unfortunately, kids, this is how modern democracy works.

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.