Democrats Call for Thoughtful Discussion of EPA Regulatory Costs and Benefits
(Washington, DC) – Today, the House Science, Space, and Technology Committee’s Subcommittee on Energy and Environment held a hearing intended to examine the process used by the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in evaluating the costs and benefits of federal environmental regulations. Testifying before the Subcommittee were several witnesses representing industry interests. EPA was not invited to testify before the Subcommittee.
Ranking Member Brad Miller (D-NC) said in his opening statement, “Given the disjointed nature of the list of grievances with the EPA aired today, the Minority decided not to call a witness. If this subcommittee holds a future hearing with a serious, focused discussion of cost-benefit analysis, the communities affected by environmental exposures, and the practical and moral questions that are behind the Value of Statistical Life, we will certainly invite a witness.”
Mr. Miller repeatedly brought up the need to have a witness from the EPA to answer questions regarding their cost-benefit analysis. After the hearing he stated, “If the Republicans question the EPA’s methods for assessing impacts of environmental and public health safeguards, then they should have EPA here to testify. Then we might have left the hearing with a better understanding of this complex issue.”
Mr. Miller requested to put several letters, press reports, and other seminal documents on the record, by groups such as the American Lung Association, American Thoracic Society, American Sustainable Business Council, and the EPA. The materials can be found here.
A number of issues came up at the hearing ranging from the effects of particulate matter to the number of regulations issued by Health and Human Services. Mr. Miller questioned witnesses on the value of statistical life. He said in his opening statement, “This committee certainly should inquire into the cost-benefit analysis of environmental regulations. I’ve been concerned about economic cost-benefit analysis for a long time. Placing a dollar value on human life in deciding the economic benefit of environmental regulations raises serious questions, both practical and moral. Should we really value the lives of older Americans less than younger Americans, as at least one of our witnesses apparently favors?”
He continued, “The Bush Administration briefly considered a “senior death discount” to justify weakening environmental regulations. By valuing the lives of Americans older than 70 at 37 percent less than the lives of other Americans, their analysis reduced the economic benefit of one air pollution regulation from $77 billion to $8 billion. The Bush Administration recognized that, and dropped the idea of a ‘senior death discount’ in economic cost benefit analysis. That still seems like the right decision to me.”
Related Content
Next Article Previous Article