Data-driven studies dubbed “secret science” by critics and used by the Environmental Protection Agency to justify many of its most important regulations could be banned or severely restricted under legislation moving through Congress.
Two studies in particular, whose datasets have never been publicly released, have played a major role in most environmental regulations for the past two decades.
The Harvard Six Cities and American Cancer Society’s ACS II were first cited by EPA to support regulations in 1997 that were aimed at “particulate matter” – tiny particles emitted from automobiles, power plants, wood burning, industrial processes and diesel powered vehicles such as buses and trucks.
Reducing particulate matter is often used by EPA as justification for environmental regulations, including two new ones slated to become effective this summer that could cost affected industries trillions of dollars. Those costs will be passed on to consumers in the form of price hikes for goods and services.
The key Senate backer of the Secret Science Reform Act, which was approved by the House of Representatives last month, is Senate Environment and Public Works Committee Chairman Jim Inhofe of Oklahoma.
The Oklahoma Republican has long criticized what he views as the environmental agency’s excessive regulations and secretive processes.
“For too long, EPA has issued burdensome regulations based on science that has been withheld from the public,” Inhofe told the Washington Examiner. “Since the agency continues to use science that does not meet this basic test, I have little confidence in the scientific integrity underpinning the EPA’s regulatory agenda.”
The secret science measure was first introduced by Rep. Lamar Smith, R-Texas, chairman of the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology. It requires the government to make public the datasets underlying all studies used to develop proposed environmental regulations.
Such datasets show how a study’s conclusions were reached. Making the datasets publicly available enables independent experts to double-check calculations and to spot any mistakes or data manipulation.
“Costly regulations should not be created behind closed doors and out of public view,” Smith said. “Our freedoms are best protected when citizens are informed.”
It’s unclear what would happen to existing anti-particulate matter regulations unless officials can provide new studies based on publicly available datasets.
Defenders of the environmental agency view the measure as little more than a legislative tool for Republicans, backed by special interest industries, to delay or prevent needed new regulations.
“It says if EPA cannot make the data public, it cannot regulate,” said Center for Science and Democracy Director Andrew Rosenberg, at the Union of Concerned Scientists, a left-leaning nonprofit advocacy group. “With public health studies, data is inherently confidential.
He also said that making the datasets public is an unnecessary step for the peer-review process.
The top Democrat on Smith’s House committee agreed with Rosenberg.
“Limiting the scope of the science EPA can use is not only bad government, it is just simply a bad idea,” Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson, D-Texas, said.
President Obama has threatened to veto the bill if it gets to his desk and the agency has criticized it, saying “provisions of the bill could be interpreted to prevent EPA from taking important, and possibly legally required, actions, where supporting data is not publicly available, and legal challenges could delay important environmental and health protections.”
Johnson and Rosenberg also claimed the bill is a response to Republican disagreement with the environmental agency’s findings, rather than a push for transparency.
“This is part of a broader set of attacks on science-based regulation, and we’re really concerned about it,” Rosenberg said.
However, the bill specifically states previous laws, such as privacy statutes, must be considered.
“That’s been one of the misunderstandings,” said a Senate committee aide who asked not to be named. “There’s a provision in there that says it doesn’t supersede any existing law.”
Also, the Department of Health and Human Services provides guidelines on how to redact identifiable information in health data.
“For some studies, maybe that would be sufficient,” Rosenberg said, but he insisted there would still be instances where a person could be identified.
Rosenberg also noted that a redaction could be considered a conflict with Smith’s bill.
He also criticized the need for complete access to datasets.
“What’s the reason why people should have access to the raw data?” Rosenberg said. “That’s not how you evaluate the credibility of the information.” He said scientists would need to contact the researchers to qualify or follow-up on studies.
Regardless, the environmental agency has kept its most important science hidden from the public in the past.
“I think the premise of the bill is flawed, but I do think it’s unreasonable to say that more information should be available,” Rosenberg said. “I’m not objecting to the fact that people should have access to the science.”
Environment and Public Works Committee Republicans have fought to get underlying information on the Six Cities and ACS II studies ever since they were first used to justify regulations in 1997 by John Beale. Beale was then-deputy director for the Office of Policy Analysis and Review. In 2013, Beale was found to have told environmental agency colleagues that he was a CIA agent. He is now in jail following his conviction for defrauding the government.
Since then, particulate matter reductions have been cited as a secondary benefit on many other environmental agency rules. That allows agency officials to claim greater monetary value for the health benefits for proposed regulations.
For example, the agency claimed that the 2012 mercury and air toxics standards, which regulate coal-fired electric generating units, would provide up to $140 billion in annual health benefits. However, Inhofe and his GOP colleagues on the Senate panel estimated the actual benefits of mercury reduction would be only $6.1 million, with the rest being the questionable particulate matter effects.
“Whenever you look in isolation at the cost of mercury reductions, the benefits don’t outweigh the costs,” the committee aide said. The aide also added that particulate matter regulation has its own standard and that including such emissions reductions in other regulations is “double counting.”
The Secret Science Reform Act passed the House March 18 on a 241-175 vote. A Senate hearing date has not yet been set by Inhofe’s committee.
