Federal agencies are required by law to rely upon independent scientific experts to conduct cost-benefit analyses of proposed environmental regulations.
The Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee is EPA's "independent" panel of experts who advise the agency on costs and benefits of proposed Clean Air Act regulations. Members of the CASAC are anything but independent.
Bought and paid for
"Fifteen of the 20 CASAC ozone review panelists received $180.8 million in EPA grants. The largest, $51.7 million, went to Ed Avol of the University of Southern California; the lowest, $102,000, went to Michelle Bell of Yale University. The seven members of the panel’s executive committee took $80.2 million of the total," Arnold said.
"Any claim that the 15 grant recipients on this panel have 'complete independence' from the EPA — as federal law requires — when their careers have depended on EPA grants of such magnitude is a disgusting farce," he said.
No wonder EPA's independent experts routinely conclude that proposed regulations offer economic and other benefits that far outweigh their costs.
Rotten to the core
But wait, it gets worse! As Arnold notes, EPA officials refuse to allow anybody with anything remotely like a financial connection to a regulated industry to participate in the reviews.
"Some industry-funded scientists have had to divest their retirement funds in order to serve. The regulated have no voice in their own fate," Arnold said.
"But academic panel member Avol can take $51.7 million from the EPA and be honored for not having a conflict of interest. The EPA is thoroughly, hopelessly rotten to the core," the disgusted Arnold concludes.
Congressman wants answers
Rep. Lamar Smith of Texas is chairman of the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology. He's asked GAO to assess the situation with EPA's outside experts.
He's also challenged EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy to provide copies of all communication between her agency and the CASAC. Predictably, EPA failed to do so by Smith's deadline.
Go here to read Smith's letter to McCarthy on the issue.
On today's washingtonexaminer.com
Watchdog/EXography: Feds use "professional judgement" to decide what 132,000 jobs are worth.
Columnists/Ron Arnold: EPA's shredding system makes bad news about regulations disappear.
Columnists/Noemie Emery: Democrats have only themselves to blame for Obamacare.
Beltway Confidential/Chuck Hoskinson: Obama tries to reset reality by declaring Russia a "regional power."
Beltway Confidential/Philip Klein: White House should start sweating legal challenge to Obamacare subsidies.
PennAve/Susan Ferrechio: Hastings issues subpoena to Interior IG for un-redacted report on coal mining rule.
Legal Newsline/Kyla Asbury: GM hit with class-action lawsuit on ignition key system.
In other news
New York Daily News: Nate Silver tells readers to ignore "noise" from Dems criticizing his work.
The Washington Post: Paul Ryan says "I don't have a racist bone in my body."
The New York Times: White House extends another Obamacare deadline.
New York Post: IRS says Bitcoins can be taxed.
The American Conservative: Why Dianne Feinstein can't control the CIA.
American Thinker: She's baaacckk! Actually, Hillary Clinton never left.
National Review Online: Don't globalize iCANN.
The Federalist: What Rand Paul and Bill Clinton have in common.
The Huffington Post: White House says minimum wage hike will help close gender gap.
The American Prospect: Is there hope for drug war survivors?
Mother Jones: Is U.S. becoming China's factory farm?
Marginal Revolution: How is the biomarker ID plan going in India?
Tax Prof Blog: Paul Caron reviews George K. Yin's new book on IRS reform.
Talking Points Memo: Justices jab Obamacare tweaks as undercutting birth control mandate.