{"database": "press", "table": "releases", "rows": [["https://www.whitehouse.senate.gov/news/release/senators-request-gao-study-of-trump-changes-to-key-measure-of-carbon-pollution-cost", "Senators Request GAO Study of Trump Changes to Key Measure of Carbon Pollution Cost", "2017-12-05", "2017", "2017-12", "Democrat", "House", "RI", "Sheldon Whitehouse", "W000802", "www.whitehouse.senate.gov", null, null, "legacy", "12.05.17\n\t\t\t Senators Request GAO Study of Trump Changes to Key Measure of Carbon Pollution Cost \n\t\t\t\n\t\t\tWashington, DC \u2013 Seven Senators have asked the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to examine the governments\u2019 method for calculating the social cost of carbon\u2014the measure of long-term damage done by carbon pollution\u2014after the Trump administration dramatically reduced estimates of the costs of climate change in recent actions.\u00a0 Using a lower estimate for the social cost of carbon could allow the administration to undermine a range of environmental regulations by exaggerating the compliance costs compared to the societal benefits of reduced carbon emissions.\u00a0 Senators Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), Michael Bennet (D-CO), Jeff Merkley (D-OR), Ben Cardin (D-MD), Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), Kamala Harris (D-CA), and Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) made the request in a letter to the Comptroller General today.\r\nEarlier this year, President Donald Trump issued an executive order disbanding an important interagency working group charged with formulating the social cost of carbon and withdrew the guidance it had issued.\u00a0 The Trump administration also directed agencies to use an outdated Office of Management and Budget policy to monetize the value of greenhouse gas emissions from changes in federal regulation.\u00a0 The result has been a severe downtick in the value of the social cost of carbon.\u00a0 The Environmental Protection Agency\u2019s assessment of its proposed rule to repeal the Clean Power Plan, for example, dropped the social cost of carbon from $45 per ton to as low as $1 per ton for 2020.\r\nThe Senators ask the GAO to look at states and other countries\u2019 social costs of carbon; the Trump administration\u2019s justification for dramatically changing the way it discounts the costs or benefits of regulation change affecting carbon pollution; and the rationales that have been used to support various discount rates in assessing the social cost of carbon.\r\nFull text of the Senators\u2019 letter to the GAO is below.\u00a0 A PDF copy is available here.\r\nDecember 5, 2017\r\nThe Honorable Gene L. Dodaro\r\nComptroller General of the United States\r\nU.S. Government Accountability Office\r\n441 G Street, NW\r\nWashington, DC 20548\r\nDear Mr. Dodaro:\r\nWe write to ask the GAO analyze the social cost of carbon.\u00a0 Various statutes, executive orders, and guidance from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) direct federal agencies to analyze the benefits and costs of proposed regulations.\u00a0 These regulatory impact analyses can also provide affected entities, agencies, Congress, and the public with important information about the potential effects of new regulations.\r\nIn 2008, a federal appeals court held that the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration violated the Energy Policy and Conservation Act by failing to include in its cost-benefit analysis of fuel economy standards for light trucks the benefits of carbon emission reduction.\u00a0 The court noted that monetized estimates existed of the social cost of carbon (SCC)\u2014the dollar value of the net damages of an increase in emissions of carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas.\u00a0 In 2009, in part because agencies used varying SCC estimates, the White House convened an interagency working group to develop SCC estimates for government use, and it issued final estimates in a 2010 guidance document.\u00a0 Since then, the working group has issued revised estimates on several occasions and also developed estimates for damages from an increase in emissions of methane and nitrous oxide, which are also greenhouse gases.\u00a0 Federal courts have upheld agencies\u2019 use of these SCC estimates.\u00a0 In addition, the National Academies has recommended improvements to the working group\u2019s process, including by updating SCC estimates roughly every five years to remain consistent with the current state of scientific knowledge.\r\nThe Government Accountability Office (GAO) reported in 2014 that, in developing the original estimates, the working group used consensus-based decision making, relied largely on existing academic literature and models, and took steps to disclose limitations and incorporate new information.[1]\u00a0 In 2014, GAO also issued a report on environmental regulations and recommended that OMB should consider clarifying the relationship between the working group\u2019s guidance document and OMB Circular A-4, which provides direction to federal agencies for systematic evaluation of benefits and costs.[2]\r\nIn March 2017, Executive Order 13783 disbanded the working group and withdrew SCC guidance documents as no longer representative of governmental policy.\u00a0 The order directs agencies to be consistent with OMB Circular A-4 when monetizing the value of changes in greenhouse gas emissions resulting from regulations.\u00a0 As a result, the Environmental Protection Agency\u2019s draft regulatory impact analysis for its proposed rule that would repeal the Clean Power Plan includes revised values reducing the SCC from approximately $45 per ton to as low as $1 per ton for 2020 (both figures in 2011 dollars).\r\nWe request that GAO build on its past work on this topic.\u00a0 In particular, we would like GAO to answer the following questions:\r\n \r\nTo what extent have individual states developed and/or used estimates for the SCC; what have been the differences, if any, in these estimates and uses?\r\nTo what extent have other countries developed and/or used estimates for the SCC; what have been the differences, if any, in these estimates and uses?\r\nTo what extent have estimates been developed and/or used for the social cost of other greenhouse gases, such as methane and nitrous oxide?\r\nWhat justification did the Trump administration use to support its change from a default discount rate of 3% for climate -focused regulations to 7%?\r\nWhat rationales have been advanced to support the use of various discount rates in assessing the social cost of carbon?\u00a0 To the extent that discount rates are based on evolving factors like interest rates and economic growth rates, should they be periodically reevaluated?\r\n \r\nPlease contact Aaron Goldner (Senator Whitehouse) at (202) 224-2921 to discuss in detail the specific scope of work and timelines for completing this request.\r\nThank you in advance for your consideration.\r\n###\r\n  \r\n\r\n[1]GAO, Regulatory Impact Analysis: Development of Social Cost of Carbon Estimates, GAO-14-663 (Washington, D.C.: July. 24, 2014).\r\n\r\n\r\n[2]GAO, Environmental Regulation: EPA Should Improve Adherence to Guidance for Selected Elements of Regulatory Impact Analyses, GAO-14-519 (Washington, D.C.: July. 18, 2014).\r\n\r\n\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\n\t  \n\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t \n\t\t\n\t\t\tPrint\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\tEmail\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\tTweet\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t \n\t\n\t\n\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n    \n\t\n\t\n    \n    \n    \n    \t\n    \t\n\t    \t  \n\t\t    \n\t\t    \n\t\t    \tPrevious Article", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"]], "columns": ["url", "title", "date", "year", "month", "party", "chamber", "state", "member_name", "bioguide_id", "domain", "scraper", "source", "date_source", "text", "has_text", "collected_at", "updated_at"], "primary_keys": ["url"], "primary_key_values": ["https://www.whitehouse.senate.gov/news/release/senators-request-gao-study-of-trump-changes-to-key-measure-of-carbon-pollution-cost"], "units": {}, "query_ms": 1.542690908536315, "source": "dwillis/congress-press", "source_url": "https://github.com/dwillis/congress-press", "license": "MIT", "license_url": "https://github.com/dwillis/congress-press/blob/main/LICENSE"}