![[logo] US EPA](http://www.epa.gov/epafiles/images/logo_epaseal.gif){kind=logo}
Economic analysis capability
Q: In his oral history interview, Russell Train stated that the most important thing you did, during his administration, was build a strong economic-analysis capability, which he claimed was the best in government. What is your reaction to his claim?
MR. ALM: I think we certainly had the best economic analysis shop in government. I don't think there is any doubt about that.
Q: What was your role in building that program?
MR. ALM: There was a very good staff in place when I got there. I brought on a new office director, Paul Brands, and some key people. And we were continually recruiting. But we had really outstanding people there, at the time - Roy Gamse, Jim Janis, and others. We brought together some of the best people and put them into positions of responsibility.
Q: These were people both inside and outside the agency?
MR. ALM: Yes. But a good deal of the people in that shop, in the planning and evaluation part of the organization, were there when I got there.
Q: Mr. Train went on to say that he believed that the effectiveness of the economic-analysis program had declined over the years. What is your feeling about that?
MR. ALM: I have heard that, but I am not sure it is true. The office of OPPE is many, many times larger now than when I was there, and they have got some very talented people. So, my sense is that the staff is very capable now. I would have a hard time really comparing the relative quality between the staff when I was there and the present staff.
Looking back nostalgically, some of the people really made outstanding contributions, like Walt Barber, Roy Gamse, Jim Janis, and many others. But, I suspect some of the young people coming up now will also make major contributions.
Q: What examples can you think of that really illustrate the quality of EPA's economic capability in the mid-1970s? What anecdotes can you remember that might illustrate that?
MR. ALM: We were required by the Clean Water Act to issue effluent guidelines for water pollution. Besides understanding what was technically feasible, it was very important to understand economic impacts. During those early years of the environmental program, we did not wish to cause unnecessary economic dislocation. We also wanted to have good data on job losses resulting from environmental regulation. The economic analysis performed resulted in reducing adverse impacts and hence not undermining the water-pollution program. We did various studies on the impact of environmental controls on entire industries at that time. We also reviewed the impacts of major regulations focusing heavily on cost effectiveness, for example, looking at what is the cost per ton of pollutant removed.
Q: How did that differ from what CEQ was doing in terms of looking at cost benefits of regulations?
MR. ALM: Well, CEQ did not evaluate individual regulations. When I was there, CEQ did the initial evaluation of the economic impact of pollution control in industry. But over time that function really flowed over to EPA.