Abstract: This study examines the redistributional effects of the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) using a national database of premium, coverage, and claim payments at the county level between 1980 and 2006. Measuring progressivity as the departure from per capita county income proportionality we find that NFIP premiums are weakly regressive on an annual basis but become proportional as the time horizon is extended beyond a single year. In contrast, we find that NFIP claim payments are moderately progressive over all time horizons studied. In sum, we find no evidence that the NFIP disproportionally advantages richer counties.

Abstract: This paper reviews implementation of the risk management frameworks used by eight federal and foreign agencies—including the Minerals Management Service (MMS, now the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation, and Enforcement, or BOEMRE)—and summarizes the features of a robust tolerable risk (TR) framework. A TR framework conceptually breaks risk into three categories—acceptable, unacceptable, and tolerable—separated by numerical boundaries. Most of the agencies surveyed in this review have adopted a TR or modified TR framework, but MMS (BOEMRE) generallyhas not (although the agency does use an Oil Spill Risk Model to assess spill probabilities and possible trajectories). The study argues that while numerical thresholds are not essential to risk management, theyprovide a transparent goal against which to benchmark practices, equipment, standards, and facilities, and would be a valuable tool for BOEMRE. We also recommend that BOEMRE develop better risk assessment and management guidance; identify and more systematically collect information for understanding and evaluating risks and safety performance; and strengthen performance-based risk management by adopting proven approaches, such as those used in Norway and the United Kingdom for offshore oil and gas development.

Abstract: The Oil Spill Commission’s chartered mission—to “develop options to guard against … any oil spills associated with offshore drilling in the future” (National Commission 2010)—presents a major challenge: how to reduce the risk of low-frequency oil spill events, and especially high-consequence events like the Deepwater Horizon accident, when historical experience contains few oil spills of material scale and none approaching the significance of the Deepwater Horizon. In this paper, we consider precursor analysis as an answer to this challenge, addressing first its development and use in nuclear reactor regulation and then its applicability to offshore oil and gas drilling. We find that the nature of offshore drilling risks, the operating information obtainable by the regulator, and the learning curve provided by 30 years of nuclear experience make precursor analysis a promising option available to theU.S. Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement (BOEMRE) to bring costeffective, risk-informed oversight to bear on the threat of catastrophic oil spills.

Abstract: The purpose of this paper is to provide a conceptual framework for understanding how analysis of costs and benefits might be incorporated into an assessment of regulatory policies affecting deepwater drilling. We begin by providing a framework for analyzing the life-cycle impacts of oil drilling and its alternatives, including onshore drilling and importing oil from abroad. We then provide background estimates of the different sources of oil supplied in the United States, look at how other oil supply sources might respond to regulations on deepwater drilling, and consider the economic costs of these regulations. After providing a comprehensive description of the potential costs and enefits from various types of drilling—including, when possible, estimates of the magnitude of these benefits and costs—we discuss the extent to which these costs and benefits may already be taken into account (or reinforced) through the legal, regulatory, and tax systems and through market mechanisms. We conclude by presenting a framework and simple example of how a cost–benefit analysis might be used to inform regulation of deepwater drilling, and sum up the policy implications of our work.

Abstract: This study compares and contrasts regulatory and related practices—in particular, regulatory decisionmaking, risk assessment and planning processes, inspection and compliance, and organization structure, budgets, and training—of the Minerals Management Service (MMS, now the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation, and Enforcement, or BOEMRE) with those of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Comparing MMS practices withthose of other federal agencies that also manage low-probability but high-consequence environmental risks provides a basis for identifying opportunities for enhancing regulatory capacity and safety performance in managing deepwater energy exploration and production. Our research finds important differences in processes for setting standards; peer review contribution to the rulemaking process; establishment of tolerable risk thresholds; and training of key staff. The paper concludes with several recommendations for how various EPA and FAA practices might be modified and used at BOEMRE to strengthen its regulatory and risk management processes.

Abstract: Although the causes of the Deepwater Horizon spill are not yet conclusively identified, significant attention has focused on the safety-related policies and practices—often referred to as the safety culture—of BP and other firms involved in drilling the well. This paper defines and characterizes the economic and policy forces that affect safety culture and identifies reasons why those forces may ormay not be adequate or effective from the public’s perspective. Two potential justifications for policy intervention are that: a) not all of the social costs of a spill may be internalized by a firm; and b) there may be principal-agency problems within the firm, which could be reduced by external monitoring. The paper discusses five policies that could increase safety culture and monitoring: liability, financialresponsibility (a requirement that a firm’s assets exceed a threshold), government oversight, mandatory private insurance, and risk-based drilling fees. We find that although each policy has a positive effect on safety culture, there are important differences and interactions that must be considered. In particular, the latter three provide external monitoring. Furthermore, raising liability caps without mandating insurance or raising financial responsibility requirements could have a small effect on the safety culture of smallfirms that would declare bankruptcy in the event of a large spill. The paper concludes with policy recommendations for promoting stronger safety culture in offshore drilling; our preferred approach wouldbe to set a liability cap for each well equal to the worst-case social costs of a spill, and to requireinsurance up to the cap.

Abstract: This paper surveys state-mandated programs designed to provide natural catastrophe insurance to property owners and businesses unable to find a policy in the private market. The paper provides anoverview of the 10 state programs offering wind or earthquake coverage and outlines the motivation for establishing such programs. The implications of design and operation decisions, such as pricing strategies and contract options, are discussed, as well as how these programs interact with the private property insurance market. Finally, the paper examines whether such programs can handle a truly catastrophic loss year and the merits and drawbacks of federal support for the programs.

Abstract: Today a new generation of food safety policy is emerging in OECD countries and international public health forums. The United States has actively contributed to the thinking and scientific researchunderlying this new generation of policy. A consensus has emerged among nations about the basic components of an effective food safety system based on modern science and management practices. In shorthand, the vision is of a farm-to-fork, risk-based, scientifically supported safety control system. This system is built on several decades of experience with risk management in national governments,particularly in U.S. environmental and occupational and consumer safety policy. This paper describes the elements of a risk-based, farm-to-fork food safety system as it is emerging in OECD countries guided by discussions through Codex Alimentarius and traces its roots in the development of risk management policy in the United States.

Abstract: This paper provides an overview of developments in food safety policy in major industrial countries and of economic analysis of this policy. It describes the elements of a risk-based, farm-to-fork food safety system as it is emerging in OECD countries guided by discussions through Codex Alimentarius and traces its roots in the development of risk management policy in the United States. Thegoal of this paper is to provide a nontechnical introduction to food safety policy and economics for students, economists and others interested in food safety policy, but new to the field.