Claiming an unsubstantiated need to improve consistency and transparency in its economic analyses, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is considering revisions to how it weighs costs and benefits in rulemakings. In our comments to EPA, we argue that this proposal is searching for a problem that does not exist. In implying that the agency’s past analyses have somehow inappropriately considered costs and benefits, EPA relies on vague or false assumptions and misleading examples. In fact, through 2016, EPA’s past analyses of regulatory costs and benefits were among the most thorough, consistent, and transparent regulatory impact analyses conducted in the federal government and had justified some of the most net beneficial rules in the history of federal regulation.
Related Reading
-
Statement on EPA’s Standards for Light- and Medium-Duty Vehicles
Media Resources / March 20, 2024
-
Supplemental Comments to EPA on Reliability & the Proposed GHG Regulations for Fossil Fuel-Fired Power Plants
Project Updates / December 20, 2023
-
EPA Updates Climate Damage Estimates in New Methane Rule
Media Resources / December 2, 2023
-
Comments to EPA on the Proposal to Limit Emissions from Reclassified Major Sources of Air Toxics
Project Updates / November 13, 2023
-
Comments to EPA on GHG Regulations for Fossil Fuel-Fired Power Plants
Project Updates / August 8, 2023