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
-
Amicus Brief on EPA Good Neighbor Rule
Project Updates / June 24, 2024
-
Expert Declaration in Case Requesting a Stay of EPA’s Methane Rule for the Oil and Gas Sector
Project Updates / June 11, 2024
-
Within Its Wheelhouse: EPA’s Latest Power Plant Regulations Rely on Traditional Approaches Left Available After West Virginia v. EPA
Publications / April 24, 2024
-
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