• Selected
• Entire List

Abstract:
As economists, we believe that the Second Circuit's ruling, by not allowing the consideration of important information about the relationships between the benefits and costs of alternatives, is economically unsound. In particular, we believe that, as a general principle, regulators cannot make rational decisions unless they are allowed to compare costs and benefits and to use the results, along with other factors as appropriate, to choose among alternatives.

To the extent permissible under the statute and case law, EPA should be allowed to consider benefits and costs in establishing rules for implementing s316(b). The Court's allowing EPA to consider benefits and costs would improve both the decision making process - by making it more transparent - and the regulatory decisions by allowing important relevant information to be considered explicitly.

Abstract:
As we understand it, the D.C. Circuit did not allow the EPA to consider the costs of complying with ozone and PM NAAQS. As we further understand it, this legal ruling can be overturned only by this Court. As economists, we believe that the D.C. Circuit's ruling not allowing the EPA to consider important information relating to the consequences of its regulatory actions is economically unsound. Without delving into the legal aspects of the case, we present below why we think the Court should allow the EPA to consider costs in setting standards. In particular, we believe that, as a general principle, regulators should be allowed to consider explicitly the full consequences of their regulatory decisions. These consequences include the regulation's benefits, costs, and any other relevant factors.

EPA, D.C. Circuit, regulatory actions