27 Pages Posted: 27 Jul 2008
Date Written: July, 21 2008
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.
Suggested Citation: Suggested Citation
Arrow, Kenneth J. and Baumol, William J. and Bhagwati, Jagdish and Boskin, Michael J. and Crandall, Robert W. and Cropper, Maureen and Greenstone, Michael and Hahn, Robert W. and Harrison, David and Hubbard, R. Glenn and Kahn, Alfred E. and Litan, Robert E. and MacAvoy, Paul W. and Miller, James C. and Nichols, Albert L. and Niskanen, William A. and Noll, Roger G. and Oates, Wallace E. and Passell, Peter and Peltzman, Sam and Portney, Paul and Rosen, Harvey S. and Russell, Milton and Schelling, Thomas C. and Schmalensee, Richard and Schultze, Charles L. and Smith, V. Kerry and Smith, Vernon L. and Stavins, Robert N. and Viscusi, W. Kip and White, Lawrence J. and Zeckhauser, Richard J., Clean Water Act Brief (July, 21 2008). Reg-Markets Center Brief No. 08-03. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1165904