The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is seeking comments on its proposed rule, “Increasing Consistency and Transparency in Considering Benefits and Costs in the Clean Air Act Rulemaking Process” (hereafter referred to as the EPA benefit-cost rule).1 If implemented, this proposed procedural regulation would commit the EPA to adhering to certain analytical practices when establishing regulations under the Clean Air Act. In general, the EPA should be applauded for embracing economic analysis in its rulemaking process and attempting to commit to some best practices, and many features of the EPA’s proposal are praiseworthy. However, the regulation in its present form also has some shortcomings. To improve the regulation, this comment makes three broad recommendations:
- The EPA should more clearly define any vague terminology in its proposed regulation, particularly terms such as “benefit-cost analysis,” “social benefits,” and “society.”
- The EPA should commit to presenting disaggregated benefits and costs in its analysis, specifically categorizing impacts in terms of whether they pertain to investment, mortality, and people in other countries.
- The EPA should not adjust its $100 million threshold for economically significant regulations for inflation. Nor should it not commit to monetizing all costs and benefits in its regulatory analysis.