Category Archives: Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

Last week, EPA released its proposed rule regarding Increasing Consistency and Transparency in Considering Benefits and Costs in the Clean Air Act Rulemaking Process.  As much as I hate to give aid and comfort to this Administration, I have to say that the rule does not herald the end of western civilization.  The biggest controversy surrounding the rule is its impact on consideration of “co-benefits”. … More

On Monday, District Judge Rodney Sippel ordered sweeping injunctive relief against Ameren Missouri, intended to remedy violations of PSD requirements he had previously identified resulting from upgrades to the Ameren Missouri Rush Island generating plant. 

Notwithstanding the lengthy opinion, most of the Court’s findings are fairly plain vanilla.  Basically, Judge Sippel ordered Ameren Missouri to submit a PSD permit application and he ruled that BACT for control of SO2 emissions at Rush Island required installation of wet flue gas desulfurization equipment.… More

Being a poor country environmental lawyer, I don’t often delve into the academic world.  I therefore just recently caught up to the article written last year by my friend Dan Esty.  Red Lights to Green Lights:  From 20th Century Environmental Regulation to 21st Century Sustainability, is a wonderful synthesis of a lot of work on how to build a better regulatory mousetrap.

The title does not exactly roll off the tongue,… More

Last week, the Lancet Commission on pollution and public health (free registration required) released a study on the annual costs of pollution.  There’s bound to be argument about the specifics, but it’s difficult to argue with the conclusion that those costs are really, really, big.  The study estimates the annual global welfare loss due to pollution at $4 trillion – $6 trillion.  The Lancet says that this is more than 6% of global economic output. … More

On Monday, on behalf of our client, the Union of Concerned Scientists, Foley Hoag filed an amicus brief in support of the plaintiffs in the case challenging President Trump’s Executive Order 13771, the so-called “2 for 1” EO.  One paragraph from the brief pretty much summarizes the argument:

It is important to note, as Executive Order 13771 acknowledges, that agencies are already required,… More

Make no mistake, the Executive Order signed by President Trump at EPA yesterday is a big deal.  Time will tell whether the Administration’s U-turn on the Obama rules currently in litigation, such as the Clean Power Plan and the rule on fracking on federal lands will make any difference to judicial review of those rules.  There are plenty of states and NGOs ready to step into EPA’s and BLM’s shoes to defend those rules.… More

Yesterday, I posted about the 3rd Circuit’s decision to remand EPA’s approval of Pennsylvania’s regional haze SIP.  Although I think that the decision was important and largely unobjectionable, it did get one issue wrong, and it happens to be an issue near and dear to my heart – cost-effectiveness analysis.  I am regularly surprised by the number of people who oppose its use and the number of people who just plain don’t get it. … More

On Tuesday, the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals remanded EPA’s approval of Pennsylvania’s regional haze SIP.  The decision is a must-read for practitioners.  It decides some important issues and provides important reminders for EPA and the states on how to build a record and how to justify decisions – or not! – based on that record.

Although seen as a defeat for Pennsylvania and the large sources subject to the regional haze rule,… More

The short answer is, yes, though the majority is more wrong.

In fact, the issue in Michigan v. EPA seems so simple that the MATS rule could have been affirmed in a two-page opinion.  Judge Scalia notes that the word “appropriate” – on which the entire 44 pages of the majority, concurring, and dissenting opinions focus – is “capacious”.  I agree. … More

Last Friday, I posted about Governor Baker’s Executive Order 562, which requires cost-benefit analysis, cost effectiveness analysis – and more – before state agencies can promulgate regulations.  It took less than a week before it became clear that EO 562 has real teeth.  Yesterday, MassDEP sent out a one-paragraph notice delaying hearings on its proposed Clean Energy Standard, citing EO 562 as the reason:

MassDEP is postponing the hearings and comment period on the proposed Clean Energy Standard rule until it has completed the reviews required under the recent Executive Order 562.… More

I have never agreed with those in the environmental community who are opposed to cost-benefit and cost-effectiveness analysis.  Cost-effectiveness analysis just seems a no-brainer to me.  As to cost-benefit analysis, we do it implicitly every time we write a regulation, and I don’t understand the unwillingness to do so explicitly.

All of which serves as burying the lede to Executive Order 562, issued by Governor Baker this week.  … More

Last week was hazardous air pollutant regulation week at the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. First, as we reported, the Court affirmed EPA’s mercury air toxics rule, determining that EPA need not take cost into account in promulgating rules for electric generating units (EGUs) under § 112(n) of the CAA. On Friday, the Court affirmed the substance of EPA’s revised hazardous air pollutant rules for cement kilns,… More