Industries Spar With States, Others On Co-Benefits' Role In EPA Air Rules

摘要

Major industry trade associations are sparring with state attorneys genera] (AGs) and others who favor strict EPA rules over the agency's planned overhaul of cost-benefit reviews for Clean Air Act policies, in particular a fight over the weight EPA should give to "co-benefits" of reduced pollution not directly targeted by a rule. Among various other elements in the June 4 proposed rule, EPA calls for separate reporting of a rule's direct benefits and co-benefits, though it stops short of declaring that the agency would explicitly devalue co-benefits in its regulatory decision-making. Proponents of counting such benefits say that it helps to highlight the full range of benefits from Clean Air Act rules. For example, supporters touted the paniculate matter (PM) emissions reduction benefits of the Obama-era power plant air toxics rule - even though the rule did not directly regulate PM. Critics counter that such benefits should be discounted, which could lessen the projected benefits compared to the potential costs.