The Ongoing Debate Over Cost Considerations in Regulatory Decision-Making

As an expert in economics and regulatory policy, I have witnessed firsthand the ongoing debate surrounding the use of cost-benefit analysis and similar economic tools in regulatory decision-making. This debate has been particularly prominent in the context of the Clean Air Act, which has been a hotly contested issue for decades. The Clean Air Act was enacted with the goal of promoting a growing economy while also protecting public health and the environment. However, as with any policy, there are costs associated with implementing and enforcing regulations. The question at hand is whether these costs should be taken into consideration when setting air quality standards. In 2001, a group of 42 prominent economists, including three Nobel Prize winners and seven former presidents of the president's Council of Economic Advisors, sent a letter to the Supreme Court in support of American Trucking.

They argued that setting air quality standards without considering costs would be economic heresy. This case was seen as a historic moment in the development of regulatory policy. However, the Supreme Court ultimately ruled against American Trucking, stating that it would be unwise not to consider costs when setting standards. This ruling was a significant defeat for the industry, but it also represented a setback for the role of economic thought in regulatory policy. Since then, there has been ongoing debate and ambivalence among policymakers about the use of cost-benefit analysis and similar economic tools in regulatory policy. While conventional economics emphasizes the importance of balancing costs and benefits, many Americans are not convinced that these calculations should be applied to all aspects of life.

The Battle for Clean Air Standards

The conflict over cost considerations in regulatory decision-making has been particularly evident in the battle for clean air standards.

In 1997, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposed stricter air quality standards, which were met with fierce opposition from industries such as utilities, automotive, and manufacturing. These industries argued that compliance with the new standards would impose crippling costs, while environmental and public health groups praised the stricter standards. Despite widespread criticism, President Clinton backed the EPA's stricter rules, stating that with the right approach, we can protect the environment and make the economy grow. However, the industry immediately went to court to challenge these rules. In 1999, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals ruled that the Clean Air Act did not provide an intelligible principle for establishing air quality standards. The court argued that by giving the EPA too much discretion in setting standards, the Act improperly delegated power to the executive branch.

This decision sparked further debate about the role of cost-benefit analysis in regulatory decision-making.

The Role of Cost-Benefit Analysis

American Trucking argued that an intelligible principle is needed to establish rules, and that weighing costs with benefits is the most sensible approach. They believed that this balance would demonstrate that the EPA was not simply making a political decision. On the other hand, opponents of cost-benefit analysis argued that it is not a perfect science and can be influenced by political agendas. During oral arguments, Chief Justice William Rehnquist noted that we have been living with this type of regime for 20 years, referring to a 1980 lower court precedent that upheld the law's prohibition on considering costs. However, Judge Stephen Breyer, an expert in risk regulation and a supporter of cost-benefit analysis, expressed doubt that this would resolve the argument.

He argued that there is no balance in heaven and that ultimately, it comes down to judgment.

The Ongoing Debate

The Supreme Court's ruling in the American Trucking case did not settle the debate over cost considerations in regulatory decision-making. Instead, it has simply taken the dispute to its next stage. While some see this decision as a victory for those who believe that costs should always be taken into account, others view it as a setback in the campaign to streamline regulatory policymaking. This ongoing debate reflects a larger issue of whether costs should always count and whether we should put a price on life itself. These questions are not limited to the clean air standards, but also arise in other health, safety, and environmental conflicts.

As experts continue to grapple with these issues, it is clear that there is no easy answer.

Raúl Milloy
Raúl Milloy

Proud music aficionado. Unapologetic tvaholic. Proud zombie evangelist. Unapologetic coffee geek. Hipster-friendly zombie expert. Extreme student.