The Environmental Protection Agency has proposed a new Benefit Cost Rule that would require a cost-benefit analysis of all new "economically significant" regulations, use of scientific best practices in evaluating new rules, more transparency in the description of costs and benefits, and more detailed assessments of how well proposed rules would accomplish intended goals.
Cost-benefit analysis has been endorsed by administrations of both parties and long been seen as a way to improve the regulatory process through providing objective analysis before new rules are implemented.
Some argue this is merely a procedural rule to standardize and add transparency to the existing cost-benefit analysis process. But others believe the rule could limit the EPA's flexibility in proposing and implementing new regulations. And while previous administrations have focused on "what" can be considered in a cost-benefit analysis, this new rule appears to focus more on "how" that analysis occurs. Is there a middle ground that could make the EPA more effective and efficient?
Join BPC and a panel of experts for a robust conversation on the proposed rule and where we go from here.
|
