The Environmental Protection Agency proposed a rule Thursday that would change the way the agency calculates the costs and benefits of regulations.
The agency issued an advance notice of proposed rulemaking, allowing it to weigh public input on whether it should establish new agency-wide standards for how regulations are assessed.
Some conservatives have argued that the EPA in the past overstated the benefits of cutting carbon emissions when making regulations.
“Many have complained that the previous administration inflated the benefits and underestimated the costs of its regulations through questionable cost-benefit analysis,” said EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt, referring to the Obama administration. “This action is the next step toward providing clarity and real-world accuracy with respect to the impact of the agency’s decisions on the economy and the regulated community.”
But critics of Pruitt say his agency purposely downplayed the benefits of reducing carbon emissions to justify his repeal of the Clean Power Plan.
[Also read: Trump’s NASA chief explains his recent shift on climate change]
The Obama administration’s Clean Power Plan aimed to cut emissions of carbon dioxide from existing power plants to combat climate change. Most climate scientists blame greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide for driving manmade climate change.
When Pruitt began the process of repealing the plan last year, the EPA released a nearly 200-page analysis of the cost and benefits of the plan. In it, the EPA significantly reduced the Obama administration’s evaluation of the cost of climate change, known as the “social cost of carbon.”
While the Obama EPA estimated the social cost of carbon to be an average of $36 per ton of carbon dioxide emitted, Pruitt’s EPA has calculated an average of $5 per ton.
Pruitt’s EPA chose to evaluate the cost of carbon in the U.S., rather than globally, which explains the lower cost estimate.
Pruitt’s supporters say the Obama administration exaggerated the cost of carbon emissions and underestimated the impact of regulations to state and local economies.
“During the Obama administration, the Environmental Protection Agency exaggerated the benefits of Washington regulations and misjudged how costly they are to the economy,” said Sen. John Barrasso, R-Wyo., chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. “Punishing regulations like the so-called ‘Clean Power Plan’ would have cost Wyoming’s energy workers their jobs and devastated communities throughout the state. Now, the Trump administration is taking important steps to make sure the agency can no longer abuse the cost-benefit analysis process.”
Yet critics, including Democratic attorneys general who have sued the EPA for deregulatory moves, say the agency has been shoddy in backing up its decisions with data and science justifying why regulations should be weakened or eliminated.
“What the administration would like to do is pretend pollution imposes no costs on people who have to breathe or drink it,” said Union of Concerned Scientists spokesman Seth Michaels.
EPA will take comments on its proposal for 60 days.
