Cost Benefit Analysis Can Be Useful In Assessing Environmental Regulations Despite Limitations PDF Download

GAO reported on the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) major efforts to prepare cost-benefit analyses to support regulatory decisions, as required under Executive Order 12291. In addition, it discussed the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) review of those analyses and identified many problems that affect the potential usefulness of cost-benefit analyses for assessing environmental regulations. GAO found large gaps in the underlying scientific information which EPA uses to estimate the environmental benefits of its regulatory alternatives. EPA has also had difficulty determining how much people are willing to pay for health and environmental improvements. However, a cost-benefit analysis can still provide useful information to regulatory decisionmakers if EPA presents a range of dollar values which reflect the uncertainty of the estimates. Some environmental laws place more emphasis on the level of cleanup to be achieved than on the costs involved, and they may prohibit or limit the use of cost-benefit analyses in setting standards and regulations. In addition, cost-benefit analyses are not transmitted to Congress. Executive Order 12291 generally requires EPA and other federal agencies to provide a detailed cost-benefit analysis for any major regulation. However, the Order allows for a great deal of flexibility in establishing the estimated costs of proposed regulations, and EPA has not always considered all important compliance costs to determine whether a proposed rule is a major regulation. In addition, GAO found that EPA failed to consider all possibilities in determining which alternative would yield a higher net benefit. GAO also found that EPA cost-benefit analyses generally highlighted only single-dollar estimates in summary form, while ranges of estimates for other categories were available but not used. Despite these problems, OMB has generally accepted the EPA analyses.