**TO: Docket EPA** **- HQ** **- OAR**  **- 2013**  **- 0602** 

**DATE: August 3,**  **2015 RE:**  **Consideration of Costs**  **and Benefits Under the Clean Air Act**  Economics offers a rich literature , addressing both theory and methods, relating to the consider ation costs and benefit s in decision making. Notably, economics distinguishes between an efficiency test, measuring potential improvements in economic efficiency, and methods to assess changes in social welfare . The efficiency test assess es the gains or losses in economic effic iency using a well - defined framework commonly known as benefit - cost analysis (BCA) . Economics recognizes that a change in economic efficiency (net benefits) can be a factor contributing to a change in social welfare, but does not by itself determine wheth er a given action makes society as a whole better or worse off. Rather, a ssessing changes in social welfare requires consideration of a much greater array of economic impacts and consequences of a regulation. Pollution , a " negative externality " in econo mic terms , contributes to a well - identified market failure that results in outcomes that are not economically efficient . BCA is intended to help identify what degree of regulation would address this externality, resulting in an economically efficient outcome . 1 There is a well - developed body of economics literature identifying rigorous approaches for conducting BCA, and EPA’s Guidelines for Preparing Economic Analyses and OMB’s Circular A-4 follow and are consistent with this literature. When EPA cond uct s a BCA, the agency is assessing, to the extent practicable given available data and methods, whether the regulation will increase or decrease econ omic efficiency . T his efficiency test , however, does not consider many factors that are important for dec ision making . For example, BCA does not address equity or distributive justice concerns , which non - economists may refer to simply as "fairness" . In a BCA, a dollar’s worth of benefits accruing to a wealthy person is counted the same as a dollar’s worth of benefits accruing to one with no income. Similarly, BCA does not weigh the costs falling on the wealthy differently than costs falling on those with low or no wealth. Such differences in how benefits and costs of a policy change are distributed among different groups of people can be important to policy decision making . Welfare economists recognize that the effects of a policy change on equity, or distributive justice, are as important as economic efficiency in ascertaining whether that policy change is likely to improve social welfare. 2 Other factors that are not readily incorporated in, or that remain entirely outside , the benefit cost framework but are relevant for social welfare include: ec onomic and social sustainability, intergenerational effects (a special case of distributive justice) , risk aversion, and uncertainty . In addition, the performance of the benefit - cost framework in assessing even the economic efficiency dimension of social welfare can be limited due a number of theoretical and p ractical limitations. These limitations include, for example, unavailability of – or uncertainty in – fundamental information about cost s and benefits , heterogeneity in peoples’ values and economic preferences , and important differences in susceptibility to risk. Given the foregoing, it is not surprising that Congress in the Clean Air Act did not require benefit - cost analysis as the method for considering potential economic effects, including cost impacts, when making

1 N. Kaldor, “Welfare Proposition of Economics and Interpersonal Comparison of Utility,” **Economic Journal** , vol. 49, pp. 549 – 551. September 1939. 2 See, e.g., D. Jorgenson, “Aggregate Consumer Behavior and the Measurement of Social Welfare” in Jorgenson, Welfare, Vol 2., The MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1997environmental policy and program dec isions. 3 Instead, EPA has relied upon and implemented a number

of other approaches across multiple Administrations. For example , EPA has examine d the cost effectiveness of possible options , how costs are passed onto consumers, distributional impacts of c osts , and effects of costs on the total costs and profitability of regulated entities . Specific approaches to the consideration of costs under CAA section 111 are discussed at greater length in the preamble for this action .

3 In particular, t August 3, he U.S. Court of Appeals has held, since the inception of the section 111 program, that cost - benefit analysis is not re quired when considering costs under section 111 (a). Portland Cemen t v. EPA, 486 F. 2d 375, 387 (1973); Essex Chemical Corp. v. EPA, 486 F.2d, 427, 437 (1973).