The EPA dodged this conclusion by constructing flawed cost estimates. The infeasibility of the EPA's air standards should be no surprise. The EPA admits it sets standards without considering feasibility. Infeasible standards are nonetheless bad government. Such standards give enforcement officials too much authority to decide whose emissions to cut.
Infeasible standards based on unattainable health benefits are intrinsically hypocritical.
Regulations that are infeasible and binding demean both the integrity of law and the social covenant to be law-abiding. Considering costs in setting standards would promote respect for the law by deterring federal agencies from issuing infeasible regulations that ask people to accept the impossible as binding. The Supreme Court should encourage the EPA to consider costs in setting air quality standards. Randall Lutter is a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. Click here for an index of Articles .