Ken Calvert: “I have long been concerned with how the EPA conducts its cost-benefit analysis to justify its rulemaking. This is…”

“I have long been concerned with how the EPA conducts its cost-benefit analysis to justify its rulemaking. This is something that the committee has discussed with the EPA on a number of occasions. The Supreme Court recently ruled that EPA's approach to examining costs in their regulations was, at the least, flawed. The administration's revised estimates for the social cost of carbon help justify, on paper, larger benefits from reducing carbon emissions in any proposed rule. If the administration can inflate the price tag so that the benefits always exceed the costs, then the administration can gold plate required regulations from any department or any agency. Section 436 says that the administration should reconvene a working group to revise the estimates in a more transparent manner and to make that information available to the public. I oppose the gentleman's amendment, and I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.'' I reserve the balance of my time.”