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

“I have long been concerned with how EPA conducts its cost-benefit analysis to justify its rulemaking. This is something that the committee has discussed with EPA on a number of occasions, and the Supreme Court recently ruled that EPA's approach to examining costs and their regulation was 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, the administration can goldplate requirement regulations from any department or any agency. Section 437 says that the administration should convene 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. {time} 1600”