The Mathematics of Mercury

This chapter critiques environmental agencies' use of cost-benefit analysis (CBA) in the context of a concrete case study: the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) recent regulation of mercury emissions from coal-fired utilities under the "Clean Air Mercury Rule" (CAMR). It identifies seven issues for regulatory impact analysis (RIA) that the CAMR brings to the fore. Rather than informing the decisionmaking process, the CAMR RIA served to obscure the range and contours of the regulatory options on the table. Rather than providing a neutral tally of what are obviously "costs" and "benefits" of the rule, the CAMR RIA enlisted value judgments to assign the impacts of mercury contamination to one side of the ledger or the other. Rather than permitting a complete accounting of these impacts, the CAMR RIA provided an accounting that was partial - in both senses of the term. Rather than laying bare the answer to the question "what is at stake, for whom?," the CAMR RIA assessed only those impacts that had been monetized. Its bottom line, moreover, told us nothing about how the costs and benefits would be distributed. Rather than affording enhanced oversight by elected officials and the public, the CAMR RIA dazzled with detail but often obfuscated the considerations relevant to EPA's decision. Finally, rather than helping EPA satisfy its legal mandates, the CAMR RIA provided information that was unconnected to the relevant Clean Air Act provisions, treaties with the fishing tribes, and other legal obligations that constrained EPA's decision. Having identified these shortcomings, the chapter closes with recommendations for reforming regulatory impact analysis - suggestions that echo other recent efforts to envision a more pragmatic orientation for analysis of health, safety, and environmental regulations