The Economics of Regulatory Repeal and Six Case Studies
Should regulations stay or should they go? RFF researchers conducted cost-benefit analyses of six regulations generating industry complaints.
Key Findings
- For five out of the six rules analyzed, the benefits forgone outweigh the cost savings under a reasonable set of assumptions.
- Prioritizing repeal using the preferred net benefits criterion yields very different rankings than prioritizing according to cost savings alone.
- Better accounting for sunk cost and benefits as well as the degree of compliance is needed to improve repeal analyses.
- Uncertainties in the benefits analyses need to be handled better and with an eye to making a future repeal analysis more meaningful.
- Regulatory impact analyses should be seen as informative, not as a definitive decisionmaking tool.
Related Work
The analyses are below.
- The 2016 BLM Methane Waste Prevention Rule
- EPA’s 2016 Methane Rule
- The 2016 BSEE Blowout Preventer Systems and Well Control Rule
- PHMSA’s 2015 Tank Car Rule
- The 2016 BSEE and BOEM Arctic Offshore Drilling Safety Rule
- PHMSA’s 2009 Gas Distribution Rule
Also available: Catalogue of Oil and Gas Regulations and Non-Regulatory Issues
Authors
Justine Huetteman
Isabel Echarte
