Our own U.S. Rep. Cory Gardner R-Colo., is holding federal agencies’ feet to the fire. I urge you to watch the whole video and try to figure out if the policy of the Environmental Protection Agency is to consider jobs when proposing a rule? And why does it take five minutes of discussion to get a non-answer?
Responding to Gardner at the recent Environment and the Economy Subcommittee hearing was Mathy Stanislaus, EPA assistant administrator, regarding a regulation on industry recycling of “coal ash and other fossil fuel byproducts,” as reported by The Daily Caller.
I’ve transcribed some of their back-and-forth below…
Gardner: “So you did not do a direct economic analysis?”
Stanislaus: “No, no, we did a direct economic analysis of the various potential costs identified, which includes cost of compliance by the utility sector, the cost to the states, as well as various benefits.”
Gardner: “But not a cost on jobs?”
Stanislaus: “Not directly.”
Gardner: “So you did do a cost on jobs then? Indirectly?”
Stanislaus: “Well, we just looked at the direct costs from complying with the rule.”
Gardner: “So you did or you did not do jobs?”
Stanislaus: “Not . . . no.”
Gardner: “So, is it standard procedure then, for an economic analysis to not include jobs?”
Stanislaus: “Well, and I can get back to you on the specific details on how we do economic analysis. We do economic analysis based on the direct consequence of a rule.”
Gardner: “So you don’t think your rule will have direct consequences on jobs?”
Stanislaus: “Well, I mean, we did an analysis of the various costs of that and clearly we are cognizant of the economic consequences of a rule. You know so . . .”
Gardner: “So it does have an economic consequence?”
Stanislaus: “Sure, but we looked at both the costs and benefits of the rule.”
h/t The Daily Caller and Peter Boddie
