Washington Law Review


Victor B. Flatt


Currently, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) uses benefit-cost analysis in making many of its regulatory and enforcement decisions. This Article argues that, although required in some instances, the EPA's benefit-cost analysis procedure is incomplete, deeply flawed, and may even violate statutes in some respects. Much of the controversy surrounding environmental regulation can be attributed to this flawed benefit-cost analysis. This Article proposes a new paradigm for EPA regulatory decisionmaking. The proposed paradigm is a four-step decisionmaking process that enhances the outcome of the EPA's decisions by highlighting values that are often ignored or outside the traditional benefit-cost analysis but are necessary to comply with many of our environmental laws and for effective environmental regulation.

First Page