Lisa Heinzerling reminds us that EPA has produced an "objective and levelheaded, yet also ambitious and creative" advance notice of proposed rulemaking or ANPRM on regulating carbon under the Clean Air Act:
The draft ANPRM also contains good news from the perspective of climate regulation. In the May 30 draft, EPA concludes -- specifically focusing on regulation of mobile sources -- that the benefits of regulating greenhouse gases are vastly greater than the costs. According to EPA, regulation of mobile sources would produce $2 trillion in net benefits. EPA even concludes that car owners will, over the lifetime of owning a car, save money if strict controls are put in place. (This is because the regulations EPA has in mind would make cars more fuel efficient.) This should come as good news to everyone, environmentalists and economists alike.
EPA produced this happy economic conclusion using manifestly reasonable assumptions.
[...]
That was then.
Today we are awaiting the publication of the official version edited by the White House, prompting the Washington Post to run a front-page story titled "EPA Won't Act on Emissions This Year":
"The administration didn't want to show a high-dollar value for reducing carbon," said one EPA official, adding that the administration cut dozens of pages from a draft that outlined cost-effective ways to reduce greenhouse gases.
[...]
