Trump Says Climate Repeal Saves $1.3 Trillion. The EPA’s Math Differs

The agency’s own cost-benefit assessment for revoking the endangerment finding points to steep costs that may outweigh the savings.Author of the article:You can save this article by registering for free here. Or sign-in if you have an account.(Bloomberg) — When President Donald Trump on Feb. 12 announced the “single largest deregulation in American history” — the repeal of climate emissions standards for all vehicles and the key scientific determination underpinning them, in one swoop — he said it would save Americans $1.3 trillion.Subscribe now to read the latest news in your city and across Canada.Subscribe now to read the latest news in your city and across Canada.Create an account or sign in to continue with your reading experience.Create an account or sign in to continue with your reading experience.But the administration’s own analyses, found in the official rulemaking published Wednesday in the Federal Register, show a more nuanced picture. The climate rollbacks also come with costs, ranging from hundreds of billions of dollars on the low end to more than $1.4 trillion on the high end — an amount that exceeds the projected savings.The revoking of the so-called endangerment finding, a legal recognition that greenhouse gases harm human health, by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is the administration’s largest climate rollback to date. It comes on the heels of deep cuts over the past year to the agency’s staffing, programming, research and grants tied to climate and other environmental work. Get the latest headlines, breaking news and columns.By signing up you consent to receive the above newsletter from Postmedia Network Inc.A welcome email is on its way. If you don't see it, please check your junk folder.The next issue of Top Stories will soon be in your inbox.We encountered an issue signing you up. Please try againInterested in more newsletters? Browse here.“Rescinding the 2009 endangerment finding means real dollars back in the pockets of American families and unleashing consumer choice,” said EPA spokesperson Brigit Hirsch. She noted that the analyses took into account “different projected fuel prices from the US Energy Information Administration, different estimates of consumer valuations of fuel savings, different discount rates.”The agency modeled out both the possible savings and costs of the policy change to calculate the net monetary impact under eight different scenarios. The $1.3 trillion estimate, which has been repeated by EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin and White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt and touted in published materials, represents only part of the agency’s monetary analysis — the estimated savings from now through 2055 — and only in half of the scenarios. “The way that they’ve approached this is to ignore any of the costs that come out of this rule and just focus on the two items that are savings for consumers,” said Amanda Levin, a director of policy analysis at the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC).Specifically, under the relevant scenarios, the EPA has estimated upwards of $1.1 trillion in savings from the reduced costs of new vehicles that no longer have to meet any climate standards and an additional $200 billion in savings tied to the avoided costs of purchasing electric vehicle chargers and related equipment.But the same analyses identified a series of costs to American consumers over the same period, including from vehicle fuel, repair and maintenance. The total costs, depending on the modeled scenario, range from $426 billion to over $1.4 trillion. Of the four relevant scenarios laid out, two account for short-term fuel savings only. The other two look at costs and savings in the longer term; one of them assumes a lower oil price. The remaining long-term scenario projects costs above $1.4 billion, for a net cost of about $180 billion. Several former EPA officials and environmentalists told Bloomberg News this last scenario more closely matches how the agency has historically modeled the costs and benefits of such rules. Hirsch cautioned against “cherry-picking one projected scenario out of many.” The monetary analysis also doesn’t account for the impacts of the repeals on public health or the environment, Levin noted. Earlier this year, the EPA quietly stopped its longstanding practice of considering the monetary value of human health benefits from cutting certain air pollutants.The repeals represent the beginning of what’s expected to be a lengthy legal battle, a fight that could well end up at the Supreme Court. On Wednesday, NRDC and more than a dozen other environmental groups, including the Environmental Defense Fund and Union of Concerned Scientists, sued the EPA over the new rule.Postmedia is committed to maintaining a lively but civil forum for discussion. Please keep comments relevant and respectful. Comments may take up to an hour to appear on the site. You will receive an email if there is a reply to your comment, an update to a thread you follow or if a user you follow comments. Visit our Community Guidelines for more information.