Show simple item record

dc.creatorSinden, Amy
dc.date.accessioned2021-06-21T20:33:15Z
dc.date.available2021-06-21T20:33:15Z
dc.date.issued2016-11
dc.identifier.citationAmy Sinden, A “Cost-Benefit State?” Reports of Its Birth Have Been Greatly Exaggerated, 46 Envtl. L. Rep. 10933 (2016).
dc.identifier.citationAvailable at: https://elr.info/news-analysis/46/10933/cost-benefit-state-reports-its-birth-have-been-greatly-exaggerated
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12613/6612
dc.description.abstractIn a spate of recent cases (Michigan v. EPA, EME Homer City v. EPA, and Entergy Corp. v. Riverkeeper), the U.S. Supreme Court has been widely viewed as abruptly changing course in its treatment of cost-benefit analysis (CBA) in environmental decisionmaking. In fact, these cases represent less of a change in course than is commonly believed. They did not so much eliminate the Court’s previously emerging anti-cost presumption as narrow and perhaps more clearly define it. The term “cost-benefit analysis” can refer to a broad range of decisionmaking techniques, and an even longer list of methods involve agencies “considering costs” in one way or another. These cases indicate that the Court’s anti-cost presumption no longer applies to informal CBA or feasibility analysis, but they do nothing to disturb the presumption as applied to other cost consideration tools. Indeed, Riverkeeper can be read to at least gesture in the direction of a continuing presumption against formal CBA. It is not entirely clear that Michigan articulated a pro-cost presumption at all, but to the extent it did, that presumption can be read to exclude or at least de-emphasize formal CBA.
dc.format.extent25 pages
dc.languageEnglish
dc.language.isoeng
dc.relation.ispartofFaculty/ Researcher Works
dc.relation.haspartThe Environmental Law Reporter, Vol. 46, Iss. 11
dc.relation.isreferencedbyELR
dc.rightsAll Rights Reserved
dc.subjectCBA
dc.subjectCost benefit analysis
dc.subjectCost-benefit analysis
dc.subjectEnvironmental law and policy/governance
dc.titleA “Cost-Benefit State”? Reports of Its Birth Have Been Greatly Exaggerated
dc.typeText
dc.type.genreJournal article
dc.relation.doihttp://dx.doi.org/10.34944/dspace/6594
dc.ada.noteFor Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) accommodation, including help with reading this content, please contact scholarshare@temple.edu
dc.description.schoolcollegeTemple University. James E. Beasley School of Law
dc.temple.creatorSinden, Amy
refterms.dateFOA2021-06-21T20:33:15Z


Files in this item

Thumbnail
Name:
Sinden-JournalArticle-2016-11.pdf
Size:
985.0Kb
Format:
PDF

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record