• Login
    View Item 
    •   Home
    • Faculty/ Researcher Works
    • Faculty/ Researcher Works
    • View Item
    •   Home
    • Faculty/ Researcher Works
    • Faculty/ Researcher Works
    • View Item
    JavaScript is disabled for your browser. Some features of this site may not work without it.

    Browse

    All of TUScholarShareCommunitiesDateAuthorsTitlesSubjectsGenresThis CollectionDateAuthorsTitlesSubjectsGenres

    My Account

    LoginRegister

    Help

    AboutPeoplePoliciesHelp for DepositorsData DepositFAQs

    Statistics

    Most Popular ItemsStatistics by CountryMost Popular Authors

    Cost-Benefit Analysis, Ben Franklin, and the Supreme Court

    • CSV
    • RefMan
    • EndNote
    • BibTex
    • RefWorks
    Thumbnail
    Name:
    Sinden-JournalArticle-2014.pdf
    Size:
    292.6Kb
    Format:
    PDF
    Download
    Genre
    Journal article
    Date
    2014
    Author
    Sinden, Amy
    Subject
    Cost-benefit analysis
    Environment
    Regulation
    Regulatory review
    EPA
    Rulemaking
    Clean Water Act
    Environmental law
    Permanent link to this record
    http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12613/6615
    
    Metadata
    Show full item record
    DOI
    http://dx.doi.org/10.34944/dspace/6597
    Abstract
    This article looks at the ongoing debate over the use of cost-benefit analysis in agency rulemaking through a case study of a set of EPA power plant regulations that brought that debate before the U.S. Supreme Court in 2009. In the briefing before the Court, a peculiar pattern emerged: the briefs for the environmentalists opposing CBA portrayed it as highly formal, rigid, quantitative, and technical, while the industry and think-tank briefs advocating CBA painted it as informal, based in common sense, and associated with Ben Franklin. These diverging descriptions reflect the fact that cost-benefit analysis is not a monolith but comes in many varieties on a spectrum from informal to formal. Examining the rulemakings leading up to and following the Supreme Court’s opinion, this case study illustrates the importance of clearly defining the term “CBA” and the intellectual sloppiness and irrationality that can result when policymakers fail to distinguish between these very different forms of analysis.
    Citation
    Amy Sinden, Cost-Benefit Analysis, Ben Franklin, and the Supreme Court, 4 U.C. Irvine L. Rev. 1175 (2014).
    Available at: https://scholarship.law.uci.edu/ucilr/vol4/iss4/4/
    Citation to related work
    UC Irvine School of Law
    Has part
    UC Irvine Law Review, Vol. 4, Iss. 4 (December 2014)
    ADA compliance
    For Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) accommodation, including help with reading this content, please contact scholarshare@temple.edu
    Collections
    Faculty/ Researcher Works

    entitlement

     
    DSpace software (copyright © 2002 - 2022)  DuraSpace
    Temple University Libraries | 1900 N. 13th Street | Philadelphia, PA 19122
    (215) 204-8212 | scholarshare@temple.edu
    Open Repository is a service operated by 
    Atmire NV
     

    Export search results

    The export option will allow you to export the current search results of the entered query to a file. Different formats are available for download. To export the items, click on the button corresponding with the preferred download format.

    By default, clicking on the export buttons will result in a download of the allowed maximum amount of items.

    To select a subset of the search results, click "Selective Export" button and make a selection of the items you want to export. The amount of items that can be exported at once is similarly restricted as the full export.

    After making a selection, click one of the export format buttons. The amount of items that will be exported is indicated in the bubble next to export format.