In the regulatory world, generally the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) receives the lion’s share of criticism and scrutiny. Sometimes the scrutiny is from industry and business groups, and in other instances, from progressives and environmentalists for alleged lax regulation. As much as EPA is in the headlines, the Department of Energy (DOE) is typically buried somewhere in the classifieds of the regulatory arena. After examining the data on the regulatory costs, consumer impacts, and employment, that needs to change.
Since 2007, DOE has finalized rules with $8.2 billion in annualized regulatory costs, with a net present value impact exceeding $158 billion. The burdens are often justified by the agency since the purported benefits are said to exceed the costs. Yet, there have been few retrospective reviews analyzing whether the benefits of the energy savings exceed the costs to the manufacturer, and eventually, the higher prices to the consumer, such as $464 more for a new water heater.
This study (using publicly available DOE cost-benefit analyses) examines the cumulative impact of DOE regulations since 2007, including effects on consumers, various states, and industries. It looks specifically at the industry most often targeted by DOE rules, air conditioning and heating, and determines whether a past air-conditioning rule delivered on its promised benefits. The American Action Forum (AAF) found wide disparities between DOE’s projected level of product shipments versus actual figures, calling the agency’s benefit figures into question.
Read Study