cover image: To: Re:  1. The SAB should advise EPA to distinguish EJ analyses from analyses that

To: Re: 1. The SAB should advise EPA to distinguish EJ analyses from analyses that

1 Oct 2024

By not monetizing the effects of regulatory actions as they pertain to EJ issues, analysts run the risk of presenting information in ways that will cause decisionmakers and the public to overlook important consequences due to 1 This document does not purport to represent the views, if any, of New York University School of Law. [...] Background EPA first published the Technical Guidance for Assessing Environmental Justice in Regulatory Analysis (EJ Technical Guidance) in 2016.3 The purpose of the EJ Technical Guidance was to outline analytic expectations and discuss technical approaches and methods that can be used by EPA analysts to evaluate the environmental justice (EJ) effects of regulatory actions. [...] For the Draft Revised EJ Technical Guidance, EPA states, “[u]pdates to the technical guidance reflect advancements in the state of the science; other new peer-reviewed Agency guidance documents; and new priorities and direction related to the conduct of EJ analysis, including Executive Order 14096.”4 I. [...] According to the principle of diminishing marginal utility, each additional unit of consumption provides incrementally lesser benefits to the recipient, implying that one-dollar worth of consumption has a greater impact on the welfare of a poor person than it does on the welfare of a wealthy person. [...] According to the principle of diminishing marginal utility, each additional unit of consumption provides incrementally lesser benefits to the recipient, implying that one-dollar worth of consumption has a greater impact on the welfare of a poor person than it does on the welfare of a wealthy person.

Authors

Gaur, Vasundhara

Pages
6
Published in
United States of America

Table of Contents