What Are the True Costs of Regulation?

The effect of government regulation on American manufacturing has been a hotly debated issue since the introduction of federal clean air and water guidelines about 40 years ago. Here we look at what manufacturing trade groups consider the real economic impact of regulations on U.S. manufacturers and consumers.

A recent study from NDP Consulting assesses the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) cost-benefit analyses for six of its proposed regulations and attempts to provide hard numbers for the long-term financial costs of these measures. The study examines the EPA’s final Utility MACT and Boiler MACT rules, the proposed Coal Combustion Residuals and Cooling Water Intake Structures regulations, the expected Cross-State Air Pollution Rule and the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone.

According to NDP, in the worst-case scenario, the regulatory burden could cut annual U.S. output by as much as $630 billion and 4.2 percent of gross domestic product (GDP). The EPA counters with lower estimates, while balancing the cost of regulations with the value of the benefits achieved. The EPA has estimated the value of the benefits arising from the Clean Air Act, such as health effects and visibility improvements, at almost $2 trillion.

The National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) claims that annual compliance costs for all six regulations range from $36 billion to $111.2 billion (by EPA estimates) and from $63.2 billion to $138.2 billion (by industry estimates), with total capital expenditures for all six regulations ranging from $174.6 billion to $539.3 billion (by EPA estimates) and from $404.5 billion to $884.5 billion (by industry estimates).

Manufacturing groups often have a negative view of increased regulation. NAM President and CEO Jay Timmons said that over the past 30 years, “more than 2,000 regulations have been imposed on manufacturers. It is already 20 percent more expensive to manufacture in the United States compared to our largest trading partners.”

And if it seems as if there is more red tape and regulations to cope with, you may be right. “The average number of major federal regulations – those expected to have an economic impact in excess of $100 million – has risen with each recent administration,” the Washington Post notes. “Under President Bill Clinton it was 27 per year. The number rose to 35 under George W. Bush and stands at 44 per year between 2009 and 2011 under President Obama.”

A 2012 study from the Manufacturers Alliance for Productivity and Innovation (MAPI) on the impact of federal regulations on the manufacturing sector found that since 1998, regulatory costs have exceeded manufacturing growth by an annualized rate of 7.6 percent, while the Obama administration has instituted 106 new major industrial regulations that have cost Americans approximately $46 billion.

The study zeroes in on the effect new regulations would have on the cost of manufacturing. Most of the EPA’s six proposed rules affect electricity generation, and the manufacturing sector uses 28 percent of all the electricity produced in the U.S. “One immediate and incontrovertible impact of these new regulations would be an increase in electricity prices,” the study finds.

As a result, consumers would see prices of manufactured goods rise as the cost of production increases. “The cumulative impact of the proposed regulations will increase the price of electricity 6.6 percent annually,” leading to less competitive products, lower sales, and job cuts among U.S. manufacturers. In the short-term, utilities would incur costs of up to $142 billion to comply with only three of the dozens of EPA rules.

The original Clean Air and Clean Water acts were passed in the early 1970s, and most analysts agree that they’ve done a great deal to improve or slow the deterioration of local environments. And while the EPA’s assessment that the Clean Air Act alone has generated $2 trillion in savings since its inception, the direct benefits of future regulations remain murkier.

The question now is whether the regulatory system has reached a point of diminishing returns, and if additional measures will or can provide the type of widespread beneficial effects that would justify their cost. In other words, there’s a clear imperative to ensure water reserves are clean and safe, but it may not be cost-effective to implement billion-dollar measures to improve water purity by a fraction of a percent.

What’s your company’s perspective on industrial regulations? Share your experiences in the comments section below.



Email  | Print  | Post Comment  | Follow Discussion  | Recommend  |  Recommended (0)

some_text   Tagged With: , , , , , , , , , ,
  • Frank Pierce, P.E.
    February 26, 2013

    As an Agricultural Engineer, I deal with regulations that often do not have a sound technological basis. Also, In the study of the History of societal collapse, there are three basic causes.
    1) Invasion from the outside or other societal enemies.
    2) Internal power control fighting
    3) Increasing regulatory complexity and control. This is what we are facing in our Ag production and food production.

    • csaba farkas
      February 27, 2013

      Frank all totalitarian governments do this at tremendous cost to their people. See the death toll in the Ukraine under Joseph Vissarionovich AKA Stalin and his right hand man Khrushchev. (10 million dead mostly starved.) Or later the “Great Leap Forward” by 毛澤東 AKA Mao Zedong. (45 million dead also starved to death.) Both of these famines bought on by federal government regulations unintentionally. In both cases the federal government was using federal regulations to “help” the nation to increase its food production. I think if we try hard enough we can do just as well if not better. Not necessarily starving US citizens but nations that are dependent on buying their food on the international market. We already cause great damage by converting some of our food production to fuel. (Soya bean converted to diesel and corn to ethanol.) Note this is mandated by the federal government.

  • Steven Dodson
    February 26, 2013

    I grew up in Southern California in the 60′s and 70′s and the air is cleaner there today than it was when I was a kid. I don’t beleived this happened magically. If it was not for the EPA and stricter regulations on manufacutring, cars, etc… Southern Cal would be knee deep in pollution today. If it weren’t for the EPA and strict environmental regs, what would the costs be if we had to treat 10x more cancer and emphazema patients and to distill all the poisoned water to drink? Companies won’t take care of the environment on their own free will, this has already been established. Yes, regs are a bother. But in the end we are all better off for most of them. However, some regs are set up but the corporations themselves to block competition, while others are just politically based. Those don’t do us any favors.

    • Tom W.
      February 28, 2013

      I agree that in the early years of the EPA, they did some wonderful work. Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act were terrific, and did much to make air and water so much better. No more fires on the Cuyahoga River, no more beach shutdowns on Lake Erie… GREAT! The problem is that now that all the low-hanging fruit is gone, they still feel they must create more regulations to justify their existence. Regulate dust from farming? Are you SERIOUS??? Just one of many. They need to be regulated themselves to make sure that they don’t do more harm than good with new regs. Each needs to be examined by unbiased evaluators before implementation. EPA has TOO MUCH POWER due to insufficient oversight rules in their enabling legislation. That law has to be modified, or we won’t be able to go to the bathroom in the morning without a 3-page form filled out.

      • Johann
        February 28, 2013

        If the EPA had *ENOUGH* power, the XL carbon bomb project would be dead.

        Regarding dust from farming, please go buy a nice Woodie Guthrie album, then review “The Dust Bowl” (historical event) – then consider whether your comment was particularly wise, or perhaps more a manifestation of Faux Noise propaganda.

Leave a Comment:

Your Comment:


[ Different Image ]

Press Releases
Home  |  My ThomasNet News®  |  Industry Market Trends®  |  Submit Release  |  Advertise  |  Contact News  |  About Us
Brought to you by Thomasnet.com        Browse ThomasNet Directory

Copyright© 2014 Thomas Publishing Company. All Rights Reserved.
Terms of Use - Privacy Policy

Thank you for commenting close

Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blog owner.
Error close

Please enter a valid email address