News release: “Three recently published studies discuss the relationship between regulations and economic development. One study focuses on the job-creation potential of an individual environmental rule, and another touts the economic benefits of clean energy investments. The third study debunks a widely quoted but inaccurate report on the economic costs of regulations. All three reinforce an argument that public interest advocates have made for decades: government standards and public investments in clean energy protect health and safety and encourage job creation.

• A study published July 14, Why EPA’s Mercury and Air Toxics Rule is Good for the Economy and America’s Workforce, describes the economic benefits of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) proposed air toxics rule.
• A second report, from the Union of Concerned Scientists, takes a close look at the economic impacts of clean energy investments in the Midwest. Entitled A Bright Future for the Heartland: Powering the Midwest Economy with Clean Energy, the July 19 report finds that if Midwest states invest in a clean energy strategy produced in 2009 by the Midwestern Governors Association (MGA), it could save the average household $78 per year on electricity and natural gas bills, create 85,700 new jobs in the region, and bring $1 billion in new income to farmers and clean energy companies.
• Also on July 19, EPI released a critique of a controversial study by Nicole and Mark Crain, which was commissioned by the Small Business Administration’s (SBA) Office of Advocacy in 2010. Corporate interests and their allies in Congress have been incessantly repeating the Crains’ faulty conclusion that regulations cost the U.S. economy $1.75 trillion per year.”