OP is here trying to point out that we're only told of the benefits of this proposal, not the costs. Which gives a one sided view of the issue. This is not be

OP is here trying to point out that we're only told of the benefits of this proposal, not the costs. Which gives a one sided view of the issue. This is not because there are no costs, but because the EPA doesn't want to talk about that, and the reporter can't and/or won't do the work to figure it out.