Are they taking into account what many of those regulations will save? For example, they say regulations of lead in drinking water cost $43 billion. That regul

Are they taking into account what many of those regulations will save? For example, they say regulations of lead in drinking water cost $43 billion. That regulation required water systems to replace lead pipes over the next 10 years. So...about $4 billion/year for 10 years. Various studies put the economic damage in the US due to lead pipes in water systems at about $50 billion per year so this regulation looks like a net win. Around $1.1 trillion of their claimed $1.8 trillion is from increased fuel efficiency and decreased emissions requirements for cars and trucks. US economic loses due to air pollution range from around $500 billion to $1 trillion per year. Even a modest reduction in air pollution will save a lot (and increase fuel efficiency can save consumers quit a bit of money), so it seems likely that over 10-20 years these regulations would be a net win. A study in 2011 that analyzed the Clean Air Act found that every $1 spent on air pollution control results in about $30 of economic benefits. Other things in their lists are PFAS drinking water regulation, and Medicare and Medicaid improvements to long term care facilities and children's health. These two are things that I would expect to have some long term benefit that really should be taken into account.