
As The Byrd Bath Continues, Here's A Look At What Will Likely Be Out Of The Big Beautiful Bill
With less than a week remaining before U.S. Senators return to their home states for the summer, there is still work to do. The Senate has not yet passed a version of the 'One Big Beautiful Bill Act' (OBBBA), and once it does, it must precisely match the House-passed version to become law. Republicans in the Senate remain optimistic about their chances, but they first need to wait for the final word on what's allowed in the bill before voting. Elizabeth MacDonough, the Senate Parliamentarian, has been reviewing the hundreds of pages in the proposed bill and has already flagged several problematic provisions that would be prohibited under the Byrd Rule.
(You can find a summary of the House-passed version of OBBBA here.)
Some of those getting thumbs down were expected, but others—including efforts to transfer the Space Shuttle from the Smithsonian Air & Space Museum to a nonprofit in Houston, Texas—were a surprise. The sheer number of 'extras' found to be unrelated to the budget in the Senate bill (shared by the House) gives you a good idea of the scope of the bill and how very likely it is that members of Congress have not completely read it, as confirmed by several members of Congress, including Marjorie Taylor Green (R-Ga.) in the House.
The majority of provisions in the early stages that have been found to be in violation come from Sen. Tim Scott's (R-S.C.) Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, one of 20 Senate committees tasked with conducting Senate business related to specialized areas of legislative interest.
Those included attempts to eliminate funding for the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), which Senate Republicans claim would save nearly $6.4 billion. The CFPB was established as part of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, following the 2008 economic crisis, to protect American consumers from financial fraud and bad actors. Republicans now opposethe CFPB, calling it another example of government overregulation.
Another banking committee provision, one that would end the Treasury Department's Office of Financial Research (OFR), was also found to be in violation of the Byrd Rule. The creation of the OFR was also a result of the Dodd-Frank Act.
The move to change Federal Reserve employees to a new pay scale calculated at just 70% of the pay of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) employees shouldn't be allowed in the final version of the bill, according to MacDonough.
Finally, an effort to transfer the functions and duties of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB) to the Securities and Exchange Commission was also deemed inappropriate. The PCAOB was created by the Sarbanes–Oxley Act of 2002 to oversee the audits of U.S. public companies following the multi-billion-dollar accounting scandals at Enron and WorldCom.
(You can find out more about the Enron scandal and whistleblower Sherron Watkins here.) Environment
At least three provisions from Sen. Shelley Moore Capito's (R-W.V.) Committee on Environment and Public Works are in line to be stricken. Those include efforts to repeal authorizations for Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) programs (this is separate from the clawback of unobligated IRA funds, which would not be prohibited), the repeal of Environmental Protection Agency vehicle tailpipe emissions rules for new cars put into service after 2027, and an attempt to amend the National Environmental Policy Act to prevent judicial reviews of environmental assessment or environmental impact statements when a one-time fast-track fee is paid (the fee provision may stand, but barring judicial review may not). Military
Part of Roger F. Wicker's (R-Miss.) Armed Services Committee proposal would also have to be rewritten. As proposed, it would require the Defense Secretary to provide a plan explaining how previously approved funds would be spent, with quarterly updates, or face dramatic budget reductions of $100,000 per day—a move found to be in violation of the Byrd Rule. Judiciary
An effort to limit the power of the courts was also deemed out of order. The controversial language, which Rep. Mike Flood (R-Neb.) famously acknowledged he didn't know was in the bill when he voted for it, limits the ability of federal judges to hold government officials in contempt for flouting court rulings. Typically, if federal officials defy a court order, judges may hold them in contempt (that can look like fines, jail time, or other penalties to induce compliance), but as proposed, federal courts may not issue those contempt penalties against anyone who disobeys preliminary injunctions or temporary restraining orders if the party seeking the order did not post a monetary bond, or financial guarantee that would cover damages if a party is found to have been wrongfully enjoined. Since the federal government has far more resources than average citizens, this creates a potential hardship for those bringing actions, leaving judges with few options to demand compliance—and creating an imbalance of power.
A provision limiting grant funding for 'sanctuary cities,' and cities where the Attorney General disagrees with states' and localities' immigration enforcement was found to be out of scope, as was language in this section that gives state and local officials the authority to arrest any noncitizen suspected of being in the U.S. unlawfully.
Finally, a section that limits when the federal government can enter into or enforce settlement agreements that provide for payments to third parties was found to be subject to the Byrd Rule. Commerce, Science, and Transportation
A provision that appropriates $250 million to Coast Guard stations significantly damaged by fire in 2025 (referring to South Padre Island, Texas) was found to be in violation, as was an effort to transfer the Space Shuttle currently on display at the Smithsonian Air & Space Museum to a nonprofit in Houston, Texas. Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry
The Parliamentarian ruled that a requirement for states to cover part of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits, with a growing contribution as error rates increase, violated the Byrd Rule. SNAP, sometimes referred to as food stamps, provides food assistance to low-income families to help with their grocery costs. Another effort to regulate SNAP, including removing eligibility for immigrants who are not citizens or lawful permanent residents, was found to be inappropriate under the Byrd rule.
An extension of the suspension of permanent price support authority, which has traditionally been addressed in the Farm Bill, was found to be out of scope. The permanent price support authority dictates how the government supports the prices of certain agricultural commodities like corn, cotton, rice, and wheat, through loans, purchases, or other operations. A Surprise Save
A proposed 10-year ban on state-level artificial intelligence (AI) regulations was found not to be subject to the Byrd Rule. Under the rule, states that establish their own AI regulations would risk losing access to federal broadband funds—a step intended to pull the provision into compliance with the Byrd Rule. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.), who voted for the bill in the House, later said she never would have voted for the provision, posting on X (formerly Twitter), 'Full transparency, I did not know about this section on pages 278-279 of the OBBB that strips states of the right to make laws or regulate AI for 10 years. I am adamantly OPPOSED to this and it is a violation of state rights and I would have voted NO if I had known this was in there.' Why Does It Matter?
Since agreeing on a final budget can be slow, to speed things up, the Senate often jumps straight to a process called reconciliation. Reconciliation is especially beneficial when one party has the majority (more than 50 votes) but not a filibuster-proof majority (60 votes). The process can be complicated, but generally, under reconciliation, the goal is to combine spending and revenue provisions into a single bill.
Reconciliation bills are subject to special rules in the Senate. First, debate is limited to 20 hours, which can help a reconciliation bill get to a vote quickly. More importantly, the bill cannot be filibustered—the 60 votes necessary to stop a filibuster are not required.
Republicans currently hold the majority in the Senate, with 53 seats, compared to the Democrats' 47 seats, including two independents (Bernie Sanders of Vermont and Angus King of Maine) who caucus with the Democrats. The Byrd Rule
Thanks to the Byrd Rule, named after the late Senator Robert Byrd (D-WV), there are limits to reconciliation. For example, under the Byrd Rule, you can't tack on policy changes that are unrelated to the budget or have only 'incidental' effects on the budget. (Congress often tacks on extras to push potentially unpopular measures through on the coattails of government funding, but that's not allowed with reconciliation.)
Also notable, any bill under reconciliation cannot increase the deficit beyond the fiscal years covered—that's usually limited to 10 years (and why tax cuts rarely last forever). To avoid violating the Byrd rule, key provisions of reconciliation bills—typically tax cuts—are written to expire. That's why certain provisions in the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA)—like those lower income tax rates or the $10,000 limit on the deduction for state and local taxes (SALT)—will, unless they are renewed, 'sunset" at the end of 2025. They were passed originally with an expiration date—you can thank reconciliation and the Byrd Rule for that.
The Byrd rule would also apply if a reconciliation bill recommended a change in Social Security. The Parliamentarian and The Byrd Rule
Since the reconciliation rules can be tricky, the Parliamentarian is often called upon to determine what is—and isn't—allowed, especially when it comes to interpreting the Byrd Rule. If the Parliamentarian determines a provision in a bill violates the Byrd Rule, the provision must be removed from the bill unless the Senators vote to waive the rule—that requires 60 votes.
The presiding officer of the Senate (currently J.D. Vance, since the Vice President serves as the presiding Officer of the Senate) can overrule the Parliamentarian, though this is extremely rare. And simply ignoring the Parliamentarian has the potential to become a political landmine. Keep In Mind
It's important to note that these provisions aren't 'illegal'—they're violations of Senate rules. If the Senate opted out of reconciliation, the Byrd rule wouldn't apply, and the Senate would vote as it would on any other bill. It sounds like a simple solution, but there's one big problem: Republicans don't have enough votes to make that happen.
The Senate Republicans currently hold a slim majority, and at least four of their 53 senators, have publicly expressed concerns over parts of the bill (they include Rand Paul, Ron Johnson, Susan Collins, and Lisa Murkowski). And there's yet another complications: Changes forced by the Byrd rule could tip the balance of votes in the House—the original OBBBA passed with a squeaky close 215-214 vote.
(Some of these provisions, if removed, could still return as stand-alone votes and be subject to the 60-vote filibuster.) Still In Dispute
The Parliamentarian is still scrutinizing the bill, and more provisions are certain to get a look, including efforts to make Trump-era tax cuts permanent by relying on a 'current‑policy' baseline rather than current law, and provisions related to Medicaid. Check back as we continue to update this information accordingly. Forbes This Woman Could Block Some Controversial Parts Of Trump's Big Bill By Kelly Phillips Erb Forbes House Passes Trump Tax Bill After Marathon Session, Now It Moves To The Senate By Kelly Phillips Erb Forbes A Guide To The Tax Cuts In (And Out) Of Trump's 'Big, Beautiful Bill' By Kelly Phillips Erb Forbes House And Senate Propose Form 1099 Reporting Relief For Gig Workers And Those Who Use Payment Apps Like PayPal For Business By Kelly Phillips Erb
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Fast Company
a minute ago
- Fast Company
Delta just ushered in the era of the ‘lifestyle airline'
The days of flying just to move from point A to point B are over. Delta has just officially declared that we're entering the era of the 'lifestyle airline.' Nowadays, selecting a flight no longer means simply choosing an airline to fly with. It's a multistep process that involves navigating a sea of ancillary fees, wading through seating charts, and selecting add-ons like extra legroom. Cutting through that noise requires brands to go to extra lengths to draw in customers. For Delta, that means repositioning itself as not just a form of transport, but also a luxury, personalized experience. The brand just refreshed its core identity for the first time since 2008 to embody that shift. In collaboration with the design firm DixonBaxi, Delta is rolling out a refresh that includes new brand colors, motion elements, and typography to appear as 'more than just an airline,' according to Libby Tsoi, design director at DixonBaxi. Air travel gets a chaotic rebrand The landscape of air travel has been in a major state of flux over the past several years, as the top airline brands in the U.S. chase bigger bottom lines through an increasingly complex fee system. According to a Senate report released late last year, between 2018 and 2023, the airlines American, Delta, United, Spirit, and Frontier collectively raked in $12.4 billion in revenue from ancillary fees like advanced seat assignments and carry-on bags. In 2024 alone, Spirit Airlines moved further from its origins as a low-budget carrier by implementing a new seat class with extra add-ons, while Southwest abandoned its iconic 'bags fly free' and open seating policies altogether in favor of a tiered pricing system. This July, Delta announced that it has begun using AI to institute dynamic pricing based on factors like seat availability, current news, weather conditions, and even fluctuating oil prices. As brands continue to ratchet up their extra add-ons, they're starting to look more and more similar. That means the pressure to offer the next best perk or experience is mounting across the board. So far, Delta's answer to this conundrum has been to start branding its travel as a premium experience, rather than just a form of transportation. The brand is currently in the process of redesigning all of its planes' interiors for a more luxe feel, including by installing new seat fabrics, mood lighting, and a swanky color palette. For its most high-paying ticket holders, it's also begun rolling out a series of ultra-opulent airport lounges. In 2024, premium ticket offerings accounted for $5.2 billion out of Delta's total $15.6 billion revenue. Delta CEO Ed Bastian noted in the company's full-year earnings report that he expected consumers to increasingly seek 'the premium products and experiences that Delta provides.' One way the company is supporting that goal is by adopting a more 'premium' brand identity. Is this the beginning of the 'lifestyle airline' era? Delta's vision with this brand refresh was 'bold,' Tsoi says. The brand's end goal was 'to stand shoulder to shoulder with the world's most iconic lifestyle brands.' Lifestyle branding describes a kind of branding that expands a consumer's brand association beyond an actual product to a way of living, based on that brand's core values. It's become something of a buzzword across categories in recent months, with names like Tesla, Erewhon, and Sweetgreen all striving for 'lifestyle' status in some capacity. 'Even our earliest creative campfires weren't filled with aircraft, but with lifestyle imagery—people, moments, stories,' Tsoi says. 'This shift in mindset shaped everything: the tone, the aesthetic, the system. We brought an editorial sensibility to the visual language, framing Delta not just as a carrier of people, but as a curator of experience.' To that end, Delta's updated look has a significantly less corporate feel. The lifestyle photography has been pulled out of the airport or plane altogether, showing Delta passengers in bustling cities and mountain vistas. The brand's logo and wordmark remain physically unchanged, but DixonBaxi reimagined the classic Delta symbol as a 3D object, setting guidelines around how it can be used to bring motion into Delta's visual identity. Alongside the type foundry Pangram Pangram, DixonBaxi also developed two new bespoke typefaces: Delta Sans and Delta Serif. Delta Serif, which features sculpted terminals 'drawn directly from the angled geometry of the Delta icon,' can be used in a thin weight that will eventually lend an artsier feel to Delta's website, boarding passes, and ad campaigns. And, while red and blue will remain core Delta colors, the full palette has been expanded to include more emotive accent hues like sky blue, mint green, and neon pink. The new look began rolling out on Delta's social channels over the past few weeks, and will eventually evolve to encompass lounges, in-flight design, and out-of-home ad campaigns. Tsoi emphasizes that the effort to reimagine Delta's branding has only just gotten underway, and fans can expect further updates in the coming months. Given Delta's status as a leading player in the industry, it wouldn't be a surprise if its move to become a 'lifestyle airline' sets a new tone for how other airlines begin brand their own flight experiences.


Associated Press
3 minutes ago
- Associated Press
Owens & Minor Reports Second Quarter 2025 Financial Results
RICHMOND, Va.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Aug 11, 2025-- Owens & Minor, Inc. (NYSE: OMI) today reported financial results for the second quarter ended June 30, 2025. In connection with a likely sale of the Company's Products & Healthcare Services segment, the results herein, unless otherwise noted, reflect the Company's continuing operations which primarily represent what was previously the Patient Direct segment and certain functional operations. 'We are in the final stages of our robust process for the divestiture of the Products & Healthcare Services segment, and, as a result, have classified this segment as discontinued operations. We are looking forward to concluding the sale of the business and working with a buyer who has the vision and greater flexibility to better support our customers and long-term growth,' said Ed Pesicka, Owens & Minor's Chief Executive Officer. Mr. Pesicka concluded, 'I am excited about the opportunities ahead as we transition into a focused, pure-play Patient Direct business. Building on the momentum gained since we entered the Patient Direct space eight years ago, and supported by favorable demographic trends and meaningful scale, we are confident in our ability to lead as the market continues to evolve.' 2025 Continuing Operations Financial Outlook The Company will provide its 2025 financial outlook for continuing operations during its earnings conference call this morning at 8:30 a.m. EDT. Investor Conference Call for Second Quarter 2025 Financial Results Owens & Minor will host a conference call for investors and analysts on Monday, August 11, 2025, at 8:30 a.m. EDT. Participants may access the call via the toll-free dial-in number at 1-888-300-2035, or the toll dial-in number at 1-646-517-7437. The conference ID access code is 1058917. All interested stakeholders are encouraged to access the simultaneous live webcast by visiting the Investor Relations page of the Owens & Minor website available at A replay of the webcast can be accessed following the presentation at the link provided above. Safe Harbor This release is intended to be disclosure through methods reasonably designed to provide broad, non-exclusionary distribution to the public in compliance with the SEC's Fair Disclosure Regulation. This release contains certain 'forward looking' statements made pursuant to the Safe Harbor provisions of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. These statements include, but are not limited to, the statements in this release regarding our future prospects and performance, including our expectations with respect to our financial performance, our 2025 financial results, Owens & Minor's ability to successfully complete the sale of the P&HS business in any specific transaction on favorable terms or at all, our cost saving initiatives, future indebtedness and growth, industry trends, as well as statements related to our expectations regarding the performance of our business, including our ability to address macro and market conditions. Forward-looking statements involve known and unknown risks and uncertainties that may cause our actual results in future periods to differ materially from those projected or contemplated in the forward-looking statements. Investors should refer to Owens & Minor's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2024, filed with the SEC on February 28, 2025, including the section captioned 'Item 1A. Risk Factors,' as applicable, and subsequent quarterly reports on Form 10-Q and current reports on Form 8-K filed with or furnished to the SEC, for a discussion of certain known risk factors that could cause the Company's actual results to differ materially from its current estimates. These filings are available at Given these risks and uncertainties, Owens & Minor can give no assurance that any forward-looking statements will, in fact, transpire and, therefore, cautions investors not to place undue reliance on them. Owens & Minor specifically disclaims any obligation to update or revise any forward-looking statements, whether as a result of new information, future developments or otherwise. About Owens & Minor Owens & Minor, Inc. (NYSE: OMI) is a Fortune 500 global healthcare solutions company providing essential products and services that support care from the hospital to the home. For over 100 years, Owens & Minor and its affiliated brands, Apria®, Byram® and HALYARD*, have helped to make each day better for the patients, providers, and communities we serve. Powered by more than 20,000 teammates worldwide, Owens & Minor delivers comfort and confidence behind the scenes so healthcare stays at the forefront. Owens & Minor exists because every day, everywhere, Life Takes Care™. For more information about Owens & Minor and our affiliated brands, visit or follow us on LinkedIn and Instagram. * Registered Trademark or Trademark of O&M Halyard or its affiliates. Share-based awards for the three months ended June 30, 2025 and 2024 of approximately 2.5 million and 1.6 million shares were excluded from the calculation of diluted loss per common share as the effect would be anti-dilutive. Share-based awards for the six months ended June 30, 2025 and 2024 of approximately 2.2 million and 1.6 million shares were excluded from the calculation of diluted loss per common share as the effect would be anti-dilutive. The following table provides a reconciliation of reported operating (loss) income, net loss from continuing operations, net of tax and net loss from continuing operations per share to non-GAAP measures used by management. The following tables provide reconciliations of net loss from continuing operations, net of tax and total debt to non-GAAP measures used by management. The following tables provide reconciliations of capital expenditures to a non-GAAP measure used by management. Use of Non-GAAP Measures This earnings release contains financial measures that are not calculated in accordance with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP). In general, the measures exclude items and charges that (i) management does not believe reflect Owens & Minor, Inc.'s (the Company) core business and relate more to strategic, multi-year corporate activities; or (ii) relate to activities or actions that may have occurred over multiple or in prior periods without predictable trends. Management uses these non-GAAP financial measures internally to evaluate the Company's performance, evaluate the balance sheet, engage in financial and operational planning and determine incentive compensation. Management provides these non-GAAP financial measures to investors as supplemental metrics to assist readers in assessing the effects of items and events on its financial and operating results and in comparing the Company's performance to that of its competitors. However, the non-GAAP financial measures used by the Company may be calculated differently from, and therefore may not be comparable to, similarly titled measures used by other companies. The non-GAAP financial measures disclosed by the Company should not be considered substitutes for, or superior to, financial measures calculated in accordance with GAAP, and the financial results calculated in accordance with GAAP and reconciliations to those financial statements set forth above should be carefully evaluated. OMI-CORP OMI-IR SOURCE: Owens & Minor, Inc. View source version on CONTACT: Investors Alpha IR Group Jackie Marcus or Nick Teves [email protected] Leon Executive Vice President & Chief Financial Officer [email protected] Stacy Law [email protected] KEYWORD: UNITED STATES NORTH AMERICA VIRGINIA INDUSTRY KEYWORD: MEDICAL SUPPLIES MEDICAL DEVICES HEALTH HOSPITALS SURGERY MANAGED CARE SOURCE: Owens & Minor, Inc. Copyright Business Wire 2025. PUB: 08/11/2025 06:30 AM/DISC: 08/11/2025 06:29 AM


Forbes
3 minutes ago
- Forbes
The Behavioral Economics Battle Lurking In EPA's Endangerment Finding Repeal
The EPA's 2009 Endangerment Finding was the agency's formal determination that greenhouse gases endanger public health and welfare. Ever since, it has served as the legal foundation for EPA climate regulations. Without this finding, EPA lacks Clean Air Act authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. The Trump administration's EPA has now proposed to repeal the Endangerment Finding, along with the agency's greenhouse gas standards for light, medium, and heavy-duty vehicles that depend on it. In the agency's announcement, EPA justifies the repeal by citing the severe economic burdens of its existing rules, including over $1 trillion in compliance costs. As the agency moves to dismantle the Endangerment Finding, another battleground has opened up that has received less attention. That fight is about whether regulators should trust consumers' preferences or instead attempt to 'correct' them. The outcome of this debate could swing the measured benefits of climate rules by trillions of dollars. The Role of Regulatory Impact Analysis Because repealing the Endangerment Finding would also remove the legal basis for existing greenhouse gas standards for cars and trucks, EPA is required under longstanding executive orders to analyze the economic effects of that policy change. This requires the agency to tally the costs avoided and the benefits forgone from the action. To comply with these requirements, agencies prepare a regulatory impact analysis (RIA) whenever a rule or policy change is expected to have an annual economic effect of $100 million or more. RIA is a framework for identifying the expected consequences of a regulation, quantifying them where possible, and monetizing them when the data and methods allow. In the case of the Endangerment Finding repeal, that means examining how vehicle technology, fuel use, air pollution, and consumer welfare would differ with and without the greenhouse gas standards, and then converting any differences into dollar terms. In its draft RIA for the repeal action, EPA's core engineering-model estimate finds the repeal would yield net costs of roughly $260 billion (at a 3% discount rate, over the years 2027 to 2055). This traditional government approach counts fuel savings as a benefit to consumers, making the repeal appear costly since those savings would be lost. However, Appendix B of the RIA includes an alternative 'revealed preference' analysis that estimates net benefits of the repeal ranging from $3.05 trillion to $8.18 trillion. This set of estimates assumes that if consumers aren't voluntarily choosing more fuel-efficient vehicles, then forcing them to do so through regulations actually harms them. Any estimated savings, in that case, were pure fiction. By extension, so were many of the benefits of regulation. The Assumption of Revealed Preference Cost-benefit analysis aims to tally up the monetized social gains and losses from a policy. An economist adds up the 'private benefits' to particular individuals to arrive at a cumulative "social benefit" estimate for society as a whole. 'Revealed preference' is a concept central to this endeavor. By examining what people buy and how much they are willing to pay for different items and features, economists can estimate dollar values for different types of benefits and costs. This approach assumes that the observed willingness to pay of an individual reflects the value of a benefit to that person. This method has a major advantage in that it respects people's choices and doesn't involve analysts judging whether people's choices are good or bad; they merely accept that the choice made was what the individual preferred. The downside of this approach is that people don't always make decisions that accord with their own interests, or that of society. Fuel Savings Violate Revealed Preference For years, agencies writing fuel economy and energy efficiency rules have counted fuel and energy savings as a benefit of those rulemakings. When a consumer buys a more fuel-efficient car or appliance, they save money on gas or their utility bill. The government counts that as a significant benefit of a regulatory action phasing out less-efficient devices. This approach is valid if consumers genuinely underappreciate those savings when they buy a car or appliance. But if they already weigh fuel economy and energy efficiency against other attributes of a product before making a purchase, the savings are not a windfall benefit of the rulemaking. They're the flip side of losing other features the consumers value more. Appendix B of EPA's regulatory analysis relies on exactly that logic. If a consumer picks a gas-powered truck knowing it'll burn more fuel, they've made a trade they prefer. Forcing them into an EV to 'save' fuel costs is a net loss to them. Yet for many years, the government has treated this as a benefit. Behavioral Economics and the "Energy Efficiency Gap" Economists use the term 'energy efficiency gap' to describe the puzzling difference between the level of energy efficiency that appears cost-effective in theory and the lower level people actually choose in real life. For example, engineering calculations might show that spending $1,000 on better insulation, more efficient appliances, or a higher-MPG vehicle would pay for itself in a few years through lower utility or fuel bills. Yet, many consumers routinely forgo those investments. What explains the gap? One interpretation is that buyers are making biased, short-sighted decisions. This is the classic territory of "behavioral economics," a field focused on how real-world decisions often deviate from the assumptions of rational, optimizing behavior found in economists' models. Cognitive biases like hyperbolic discounting (placing too much weight on present rewards relative to future ones) or inattention (failing to notice or process fuel cost information) could lead people to under-invest in efficiency and leave money on the table. This perspective justifies counting the full value of 'missed' fuel savings as a regulatory benefit to the consumer, because the regulation is correcting their mistake. But there's another possibility, which is that the gap isn't a sign of bias at all, but instead a reflection of genuine trade-offs. A consumer might choose the lower-MPG car because they care more about acceleration, cargo space, style, or any number of attributes that are not captured in the fuel-savings calculations. An analyst who misinterprets the gap as a bias, when in fact the choice was based on a rational calculation, could force consumers into a less-preferred option and make them worse off. What's at Stake Separating bias from legitimate preferences is exceedingly difficult, and some would argue impossible. From the outside, the decision looks the same whether it's the product of error or preference. If we can't reliably distinguish between bias and preference, then the case for 'correcting' consumer choices becomes more about paternalism than empiricism. The stakes in this debate go beyond the Endangerment Finding. In many energy-efficiency rulemakings, 80 to 90 percent of the total monetized benefits come from the government's calculations of consumers' avoided energy costs. Environmental benefits to Americans are often in the low single-digit percentages. This means the overwhelming majority of the official benefit calculation hinges on the assumption that regulators can improve consumer welfare by steering people toward more efficient—and more expensive—products, even when buyers themselves would freely choose otherwise if left to decide on their own. This leaves economists in a quandary. Do they assume that observed market behavior is the best available measure of welfare, even if it sometimes reflects mistakes? Or do they override those choices based on models of what they think people should want if they made careful choices using all the available information? Or do they seek a middle ground, acknowledging that their models are often accurate but may also ignore important context-specific trade-offs? The answer to these questions determines whether a regulation's calculated benefits can be trusted. Private vs. Social Benefits Another complication relates to the difference between private and social benefits. Even when consumers make perfectly rational choices, what is in the interests of an individual doesn't always benefit society as a whole. When one person's gain imposes external costs on others, this can reduce, or even reverse, the net benefit for society. One obvious group affected by our purchasing decisions is future generations. It is easy to imagine future people might prefer that today's consumers forgo some luxuries in favor of greater savings and investment, which would improve living standards in the long run. But those intergenerational considerations are typically not reflected in market prices or, similarly, in economists' measures of revealed preference. In the context of energy and fuel economy, a dollar saved at the pump can be invested elsewhere in the economy, compounding to boost growth and future welfare. The enjoyment from a car feature like more horsepower or a panoramic sunroof can't be reinvested in the same way. So while a consumer may be better off paying more for those amenities, future generations probably will not be. From society's perspective, fuel and energy savings likely do represent social benefits for this reason, even when they don't compensate for their drawbacks from an individual's standpoint. A Rulemaking Worth Watching EPA's Endangerment Finding RIA pushes this debate forward by putting the revealed preference framework front-and-center, challenging the government's conventional inclusion of full lifetime fuel savings as a benefit. Whether that approach gains traction will matter well beyond this rulemaking. It's a core issue for how government evaluates climate and energy efficiency regulations generally. And it's another reason to watch closely how this already-high-stakes rulemaking unfolds.