Major federal rules, especially those issued by the U.S. EPA, produce annual benefits that far outweigh the costs they impose, according to a White House study that undercuts congressional Republicans' attacks on both the agency and the Obama administration's nominee to lead it.

The Office of Management and Budget's "2013 Draft Report to Congress on the Benefits and Costs of Federal Regulations" weighed the impacts of the 536 rules issued between fiscal year 2003 and fiscal year 2012 that were anticipated to have an impact of at least $100 million a year. The 16th edition of the report was quietly released April 18, an OMB official confirmed.

The White House number crunchers found that a decade's worth of major federal rules had produced annual benefits to the U.S. economy of between $193 billion and $800 billion and impose aggregate costs of $57 billion to $84 billion. "These ranges are reported in 2001 dollars and reflect the uncertain benefits and costs of each rule," the report noted.

Rules from the EPA added significantly to both sides of the ledger. "It should be clear that the rules with the highest benefits and the highest costs, by far, come from the Environmental Protection Agency and in particular its Office of Air and Radiation," the OMB study said. EPA regulations accounted for between 58% and 80% of the benefits the study found as well as 44% to 54% of the costs. Air regulations accounted for nearly 99% of EPA rule benefits, according to the report.

GOP opposes EPA rules, administrator nominee

Nevertheless, Republicans have been slamming the agency's emissions regulations for years. The EPA "has been pursuing an aggressive anti-economic growth agenda by attempting to impose radical environmental policies via regulations under the Clean Air Act," House Republicans wrote about the EPA's Mercury and Air Toxics Standards for utilities, or MATS, in April 2012. That rule has set new hazardous air pollutant emissions limits for coal- and oil-fired power plants, as well as new source performance standards for electric generating units for particulate matter, sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides.

The White House report suggests that Republicans' criticism of MATS in particular is unwarranted. While its estimated $8.1 billion annual cost is the most expensive of the EPA rules OMB reviewed, it also has some of the highest potential benefits: $28 billion per year to $77 billion per year.

The OMB study also closely examines the 14 major rules issued in fiscal year 2012. Of the $53.2 billion to $114.6 billion in benefits the rules are projected to produce, the vast majority of upside comes from just two rules: MATS and the vehicle fuel efficiency standards, issued jointly by the EPA and the U.S. Department of Transportation.

One of the main reasons Republicans oppose President Barack Obama's pick to lead the EPA — Gina McCarthy, the current assistant administrator for the Office of Air and Radiation — is because of the central role she has played in issuing many of these regulations.

At McCarthy's April 11 confirmation hearing, she specifically defended MATS and air pollution rules for the oil and gas sector. Republicans at the hearing, however, focused mostly on a perceived lack of transparency at the agency.

Senate Republicans are attempting to slow down McCarthy's confirmation by continuing to raise concerns about responses to their transparency questions. As a result, Sen. David Vitter, R-La., the ranking member on the Environment and Public Works Committee, sent a letter to Chairman Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., on April 25 asking to postpone a vote on McCarthy's nomination, which she had said could happen as soon as May 8. Boxer's office did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the letter or timing of the vote.

Republicans have a point about growing costs

The OMB report does, however, lend some support for the "regulatory onslaught" that Vitter and other Republicans have alleged under the Obama administration. Major rules issued during Obama's first term cost more, $27.8 billion to $46.3 billion, than those issued during the first term of the George W. Bush administration, $5.1 billion to $9.4 billion, or the Clinton administration, $8.4 billion to $9.5 billion.

But the estimated benefits of rules issued during initial Obama administration far outweigh those from the first terms of Bush or Clinton. The total net benefits of those regulations are $159 billion during the first term of the Obama administration, compared to $40.2 billion for Bush and $18.7 billion for Clinton, according to the study.

The OMB acknowledges that the study has some shortcomings. Because its "estimates exclude non-major rules and rules adopted more than ten years ago, the total benefits and costs of all federal rules now in effect are likely to be significantly larger" than the hundreds of billions to tens of billions ranges it found, the report said.

The study's headline figures also do not include the impact of rules issues by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission and the SEC. Because those are independent regulatory agencies whose regulations are not subject to OMB review, the report did not take into account the 21 major final rules they issued in fiscal year 2012. Both agencies have been targets of GOP ire, as well.