A New York Times article (Sept 5, 2011) describes the current debate in Washington between the Federal government’s planned pollution reduction regulation and purported industry impact. Some E.P.A. studies show that regulations such as the Clean Air Act have been a modest job creator as a result of technology spending for compliance. But three factors seem to be a cause for worry for industry – (a) Even if the long term gains to health and housing are significant, is the timing of the regulation, during a recession, correct ? (b) given competing possible regulatory choices, the uncertainty of the final regulation creates incentives for industry to put off capital investments that might spur growth and (c) Once a regulation is on the books, it remains unexamined for its net impact.  Should US environmental laws be examined for their role in maintaining US Industry competitiveness ? Should pollution regulation be justified on the basis of impact across the US society i.e., counting health and housing benefits against possible industry costs ? Is there a correct timing for pollution regulation enactment ?