So, we don't know the cost benefit analysis of a $425,000,000 expense.  All we have is the EPA says it is so.  We are back to how much someone "believes" the EPA, which is why it is important to include "says the EPA" in the article.

The EPA is a bloated, bureaucratic mess that just loves to make itself "relevant" by passing nonsense regulations and imposing fines.  Of course, we, as consumers, end up paying for these regulatory costs.  I'm kind of an environmentalist, but I also like to see good value for public policy decisions.  Many EPA decisions fail in providing good value for society.