Even for the least essential choices we make in our daily lives, such as what we should have for dinner, we consider the pros and cons.

Yet, the Environmental Protection Agency doesn’t consider the downside of arguably the most consequential type of regulation in American history: greenhouse gas regulation.

In Massachusetts v. EPA, the Supreme Court in 2007 told the EPA to regulate greenhouse gases if it found that their emissions cause or contribute to air pollution that may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare. Based on the Clean Air Act, this requirement is referred to as the endangerment finding.

The EPA interpreted this to mean the agency is prohibited from considering the harm of regulating greenhouse gas emissions.

However, what if greenhouse gas regulations cause more harm than good? That wouldn’t matter. When deciding whether to regulate greenhouse gases, the EPA has concluded that it is required to turn a blind eye to the harm.

So, if the regulations would devastate the economy, hurt the livelihood of low-income populations, or increase prices, none of that can affect the decision to regulate greenhouse gas emissions.

It is true that once the decision to regulate has been made, the agency can expressly consider costs, to some extent, in how it will regulate. This isn’t much comfort because once the decision to regulate greenhouse gas emissions has been made, much of the damage has already been done.

The EPA has given itself unprecedented bureaucratic power by concluding that it is required to regulate greenhouse gases. About 84% of U.S. energy use comes from fossil fuels, which produce greenhouse gas emissions. Practically, every aspect of our economy relies on fossil fuels in some fashion. Therefore, by regulating greenhouse gas emissions, the EPA can reshape entire industries, the economy and our way of life.

The EPA is taking advantage of this power. In addition to finalizing a rule to dictate how we produce electricity, the agency recently finalized its de facto electric vehicle mandate. By the agency’s estimate, the cost of this rule is $760 billion.

Congress should ensure that whenever the EPA decides whether to regulate, it should consider the adverse effects of doing so. This should hardly be controversial.

The Trump administration may be evaluating whether the EPA is already allowed to consider the adverse effects of regulating greenhouse gases. It is hoped the agency can do so. However, it is far from clear that it can, and past interpretation of the law would suggest otherwise.

Policy choices of such magnitude should be made by Congress in the first place and not the EPA or any other agency. However, if the EPA decides whether to regulate greenhouse gases, the agency should make that decision the same way Congress would make it.

If a policy choice could undermine the well-being of Americans, then we shouldn’t require ourselves to bury our heads in the sand and pretend there are no downsides to the option.

Daren Bakst is the director of the Center for Energy and Environment and senior fellow with the Competitive Enterprise Institute.