As the lurker and occasional non-economist guest, I'll jump in here.  Maybe emboldened by having had dinner with a B-school economics professor the other night!

I've been doing just a bit of reading on regulatory economics, particularly environmental regulation. The sense I'm getting (or taking) is that an avoided cost is really a class of benefit.  It would be on the plus rather than the minus side of a "cost benefit analysis" or discounted cash flow.  Is that correct?  So following from that assumption, to the extent a cost is avoided, the cost side of the equation is lower and the benefits side higher... or at least the net of the two is higher even if benefits are even.

I'm not clear, Adam, that all costs are avoidable long term. Unless we are willing to accept only those benefits that require no investment, effort, control, entrepreneurial improvement or maneuver... all the labels we put on the "expense," "outgoings," "expenditure," "investment" side of the economic ledger.  

Thanks all for dealing with the amateur!

Scott Cullen