EPA says that its new regulations will create 9,000 permanent jobs?

How is it possible that these regulations will on net create jobs? According to the clip, the EPA claims 9,000 permanent jobs, but assumes that no jobs will be lost. That should not be surprising since this is the same way that the Obama administration calculated jobs from the Stimulus. But other articles that I read say that the EPA is saying that this is a net increase in jobs. Hereis something written by a GWU professor:

Contrary to the EPA’s claim that the rule will provide particular benefits to children, the premature deaths the EPA says will be averted are modeled to accrue to people with an average age of 80 years, who would live weeks or months longer, if at all, as a result of the regulations. This modeling is also suspect, because the EPA assumes causality where none can be explained, and makes other assumptions that overstate effects.

Also disingenuous is the EPA’s claim that the “rule will provide employment for thousands, by supporting 31,000 short-term construction jobs and 9,000 long-term utility jobs.” First, this estimate quantifies only the jobs necessary to comply with the new rules, and ignores jobs lost, despite its recognition that “the industries that use electricity will face higher electricity prices as the result of the toxics rule, reduce output, and demand less labor.”

Second, a careful reading of the fine print reveals that even the employment effects the EPA claims are not different statistically from zero.

These new regulations will be among the most expensive regulations ever issued. The estimated $11 billion per year in costs will be borne by all Americans who will pay more for electricity and anything that uses it. Further, due to the EPA’s rosy assumptions and failure to consider how the requirements will make the electricity grid more susceptible to power outages, this cost may well be understated. . . .