The hard truth is that net benefit is a useless metric. "On average everyone is better off" doesn't mean anything to the person who drew the short straw. And even if you think someone 'benefited' from regulation it's meaningless if it's intangible.
If you say that your environmental regulation actually made people healthier then you'd better be able to point to the dropping health insurance rates.
If you say that your new traffic laws make driving safer then you better be able to point to the dropping car insurance rates.
If you say that your 'right to repair' bill made goods cheaper then you better have data that says that the lifetime cost of ownership of electronics is significantly lower and that the preowned/refurbished market is thriving.
==If you say that your environmental regulation actually made people healthier then you'd better be able to point to the dropping health insurance rates.==
Of course the rest of the world doesn't exist in a vacuum, which makes a simple cause->effect relationships hard. In the real world environmental regulations can be making the air cleaner while at the same time an opioid epidemic rages. If opioid costs outweigh air quality savings we won't see "dropping health insurance rates", but it also doesn't mean that no value exists to better air quality. The reverse of your question is: Would health care costs be the same in the absence of air quality regulations?
If you say that your environmental regulation actually made people healthier then you'd better be able to point to the dropping health insurance rates.
If you say that your new traffic laws make driving safer then you better be able to point to the dropping car insurance rates.
If you say that your 'right to repair' bill made goods cheaper then you better have data that says that the lifetime cost of ownership of electronics is significantly lower and that the preowned/refurbished market is thriving.