the reagan revolution & environmental policy

30
The Reagan Revolutio n & Environmental Policy

Upload: paige

Post on 14-Jan-2016

28 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

DESCRIPTION

The Reagan Revolution & Environmental Policy. Administration Orientation. “Prometheans” Natural resources exist for human exploitation Man’s destiny is to conquer nature Environmental Regulation Stifles the economy Violates property rights - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: The Reagan Revolution & Environmental Policy

The Reagan Revolution ampEnvironmental Policy

Administration Orientation ldquoPrometheansrdquo

Natural resources exist for human exploitation Manrsquos destiny is to conquer nature

Environmental Regulation Stifles the economy Violates property rights

Environmentalism is an anti-capitalism anti-business ideology

Economic Growth and Development takes Precedent over Environmental preservation

Environmental Policy Impact ofPolitical Appointees

EPA Operating Budget 1975-1998

Bil

lio

ns

of

$ (1

997)

Nixon(1975)

Carter(1980)

Reagan(1985)

Bush(1990)

Clinton(1995)

Clinton(1998)

Budget Authority

EPA Personnel 1973-1998

Nixon(1975)

Carter(1980)

Reagan(1985)

Bush(1990)

Clinton(1995)

Clinton(1998)

Em

plo

yees

Superfund

Federal Environmental Laws Passed(including amendments)

Num

ber

Pas

sed

Federal Environmental Laws Passed(including amendments)

Tot

al N

umbe

r

DOI Operating Budget 1975-1998

Nixon(1975)

Carter(1980)

Reagan(1985)

Bush(1990)

Clinton(1995)

Clinton(1998)

Budget Authority

Bil

lio

ns

of

$ (1

997)

Amendments to Environmental Laws

Nuclear Waste Policy Act (1982)

RCRA (1984)

TSCA (1986)

SARA (1986)

Safe Drinking Water Act (1986)

Clean Water Act (1987)

Nuclear Waste Policy Act ndash 1982

National Plan for building nuclear waste repositoriesTo house spent nuclear fuel from comm

ercial reactors

1983 DOE selects 9 potential sites

1987 NWPA AmendmentsLimited to a single site Yucca Mountain

RCRA Amendments ndash 1984

Hazardous amp Solid Wastes Amendments Due to frustration with Reagan EPA ldquofoot-draggingrdquo im

plementing RCRA Scientific amp Implementation Reports point to problems

OTA amp NAS (1983) GAO

Sets 29 mandated deadlines for EPA action Mandates Specific Actions

Interim construction standards for underground storage tanks in 120 days

End to bulk liquid storage in lands fills within 6 months Small Waste Generators Covered by law

1000kg 1048782 100kg per month

TSCA Amendments ndash 1986

Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response ActEPA to develop plan for inspecting sch

ools for asbestos hazards and plan to control the threat where found

SARA ndash 1986 Adds $85 billion for NPL cleanup

Petroleum tax = $275 billion Chemical Feed stock tax = $14 billion Business tax = $25 billion General revenue = $125 billion

Public near sites to be informed of all stages of work

Emergency Planning amp Community Right to Know Act Industry must disclose to ldquolocal emergency planning

committeerdquo information of 400 chemicals usedstored on site

EPA to create TRI

Safe Drinking Water Act ndash 1974

EPA authority to set standards for public water supplies Oversee state programs Including ground water

50 of US population (95 of rural population) uses groundwater for domestic needs

40 of agricultural irrigation National Priority Drinking Water Standards by 1

977 Maximum Concentration Limits (MCLs)

Microbes Turbidity Chemicals (22 substances)

SDWA Amendments ndash 1986

Reauthorized SDWA Grants to states

Implementation amp enforcement Adds 61 contaminants to list of tho

se (22) with MCL standards

Clean Water Act (1987)

Revised EPA mandate to include non-point source pollutionNPSP believed to be responsible for fa

ilure of 65 of stream miles to meet state designated uses

States must devise plan to include ldquobest management practicesrdquo

States can choose to make these voluntary or mandatory

Cost Benefit Analysis

How should government decide what

to do

Government Action

Constrained by Limited Resources Setting Priorities among ldquoproblem

srdquo to address Tradeoffs

Environment vs economyDefense vs education

How do we maximize net benefits to society

Executive Order 12291

February 1981 Regulatory Impact Analyses

Cost-Benefit Analysis requiredSubmitted by all agenciesReviewed by Office of Information amp R

egulatory Affairs OMB office in White House

Executive Order 12291 Potential benefits to society must outwe

igh potential costs Regulatory objectives must maximize ne

t benefits to society Regulations must impose least net costs

to society in achieving objectives Regulatory priorities must maximize agg

regate net benefits to society taking into account The state of the economy The state of particular industries

Net-Benefit ExampleWhich is Preferred CO Anti Pollution Dev

ice on Tailpipes Cost = $100m Benefit = prolong 100

0 lives 1 year

Special Ambulances Equipped for Heart attack victims Cost = $100m Benefit = 10000 lives

prolonged 1 year

Elements of Cost Benefit Analysis

Monetizing all costs amp benefits for direct comparison

Discounting for Time value of money

Discounting for Uncertainty of Outcomes

Risk Analysis Maximizing Net Benefits

Issues

Who are ldquostakeholdersrdquo Whose costs amp benefits count

Future generations Non-human stakeholders What about non-tangible and hard to mo

netize costs amp benefits Existence Values Nuisance Values Moral Values

What about intensity of preferences

Costs of Environmental Protection

To the RegulatedEasiest to estimate amp monetizeSystematically overestimated

Benefits of Environmental Protection

To PublicDifficult to Monetize Benefits

Averted ldquocostsrdquo of not protecting the environment

Benefits of Grizzly Bears in Montana Willingness to pay Travel Cost Eco-tourism

Benefits are Systematically underestimated

Doing Cost-Benefit Analysis ndash USACEStyle

Net benefit example 1 Net benefit example 2 Discounting example

How Good are We atPredicting Regulatory Costs

Accuracy of Regulatory Costs ndash Ias Predicted by EPAOSHA

Accuracy within range predicted or plusmn 25 of point estimate

Harrington et al (2000) ldquoAccuracy of Regulatory Cost Estimatesrdquo JPAM 19(2) 297-322

AllRegulations(N=28)

Accurate Over Under

Amount ofPollutionreduction

13 9 4 2

Unit cost 8 14 6 0

Total cost 5 15 3 5

Accuracy of Regulatory Costs ndash IIas Predicted by EPAOSHA

Harrington et al (2000) ldquoAccuracy of Regulatory Cost Estimatesrdquo JPAM 19(2) 297-322

Accuracy of Regulatory Costs ndash IIIas Predicted by EPAOSHA

Accuracy within range predicted or plusmn 25 of point estimate

Harrington et al (2000) ldquoAccuracy of Regulatory Cost Estimatesrdquo JPAM 19(2) 297-322

  • Slide 1
  • Slide 2
  • Slide 3
  • Slide 4
  • Slide 5
  • Slide 6
  • Slide 7
  • Slide 8
  • Slide 9
  • Slide 10
  • Slide 11
  • Slide 12
  • Slide 13
  • Slide 14
  • Slide 15
  • Slide 16
  • Slide 17
  • Slide 18
  • Slide 19
  • Slide 20
  • Slide 21
  • Slide 22
  • Slide 23
  • Slide 24
  • Slide 25
  • Slide 26
  • Slide 27
  • Slide 28
  • Slide 29
  • Slide 30
Page 2: The Reagan Revolution & Environmental Policy

Administration Orientation ldquoPrometheansrdquo

Natural resources exist for human exploitation Manrsquos destiny is to conquer nature

Environmental Regulation Stifles the economy Violates property rights

Environmentalism is an anti-capitalism anti-business ideology

Economic Growth and Development takes Precedent over Environmental preservation

Environmental Policy Impact ofPolitical Appointees

EPA Operating Budget 1975-1998

Bil

lio

ns

of

$ (1

997)

Nixon(1975)

Carter(1980)

Reagan(1985)

Bush(1990)

Clinton(1995)

Clinton(1998)

Budget Authority

EPA Personnel 1973-1998

Nixon(1975)

Carter(1980)

Reagan(1985)

Bush(1990)

Clinton(1995)

Clinton(1998)

Em

plo

yees

Superfund

Federal Environmental Laws Passed(including amendments)

Num

ber

Pas

sed

Federal Environmental Laws Passed(including amendments)

Tot

al N

umbe

r

DOI Operating Budget 1975-1998

Nixon(1975)

Carter(1980)

Reagan(1985)

Bush(1990)

Clinton(1995)

Clinton(1998)

Budget Authority

Bil

lio

ns

of

$ (1

997)

Amendments to Environmental Laws

Nuclear Waste Policy Act (1982)

RCRA (1984)

TSCA (1986)

SARA (1986)

Safe Drinking Water Act (1986)

Clean Water Act (1987)

Nuclear Waste Policy Act ndash 1982

National Plan for building nuclear waste repositoriesTo house spent nuclear fuel from comm

ercial reactors

1983 DOE selects 9 potential sites

1987 NWPA AmendmentsLimited to a single site Yucca Mountain

RCRA Amendments ndash 1984

Hazardous amp Solid Wastes Amendments Due to frustration with Reagan EPA ldquofoot-draggingrdquo im

plementing RCRA Scientific amp Implementation Reports point to problems

OTA amp NAS (1983) GAO

Sets 29 mandated deadlines for EPA action Mandates Specific Actions

Interim construction standards for underground storage tanks in 120 days

End to bulk liquid storage in lands fills within 6 months Small Waste Generators Covered by law

1000kg 1048782 100kg per month

TSCA Amendments ndash 1986

Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response ActEPA to develop plan for inspecting sch

ools for asbestos hazards and plan to control the threat where found

SARA ndash 1986 Adds $85 billion for NPL cleanup

Petroleum tax = $275 billion Chemical Feed stock tax = $14 billion Business tax = $25 billion General revenue = $125 billion

Public near sites to be informed of all stages of work

Emergency Planning amp Community Right to Know Act Industry must disclose to ldquolocal emergency planning

committeerdquo information of 400 chemicals usedstored on site

EPA to create TRI

Safe Drinking Water Act ndash 1974

EPA authority to set standards for public water supplies Oversee state programs Including ground water

50 of US population (95 of rural population) uses groundwater for domestic needs

40 of agricultural irrigation National Priority Drinking Water Standards by 1

977 Maximum Concentration Limits (MCLs)

Microbes Turbidity Chemicals (22 substances)

SDWA Amendments ndash 1986

Reauthorized SDWA Grants to states

Implementation amp enforcement Adds 61 contaminants to list of tho

se (22) with MCL standards

Clean Water Act (1987)

Revised EPA mandate to include non-point source pollutionNPSP believed to be responsible for fa

ilure of 65 of stream miles to meet state designated uses

States must devise plan to include ldquobest management practicesrdquo

States can choose to make these voluntary or mandatory

Cost Benefit Analysis

How should government decide what

to do

Government Action

Constrained by Limited Resources Setting Priorities among ldquoproblem

srdquo to address Tradeoffs

Environment vs economyDefense vs education

How do we maximize net benefits to society

Executive Order 12291

February 1981 Regulatory Impact Analyses

Cost-Benefit Analysis requiredSubmitted by all agenciesReviewed by Office of Information amp R

egulatory Affairs OMB office in White House

Executive Order 12291 Potential benefits to society must outwe

igh potential costs Regulatory objectives must maximize ne

t benefits to society Regulations must impose least net costs

to society in achieving objectives Regulatory priorities must maximize agg

regate net benefits to society taking into account The state of the economy The state of particular industries

Net-Benefit ExampleWhich is Preferred CO Anti Pollution Dev

ice on Tailpipes Cost = $100m Benefit = prolong 100

0 lives 1 year

Special Ambulances Equipped for Heart attack victims Cost = $100m Benefit = 10000 lives

prolonged 1 year

Elements of Cost Benefit Analysis

Monetizing all costs amp benefits for direct comparison

Discounting for Time value of money

Discounting for Uncertainty of Outcomes

Risk Analysis Maximizing Net Benefits

Issues

Who are ldquostakeholdersrdquo Whose costs amp benefits count

Future generations Non-human stakeholders What about non-tangible and hard to mo

netize costs amp benefits Existence Values Nuisance Values Moral Values

What about intensity of preferences

Costs of Environmental Protection

To the RegulatedEasiest to estimate amp monetizeSystematically overestimated

Benefits of Environmental Protection

To PublicDifficult to Monetize Benefits

Averted ldquocostsrdquo of not protecting the environment

Benefits of Grizzly Bears in Montana Willingness to pay Travel Cost Eco-tourism

Benefits are Systematically underestimated

Doing Cost-Benefit Analysis ndash USACEStyle

Net benefit example 1 Net benefit example 2 Discounting example

How Good are We atPredicting Regulatory Costs

Accuracy of Regulatory Costs ndash Ias Predicted by EPAOSHA

Accuracy within range predicted or plusmn 25 of point estimate

Harrington et al (2000) ldquoAccuracy of Regulatory Cost Estimatesrdquo JPAM 19(2) 297-322

AllRegulations(N=28)

Accurate Over Under

Amount ofPollutionreduction

13 9 4 2

Unit cost 8 14 6 0

Total cost 5 15 3 5

Accuracy of Regulatory Costs ndash IIas Predicted by EPAOSHA

Harrington et al (2000) ldquoAccuracy of Regulatory Cost Estimatesrdquo JPAM 19(2) 297-322

Accuracy of Regulatory Costs ndash IIIas Predicted by EPAOSHA

Accuracy within range predicted or plusmn 25 of point estimate

Harrington et al (2000) ldquoAccuracy of Regulatory Cost Estimatesrdquo JPAM 19(2) 297-322

  • Slide 1
  • Slide 2
  • Slide 3
  • Slide 4
  • Slide 5
  • Slide 6
  • Slide 7
  • Slide 8
  • Slide 9
  • Slide 10
  • Slide 11
  • Slide 12
  • Slide 13
  • Slide 14
  • Slide 15
  • Slide 16
  • Slide 17
  • Slide 18
  • Slide 19
  • Slide 20
  • Slide 21
  • Slide 22
  • Slide 23
  • Slide 24
  • Slide 25
  • Slide 26
  • Slide 27
  • Slide 28
  • Slide 29
  • Slide 30
Page 3: The Reagan Revolution & Environmental Policy

Environmental Policy Impact ofPolitical Appointees

EPA Operating Budget 1975-1998

Bil

lio

ns

of

$ (1

997)

Nixon(1975)

Carter(1980)

Reagan(1985)

Bush(1990)

Clinton(1995)

Clinton(1998)

Budget Authority

EPA Personnel 1973-1998

Nixon(1975)

Carter(1980)

Reagan(1985)

Bush(1990)

Clinton(1995)

Clinton(1998)

Em

plo

yees

Superfund

Federal Environmental Laws Passed(including amendments)

Num

ber

Pas

sed

Federal Environmental Laws Passed(including amendments)

Tot

al N

umbe

r

DOI Operating Budget 1975-1998

Nixon(1975)

Carter(1980)

Reagan(1985)

Bush(1990)

Clinton(1995)

Clinton(1998)

Budget Authority

Bil

lio

ns

of

$ (1

997)

Amendments to Environmental Laws

Nuclear Waste Policy Act (1982)

RCRA (1984)

TSCA (1986)

SARA (1986)

Safe Drinking Water Act (1986)

Clean Water Act (1987)

Nuclear Waste Policy Act ndash 1982

National Plan for building nuclear waste repositoriesTo house spent nuclear fuel from comm

ercial reactors

1983 DOE selects 9 potential sites

1987 NWPA AmendmentsLimited to a single site Yucca Mountain

RCRA Amendments ndash 1984

Hazardous amp Solid Wastes Amendments Due to frustration with Reagan EPA ldquofoot-draggingrdquo im

plementing RCRA Scientific amp Implementation Reports point to problems

OTA amp NAS (1983) GAO

Sets 29 mandated deadlines for EPA action Mandates Specific Actions

Interim construction standards for underground storage tanks in 120 days

End to bulk liquid storage in lands fills within 6 months Small Waste Generators Covered by law

1000kg 1048782 100kg per month

TSCA Amendments ndash 1986

Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response ActEPA to develop plan for inspecting sch

ools for asbestos hazards and plan to control the threat where found

SARA ndash 1986 Adds $85 billion for NPL cleanup

Petroleum tax = $275 billion Chemical Feed stock tax = $14 billion Business tax = $25 billion General revenue = $125 billion

Public near sites to be informed of all stages of work

Emergency Planning amp Community Right to Know Act Industry must disclose to ldquolocal emergency planning

committeerdquo information of 400 chemicals usedstored on site

EPA to create TRI

Safe Drinking Water Act ndash 1974

EPA authority to set standards for public water supplies Oversee state programs Including ground water

50 of US population (95 of rural population) uses groundwater for domestic needs

40 of agricultural irrigation National Priority Drinking Water Standards by 1

977 Maximum Concentration Limits (MCLs)

Microbes Turbidity Chemicals (22 substances)

SDWA Amendments ndash 1986

Reauthorized SDWA Grants to states

Implementation amp enforcement Adds 61 contaminants to list of tho

se (22) with MCL standards

Clean Water Act (1987)

Revised EPA mandate to include non-point source pollutionNPSP believed to be responsible for fa

ilure of 65 of stream miles to meet state designated uses

States must devise plan to include ldquobest management practicesrdquo

States can choose to make these voluntary or mandatory

Cost Benefit Analysis

How should government decide what

to do

Government Action

Constrained by Limited Resources Setting Priorities among ldquoproblem

srdquo to address Tradeoffs

Environment vs economyDefense vs education

How do we maximize net benefits to society

Executive Order 12291

February 1981 Regulatory Impact Analyses

Cost-Benefit Analysis requiredSubmitted by all agenciesReviewed by Office of Information amp R

egulatory Affairs OMB office in White House

Executive Order 12291 Potential benefits to society must outwe

igh potential costs Regulatory objectives must maximize ne

t benefits to society Regulations must impose least net costs

to society in achieving objectives Regulatory priorities must maximize agg

regate net benefits to society taking into account The state of the economy The state of particular industries

Net-Benefit ExampleWhich is Preferred CO Anti Pollution Dev

ice on Tailpipes Cost = $100m Benefit = prolong 100

0 lives 1 year

Special Ambulances Equipped for Heart attack victims Cost = $100m Benefit = 10000 lives

prolonged 1 year

Elements of Cost Benefit Analysis

Monetizing all costs amp benefits for direct comparison

Discounting for Time value of money

Discounting for Uncertainty of Outcomes

Risk Analysis Maximizing Net Benefits

Issues

Who are ldquostakeholdersrdquo Whose costs amp benefits count

Future generations Non-human stakeholders What about non-tangible and hard to mo

netize costs amp benefits Existence Values Nuisance Values Moral Values

What about intensity of preferences

Costs of Environmental Protection

To the RegulatedEasiest to estimate amp monetizeSystematically overestimated

Benefits of Environmental Protection

To PublicDifficult to Monetize Benefits

Averted ldquocostsrdquo of not protecting the environment

Benefits of Grizzly Bears in Montana Willingness to pay Travel Cost Eco-tourism

Benefits are Systematically underestimated

Doing Cost-Benefit Analysis ndash USACEStyle

Net benefit example 1 Net benefit example 2 Discounting example

How Good are We atPredicting Regulatory Costs

Accuracy of Regulatory Costs ndash Ias Predicted by EPAOSHA

Accuracy within range predicted or plusmn 25 of point estimate

Harrington et al (2000) ldquoAccuracy of Regulatory Cost Estimatesrdquo JPAM 19(2) 297-322

AllRegulations(N=28)

Accurate Over Under

Amount ofPollutionreduction

13 9 4 2

Unit cost 8 14 6 0

Total cost 5 15 3 5

Accuracy of Regulatory Costs ndash IIas Predicted by EPAOSHA

Harrington et al (2000) ldquoAccuracy of Regulatory Cost Estimatesrdquo JPAM 19(2) 297-322

Accuracy of Regulatory Costs ndash IIIas Predicted by EPAOSHA

Accuracy within range predicted or plusmn 25 of point estimate

Harrington et al (2000) ldquoAccuracy of Regulatory Cost Estimatesrdquo JPAM 19(2) 297-322

  • Slide 1
  • Slide 2
  • Slide 3
  • Slide 4
  • Slide 5
  • Slide 6
  • Slide 7
  • Slide 8
  • Slide 9
  • Slide 10
  • Slide 11
  • Slide 12
  • Slide 13
  • Slide 14
  • Slide 15
  • Slide 16
  • Slide 17
  • Slide 18
  • Slide 19
  • Slide 20
  • Slide 21
  • Slide 22
  • Slide 23
  • Slide 24
  • Slide 25
  • Slide 26
  • Slide 27
  • Slide 28
  • Slide 29
  • Slide 30
Page 4: The Reagan Revolution & Environmental Policy

EPA Operating Budget 1975-1998

Bil

lio

ns

of

$ (1

997)

Nixon(1975)

Carter(1980)

Reagan(1985)

Bush(1990)

Clinton(1995)

Clinton(1998)

Budget Authority

EPA Personnel 1973-1998

Nixon(1975)

Carter(1980)

Reagan(1985)

Bush(1990)

Clinton(1995)

Clinton(1998)

Em

plo

yees

Superfund

Federal Environmental Laws Passed(including amendments)

Num

ber

Pas

sed

Federal Environmental Laws Passed(including amendments)

Tot

al N

umbe

r

DOI Operating Budget 1975-1998

Nixon(1975)

Carter(1980)

Reagan(1985)

Bush(1990)

Clinton(1995)

Clinton(1998)

Budget Authority

Bil

lio

ns

of

$ (1

997)

Amendments to Environmental Laws

Nuclear Waste Policy Act (1982)

RCRA (1984)

TSCA (1986)

SARA (1986)

Safe Drinking Water Act (1986)

Clean Water Act (1987)

Nuclear Waste Policy Act ndash 1982

National Plan for building nuclear waste repositoriesTo house spent nuclear fuel from comm

ercial reactors

1983 DOE selects 9 potential sites

1987 NWPA AmendmentsLimited to a single site Yucca Mountain

RCRA Amendments ndash 1984

Hazardous amp Solid Wastes Amendments Due to frustration with Reagan EPA ldquofoot-draggingrdquo im

plementing RCRA Scientific amp Implementation Reports point to problems

OTA amp NAS (1983) GAO

Sets 29 mandated deadlines for EPA action Mandates Specific Actions

Interim construction standards for underground storage tanks in 120 days

End to bulk liquid storage in lands fills within 6 months Small Waste Generators Covered by law

1000kg 1048782 100kg per month

TSCA Amendments ndash 1986

Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response ActEPA to develop plan for inspecting sch

ools for asbestos hazards and plan to control the threat where found

SARA ndash 1986 Adds $85 billion for NPL cleanup

Petroleum tax = $275 billion Chemical Feed stock tax = $14 billion Business tax = $25 billion General revenue = $125 billion

Public near sites to be informed of all stages of work

Emergency Planning amp Community Right to Know Act Industry must disclose to ldquolocal emergency planning

committeerdquo information of 400 chemicals usedstored on site

EPA to create TRI

Safe Drinking Water Act ndash 1974

EPA authority to set standards for public water supplies Oversee state programs Including ground water

50 of US population (95 of rural population) uses groundwater for domestic needs

40 of agricultural irrigation National Priority Drinking Water Standards by 1

977 Maximum Concentration Limits (MCLs)

Microbes Turbidity Chemicals (22 substances)

SDWA Amendments ndash 1986

Reauthorized SDWA Grants to states

Implementation amp enforcement Adds 61 contaminants to list of tho

se (22) with MCL standards

Clean Water Act (1987)

Revised EPA mandate to include non-point source pollutionNPSP believed to be responsible for fa

ilure of 65 of stream miles to meet state designated uses

States must devise plan to include ldquobest management practicesrdquo

States can choose to make these voluntary or mandatory

Cost Benefit Analysis

How should government decide what

to do

Government Action

Constrained by Limited Resources Setting Priorities among ldquoproblem

srdquo to address Tradeoffs

Environment vs economyDefense vs education

How do we maximize net benefits to society

Executive Order 12291

February 1981 Regulatory Impact Analyses

Cost-Benefit Analysis requiredSubmitted by all agenciesReviewed by Office of Information amp R

egulatory Affairs OMB office in White House

Executive Order 12291 Potential benefits to society must outwe

igh potential costs Regulatory objectives must maximize ne

t benefits to society Regulations must impose least net costs

to society in achieving objectives Regulatory priorities must maximize agg

regate net benefits to society taking into account The state of the economy The state of particular industries

Net-Benefit ExampleWhich is Preferred CO Anti Pollution Dev

ice on Tailpipes Cost = $100m Benefit = prolong 100

0 lives 1 year

Special Ambulances Equipped for Heart attack victims Cost = $100m Benefit = 10000 lives

prolonged 1 year

Elements of Cost Benefit Analysis

Monetizing all costs amp benefits for direct comparison

Discounting for Time value of money

Discounting for Uncertainty of Outcomes

Risk Analysis Maximizing Net Benefits

Issues

Who are ldquostakeholdersrdquo Whose costs amp benefits count

Future generations Non-human stakeholders What about non-tangible and hard to mo

netize costs amp benefits Existence Values Nuisance Values Moral Values

What about intensity of preferences

Costs of Environmental Protection

To the RegulatedEasiest to estimate amp monetizeSystematically overestimated

Benefits of Environmental Protection

To PublicDifficult to Monetize Benefits

Averted ldquocostsrdquo of not protecting the environment

Benefits of Grizzly Bears in Montana Willingness to pay Travel Cost Eco-tourism

Benefits are Systematically underestimated

Doing Cost-Benefit Analysis ndash USACEStyle

Net benefit example 1 Net benefit example 2 Discounting example

How Good are We atPredicting Regulatory Costs

Accuracy of Regulatory Costs ndash Ias Predicted by EPAOSHA

Accuracy within range predicted or plusmn 25 of point estimate

Harrington et al (2000) ldquoAccuracy of Regulatory Cost Estimatesrdquo JPAM 19(2) 297-322

AllRegulations(N=28)

Accurate Over Under

Amount ofPollutionreduction

13 9 4 2

Unit cost 8 14 6 0

Total cost 5 15 3 5

Accuracy of Regulatory Costs ndash IIas Predicted by EPAOSHA

Harrington et al (2000) ldquoAccuracy of Regulatory Cost Estimatesrdquo JPAM 19(2) 297-322

Accuracy of Regulatory Costs ndash IIIas Predicted by EPAOSHA

Accuracy within range predicted or plusmn 25 of point estimate

Harrington et al (2000) ldquoAccuracy of Regulatory Cost Estimatesrdquo JPAM 19(2) 297-322

  • Slide 1
  • Slide 2
  • Slide 3
  • Slide 4
  • Slide 5
  • Slide 6
  • Slide 7
  • Slide 8
  • Slide 9
  • Slide 10
  • Slide 11
  • Slide 12
  • Slide 13
  • Slide 14
  • Slide 15
  • Slide 16
  • Slide 17
  • Slide 18
  • Slide 19
  • Slide 20
  • Slide 21
  • Slide 22
  • Slide 23
  • Slide 24
  • Slide 25
  • Slide 26
  • Slide 27
  • Slide 28
  • Slide 29
  • Slide 30
Page 5: The Reagan Revolution & Environmental Policy

EPA Personnel 1973-1998

Nixon(1975)

Carter(1980)

Reagan(1985)

Bush(1990)

Clinton(1995)

Clinton(1998)

Em

plo

yees

Superfund

Federal Environmental Laws Passed(including amendments)

Num

ber

Pas

sed

Federal Environmental Laws Passed(including amendments)

Tot

al N

umbe

r

DOI Operating Budget 1975-1998

Nixon(1975)

Carter(1980)

Reagan(1985)

Bush(1990)

Clinton(1995)

Clinton(1998)

Budget Authority

Bil

lio

ns

of

$ (1

997)

Amendments to Environmental Laws

Nuclear Waste Policy Act (1982)

RCRA (1984)

TSCA (1986)

SARA (1986)

Safe Drinking Water Act (1986)

Clean Water Act (1987)

Nuclear Waste Policy Act ndash 1982

National Plan for building nuclear waste repositoriesTo house spent nuclear fuel from comm

ercial reactors

1983 DOE selects 9 potential sites

1987 NWPA AmendmentsLimited to a single site Yucca Mountain

RCRA Amendments ndash 1984

Hazardous amp Solid Wastes Amendments Due to frustration with Reagan EPA ldquofoot-draggingrdquo im

plementing RCRA Scientific amp Implementation Reports point to problems

OTA amp NAS (1983) GAO

Sets 29 mandated deadlines for EPA action Mandates Specific Actions

Interim construction standards for underground storage tanks in 120 days

End to bulk liquid storage in lands fills within 6 months Small Waste Generators Covered by law

1000kg 1048782 100kg per month

TSCA Amendments ndash 1986

Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response ActEPA to develop plan for inspecting sch

ools for asbestos hazards and plan to control the threat where found

SARA ndash 1986 Adds $85 billion for NPL cleanup

Petroleum tax = $275 billion Chemical Feed stock tax = $14 billion Business tax = $25 billion General revenue = $125 billion

Public near sites to be informed of all stages of work

Emergency Planning amp Community Right to Know Act Industry must disclose to ldquolocal emergency planning

committeerdquo information of 400 chemicals usedstored on site

EPA to create TRI

Safe Drinking Water Act ndash 1974

EPA authority to set standards for public water supplies Oversee state programs Including ground water

50 of US population (95 of rural population) uses groundwater for domestic needs

40 of agricultural irrigation National Priority Drinking Water Standards by 1

977 Maximum Concentration Limits (MCLs)

Microbes Turbidity Chemicals (22 substances)

SDWA Amendments ndash 1986

Reauthorized SDWA Grants to states

Implementation amp enforcement Adds 61 contaminants to list of tho

se (22) with MCL standards

Clean Water Act (1987)

Revised EPA mandate to include non-point source pollutionNPSP believed to be responsible for fa

ilure of 65 of stream miles to meet state designated uses

States must devise plan to include ldquobest management practicesrdquo

States can choose to make these voluntary or mandatory

Cost Benefit Analysis

How should government decide what

to do

Government Action

Constrained by Limited Resources Setting Priorities among ldquoproblem

srdquo to address Tradeoffs

Environment vs economyDefense vs education

How do we maximize net benefits to society

Executive Order 12291

February 1981 Regulatory Impact Analyses

Cost-Benefit Analysis requiredSubmitted by all agenciesReviewed by Office of Information amp R

egulatory Affairs OMB office in White House

Executive Order 12291 Potential benefits to society must outwe

igh potential costs Regulatory objectives must maximize ne

t benefits to society Regulations must impose least net costs

to society in achieving objectives Regulatory priorities must maximize agg

regate net benefits to society taking into account The state of the economy The state of particular industries

Net-Benefit ExampleWhich is Preferred CO Anti Pollution Dev

ice on Tailpipes Cost = $100m Benefit = prolong 100

0 lives 1 year

Special Ambulances Equipped for Heart attack victims Cost = $100m Benefit = 10000 lives

prolonged 1 year

Elements of Cost Benefit Analysis

Monetizing all costs amp benefits for direct comparison

Discounting for Time value of money

Discounting for Uncertainty of Outcomes

Risk Analysis Maximizing Net Benefits

Issues

Who are ldquostakeholdersrdquo Whose costs amp benefits count

Future generations Non-human stakeholders What about non-tangible and hard to mo

netize costs amp benefits Existence Values Nuisance Values Moral Values

What about intensity of preferences

Costs of Environmental Protection

To the RegulatedEasiest to estimate amp monetizeSystematically overestimated

Benefits of Environmental Protection

To PublicDifficult to Monetize Benefits

Averted ldquocostsrdquo of not protecting the environment

Benefits of Grizzly Bears in Montana Willingness to pay Travel Cost Eco-tourism

Benefits are Systematically underestimated

Doing Cost-Benefit Analysis ndash USACEStyle

Net benefit example 1 Net benefit example 2 Discounting example

How Good are We atPredicting Regulatory Costs

Accuracy of Regulatory Costs ndash Ias Predicted by EPAOSHA

Accuracy within range predicted or plusmn 25 of point estimate

Harrington et al (2000) ldquoAccuracy of Regulatory Cost Estimatesrdquo JPAM 19(2) 297-322

AllRegulations(N=28)

Accurate Over Under

Amount ofPollutionreduction

13 9 4 2

Unit cost 8 14 6 0

Total cost 5 15 3 5

Accuracy of Regulatory Costs ndash IIas Predicted by EPAOSHA

Harrington et al (2000) ldquoAccuracy of Regulatory Cost Estimatesrdquo JPAM 19(2) 297-322

Accuracy of Regulatory Costs ndash IIIas Predicted by EPAOSHA

Accuracy within range predicted or plusmn 25 of point estimate

Harrington et al (2000) ldquoAccuracy of Regulatory Cost Estimatesrdquo JPAM 19(2) 297-322

  • Slide 1
  • Slide 2
  • Slide 3
  • Slide 4
  • Slide 5
  • Slide 6
  • Slide 7
  • Slide 8
  • Slide 9
  • Slide 10
  • Slide 11
  • Slide 12
  • Slide 13
  • Slide 14
  • Slide 15
  • Slide 16
  • Slide 17
  • Slide 18
  • Slide 19
  • Slide 20
  • Slide 21
  • Slide 22
  • Slide 23
  • Slide 24
  • Slide 25
  • Slide 26
  • Slide 27
  • Slide 28
  • Slide 29
  • Slide 30
Page 6: The Reagan Revolution & Environmental Policy

Federal Environmental Laws Passed(including amendments)

Num

ber

Pas

sed

Federal Environmental Laws Passed(including amendments)

Tot

al N

umbe

r

DOI Operating Budget 1975-1998

Nixon(1975)

Carter(1980)

Reagan(1985)

Bush(1990)

Clinton(1995)

Clinton(1998)

Budget Authority

Bil

lio

ns

of

$ (1

997)

Amendments to Environmental Laws

Nuclear Waste Policy Act (1982)

RCRA (1984)

TSCA (1986)

SARA (1986)

Safe Drinking Water Act (1986)

Clean Water Act (1987)

Nuclear Waste Policy Act ndash 1982

National Plan for building nuclear waste repositoriesTo house spent nuclear fuel from comm

ercial reactors

1983 DOE selects 9 potential sites

1987 NWPA AmendmentsLimited to a single site Yucca Mountain

RCRA Amendments ndash 1984

Hazardous amp Solid Wastes Amendments Due to frustration with Reagan EPA ldquofoot-draggingrdquo im

plementing RCRA Scientific amp Implementation Reports point to problems

OTA amp NAS (1983) GAO

Sets 29 mandated deadlines for EPA action Mandates Specific Actions

Interim construction standards for underground storage tanks in 120 days

End to bulk liquid storage in lands fills within 6 months Small Waste Generators Covered by law

1000kg 1048782 100kg per month

TSCA Amendments ndash 1986

Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response ActEPA to develop plan for inspecting sch

ools for asbestos hazards and plan to control the threat where found

SARA ndash 1986 Adds $85 billion for NPL cleanup

Petroleum tax = $275 billion Chemical Feed stock tax = $14 billion Business tax = $25 billion General revenue = $125 billion

Public near sites to be informed of all stages of work

Emergency Planning amp Community Right to Know Act Industry must disclose to ldquolocal emergency planning

committeerdquo information of 400 chemicals usedstored on site

EPA to create TRI

Safe Drinking Water Act ndash 1974

EPA authority to set standards for public water supplies Oversee state programs Including ground water

50 of US population (95 of rural population) uses groundwater for domestic needs

40 of agricultural irrigation National Priority Drinking Water Standards by 1

977 Maximum Concentration Limits (MCLs)

Microbes Turbidity Chemicals (22 substances)

SDWA Amendments ndash 1986

Reauthorized SDWA Grants to states

Implementation amp enforcement Adds 61 contaminants to list of tho

se (22) with MCL standards

Clean Water Act (1987)

Revised EPA mandate to include non-point source pollutionNPSP believed to be responsible for fa

ilure of 65 of stream miles to meet state designated uses

States must devise plan to include ldquobest management practicesrdquo

States can choose to make these voluntary or mandatory

Cost Benefit Analysis

How should government decide what

to do

Government Action

Constrained by Limited Resources Setting Priorities among ldquoproblem

srdquo to address Tradeoffs

Environment vs economyDefense vs education

How do we maximize net benefits to society

Executive Order 12291

February 1981 Regulatory Impact Analyses

Cost-Benefit Analysis requiredSubmitted by all agenciesReviewed by Office of Information amp R

egulatory Affairs OMB office in White House

Executive Order 12291 Potential benefits to society must outwe

igh potential costs Regulatory objectives must maximize ne

t benefits to society Regulations must impose least net costs

to society in achieving objectives Regulatory priorities must maximize agg

regate net benefits to society taking into account The state of the economy The state of particular industries

Net-Benefit ExampleWhich is Preferred CO Anti Pollution Dev

ice on Tailpipes Cost = $100m Benefit = prolong 100

0 lives 1 year

Special Ambulances Equipped for Heart attack victims Cost = $100m Benefit = 10000 lives

prolonged 1 year

Elements of Cost Benefit Analysis

Monetizing all costs amp benefits for direct comparison

Discounting for Time value of money

Discounting for Uncertainty of Outcomes

Risk Analysis Maximizing Net Benefits

Issues

Who are ldquostakeholdersrdquo Whose costs amp benefits count

Future generations Non-human stakeholders What about non-tangible and hard to mo

netize costs amp benefits Existence Values Nuisance Values Moral Values

What about intensity of preferences

Costs of Environmental Protection

To the RegulatedEasiest to estimate amp monetizeSystematically overestimated

Benefits of Environmental Protection

To PublicDifficult to Monetize Benefits

Averted ldquocostsrdquo of not protecting the environment

Benefits of Grizzly Bears in Montana Willingness to pay Travel Cost Eco-tourism

Benefits are Systematically underestimated

Doing Cost-Benefit Analysis ndash USACEStyle

Net benefit example 1 Net benefit example 2 Discounting example

How Good are We atPredicting Regulatory Costs

Accuracy of Regulatory Costs ndash Ias Predicted by EPAOSHA

Accuracy within range predicted or plusmn 25 of point estimate

Harrington et al (2000) ldquoAccuracy of Regulatory Cost Estimatesrdquo JPAM 19(2) 297-322

AllRegulations(N=28)

Accurate Over Under

Amount ofPollutionreduction

13 9 4 2

Unit cost 8 14 6 0

Total cost 5 15 3 5

Accuracy of Regulatory Costs ndash IIas Predicted by EPAOSHA

Harrington et al (2000) ldquoAccuracy of Regulatory Cost Estimatesrdquo JPAM 19(2) 297-322

Accuracy of Regulatory Costs ndash IIIas Predicted by EPAOSHA

Accuracy within range predicted or plusmn 25 of point estimate

Harrington et al (2000) ldquoAccuracy of Regulatory Cost Estimatesrdquo JPAM 19(2) 297-322

  • Slide 1
  • Slide 2
  • Slide 3
  • Slide 4
  • Slide 5
  • Slide 6
  • Slide 7
  • Slide 8
  • Slide 9
  • Slide 10
  • Slide 11
  • Slide 12
  • Slide 13
  • Slide 14
  • Slide 15
  • Slide 16
  • Slide 17
  • Slide 18
  • Slide 19
  • Slide 20
  • Slide 21
  • Slide 22
  • Slide 23
  • Slide 24
  • Slide 25
  • Slide 26
  • Slide 27
  • Slide 28
  • Slide 29
  • Slide 30
Page 7: The Reagan Revolution & Environmental Policy

Federal Environmental Laws Passed(including amendments)

Tot

al N

umbe

r

DOI Operating Budget 1975-1998

Nixon(1975)

Carter(1980)

Reagan(1985)

Bush(1990)

Clinton(1995)

Clinton(1998)

Budget Authority

Bil

lio

ns

of

$ (1

997)

Amendments to Environmental Laws

Nuclear Waste Policy Act (1982)

RCRA (1984)

TSCA (1986)

SARA (1986)

Safe Drinking Water Act (1986)

Clean Water Act (1987)

Nuclear Waste Policy Act ndash 1982

National Plan for building nuclear waste repositoriesTo house spent nuclear fuel from comm

ercial reactors

1983 DOE selects 9 potential sites

1987 NWPA AmendmentsLimited to a single site Yucca Mountain

RCRA Amendments ndash 1984

Hazardous amp Solid Wastes Amendments Due to frustration with Reagan EPA ldquofoot-draggingrdquo im

plementing RCRA Scientific amp Implementation Reports point to problems

OTA amp NAS (1983) GAO

Sets 29 mandated deadlines for EPA action Mandates Specific Actions

Interim construction standards for underground storage tanks in 120 days

End to bulk liquid storage in lands fills within 6 months Small Waste Generators Covered by law

1000kg 1048782 100kg per month

TSCA Amendments ndash 1986

Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response ActEPA to develop plan for inspecting sch

ools for asbestos hazards and plan to control the threat where found

SARA ndash 1986 Adds $85 billion for NPL cleanup

Petroleum tax = $275 billion Chemical Feed stock tax = $14 billion Business tax = $25 billion General revenue = $125 billion

Public near sites to be informed of all stages of work

Emergency Planning amp Community Right to Know Act Industry must disclose to ldquolocal emergency planning

committeerdquo information of 400 chemicals usedstored on site

EPA to create TRI

Safe Drinking Water Act ndash 1974

EPA authority to set standards for public water supplies Oversee state programs Including ground water

50 of US population (95 of rural population) uses groundwater for domestic needs

40 of agricultural irrigation National Priority Drinking Water Standards by 1

977 Maximum Concentration Limits (MCLs)

Microbes Turbidity Chemicals (22 substances)

SDWA Amendments ndash 1986

Reauthorized SDWA Grants to states

Implementation amp enforcement Adds 61 contaminants to list of tho

se (22) with MCL standards

Clean Water Act (1987)

Revised EPA mandate to include non-point source pollutionNPSP believed to be responsible for fa

ilure of 65 of stream miles to meet state designated uses

States must devise plan to include ldquobest management practicesrdquo

States can choose to make these voluntary or mandatory

Cost Benefit Analysis

How should government decide what

to do

Government Action

Constrained by Limited Resources Setting Priorities among ldquoproblem

srdquo to address Tradeoffs

Environment vs economyDefense vs education

How do we maximize net benefits to society

Executive Order 12291

February 1981 Regulatory Impact Analyses

Cost-Benefit Analysis requiredSubmitted by all agenciesReviewed by Office of Information amp R

egulatory Affairs OMB office in White House

Executive Order 12291 Potential benefits to society must outwe

igh potential costs Regulatory objectives must maximize ne

t benefits to society Regulations must impose least net costs

to society in achieving objectives Regulatory priorities must maximize agg

regate net benefits to society taking into account The state of the economy The state of particular industries

Net-Benefit ExampleWhich is Preferred CO Anti Pollution Dev

ice on Tailpipes Cost = $100m Benefit = prolong 100

0 lives 1 year

Special Ambulances Equipped for Heart attack victims Cost = $100m Benefit = 10000 lives

prolonged 1 year

Elements of Cost Benefit Analysis

Monetizing all costs amp benefits for direct comparison

Discounting for Time value of money

Discounting for Uncertainty of Outcomes

Risk Analysis Maximizing Net Benefits

Issues

Who are ldquostakeholdersrdquo Whose costs amp benefits count

Future generations Non-human stakeholders What about non-tangible and hard to mo

netize costs amp benefits Existence Values Nuisance Values Moral Values

What about intensity of preferences

Costs of Environmental Protection

To the RegulatedEasiest to estimate amp monetizeSystematically overestimated

Benefits of Environmental Protection

To PublicDifficult to Monetize Benefits

Averted ldquocostsrdquo of not protecting the environment

Benefits of Grizzly Bears in Montana Willingness to pay Travel Cost Eco-tourism

Benefits are Systematically underestimated

Doing Cost-Benefit Analysis ndash USACEStyle

Net benefit example 1 Net benefit example 2 Discounting example

How Good are We atPredicting Regulatory Costs

Accuracy of Regulatory Costs ndash Ias Predicted by EPAOSHA

Accuracy within range predicted or plusmn 25 of point estimate

Harrington et al (2000) ldquoAccuracy of Regulatory Cost Estimatesrdquo JPAM 19(2) 297-322

AllRegulations(N=28)

Accurate Over Under

Amount ofPollutionreduction

13 9 4 2

Unit cost 8 14 6 0

Total cost 5 15 3 5

Accuracy of Regulatory Costs ndash IIas Predicted by EPAOSHA

Harrington et al (2000) ldquoAccuracy of Regulatory Cost Estimatesrdquo JPAM 19(2) 297-322

Accuracy of Regulatory Costs ndash IIIas Predicted by EPAOSHA

Accuracy within range predicted or plusmn 25 of point estimate

Harrington et al (2000) ldquoAccuracy of Regulatory Cost Estimatesrdquo JPAM 19(2) 297-322

  • Slide 1
  • Slide 2
  • Slide 3
  • Slide 4
  • Slide 5
  • Slide 6
  • Slide 7
  • Slide 8
  • Slide 9
  • Slide 10
  • Slide 11
  • Slide 12
  • Slide 13
  • Slide 14
  • Slide 15
  • Slide 16
  • Slide 17
  • Slide 18
  • Slide 19
  • Slide 20
  • Slide 21
  • Slide 22
  • Slide 23
  • Slide 24
  • Slide 25
  • Slide 26
  • Slide 27
  • Slide 28
  • Slide 29
  • Slide 30
Page 8: The Reagan Revolution & Environmental Policy

DOI Operating Budget 1975-1998

Nixon(1975)

Carter(1980)

Reagan(1985)

Bush(1990)

Clinton(1995)

Clinton(1998)

Budget Authority

Bil

lio

ns

of

$ (1

997)

Amendments to Environmental Laws

Nuclear Waste Policy Act (1982)

RCRA (1984)

TSCA (1986)

SARA (1986)

Safe Drinking Water Act (1986)

Clean Water Act (1987)

Nuclear Waste Policy Act ndash 1982

National Plan for building nuclear waste repositoriesTo house spent nuclear fuel from comm

ercial reactors

1983 DOE selects 9 potential sites

1987 NWPA AmendmentsLimited to a single site Yucca Mountain

RCRA Amendments ndash 1984

Hazardous amp Solid Wastes Amendments Due to frustration with Reagan EPA ldquofoot-draggingrdquo im

plementing RCRA Scientific amp Implementation Reports point to problems

OTA amp NAS (1983) GAO

Sets 29 mandated deadlines for EPA action Mandates Specific Actions

Interim construction standards for underground storage tanks in 120 days

End to bulk liquid storage in lands fills within 6 months Small Waste Generators Covered by law

1000kg 1048782 100kg per month

TSCA Amendments ndash 1986

Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response ActEPA to develop plan for inspecting sch

ools for asbestos hazards and plan to control the threat where found

SARA ndash 1986 Adds $85 billion for NPL cleanup

Petroleum tax = $275 billion Chemical Feed stock tax = $14 billion Business tax = $25 billion General revenue = $125 billion

Public near sites to be informed of all stages of work

Emergency Planning amp Community Right to Know Act Industry must disclose to ldquolocal emergency planning

committeerdquo information of 400 chemicals usedstored on site

EPA to create TRI

Safe Drinking Water Act ndash 1974

EPA authority to set standards for public water supplies Oversee state programs Including ground water

50 of US population (95 of rural population) uses groundwater for domestic needs

40 of agricultural irrigation National Priority Drinking Water Standards by 1

977 Maximum Concentration Limits (MCLs)

Microbes Turbidity Chemicals (22 substances)

SDWA Amendments ndash 1986

Reauthorized SDWA Grants to states

Implementation amp enforcement Adds 61 contaminants to list of tho

se (22) with MCL standards

Clean Water Act (1987)

Revised EPA mandate to include non-point source pollutionNPSP believed to be responsible for fa

ilure of 65 of stream miles to meet state designated uses

States must devise plan to include ldquobest management practicesrdquo

States can choose to make these voluntary or mandatory

Cost Benefit Analysis

How should government decide what

to do

Government Action

Constrained by Limited Resources Setting Priorities among ldquoproblem

srdquo to address Tradeoffs

Environment vs economyDefense vs education

How do we maximize net benefits to society

Executive Order 12291

February 1981 Regulatory Impact Analyses

Cost-Benefit Analysis requiredSubmitted by all agenciesReviewed by Office of Information amp R

egulatory Affairs OMB office in White House

Executive Order 12291 Potential benefits to society must outwe

igh potential costs Regulatory objectives must maximize ne

t benefits to society Regulations must impose least net costs

to society in achieving objectives Regulatory priorities must maximize agg

regate net benefits to society taking into account The state of the economy The state of particular industries

Net-Benefit ExampleWhich is Preferred CO Anti Pollution Dev

ice on Tailpipes Cost = $100m Benefit = prolong 100

0 lives 1 year

Special Ambulances Equipped for Heart attack victims Cost = $100m Benefit = 10000 lives

prolonged 1 year

Elements of Cost Benefit Analysis

Monetizing all costs amp benefits for direct comparison

Discounting for Time value of money

Discounting for Uncertainty of Outcomes

Risk Analysis Maximizing Net Benefits

Issues

Who are ldquostakeholdersrdquo Whose costs amp benefits count

Future generations Non-human stakeholders What about non-tangible and hard to mo

netize costs amp benefits Existence Values Nuisance Values Moral Values

What about intensity of preferences

Costs of Environmental Protection

To the RegulatedEasiest to estimate amp monetizeSystematically overestimated

Benefits of Environmental Protection

To PublicDifficult to Monetize Benefits

Averted ldquocostsrdquo of not protecting the environment

Benefits of Grizzly Bears in Montana Willingness to pay Travel Cost Eco-tourism

Benefits are Systematically underestimated

Doing Cost-Benefit Analysis ndash USACEStyle

Net benefit example 1 Net benefit example 2 Discounting example

How Good are We atPredicting Regulatory Costs

Accuracy of Regulatory Costs ndash Ias Predicted by EPAOSHA

Accuracy within range predicted or plusmn 25 of point estimate

Harrington et al (2000) ldquoAccuracy of Regulatory Cost Estimatesrdquo JPAM 19(2) 297-322

AllRegulations(N=28)

Accurate Over Under

Amount ofPollutionreduction

13 9 4 2

Unit cost 8 14 6 0

Total cost 5 15 3 5

Accuracy of Regulatory Costs ndash IIas Predicted by EPAOSHA

Harrington et al (2000) ldquoAccuracy of Regulatory Cost Estimatesrdquo JPAM 19(2) 297-322

Accuracy of Regulatory Costs ndash IIIas Predicted by EPAOSHA

Accuracy within range predicted or plusmn 25 of point estimate

Harrington et al (2000) ldquoAccuracy of Regulatory Cost Estimatesrdquo JPAM 19(2) 297-322

  • Slide 1
  • Slide 2
  • Slide 3
  • Slide 4
  • Slide 5
  • Slide 6
  • Slide 7
  • Slide 8
  • Slide 9
  • Slide 10
  • Slide 11
  • Slide 12
  • Slide 13
  • Slide 14
  • Slide 15
  • Slide 16
  • Slide 17
  • Slide 18
  • Slide 19
  • Slide 20
  • Slide 21
  • Slide 22
  • Slide 23
  • Slide 24
  • Slide 25
  • Slide 26
  • Slide 27
  • Slide 28
  • Slide 29
  • Slide 30
Page 9: The Reagan Revolution & Environmental Policy

Amendments to Environmental Laws

Nuclear Waste Policy Act (1982)

RCRA (1984)

TSCA (1986)

SARA (1986)

Safe Drinking Water Act (1986)

Clean Water Act (1987)

Nuclear Waste Policy Act ndash 1982

National Plan for building nuclear waste repositoriesTo house spent nuclear fuel from comm

ercial reactors

1983 DOE selects 9 potential sites

1987 NWPA AmendmentsLimited to a single site Yucca Mountain

RCRA Amendments ndash 1984

Hazardous amp Solid Wastes Amendments Due to frustration with Reagan EPA ldquofoot-draggingrdquo im

plementing RCRA Scientific amp Implementation Reports point to problems

OTA amp NAS (1983) GAO

Sets 29 mandated deadlines for EPA action Mandates Specific Actions

Interim construction standards for underground storage tanks in 120 days

End to bulk liquid storage in lands fills within 6 months Small Waste Generators Covered by law

1000kg 1048782 100kg per month

TSCA Amendments ndash 1986

Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response ActEPA to develop plan for inspecting sch

ools for asbestos hazards and plan to control the threat where found

SARA ndash 1986 Adds $85 billion for NPL cleanup

Petroleum tax = $275 billion Chemical Feed stock tax = $14 billion Business tax = $25 billion General revenue = $125 billion

Public near sites to be informed of all stages of work

Emergency Planning amp Community Right to Know Act Industry must disclose to ldquolocal emergency planning

committeerdquo information of 400 chemicals usedstored on site

EPA to create TRI

Safe Drinking Water Act ndash 1974

EPA authority to set standards for public water supplies Oversee state programs Including ground water

50 of US population (95 of rural population) uses groundwater for domestic needs

40 of agricultural irrigation National Priority Drinking Water Standards by 1

977 Maximum Concentration Limits (MCLs)

Microbes Turbidity Chemicals (22 substances)

SDWA Amendments ndash 1986

Reauthorized SDWA Grants to states

Implementation amp enforcement Adds 61 contaminants to list of tho

se (22) with MCL standards

Clean Water Act (1987)

Revised EPA mandate to include non-point source pollutionNPSP believed to be responsible for fa

ilure of 65 of stream miles to meet state designated uses

States must devise plan to include ldquobest management practicesrdquo

States can choose to make these voluntary or mandatory

Cost Benefit Analysis

How should government decide what

to do

Government Action

Constrained by Limited Resources Setting Priorities among ldquoproblem

srdquo to address Tradeoffs

Environment vs economyDefense vs education

How do we maximize net benefits to society

Executive Order 12291

February 1981 Regulatory Impact Analyses

Cost-Benefit Analysis requiredSubmitted by all agenciesReviewed by Office of Information amp R

egulatory Affairs OMB office in White House

Executive Order 12291 Potential benefits to society must outwe

igh potential costs Regulatory objectives must maximize ne

t benefits to society Regulations must impose least net costs

to society in achieving objectives Regulatory priorities must maximize agg

regate net benefits to society taking into account The state of the economy The state of particular industries

Net-Benefit ExampleWhich is Preferred CO Anti Pollution Dev

ice on Tailpipes Cost = $100m Benefit = prolong 100

0 lives 1 year

Special Ambulances Equipped for Heart attack victims Cost = $100m Benefit = 10000 lives

prolonged 1 year

Elements of Cost Benefit Analysis

Monetizing all costs amp benefits for direct comparison

Discounting for Time value of money

Discounting for Uncertainty of Outcomes

Risk Analysis Maximizing Net Benefits

Issues

Who are ldquostakeholdersrdquo Whose costs amp benefits count

Future generations Non-human stakeholders What about non-tangible and hard to mo

netize costs amp benefits Existence Values Nuisance Values Moral Values

What about intensity of preferences

Costs of Environmental Protection

To the RegulatedEasiest to estimate amp monetizeSystematically overestimated

Benefits of Environmental Protection

To PublicDifficult to Monetize Benefits

Averted ldquocostsrdquo of not protecting the environment

Benefits of Grizzly Bears in Montana Willingness to pay Travel Cost Eco-tourism

Benefits are Systematically underestimated

Doing Cost-Benefit Analysis ndash USACEStyle

Net benefit example 1 Net benefit example 2 Discounting example

How Good are We atPredicting Regulatory Costs

Accuracy of Regulatory Costs ndash Ias Predicted by EPAOSHA

Accuracy within range predicted or plusmn 25 of point estimate

Harrington et al (2000) ldquoAccuracy of Regulatory Cost Estimatesrdquo JPAM 19(2) 297-322

AllRegulations(N=28)

Accurate Over Under

Amount ofPollutionreduction

13 9 4 2

Unit cost 8 14 6 0

Total cost 5 15 3 5

Accuracy of Regulatory Costs ndash IIas Predicted by EPAOSHA

Harrington et al (2000) ldquoAccuracy of Regulatory Cost Estimatesrdquo JPAM 19(2) 297-322

Accuracy of Regulatory Costs ndash IIIas Predicted by EPAOSHA

Accuracy within range predicted or plusmn 25 of point estimate

Harrington et al (2000) ldquoAccuracy of Regulatory Cost Estimatesrdquo JPAM 19(2) 297-322

  • Slide 1
  • Slide 2
  • Slide 3
  • Slide 4
  • Slide 5
  • Slide 6
  • Slide 7
  • Slide 8
  • Slide 9
  • Slide 10
  • Slide 11
  • Slide 12
  • Slide 13
  • Slide 14
  • Slide 15
  • Slide 16
  • Slide 17
  • Slide 18
  • Slide 19
  • Slide 20
  • Slide 21
  • Slide 22
  • Slide 23
  • Slide 24
  • Slide 25
  • Slide 26
  • Slide 27
  • Slide 28
  • Slide 29
  • Slide 30
Page 10: The Reagan Revolution & Environmental Policy

Nuclear Waste Policy Act ndash 1982

National Plan for building nuclear waste repositoriesTo house spent nuclear fuel from comm

ercial reactors

1983 DOE selects 9 potential sites

1987 NWPA AmendmentsLimited to a single site Yucca Mountain

RCRA Amendments ndash 1984

Hazardous amp Solid Wastes Amendments Due to frustration with Reagan EPA ldquofoot-draggingrdquo im

plementing RCRA Scientific amp Implementation Reports point to problems

OTA amp NAS (1983) GAO

Sets 29 mandated deadlines for EPA action Mandates Specific Actions

Interim construction standards for underground storage tanks in 120 days

End to bulk liquid storage in lands fills within 6 months Small Waste Generators Covered by law

1000kg 1048782 100kg per month

TSCA Amendments ndash 1986

Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response ActEPA to develop plan for inspecting sch

ools for asbestos hazards and plan to control the threat where found

SARA ndash 1986 Adds $85 billion for NPL cleanup

Petroleum tax = $275 billion Chemical Feed stock tax = $14 billion Business tax = $25 billion General revenue = $125 billion

Public near sites to be informed of all stages of work

Emergency Planning amp Community Right to Know Act Industry must disclose to ldquolocal emergency planning

committeerdquo information of 400 chemicals usedstored on site

EPA to create TRI

Safe Drinking Water Act ndash 1974

EPA authority to set standards for public water supplies Oversee state programs Including ground water

50 of US population (95 of rural population) uses groundwater for domestic needs

40 of agricultural irrigation National Priority Drinking Water Standards by 1

977 Maximum Concentration Limits (MCLs)

Microbes Turbidity Chemicals (22 substances)

SDWA Amendments ndash 1986

Reauthorized SDWA Grants to states

Implementation amp enforcement Adds 61 contaminants to list of tho

se (22) with MCL standards

Clean Water Act (1987)

Revised EPA mandate to include non-point source pollutionNPSP believed to be responsible for fa

ilure of 65 of stream miles to meet state designated uses

States must devise plan to include ldquobest management practicesrdquo

States can choose to make these voluntary or mandatory

Cost Benefit Analysis

How should government decide what

to do

Government Action

Constrained by Limited Resources Setting Priorities among ldquoproblem

srdquo to address Tradeoffs

Environment vs economyDefense vs education

How do we maximize net benefits to society

Executive Order 12291

February 1981 Regulatory Impact Analyses

Cost-Benefit Analysis requiredSubmitted by all agenciesReviewed by Office of Information amp R

egulatory Affairs OMB office in White House

Executive Order 12291 Potential benefits to society must outwe

igh potential costs Regulatory objectives must maximize ne

t benefits to society Regulations must impose least net costs

to society in achieving objectives Regulatory priorities must maximize agg

regate net benefits to society taking into account The state of the economy The state of particular industries

Net-Benefit ExampleWhich is Preferred CO Anti Pollution Dev

ice on Tailpipes Cost = $100m Benefit = prolong 100

0 lives 1 year

Special Ambulances Equipped for Heart attack victims Cost = $100m Benefit = 10000 lives

prolonged 1 year

Elements of Cost Benefit Analysis

Monetizing all costs amp benefits for direct comparison

Discounting for Time value of money

Discounting for Uncertainty of Outcomes

Risk Analysis Maximizing Net Benefits

Issues

Who are ldquostakeholdersrdquo Whose costs amp benefits count

Future generations Non-human stakeholders What about non-tangible and hard to mo

netize costs amp benefits Existence Values Nuisance Values Moral Values

What about intensity of preferences

Costs of Environmental Protection

To the RegulatedEasiest to estimate amp monetizeSystematically overestimated

Benefits of Environmental Protection

To PublicDifficult to Monetize Benefits

Averted ldquocostsrdquo of not protecting the environment

Benefits of Grizzly Bears in Montana Willingness to pay Travel Cost Eco-tourism

Benefits are Systematically underestimated

Doing Cost-Benefit Analysis ndash USACEStyle

Net benefit example 1 Net benefit example 2 Discounting example

How Good are We atPredicting Regulatory Costs

Accuracy of Regulatory Costs ndash Ias Predicted by EPAOSHA

Accuracy within range predicted or plusmn 25 of point estimate

Harrington et al (2000) ldquoAccuracy of Regulatory Cost Estimatesrdquo JPAM 19(2) 297-322

AllRegulations(N=28)

Accurate Over Under

Amount ofPollutionreduction

13 9 4 2

Unit cost 8 14 6 0

Total cost 5 15 3 5

Accuracy of Regulatory Costs ndash IIas Predicted by EPAOSHA

Harrington et al (2000) ldquoAccuracy of Regulatory Cost Estimatesrdquo JPAM 19(2) 297-322

Accuracy of Regulatory Costs ndash IIIas Predicted by EPAOSHA

Accuracy within range predicted or plusmn 25 of point estimate

Harrington et al (2000) ldquoAccuracy of Regulatory Cost Estimatesrdquo JPAM 19(2) 297-322

  • Slide 1
  • Slide 2
  • Slide 3
  • Slide 4
  • Slide 5
  • Slide 6
  • Slide 7
  • Slide 8
  • Slide 9
  • Slide 10
  • Slide 11
  • Slide 12
  • Slide 13
  • Slide 14
  • Slide 15
  • Slide 16
  • Slide 17
  • Slide 18
  • Slide 19
  • Slide 20
  • Slide 21
  • Slide 22
  • Slide 23
  • Slide 24
  • Slide 25
  • Slide 26
  • Slide 27
  • Slide 28
  • Slide 29
  • Slide 30
Page 11: The Reagan Revolution & Environmental Policy

RCRA Amendments ndash 1984

Hazardous amp Solid Wastes Amendments Due to frustration with Reagan EPA ldquofoot-draggingrdquo im

plementing RCRA Scientific amp Implementation Reports point to problems

OTA amp NAS (1983) GAO

Sets 29 mandated deadlines for EPA action Mandates Specific Actions

Interim construction standards for underground storage tanks in 120 days

End to bulk liquid storage in lands fills within 6 months Small Waste Generators Covered by law

1000kg 1048782 100kg per month

TSCA Amendments ndash 1986

Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response ActEPA to develop plan for inspecting sch

ools for asbestos hazards and plan to control the threat where found

SARA ndash 1986 Adds $85 billion for NPL cleanup

Petroleum tax = $275 billion Chemical Feed stock tax = $14 billion Business tax = $25 billion General revenue = $125 billion

Public near sites to be informed of all stages of work

Emergency Planning amp Community Right to Know Act Industry must disclose to ldquolocal emergency planning

committeerdquo information of 400 chemicals usedstored on site

EPA to create TRI

Safe Drinking Water Act ndash 1974

EPA authority to set standards for public water supplies Oversee state programs Including ground water

50 of US population (95 of rural population) uses groundwater for domestic needs

40 of agricultural irrigation National Priority Drinking Water Standards by 1

977 Maximum Concentration Limits (MCLs)

Microbes Turbidity Chemicals (22 substances)

SDWA Amendments ndash 1986

Reauthorized SDWA Grants to states

Implementation amp enforcement Adds 61 contaminants to list of tho

se (22) with MCL standards

Clean Water Act (1987)

Revised EPA mandate to include non-point source pollutionNPSP believed to be responsible for fa

ilure of 65 of stream miles to meet state designated uses

States must devise plan to include ldquobest management practicesrdquo

States can choose to make these voluntary or mandatory

Cost Benefit Analysis

How should government decide what

to do

Government Action

Constrained by Limited Resources Setting Priorities among ldquoproblem

srdquo to address Tradeoffs

Environment vs economyDefense vs education

How do we maximize net benefits to society

Executive Order 12291

February 1981 Regulatory Impact Analyses

Cost-Benefit Analysis requiredSubmitted by all agenciesReviewed by Office of Information amp R

egulatory Affairs OMB office in White House

Executive Order 12291 Potential benefits to society must outwe

igh potential costs Regulatory objectives must maximize ne

t benefits to society Regulations must impose least net costs

to society in achieving objectives Regulatory priorities must maximize agg

regate net benefits to society taking into account The state of the economy The state of particular industries

Net-Benefit ExampleWhich is Preferred CO Anti Pollution Dev

ice on Tailpipes Cost = $100m Benefit = prolong 100

0 lives 1 year

Special Ambulances Equipped for Heart attack victims Cost = $100m Benefit = 10000 lives

prolonged 1 year

Elements of Cost Benefit Analysis

Monetizing all costs amp benefits for direct comparison

Discounting for Time value of money

Discounting for Uncertainty of Outcomes

Risk Analysis Maximizing Net Benefits

Issues

Who are ldquostakeholdersrdquo Whose costs amp benefits count

Future generations Non-human stakeholders What about non-tangible and hard to mo

netize costs amp benefits Existence Values Nuisance Values Moral Values

What about intensity of preferences

Costs of Environmental Protection

To the RegulatedEasiest to estimate amp monetizeSystematically overestimated

Benefits of Environmental Protection

To PublicDifficult to Monetize Benefits

Averted ldquocostsrdquo of not protecting the environment

Benefits of Grizzly Bears in Montana Willingness to pay Travel Cost Eco-tourism

Benefits are Systematically underestimated

Doing Cost-Benefit Analysis ndash USACEStyle

Net benefit example 1 Net benefit example 2 Discounting example

How Good are We atPredicting Regulatory Costs

Accuracy of Regulatory Costs ndash Ias Predicted by EPAOSHA

Accuracy within range predicted or plusmn 25 of point estimate

Harrington et al (2000) ldquoAccuracy of Regulatory Cost Estimatesrdquo JPAM 19(2) 297-322

AllRegulations(N=28)

Accurate Over Under

Amount ofPollutionreduction

13 9 4 2

Unit cost 8 14 6 0

Total cost 5 15 3 5

Accuracy of Regulatory Costs ndash IIas Predicted by EPAOSHA

Harrington et al (2000) ldquoAccuracy of Regulatory Cost Estimatesrdquo JPAM 19(2) 297-322

Accuracy of Regulatory Costs ndash IIIas Predicted by EPAOSHA

Accuracy within range predicted or plusmn 25 of point estimate

Harrington et al (2000) ldquoAccuracy of Regulatory Cost Estimatesrdquo JPAM 19(2) 297-322

  • Slide 1
  • Slide 2
  • Slide 3
  • Slide 4
  • Slide 5
  • Slide 6
  • Slide 7
  • Slide 8
  • Slide 9
  • Slide 10
  • Slide 11
  • Slide 12
  • Slide 13
  • Slide 14
  • Slide 15
  • Slide 16
  • Slide 17
  • Slide 18
  • Slide 19
  • Slide 20
  • Slide 21
  • Slide 22
  • Slide 23
  • Slide 24
  • Slide 25
  • Slide 26
  • Slide 27
  • Slide 28
  • Slide 29
  • Slide 30
Page 12: The Reagan Revolution & Environmental Policy

TSCA Amendments ndash 1986

Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response ActEPA to develop plan for inspecting sch

ools for asbestos hazards and plan to control the threat where found

SARA ndash 1986 Adds $85 billion for NPL cleanup

Petroleum tax = $275 billion Chemical Feed stock tax = $14 billion Business tax = $25 billion General revenue = $125 billion

Public near sites to be informed of all stages of work

Emergency Planning amp Community Right to Know Act Industry must disclose to ldquolocal emergency planning

committeerdquo information of 400 chemicals usedstored on site

EPA to create TRI

Safe Drinking Water Act ndash 1974

EPA authority to set standards for public water supplies Oversee state programs Including ground water

50 of US population (95 of rural population) uses groundwater for domestic needs

40 of agricultural irrigation National Priority Drinking Water Standards by 1

977 Maximum Concentration Limits (MCLs)

Microbes Turbidity Chemicals (22 substances)

SDWA Amendments ndash 1986

Reauthorized SDWA Grants to states

Implementation amp enforcement Adds 61 contaminants to list of tho

se (22) with MCL standards

Clean Water Act (1987)

Revised EPA mandate to include non-point source pollutionNPSP believed to be responsible for fa

ilure of 65 of stream miles to meet state designated uses

States must devise plan to include ldquobest management practicesrdquo

States can choose to make these voluntary or mandatory

Cost Benefit Analysis

How should government decide what

to do

Government Action

Constrained by Limited Resources Setting Priorities among ldquoproblem

srdquo to address Tradeoffs

Environment vs economyDefense vs education

How do we maximize net benefits to society

Executive Order 12291

February 1981 Regulatory Impact Analyses

Cost-Benefit Analysis requiredSubmitted by all agenciesReviewed by Office of Information amp R

egulatory Affairs OMB office in White House

Executive Order 12291 Potential benefits to society must outwe

igh potential costs Regulatory objectives must maximize ne

t benefits to society Regulations must impose least net costs

to society in achieving objectives Regulatory priorities must maximize agg

regate net benefits to society taking into account The state of the economy The state of particular industries

Net-Benefit ExampleWhich is Preferred CO Anti Pollution Dev

ice on Tailpipes Cost = $100m Benefit = prolong 100

0 lives 1 year

Special Ambulances Equipped for Heart attack victims Cost = $100m Benefit = 10000 lives

prolonged 1 year

Elements of Cost Benefit Analysis

Monetizing all costs amp benefits for direct comparison

Discounting for Time value of money

Discounting for Uncertainty of Outcomes

Risk Analysis Maximizing Net Benefits

Issues

Who are ldquostakeholdersrdquo Whose costs amp benefits count

Future generations Non-human stakeholders What about non-tangible and hard to mo

netize costs amp benefits Existence Values Nuisance Values Moral Values

What about intensity of preferences

Costs of Environmental Protection

To the RegulatedEasiest to estimate amp monetizeSystematically overestimated

Benefits of Environmental Protection

To PublicDifficult to Monetize Benefits

Averted ldquocostsrdquo of not protecting the environment

Benefits of Grizzly Bears in Montana Willingness to pay Travel Cost Eco-tourism

Benefits are Systematically underestimated

Doing Cost-Benefit Analysis ndash USACEStyle

Net benefit example 1 Net benefit example 2 Discounting example

How Good are We atPredicting Regulatory Costs

Accuracy of Regulatory Costs ndash Ias Predicted by EPAOSHA

Accuracy within range predicted or plusmn 25 of point estimate

Harrington et al (2000) ldquoAccuracy of Regulatory Cost Estimatesrdquo JPAM 19(2) 297-322

AllRegulations(N=28)

Accurate Over Under

Amount ofPollutionreduction

13 9 4 2

Unit cost 8 14 6 0

Total cost 5 15 3 5

Accuracy of Regulatory Costs ndash IIas Predicted by EPAOSHA

Harrington et al (2000) ldquoAccuracy of Regulatory Cost Estimatesrdquo JPAM 19(2) 297-322

Accuracy of Regulatory Costs ndash IIIas Predicted by EPAOSHA

Accuracy within range predicted or plusmn 25 of point estimate

Harrington et al (2000) ldquoAccuracy of Regulatory Cost Estimatesrdquo JPAM 19(2) 297-322

  • Slide 1
  • Slide 2
  • Slide 3
  • Slide 4
  • Slide 5
  • Slide 6
  • Slide 7
  • Slide 8
  • Slide 9
  • Slide 10
  • Slide 11
  • Slide 12
  • Slide 13
  • Slide 14
  • Slide 15
  • Slide 16
  • Slide 17
  • Slide 18
  • Slide 19
  • Slide 20
  • Slide 21
  • Slide 22
  • Slide 23
  • Slide 24
  • Slide 25
  • Slide 26
  • Slide 27
  • Slide 28
  • Slide 29
  • Slide 30
Page 13: The Reagan Revolution & Environmental Policy

SARA ndash 1986 Adds $85 billion for NPL cleanup

Petroleum tax = $275 billion Chemical Feed stock tax = $14 billion Business tax = $25 billion General revenue = $125 billion

Public near sites to be informed of all stages of work

Emergency Planning amp Community Right to Know Act Industry must disclose to ldquolocal emergency planning

committeerdquo information of 400 chemicals usedstored on site

EPA to create TRI

Safe Drinking Water Act ndash 1974

EPA authority to set standards for public water supplies Oversee state programs Including ground water

50 of US population (95 of rural population) uses groundwater for domestic needs

40 of agricultural irrigation National Priority Drinking Water Standards by 1

977 Maximum Concentration Limits (MCLs)

Microbes Turbidity Chemicals (22 substances)

SDWA Amendments ndash 1986

Reauthorized SDWA Grants to states

Implementation amp enforcement Adds 61 contaminants to list of tho

se (22) with MCL standards

Clean Water Act (1987)

Revised EPA mandate to include non-point source pollutionNPSP believed to be responsible for fa

ilure of 65 of stream miles to meet state designated uses

States must devise plan to include ldquobest management practicesrdquo

States can choose to make these voluntary or mandatory

Cost Benefit Analysis

How should government decide what

to do

Government Action

Constrained by Limited Resources Setting Priorities among ldquoproblem

srdquo to address Tradeoffs

Environment vs economyDefense vs education

How do we maximize net benefits to society

Executive Order 12291

February 1981 Regulatory Impact Analyses

Cost-Benefit Analysis requiredSubmitted by all agenciesReviewed by Office of Information amp R

egulatory Affairs OMB office in White House

Executive Order 12291 Potential benefits to society must outwe

igh potential costs Regulatory objectives must maximize ne

t benefits to society Regulations must impose least net costs

to society in achieving objectives Regulatory priorities must maximize agg

regate net benefits to society taking into account The state of the economy The state of particular industries

Net-Benefit ExampleWhich is Preferred CO Anti Pollution Dev

ice on Tailpipes Cost = $100m Benefit = prolong 100

0 lives 1 year

Special Ambulances Equipped for Heart attack victims Cost = $100m Benefit = 10000 lives

prolonged 1 year

Elements of Cost Benefit Analysis

Monetizing all costs amp benefits for direct comparison

Discounting for Time value of money

Discounting for Uncertainty of Outcomes

Risk Analysis Maximizing Net Benefits

Issues

Who are ldquostakeholdersrdquo Whose costs amp benefits count

Future generations Non-human stakeholders What about non-tangible and hard to mo

netize costs amp benefits Existence Values Nuisance Values Moral Values

What about intensity of preferences

Costs of Environmental Protection

To the RegulatedEasiest to estimate amp monetizeSystematically overestimated

Benefits of Environmental Protection

To PublicDifficult to Monetize Benefits

Averted ldquocostsrdquo of not protecting the environment

Benefits of Grizzly Bears in Montana Willingness to pay Travel Cost Eco-tourism

Benefits are Systematically underestimated

Doing Cost-Benefit Analysis ndash USACEStyle

Net benefit example 1 Net benefit example 2 Discounting example

How Good are We atPredicting Regulatory Costs

Accuracy of Regulatory Costs ndash Ias Predicted by EPAOSHA

Accuracy within range predicted or plusmn 25 of point estimate

Harrington et al (2000) ldquoAccuracy of Regulatory Cost Estimatesrdquo JPAM 19(2) 297-322

AllRegulations(N=28)

Accurate Over Under

Amount ofPollutionreduction

13 9 4 2

Unit cost 8 14 6 0

Total cost 5 15 3 5

Accuracy of Regulatory Costs ndash IIas Predicted by EPAOSHA

Harrington et al (2000) ldquoAccuracy of Regulatory Cost Estimatesrdquo JPAM 19(2) 297-322

Accuracy of Regulatory Costs ndash IIIas Predicted by EPAOSHA

Accuracy within range predicted or plusmn 25 of point estimate

Harrington et al (2000) ldquoAccuracy of Regulatory Cost Estimatesrdquo JPAM 19(2) 297-322

  • Slide 1
  • Slide 2
  • Slide 3
  • Slide 4
  • Slide 5
  • Slide 6
  • Slide 7
  • Slide 8
  • Slide 9
  • Slide 10
  • Slide 11
  • Slide 12
  • Slide 13
  • Slide 14
  • Slide 15
  • Slide 16
  • Slide 17
  • Slide 18
  • Slide 19
  • Slide 20
  • Slide 21
  • Slide 22
  • Slide 23
  • Slide 24
  • Slide 25
  • Slide 26
  • Slide 27
  • Slide 28
  • Slide 29
  • Slide 30
Page 14: The Reagan Revolution & Environmental Policy

Safe Drinking Water Act ndash 1974

EPA authority to set standards for public water supplies Oversee state programs Including ground water

50 of US population (95 of rural population) uses groundwater for domestic needs

40 of agricultural irrigation National Priority Drinking Water Standards by 1

977 Maximum Concentration Limits (MCLs)

Microbes Turbidity Chemicals (22 substances)

SDWA Amendments ndash 1986

Reauthorized SDWA Grants to states

Implementation amp enforcement Adds 61 contaminants to list of tho

se (22) with MCL standards

Clean Water Act (1987)

Revised EPA mandate to include non-point source pollutionNPSP believed to be responsible for fa

ilure of 65 of stream miles to meet state designated uses

States must devise plan to include ldquobest management practicesrdquo

States can choose to make these voluntary or mandatory

Cost Benefit Analysis

How should government decide what

to do

Government Action

Constrained by Limited Resources Setting Priorities among ldquoproblem

srdquo to address Tradeoffs

Environment vs economyDefense vs education

How do we maximize net benefits to society

Executive Order 12291

February 1981 Regulatory Impact Analyses

Cost-Benefit Analysis requiredSubmitted by all agenciesReviewed by Office of Information amp R

egulatory Affairs OMB office in White House

Executive Order 12291 Potential benefits to society must outwe

igh potential costs Regulatory objectives must maximize ne

t benefits to society Regulations must impose least net costs

to society in achieving objectives Regulatory priorities must maximize agg

regate net benefits to society taking into account The state of the economy The state of particular industries

Net-Benefit ExampleWhich is Preferred CO Anti Pollution Dev

ice on Tailpipes Cost = $100m Benefit = prolong 100

0 lives 1 year

Special Ambulances Equipped for Heart attack victims Cost = $100m Benefit = 10000 lives

prolonged 1 year

Elements of Cost Benefit Analysis

Monetizing all costs amp benefits for direct comparison

Discounting for Time value of money

Discounting for Uncertainty of Outcomes

Risk Analysis Maximizing Net Benefits

Issues

Who are ldquostakeholdersrdquo Whose costs amp benefits count

Future generations Non-human stakeholders What about non-tangible and hard to mo

netize costs amp benefits Existence Values Nuisance Values Moral Values

What about intensity of preferences

Costs of Environmental Protection

To the RegulatedEasiest to estimate amp monetizeSystematically overestimated

Benefits of Environmental Protection

To PublicDifficult to Monetize Benefits

Averted ldquocostsrdquo of not protecting the environment

Benefits of Grizzly Bears in Montana Willingness to pay Travel Cost Eco-tourism

Benefits are Systematically underestimated

Doing Cost-Benefit Analysis ndash USACEStyle

Net benefit example 1 Net benefit example 2 Discounting example

How Good are We atPredicting Regulatory Costs

Accuracy of Regulatory Costs ndash Ias Predicted by EPAOSHA

Accuracy within range predicted or plusmn 25 of point estimate

Harrington et al (2000) ldquoAccuracy of Regulatory Cost Estimatesrdquo JPAM 19(2) 297-322

AllRegulations(N=28)

Accurate Over Under

Amount ofPollutionreduction

13 9 4 2

Unit cost 8 14 6 0

Total cost 5 15 3 5

Accuracy of Regulatory Costs ndash IIas Predicted by EPAOSHA

Harrington et al (2000) ldquoAccuracy of Regulatory Cost Estimatesrdquo JPAM 19(2) 297-322

Accuracy of Regulatory Costs ndash IIIas Predicted by EPAOSHA

Accuracy within range predicted or plusmn 25 of point estimate

Harrington et al (2000) ldquoAccuracy of Regulatory Cost Estimatesrdquo JPAM 19(2) 297-322

  • Slide 1
  • Slide 2
  • Slide 3
  • Slide 4
  • Slide 5
  • Slide 6
  • Slide 7
  • Slide 8
  • Slide 9
  • Slide 10
  • Slide 11
  • Slide 12
  • Slide 13
  • Slide 14
  • Slide 15
  • Slide 16
  • Slide 17
  • Slide 18
  • Slide 19
  • Slide 20
  • Slide 21
  • Slide 22
  • Slide 23
  • Slide 24
  • Slide 25
  • Slide 26
  • Slide 27
  • Slide 28
  • Slide 29
  • Slide 30
Page 15: The Reagan Revolution & Environmental Policy

SDWA Amendments ndash 1986

Reauthorized SDWA Grants to states

Implementation amp enforcement Adds 61 contaminants to list of tho

se (22) with MCL standards

Clean Water Act (1987)

Revised EPA mandate to include non-point source pollutionNPSP believed to be responsible for fa

ilure of 65 of stream miles to meet state designated uses

States must devise plan to include ldquobest management practicesrdquo

States can choose to make these voluntary or mandatory

Cost Benefit Analysis

How should government decide what

to do

Government Action

Constrained by Limited Resources Setting Priorities among ldquoproblem

srdquo to address Tradeoffs

Environment vs economyDefense vs education

How do we maximize net benefits to society

Executive Order 12291

February 1981 Regulatory Impact Analyses

Cost-Benefit Analysis requiredSubmitted by all agenciesReviewed by Office of Information amp R

egulatory Affairs OMB office in White House

Executive Order 12291 Potential benefits to society must outwe

igh potential costs Regulatory objectives must maximize ne

t benefits to society Regulations must impose least net costs

to society in achieving objectives Regulatory priorities must maximize agg

regate net benefits to society taking into account The state of the economy The state of particular industries

Net-Benefit ExampleWhich is Preferred CO Anti Pollution Dev

ice on Tailpipes Cost = $100m Benefit = prolong 100

0 lives 1 year

Special Ambulances Equipped for Heart attack victims Cost = $100m Benefit = 10000 lives

prolonged 1 year

Elements of Cost Benefit Analysis

Monetizing all costs amp benefits for direct comparison

Discounting for Time value of money

Discounting for Uncertainty of Outcomes

Risk Analysis Maximizing Net Benefits

Issues

Who are ldquostakeholdersrdquo Whose costs amp benefits count

Future generations Non-human stakeholders What about non-tangible and hard to mo

netize costs amp benefits Existence Values Nuisance Values Moral Values

What about intensity of preferences

Costs of Environmental Protection

To the RegulatedEasiest to estimate amp monetizeSystematically overestimated

Benefits of Environmental Protection

To PublicDifficult to Monetize Benefits

Averted ldquocostsrdquo of not protecting the environment

Benefits of Grizzly Bears in Montana Willingness to pay Travel Cost Eco-tourism

Benefits are Systematically underestimated

Doing Cost-Benefit Analysis ndash USACEStyle

Net benefit example 1 Net benefit example 2 Discounting example

How Good are We atPredicting Regulatory Costs

Accuracy of Regulatory Costs ndash Ias Predicted by EPAOSHA

Accuracy within range predicted or plusmn 25 of point estimate

Harrington et al (2000) ldquoAccuracy of Regulatory Cost Estimatesrdquo JPAM 19(2) 297-322

AllRegulations(N=28)

Accurate Over Under

Amount ofPollutionreduction

13 9 4 2

Unit cost 8 14 6 0

Total cost 5 15 3 5

Accuracy of Regulatory Costs ndash IIas Predicted by EPAOSHA

Harrington et al (2000) ldquoAccuracy of Regulatory Cost Estimatesrdquo JPAM 19(2) 297-322

Accuracy of Regulatory Costs ndash IIIas Predicted by EPAOSHA

Accuracy within range predicted or plusmn 25 of point estimate

Harrington et al (2000) ldquoAccuracy of Regulatory Cost Estimatesrdquo JPAM 19(2) 297-322

  • Slide 1
  • Slide 2
  • Slide 3
  • Slide 4
  • Slide 5
  • Slide 6
  • Slide 7
  • Slide 8
  • Slide 9
  • Slide 10
  • Slide 11
  • Slide 12
  • Slide 13
  • Slide 14
  • Slide 15
  • Slide 16
  • Slide 17
  • Slide 18
  • Slide 19
  • Slide 20
  • Slide 21
  • Slide 22
  • Slide 23
  • Slide 24
  • Slide 25
  • Slide 26
  • Slide 27
  • Slide 28
  • Slide 29
  • Slide 30
Page 16: The Reagan Revolution & Environmental Policy

Clean Water Act (1987)

Revised EPA mandate to include non-point source pollutionNPSP believed to be responsible for fa

ilure of 65 of stream miles to meet state designated uses

States must devise plan to include ldquobest management practicesrdquo

States can choose to make these voluntary or mandatory

Cost Benefit Analysis

How should government decide what

to do

Government Action

Constrained by Limited Resources Setting Priorities among ldquoproblem

srdquo to address Tradeoffs

Environment vs economyDefense vs education

How do we maximize net benefits to society

Executive Order 12291

February 1981 Regulatory Impact Analyses

Cost-Benefit Analysis requiredSubmitted by all agenciesReviewed by Office of Information amp R

egulatory Affairs OMB office in White House

Executive Order 12291 Potential benefits to society must outwe

igh potential costs Regulatory objectives must maximize ne

t benefits to society Regulations must impose least net costs

to society in achieving objectives Regulatory priorities must maximize agg

regate net benefits to society taking into account The state of the economy The state of particular industries

Net-Benefit ExampleWhich is Preferred CO Anti Pollution Dev

ice on Tailpipes Cost = $100m Benefit = prolong 100

0 lives 1 year

Special Ambulances Equipped for Heart attack victims Cost = $100m Benefit = 10000 lives

prolonged 1 year

Elements of Cost Benefit Analysis

Monetizing all costs amp benefits for direct comparison

Discounting for Time value of money

Discounting for Uncertainty of Outcomes

Risk Analysis Maximizing Net Benefits

Issues

Who are ldquostakeholdersrdquo Whose costs amp benefits count

Future generations Non-human stakeholders What about non-tangible and hard to mo

netize costs amp benefits Existence Values Nuisance Values Moral Values

What about intensity of preferences

Costs of Environmental Protection

To the RegulatedEasiest to estimate amp monetizeSystematically overestimated

Benefits of Environmental Protection

To PublicDifficult to Monetize Benefits

Averted ldquocostsrdquo of not protecting the environment

Benefits of Grizzly Bears in Montana Willingness to pay Travel Cost Eco-tourism

Benefits are Systematically underestimated

Doing Cost-Benefit Analysis ndash USACEStyle

Net benefit example 1 Net benefit example 2 Discounting example

How Good are We atPredicting Regulatory Costs

Accuracy of Regulatory Costs ndash Ias Predicted by EPAOSHA

Accuracy within range predicted or plusmn 25 of point estimate

Harrington et al (2000) ldquoAccuracy of Regulatory Cost Estimatesrdquo JPAM 19(2) 297-322

AllRegulations(N=28)

Accurate Over Under

Amount ofPollutionreduction

13 9 4 2

Unit cost 8 14 6 0

Total cost 5 15 3 5

Accuracy of Regulatory Costs ndash IIas Predicted by EPAOSHA

Harrington et al (2000) ldquoAccuracy of Regulatory Cost Estimatesrdquo JPAM 19(2) 297-322

Accuracy of Regulatory Costs ndash IIIas Predicted by EPAOSHA

Accuracy within range predicted or plusmn 25 of point estimate

Harrington et al (2000) ldquoAccuracy of Regulatory Cost Estimatesrdquo JPAM 19(2) 297-322

  • Slide 1
  • Slide 2
  • Slide 3
  • Slide 4
  • Slide 5
  • Slide 6
  • Slide 7
  • Slide 8
  • Slide 9
  • Slide 10
  • Slide 11
  • Slide 12
  • Slide 13
  • Slide 14
  • Slide 15
  • Slide 16
  • Slide 17
  • Slide 18
  • Slide 19
  • Slide 20
  • Slide 21
  • Slide 22
  • Slide 23
  • Slide 24
  • Slide 25
  • Slide 26
  • Slide 27
  • Slide 28
  • Slide 29
  • Slide 30
Page 17: The Reagan Revolution & Environmental Policy

Cost Benefit Analysis

How should government decide what

to do

Government Action

Constrained by Limited Resources Setting Priorities among ldquoproblem

srdquo to address Tradeoffs

Environment vs economyDefense vs education

How do we maximize net benefits to society

Executive Order 12291

February 1981 Regulatory Impact Analyses

Cost-Benefit Analysis requiredSubmitted by all agenciesReviewed by Office of Information amp R

egulatory Affairs OMB office in White House

Executive Order 12291 Potential benefits to society must outwe

igh potential costs Regulatory objectives must maximize ne

t benefits to society Regulations must impose least net costs

to society in achieving objectives Regulatory priorities must maximize agg

regate net benefits to society taking into account The state of the economy The state of particular industries

Net-Benefit ExampleWhich is Preferred CO Anti Pollution Dev

ice on Tailpipes Cost = $100m Benefit = prolong 100

0 lives 1 year

Special Ambulances Equipped for Heart attack victims Cost = $100m Benefit = 10000 lives

prolonged 1 year

Elements of Cost Benefit Analysis

Monetizing all costs amp benefits for direct comparison

Discounting for Time value of money

Discounting for Uncertainty of Outcomes

Risk Analysis Maximizing Net Benefits

Issues

Who are ldquostakeholdersrdquo Whose costs amp benefits count

Future generations Non-human stakeholders What about non-tangible and hard to mo

netize costs amp benefits Existence Values Nuisance Values Moral Values

What about intensity of preferences

Costs of Environmental Protection

To the RegulatedEasiest to estimate amp monetizeSystematically overestimated

Benefits of Environmental Protection

To PublicDifficult to Monetize Benefits

Averted ldquocostsrdquo of not protecting the environment

Benefits of Grizzly Bears in Montana Willingness to pay Travel Cost Eco-tourism

Benefits are Systematically underestimated

Doing Cost-Benefit Analysis ndash USACEStyle

Net benefit example 1 Net benefit example 2 Discounting example

How Good are We atPredicting Regulatory Costs

Accuracy of Regulatory Costs ndash Ias Predicted by EPAOSHA

Accuracy within range predicted or plusmn 25 of point estimate

Harrington et al (2000) ldquoAccuracy of Regulatory Cost Estimatesrdquo JPAM 19(2) 297-322

AllRegulations(N=28)

Accurate Over Under

Amount ofPollutionreduction

13 9 4 2

Unit cost 8 14 6 0

Total cost 5 15 3 5

Accuracy of Regulatory Costs ndash IIas Predicted by EPAOSHA

Harrington et al (2000) ldquoAccuracy of Regulatory Cost Estimatesrdquo JPAM 19(2) 297-322

Accuracy of Regulatory Costs ndash IIIas Predicted by EPAOSHA

Accuracy within range predicted or plusmn 25 of point estimate

Harrington et al (2000) ldquoAccuracy of Regulatory Cost Estimatesrdquo JPAM 19(2) 297-322

  • Slide 1
  • Slide 2
  • Slide 3
  • Slide 4
  • Slide 5
  • Slide 6
  • Slide 7
  • Slide 8
  • Slide 9
  • Slide 10
  • Slide 11
  • Slide 12
  • Slide 13
  • Slide 14
  • Slide 15
  • Slide 16
  • Slide 17
  • Slide 18
  • Slide 19
  • Slide 20
  • Slide 21
  • Slide 22
  • Slide 23
  • Slide 24
  • Slide 25
  • Slide 26
  • Slide 27
  • Slide 28
  • Slide 29
  • Slide 30
Page 18: The Reagan Revolution & Environmental Policy

Government Action

Constrained by Limited Resources Setting Priorities among ldquoproblem

srdquo to address Tradeoffs

Environment vs economyDefense vs education

How do we maximize net benefits to society

Executive Order 12291

February 1981 Regulatory Impact Analyses

Cost-Benefit Analysis requiredSubmitted by all agenciesReviewed by Office of Information amp R

egulatory Affairs OMB office in White House

Executive Order 12291 Potential benefits to society must outwe

igh potential costs Regulatory objectives must maximize ne

t benefits to society Regulations must impose least net costs

to society in achieving objectives Regulatory priorities must maximize agg

regate net benefits to society taking into account The state of the economy The state of particular industries

Net-Benefit ExampleWhich is Preferred CO Anti Pollution Dev

ice on Tailpipes Cost = $100m Benefit = prolong 100

0 lives 1 year

Special Ambulances Equipped for Heart attack victims Cost = $100m Benefit = 10000 lives

prolonged 1 year

Elements of Cost Benefit Analysis

Monetizing all costs amp benefits for direct comparison

Discounting for Time value of money

Discounting for Uncertainty of Outcomes

Risk Analysis Maximizing Net Benefits

Issues

Who are ldquostakeholdersrdquo Whose costs amp benefits count

Future generations Non-human stakeholders What about non-tangible and hard to mo

netize costs amp benefits Existence Values Nuisance Values Moral Values

What about intensity of preferences

Costs of Environmental Protection

To the RegulatedEasiest to estimate amp monetizeSystematically overestimated

Benefits of Environmental Protection

To PublicDifficult to Monetize Benefits

Averted ldquocostsrdquo of not protecting the environment

Benefits of Grizzly Bears in Montana Willingness to pay Travel Cost Eco-tourism

Benefits are Systematically underestimated

Doing Cost-Benefit Analysis ndash USACEStyle

Net benefit example 1 Net benefit example 2 Discounting example

How Good are We atPredicting Regulatory Costs

Accuracy of Regulatory Costs ndash Ias Predicted by EPAOSHA

Accuracy within range predicted or plusmn 25 of point estimate

Harrington et al (2000) ldquoAccuracy of Regulatory Cost Estimatesrdquo JPAM 19(2) 297-322

AllRegulations(N=28)

Accurate Over Under

Amount ofPollutionreduction

13 9 4 2

Unit cost 8 14 6 0

Total cost 5 15 3 5

Accuracy of Regulatory Costs ndash IIas Predicted by EPAOSHA

Harrington et al (2000) ldquoAccuracy of Regulatory Cost Estimatesrdquo JPAM 19(2) 297-322

Accuracy of Regulatory Costs ndash IIIas Predicted by EPAOSHA

Accuracy within range predicted or plusmn 25 of point estimate

Harrington et al (2000) ldquoAccuracy of Regulatory Cost Estimatesrdquo JPAM 19(2) 297-322

  • Slide 1
  • Slide 2
  • Slide 3
  • Slide 4
  • Slide 5
  • Slide 6
  • Slide 7
  • Slide 8
  • Slide 9
  • Slide 10
  • Slide 11
  • Slide 12
  • Slide 13
  • Slide 14
  • Slide 15
  • Slide 16
  • Slide 17
  • Slide 18
  • Slide 19
  • Slide 20
  • Slide 21
  • Slide 22
  • Slide 23
  • Slide 24
  • Slide 25
  • Slide 26
  • Slide 27
  • Slide 28
  • Slide 29
  • Slide 30
Page 19: The Reagan Revolution & Environmental Policy

Executive Order 12291

February 1981 Regulatory Impact Analyses

Cost-Benefit Analysis requiredSubmitted by all agenciesReviewed by Office of Information amp R

egulatory Affairs OMB office in White House

Executive Order 12291 Potential benefits to society must outwe

igh potential costs Regulatory objectives must maximize ne

t benefits to society Regulations must impose least net costs

to society in achieving objectives Regulatory priorities must maximize agg

regate net benefits to society taking into account The state of the economy The state of particular industries

Net-Benefit ExampleWhich is Preferred CO Anti Pollution Dev

ice on Tailpipes Cost = $100m Benefit = prolong 100

0 lives 1 year

Special Ambulances Equipped for Heart attack victims Cost = $100m Benefit = 10000 lives

prolonged 1 year

Elements of Cost Benefit Analysis

Monetizing all costs amp benefits for direct comparison

Discounting for Time value of money

Discounting for Uncertainty of Outcomes

Risk Analysis Maximizing Net Benefits

Issues

Who are ldquostakeholdersrdquo Whose costs amp benefits count

Future generations Non-human stakeholders What about non-tangible and hard to mo

netize costs amp benefits Existence Values Nuisance Values Moral Values

What about intensity of preferences

Costs of Environmental Protection

To the RegulatedEasiest to estimate amp monetizeSystematically overestimated

Benefits of Environmental Protection

To PublicDifficult to Monetize Benefits

Averted ldquocostsrdquo of not protecting the environment

Benefits of Grizzly Bears in Montana Willingness to pay Travel Cost Eco-tourism

Benefits are Systematically underestimated

Doing Cost-Benefit Analysis ndash USACEStyle

Net benefit example 1 Net benefit example 2 Discounting example

How Good are We atPredicting Regulatory Costs

Accuracy of Regulatory Costs ndash Ias Predicted by EPAOSHA

Accuracy within range predicted or plusmn 25 of point estimate

Harrington et al (2000) ldquoAccuracy of Regulatory Cost Estimatesrdquo JPAM 19(2) 297-322

AllRegulations(N=28)

Accurate Over Under

Amount ofPollutionreduction

13 9 4 2

Unit cost 8 14 6 0

Total cost 5 15 3 5

Accuracy of Regulatory Costs ndash IIas Predicted by EPAOSHA

Harrington et al (2000) ldquoAccuracy of Regulatory Cost Estimatesrdquo JPAM 19(2) 297-322

Accuracy of Regulatory Costs ndash IIIas Predicted by EPAOSHA

Accuracy within range predicted or plusmn 25 of point estimate

Harrington et al (2000) ldquoAccuracy of Regulatory Cost Estimatesrdquo JPAM 19(2) 297-322

  • Slide 1
  • Slide 2
  • Slide 3
  • Slide 4
  • Slide 5
  • Slide 6
  • Slide 7
  • Slide 8
  • Slide 9
  • Slide 10
  • Slide 11
  • Slide 12
  • Slide 13
  • Slide 14
  • Slide 15
  • Slide 16
  • Slide 17
  • Slide 18
  • Slide 19
  • Slide 20
  • Slide 21
  • Slide 22
  • Slide 23
  • Slide 24
  • Slide 25
  • Slide 26
  • Slide 27
  • Slide 28
  • Slide 29
  • Slide 30
Page 20: The Reagan Revolution & Environmental Policy

Executive Order 12291 Potential benefits to society must outwe

igh potential costs Regulatory objectives must maximize ne

t benefits to society Regulations must impose least net costs

to society in achieving objectives Regulatory priorities must maximize agg

regate net benefits to society taking into account The state of the economy The state of particular industries

Net-Benefit ExampleWhich is Preferred CO Anti Pollution Dev

ice on Tailpipes Cost = $100m Benefit = prolong 100

0 lives 1 year

Special Ambulances Equipped for Heart attack victims Cost = $100m Benefit = 10000 lives

prolonged 1 year

Elements of Cost Benefit Analysis

Monetizing all costs amp benefits for direct comparison

Discounting for Time value of money

Discounting for Uncertainty of Outcomes

Risk Analysis Maximizing Net Benefits

Issues

Who are ldquostakeholdersrdquo Whose costs amp benefits count

Future generations Non-human stakeholders What about non-tangible and hard to mo

netize costs amp benefits Existence Values Nuisance Values Moral Values

What about intensity of preferences

Costs of Environmental Protection

To the RegulatedEasiest to estimate amp monetizeSystematically overestimated

Benefits of Environmental Protection

To PublicDifficult to Monetize Benefits

Averted ldquocostsrdquo of not protecting the environment

Benefits of Grizzly Bears in Montana Willingness to pay Travel Cost Eco-tourism

Benefits are Systematically underestimated

Doing Cost-Benefit Analysis ndash USACEStyle

Net benefit example 1 Net benefit example 2 Discounting example

How Good are We atPredicting Regulatory Costs

Accuracy of Regulatory Costs ndash Ias Predicted by EPAOSHA

Accuracy within range predicted or plusmn 25 of point estimate

Harrington et al (2000) ldquoAccuracy of Regulatory Cost Estimatesrdquo JPAM 19(2) 297-322

AllRegulations(N=28)

Accurate Over Under

Amount ofPollutionreduction

13 9 4 2

Unit cost 8 14 6 0

Total cost 5 15 3 5

Accuracy of Regulatory Costs ndash IIas Predicted by EPAOSHA

Harrington et al (2000) ldquoAccuracy of Regulatory Cost Estimatesrdquo JPAM 19(2) 297-322

Accuracy of Regulatory Costs ndash IIIas Predicted by EPAOSHA

Accuracy within range predicted or plusmn 25 of point estimate

Harrington et al (2000) ldquoAccuracy of Regulatory Cost Estimatesrdquo JPAM 19(2) 297-322

  • Slide 1
  • Slide 2
  • Slide 3
  • Slide 4
  • Slide 5
  • Slide 6
  • Slide 7
  • Slide 8
  • Slide 9
  • Slide 10
  • Slide 11
  • Slide 12
  • Slide 13
  • Slide 14
  • Slide 15
  • Slide 16
  • Slide 17
  • Slide 18
  • Slide 19
  • Slide 20
  • Slide 21
  • Slide 22
  • Slide 23
  • Slide 24
  • Slide 25
  • Slide 26
  • Slide 27
  • Slide 28
  • Slide 29
  • Slide 30
Page 21: The Reagan Revolution & Environmental Policy

Net-Benefit ExampleWhich is Preferred CO Anti Pollution Dev

ice on Tailpipes Cost = $100m Benefit = prolong 100

0 lives 1 year

Special Ambulances Equipped for Heart attack victims Cost = $100m Benefit = 10000 lives

prolonged 1 year

Elements of Cost Benefit Analysis

Monetizing all costs amp benefits for direct comparison

Discounting for Time value of money

Discounting for Uncertainty of Outcomes

Risk Analysis Maximizing Net Benefits

Issues

Who are ldquostakeholdersrdquo Whose costs amp benefits count

Future generations Non-human stakeholders What about non-tangible and hard to mo

netize costs amp benefits Existence Values Nuisance Values Moral Values

What about intensity of preferences

Costs of Environmental Protection

To the RegulatedEasiest to estimate amp monetizeSystematically overestimated

Benefits of Environmental Protection

To PublicDifficult to Monetize Benefits

Averted ldquocostsrdquo of not protecting the environment

Benefits of Grizzly Bears in Montana Willingness to pay Travel Cost Eco-tourism

Benefits are Systematically underestimated

Doing Cost-Benefit Analysis ndash USACEStyle

Net benefit example 1 Net benefit example 2 Discounting example

How Good are We atPredicting Regulatory Costs

Accuracy of Regulatory Costs ndash Ias Predicted by EPAOSHA

Accuracy within range predicted or plusmn 25 of point estimate

Harrington et al (2000) ldquoAccuracy of Regulatory Cost Estimatesrdquo JPAM 19(2) 297-322

AllRegulations(N=28)

Accurate Over Under

Amount ofPollutionreduction

13 9 4 2

Unit cost 8 14 6 0

Total cost 5 15 3 5

Accuracy of Regulatory Costs ndash IIas Predicted by EPAOSHA

Harrington et al (2000) ldquoAccuracy of Regulatory Cost Estimatesrdquo JPAM 19(2) 297-322

Accuracy of Regulatory Costs ndash IIIas Predicted by EPAOSHA

Accuracy within range predicted or plusmn 25 of point estimate

Harrington et al (2000) ldquoAccuracy of Regulatory Cost Estimatesrdquo JPAM 19(2) 297-322

  • Slide 1
  • Slide 2
  • Slide 3
  • Slide 4
  • Slide 5
  • Slide 6
  • Slide 7
  • Slide 8
  • Slide 9
  • Slide 10
  • Slide 11
  • Slide 12
  • Slide 13
  • Slide 14
  • Slide 15
  • Slide 16
  • Slide 17
  • Slide 18
  • Slide 19
  • Slide 20
  • Slide 21
  • Slide 22
  • Slide 23
  • Slide 24
  • Slide 25
  • Slide 26
  • Slide 27
  • Slide 28
  • Slide 29
  • Slide 30
Page 22: The Reagan Revolution & Environmental Policy

Elements of Cost Benefit Analysis

Monetizing all costs amp benefits for direct comparison

Discounting for Time value of money

Discounting for Uncertainty of Outcomes

Risk Analysis Maximizing Net Benefits

Issues

Who are ldquostakeholdersrdquo Whose costs amp benefits count

Future generations Non-human stakeholders What about non-tangible and hard to mo

netize costs amp benefits Existence Values Nuisance Values Moral Values

What about intensity of preferences

Costs of Environmental Protection

To the RegulatedEasiest to estimate amp monetizeSystematically overestimated

Benefits of Environmental Protection

To PublicDifficult to Monetize Benefits

Averted ldquocostsrdquo of not protecting the environment

Benefits of Grizzly Bears in Montana Willingness to pay Travel Cost Eco-tourism

Benefits are Systematically underestimated

Doing Cost-Benefit Analysis ndash USACEStyle

Net benefit example 1 Net benefit example 2 Discounting example

How Good are We atPredicting Regulatory Costs

Accuracy of Regulatory Costs ndash Ias Predicted by EPAOSHA

Accuracy within range predicted or plusmn 25 of point estimate

Harrington et al (2000) ldquoAccuracy of Regulatory Cost Estimatesrdquo JPAM 19(2) 297-322

AllRegulations(N=28)

Accurate Over Under

Amount ofPollutionreduction

13 9 4 2

Unit cost 8 14 6 0

Total cost 5 15 3 5

Accuracy of Regulatory Costs ndash IIas Predicted by EPAOSHA

Harrington et al (2000) ldquoAccuracy of Regulatory Cost Estimatesrdquo JPAM 19(2) 297-322

Accuracy of Regulatory Costs ndash IIIas Predicted by EPAOSHA

Accuracy within range predicted or plusmn 25 of point estimate

Harrington et al (2000) ldquoAccuracy of Regulatory Cost Estimatesrdquo JPAM 19(2) 297-322

  • Slide 1
  • Slide 2
  • Slide 3
  • Slide 4
  • Slide 5
  • Slide 6
  • Slide 7
  • Slide 8
  • Slide 9
  • Slide 10
  • Slide 11
  • Slide 12
  • Slide 13
  • Slide 14
  • Slide 15
  • Slide 16
  • Slide 17
  • Slide 18
  • Slide 19
  • Slide 20
  • Slide 21
  • Slide 22
  • Slide 23
  • Slide 24
  • Slide 25
  • Slide 26
  • Slide 27
  • Slide 28
  • Slide 29
  • Slide 30
Page 23: The Reagan Revolution & Environmental Policy

Issues

Who are ldquostakeholdersrdquo Whose costs amp benefits count

Future generations Non-human stakeholders What about non-tangible and hard to mo

netize costs amp benefits Existence Values Nuisance Values Moral Values

What about intensity of preferences

Costs of Environmental Protection

To the RegulatedEasiest to estimate amp monetizeSystematically overestimated

Benefits of Environmental Protection

To PublicDifficult to Monetize Benefits

Averted ldquocostsrdquo of not protecting the environment

Benefits of Grizzly Bears in Montana Willingness to pay Travel Cost Eco-tourism

Benefits are Systematically underestimated

Doing Cost-Benefit Analysis ndash USACEStyle

Net benefit example 1 Net benefit example 2 Discounting example

How Good are We atPredicting Regulatory Costs

Accuracy of Regulatory Costs ndash Ias Predicted by EPAOSHA

Accuracy within range predicted or plusmn 25 of point estimate

Harrington et al (2000) ldquoAccuracy of Regulatory Cost Estimatesrdquo JPAM 19(2) 297-322

AllRegulations(N=28)

Accurate Over Under

Amount ofPollutionreduction

13 9 4 2

Unit cost 8 14 6 0

Total cost 5 15 3 5

Accuracy of Regulatory Costs ndash IIas Predicted by EPAOSHA

Harrington et al (2000) ldquoAccuracy of Regulatory Cost Estimatesrdquo JPAM 19(2) 297-322

Accuracy of Regulatory Costs ndash IIIas Predicted by EPAOSHA

Accuracy within range predicted or plusmn 25 of point estimate

Harrington et al (2000) ldquoAccuracy of Regulatory Cost Estimatesrdquo JPAM 19(2) 297-322

  • Slide 1
  • Slide 2
  • Slide 3
  • Slide 4
  • Slide 5
  • Slide 6
  • Slide 7
  • Slide 8
  • Slide 9
  • Slide 10
  • Slide 11
  • Slide 12
  • Slide 13
  • Slide 14
  • Slide 15
  • Slide 16
  • Slide 17
  • Slide 18
  • Slide 19
  • Slide 20
  • Slide 21
  • Slide 22
  • Slide 23
  • Slide 24
  • Slide 25
  • Slide 26
  • Slide 27
  • Slide 28
  • Slide 29
  • Slide 30
Page 24: The Reagan Revolution & Environmental Policy

Costs of Environmental Protection

To the RegulatedEasiest to estimate amp monetizeSystematically overestimated

Benefits of Environmental Protection

To PublicDifficult to Monetize Benefits

Averted ldquocostsrdquo of not protecting the environment

Benefits of Grizzly Bears in Montana Willingness to pay Travel Cost Eco-tourism

Benefits are Systematically underestimated

Doing Cost-Benefit Analysis ndash USACEStyle

Net benefit example 1 Net benefit example 2 Discounting example

How Good are We atPredicting Regulatory Costs

Accuracy of Regulatory Costs ndash Ias Predicted by EPAOSHA

Accuracy within range predicted or plusmn 25 of point estimate

Harrington et al (2000) ldquoAccuracy of Regulatory Cost Estimatesrdquo JPAM 19(2) 297-322

AllRegulations(N=28)

Accurate Over Under

Amount ofPollutionreduction

13 9 4 2

Unit cost 8 14 6 0

Total cost 5 15 3 5

Accuracy of Regulatory Costs ndash IIas Predicted by EPAOSHA

Harrington et al (2000) ldquoAccuracy of Regulatory Cost Estimatesrdquo JPAM 19(2) 297-322

Accuracy of Regulatory Costs ndash IIIas Predicted by EPAOSHA

Accuracy within range predicted or plusmn 25 of point estimate

Harrington et al (2000) ldquoAccuracy of Regulatory Cost Estimatesrdquo JPAM 19(2) 297-322

  • Slide 1
  • Slide 2
  • Slide 3
  • Slide 4
  • Slide 5
  • Slide 6
  • Slide 7
  • Slide 8
  • Slide 9
  • Slide 10
  • Slide 11
  • Slide 12
  • Slide 13
  • Slide 14
  • Slide 15
  • Slide 16
  • Slide 17
  • Slide 18
  • Slide 19
  • Slide 20
  • Slide 21
  • Slide 22
  • Slide 23
  • Slide 24
  • Slide 25
  • Slide 26
  • Slide 27
  • Slide 28
  • Slide 29
  • Slide 30
Page 25: The Reagan Revolution & Environmental Policy

Benefits of Environmental Protection

To PublicDifficult to Monetize Benefits

Averted ldquocostsrdquo of not protecting the environment

Benefits of Grizzly Bears in Montana Willingness to pay Travel Cost Eco-tourism

Benefits are Systematically underestimated

Doing Cost-Benefit Analysis ndash USACEStyle

Net benefit example 1 Net benefit example 2 Discounting example

How Good are We atPredicting Regulatory Costs

Accuracy of Regulatory Costs ndash Ias Predicted by EPAOSHA

Accuracy within range predicted or plusmn 25 of point estimate

Harrington et al (2000) ldquoAccuracy of Regulatory Cost Estimatesrdquo JPAM 19(2) 297-322

AllRegulations(N=28)

Accurate Over Under

Amount ofPollutionreduction

13 9 4 2

Unit cost 8 14 6 0

Total cost 5 15 3 5

Accuracy of Regulatory Costs ndash IIas Predicted by EPAOSHA

Harrington et al (2000) ldquoAccuracy of Regulatory Cost Estimatesrdquo JPAM 19(2) 297-322

Accuracy of Regulatory Costs ndash IIIas Predicted by EPAOSHA

Accuracy within range predicted or plusmn 25 of point estimate

Harrington et al (2000) ldquoAccuracy of Regulatory Cost Estimatesrdquo JPAM 19(2) 297-322

  • Slide 1
  • Slide 2
  • Slide 3
  • Slide 4
  • Slide 5
  • Slide 6
  • Slide 7
  • Slide 8
  • Slide 9
  • Slide 10
  • Slide 11
  • Slide 12
  • Slide 13
  • Slide 14
  • Slide 15
  • Slide 16
  • Slide 17
  • Slide 18
  • Slide 19
  • Slide 20
  • Slide 21
  • Slide 22
  • Slide 23
  • Slide 24
  • Slide 25
  • Slide 26
  • Slide 27
  • Slide 28
  • Slide 29
  • Slide 30
Page 26: The Reagan Revolution & Environmental Policy

Doing Cost-Benefit Analysis ndash USACEStyle

Net benefit example 1 Net benefit example 2 Discounting example

How Good are We atPredicting Regulatory Costs

Accuracy of Regulatory Costs ndash Ias Predicted by EPAOSHA

Accuracy within range predicted or plusmn 25 of point estimate

Harrington et al (2000) ldquoAccuracy of Regulatory Cost Estimatesrdquo JPAM 19(2) 297-322

AllRegulations(N=28)

Accurate Over Under

Amount ofPollutionreduction

13 9 4 2

Unit cost 8 14 6 0

Total cost 5 15 3 5

Accuracy of Regulatory Costs ndash IIas Predicted by EPAOSHA

Harrington et al (2000) ldquoAccuracy of Regulatory Cost Estimatesrdquo JPAM 19(2) 297-322

Accuracy of Regulatory Costs ndash IIIas Predicted by EPAOSHA

Accuracy within range predicted or plusmn 25 of point estimate

Harrington et al (2000) ldquoAccuracy of Regulatory Cost Estimatesrdquo JPAM 19(2) 297-322

  • Slide 1
  • Slide 2
  • Slide 3
  • Slide 4
  • Slide 5
  • Slide 6
  • Slide 7
  • Slide 8
  • Slide 9
  • Slide 10
  • Slide 11
  • Slide 12
  • Slide 13
  • Slide 14
  • Slide 15
  • Slide 16
  • Slide 17
  • Slide 18
  • Slide 19
  • Slide 20
  • Slide 21
  • Slide 22
  • Slide 23
  • Slide 24
  • Slide 25
  • Slide 26
  • Slide 27
  • Slide 28
  • Slide 29
  • Slide 30
Page 27: The Reagan Revolution & Environmental Policy

How Good are We atPredicting Regulatory Costs

Accuracy of Regulatory Costs ndash Ias Predicted by EPAOSHA

Accuracy within range predicted or plusmn 25 of point estimate

Harrington et al (2000) ldquoAccuracy of Regulatory Cost Estimatesrdquo JPAM 19(2) 297-322

AllRegulations(N=28)

Accurate Over Under

Amount ofPollutionreduction

13 9 4 2

Unit cost 8 14 6 0

Total cost 5 15 3 5

Accuracy of Regulatory Costs ndash IIas Predicted by EPAOSHA

Harrington et al (2000) ldquoAccuracy of Regulatory Cost Estimatesrdquo JPAM 19(2) 297-322

Accuracy of Regulatory Costs ndash IIIas Predicted by EPAOSHA

Accuracy within range predicted or plusmn 25 of point estimate

Harrington et al (2000) ldquoAccuracy of Regulatory Cost Estimatesrdquo JPAM 19(2) 297-322

  • Slide 1
  • Slide 2
  • Slide 3
  • Slide 4
  • Slide 5
  • Slide 6
  • Slide 7
  • Slide 8
  • Slide 9
  • Slide 10
  • Slide 11
  • Slide 12
  • Slide 13
  • Slide 14
  • Slide 15
  • Slide 16
  • Slide 17
  • Slide 18
  • Slide 19
  • Slide 20
  • Slide 21
  • Slide 22
  • Slide 23
  • Slide 24
  • Slide 25
  • Slide 26
  • Slide 27
  • Slide 28
  • Slide 29
  • Slide 30
Page 28: The Reagan Revolution & Environmental Policy

Accuracy of Regulatory Costs ndash Ias Predicted by EPAOSHA

Accuracy within range predicted or plusmn 25 of point estimate

Harrington et al (2000) ldquoAccuracy of Regulatory Cost Estimatesrdquo JPAM 19(2) 297-322

AllRegulations(N=28)

Accurate Over Under

Amount ofPollutionreduction

13 9 4 2

Unit cost 8 14 6 0

Total cost 5 15 3 5

Accuracy of Regulatory Costs ndash IIas Predicted by EPAOSHA

Harrington et al (2000) ldquoAccuracy of Regulatory Cost Estimatesrdquo JPAM 19(2) 297-322

Accuracy of Regulatory Costs ndash IIIas Predicted by EPAOSHA

Accuracy within range predicted or plusmn 25 of point estimate

Harrington et al (2000) ldquoAccuracy of Regulatory Cost Estimatesrdquo JPAM 19(2) 297-322

  • Slide 1
  • Slide 2
  • Slide 3
  • Slide 4
  • Slide 5
  • Slide 6
  • Slide 7
  • Slide 8
  • Slide 9
  • Slide 10
  • Slide 11
  • Slide 12
  • Slide 13
  • Slide 14
  • Slide 15
  • Slide 16
  • Slide 17
  • Slide 18
  • Slide 19
  • Slide 20
  • Slide 21
  • Slide 22
  • Slide 23
  • Slide 24
  • Slide 25
  • Slide 26
  • Slide 27
  • Slide 28
  • Slide 29
  • Slide 30
Page 29: The Reagan Revolution & Environmental Policy

Accuracy of Regulatory Costs ndash IIas Predicted by EPAOSHA

Harrington et al (2000) ldquoAccuracy of Regulatory Cost Estimatesrdquo JPAM 19(2) 297-322

Accuracy of Regulatory Costs ndash IIIas Predicted by EPAOSHA

Accuracy within range predicted or plusmn 25 of point estimate

Harrington et al (2000) ldquoAccuracy of Regulatory Cost Estimatesrdquo JPAM 19(2) 297-322

  • Slide 1
  • Slide 2
  • Slide 3
  • Slide 4
  • Slide 5
  • Slide 6
  • Slide 7
  • Slide 8
  • Slide 9
  • Slide 10
  • Slide 11
  • Slide 12
  • Slide 13
  • Slide 14
  • Slide 15
  • Slide 16
  • Slide 17
  • Slide 18
  • Slide 19
  • Slide 20
  • Slide 21
  • Slide 22
  • Slide 23
  • Slide 24
  • Slide 25
  • Slide 26
  • Slide 27
  • Slide 28
  • Slide 29
  • Slide 30
Page 30: The Reagan Revolution & Environmental Policy

Accuracy of Regulatory Costs ndash IIIas Predicted by EPAOSHA

Accuracy within range predicted or plusmn 25 of point estimate

Harrington et al (2000) ldquoAccuracy of Regulatory Cost Estimatesrdquo JPAM 19(2) 297-322

  • Slide 1
  • Slide 2
  • Slide 3
  • Slide 4
  • Slide 5
  • Slide 6
  • Slide 7
  • Slide 8
  • Slide 9
  • Slide 10
  • Slide 11
  • Slide 12
  • Slide 13
  • Slide 14
  • Slide 15
  • Slide 16
  • Slide 17
  • Slide 18
  • Slide 19
  • Slide 20
  • Slide 21
  • Slide 22
  • Slide 23
  • Slide 24
  • Slide 25
  • Slide 26
  • Slide 27
  • Slide 28
  • Slide 29
  • Slide 30