ObjectiveThe U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) reports that the upper bound of benefits from removing mercury emissions by U.S. power plants after implementing its Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) is $210 million per year. In contrast, Trasande et al. [Environ Health Perspect 113:590–596 (2005)] estimated that American power plants impose an economic cost of $1.3 billion due to mercury emissions. It is impossible to directly compare these two estimates for a number of reasons, but we are able to compare the assumptions used and how they affect the results.Data Sources and Data ExtractionWe use Trasande’s linear model with a cord/maternal blood ratio of 1.7 and calculate health effects to children whose mothers had blood mercury levels ≥ 4.84 μg/L.Data SynthesisWe introduce the assumptions that the U.S. EPA used in its Clean Air Mercury Rule (CAMR) analysis and discuss the implications. Using this approach, it is possible to illustrate why the U.S. EPA assumptions produce a lower estimate.ConclusionsThe introduction of all the U.S. EPA assumptions, except for those related to discounting, decreases the estimated monetized impact of global anthropogenic mercury emissions in the Trasande model by 81%. These assumptions also decrease the estimated impact of U.S. sources (including power plants) by almost 97%. When discounting is included, the U.S. EPA assumptions decrease Trasande’s monetized estimate of global impacts by 88% and the impact of U.S. power plants by 98%.

Abstract:EPA has conducted several ex post assessments of regulatory compliance costs, with the ultimate goal of identifying ways to improve ex ante cost estimation. The work to date has culminated in four case studies that examine five regulations using a common conceptual framework. The standardized framework provides a systematic way to investigate key drivers of compliance costs to see if judgments can be made about why and how ex ante and ex post estimates of costs differ. In addition to describing this conceptual framework, we describe the criteria used to select the rules to be analyzed, summarize the main hypotheses for why ex ante and ex post cost estimates may differ and discuss some of the challenges encountered in conducting these ex post analyses.

One Sentence Abstract: Economic benefits analysis for environmental policy can be improved by incorporating current scientific approaches for evaluating health risks.

No abstract

When the modern era of environmental policy began with creation of the Environmental Protection Agency and passage of the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts, economists and economics were little used. Over time, economics became a major contributor to formation of environmental policy. Executive Order 12291 pushed economics into the policy process but also rendered benefit-cost analysis controversial. I report on economics’ role in the policy process over time and examine contributions by economists to environmental policymaking. Advancing benefit-cost analysis is an obvious contribution. I describe other areas in which economists have contributed and highlight milestones for economics at EPA.