IDEAS home Printed from
MyIDEAS: Log in (now much improved!) to save this article

The Treatment of Uncertainty in EPA's Analysis of Air Pollution Rules: A Status Report

Listed author(s):
  • Fraas Arthur G.

    (Resources for the Future)

Registered author(s):

    An understanding of the uncertainty in benefit and cost estimates is a critical part of a benefitcost analysis. Without a quantitative treatment of uncertainty, it is difficult to know how much confidence to place in the benefitcost estimates associated with regulatory analysis. In 2002, an NRC report recommended that EPA move toward conducting probabilistic, multiple-source uncertainty analyses in its RIAs with the specification of probability distributions for major sources of uncertainty in the benefit estimates. In 2006, reports by GAO and RFF found that EPA had begun to address the NRC recommendations, but that much remained to be done to meet the NRC concerns. This paper provides a further review of EPAs progress in developing a quantitative assessment of the uncertainties in its health benefits analyses for the RIAs for four recent rulemakings setting National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). In conclusion, EPAs basic approach to presenting the uncertainty in its health benefits estimates remains largely unchanged. Recent RIAs present the results of uncertainty analysis in piecemeal fashion rather than providing an overall, comprehensive statement of the uncertainty in the estimates. In addition, the uncertainty analysis in recent RIAs continues to focus on the concentration-response relationship and largely fails to address the uncertainty associated with the other key elements of the benefits analysis.

    If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: For access to full text, subscription to the journal or payment for the individual article is required.

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.

    Article provided by De Gruyter in its journal Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis.

    Volume (Year): 2 (2011)
    Issue (Month): 2 (April)
    Pages: 1-27

    in new window

    Handle: RePEc:bpj:jbcacn:v:2:y:2011:i:2:n:6
    Contact details of provider: Web page:

    Order Information: Web:

    No references listed on IDEAS
    You can help add them by filling out this form.

    This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

    When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bpj:jbcacn:v:2:y:2011:i:2:n:6. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Peter Golla)

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

    If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.