IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/quedwp/273610.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Cost-Benefit Analysis Case Study on Regulations to Lower the Level of Sulphur in Gasoline

Author

Listed:
  • Jenkins, Glenn
  • Kuo, Chun-Yan
  • Ozbafli, Aygul

Abstract

The Canadian Cost-Benefit Analysis Guide: Regulatory Proposals, sets out the general methodology and analytical steps to perform a cost-benefit analysis of proposed regulatory changes. To make the Guide operational, this case study has been prepared following the analytical approach recommended by the Guide. In 1994 the sulphur content of Canadian gasoline was found to be high and varied widely across the country. Scientists and health experts have found evidence that emissions of pollutants from vehicles cause considerable harm to the health of Canadians and to the environment. In order to derive the net economic benefits, we integrate the economic benefits with the economic costs for each of the alternative scenarios. In the cost-benefit analysis, all private costs must be measured in terms of their economic opportunity costs. The results indicate that reducing the sulphur in gasoline for any scenario under consideration would generate substantial net health benefits or well-being for Canadians as a whole. Estimates of the net present value (at an eight percent discount rate) range from $1,809 million to $2,663 million.

Suggested Citation

  • Jenkins, Glenn & Kuo, Chun-Yan & Ozbafli, Aygul, 2007. "Cost-Benefit Analysis Case Study on Regulations to Lower the Level of Sulphur in Gasoline," Queen's Economics Department Working Papers 273610, Queen's University - Department of Economics.
  • Handle: RePEc:ags:quedwp:273610
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.273610
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/273610/files/qed_wp_1134.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.273610?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ags:quedwp:273610. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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 RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/qedquca.html .

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.