IDEAS home Printed from
   My bibliography  Save this paper

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


  • Glenn Jenkins

    () (Queen's University, Canada)

  • Chun-Yan Kuo

    () (Queen's University, Canada)

  • Aygul Ozbafli

    () (Queen's University, Canada)


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

  • Glenn Jenkins & Chun-Yan Kuo & Aygul Ozbafli, 2007. "Cost-Benefit Analysis Case Study on Regulations to Lower the Level of Sulphur in Gasoline," Working Papers 1134, Queen's University, Department of Economics.
  • Handle: RePEc:qed:wpaper:1134

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL:
    File Function: First version 2007
    Download Restriction: no

    More about this item


    Gasoline; Sulphur; Cost-Benefit; Environment;

    JEL classification:

    • D61 - Microeconomics - - Welfare Economics - - - Allocative Efficiency; Cost-Benefit Analysis
    • Q52 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Pollution Control Adoption and Costs; Distributional Effects; Employment Effects
    • Q53 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Air Pollution; Water Pollution; Noise; Hazardous Waste; Solid Waste; Recycling

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:


    Access and download statistics


    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:qed:wpaper:1134. 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: (Mark Babcock). General contact details of provider: .

    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 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.