IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/rff/report/rp-26-04.html

How the US Environmental Protection Agency Got It Wrong About Monetizing Benefits of Air Pollution Regulations

Author

Listed:
  • Hubbell, Bryan

    (Resources for the Future)

  • Krupnick, Alan

    (Resources for the Future)

Abstract

The Trump administration’s US Environmental Protect Agency (EPA) has decided to stop quantifying and monetizing human health benefits when analyzing the impacts of federal regulations, overturning decades of established and peer-reviewed conventions. Instead, only the costs incurred by companies for complying with a regulation will be quantified when implementing regulatory decisions, leading to an unbalanced assessment of impacts. The EPA’s arguments for not quantifying and monetizing benefits are unsupported and out of step with the best available science and established practice. We provide a point-by-point rebuttal to these arguments and conclude that by failing to include quantified and monetized benefits in economic impact analysis, EPA has chosen to abandon adherence to economic principles, decades of guidance from experts, its own economic analysis guidelines, and guidance from the Office of Management and Budget.

Suggested Citation

  • Hubbell, Bryan & Krupnick, Alan, 2026. "How the US Environmental Protection Agency Got It Wrong About Monetizing Benefits of Air Pollution Regulations," RFF Reports 26-04, Resources for the Future.
    • Handle: RePEc:rff:report:rp-26-04
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.rff.org/documents/5163/Report_26-04_-_Update_2.3.26.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    More about this item

    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:rff:report:rp-26-04. 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: Resources for the Future (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/rffffus.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.