IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/rff/dpaper/dp-21-29.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

A Retrospective Review of Retrospective Cost Analyses

Author

Listed:
  • Fraas, Arthur G.

    (Resources for the Future)

  • Kopits, Elizabeth
  • Wolverton, Ann

Abstract

Every administration since President Carter has initiated efforts urging agencies to reassess existing regulations. However, these reviews rarely involve ex post benefit-cost analysis of the original regulation and for the most part have not become institutionalized practice. Nevertheless, retrospective review can play an important role in revealing insights about the realized costs and benefits of rules, which may lead to modification, elimination, or strengthening of some regulations.In this paper, we identify the main factors that drive differences between ex ante and ex post cost estimates. The paper reviews evidence from peer-reviewed studies of the realized costs of 13 significant EPA regulations to develop lessons for the design of future ex ante and ex post analyses of rules. Most of the retrospective studies address realized compliance strategies, though some also offer insights into specific elements of per-unit compliance costs. Only a few shed light on the total cost of the regulation studied. All the studies have data limitations, but in general, more insight was obtained when detailed facility-level data (e.g., power plants) were available. In spite of data and methodological limitations, as well as the narrow focus of some studies, we identify several common sources of differences between ex ante and ex post estimates. For example, these studies reveal that firms adopted substantially different compliance strategies than anticipated in ex ante analysis for nearly 70 percent of the regulations. Other key drivers of differences include reliance on engineering models, misspecification of the baseline, and failure to anticipate the role of new technologies.To improve future ex ante cost analysis, we recommend better characterization of baseline conditions, sensitivity analysis of highly uncertain parameters, greater use of economic models of the regulated sector to better reflect firm decisionmaking, and analysis of phase-in periods. For ex post analyses, we recommend developing plans for future study at the time the regulation is adopted. Aside from opportunistic cases, it will be difficult to conduct thorough retrospective evaluations without a plan in place ex ante that identifies endpoints of interest, methods of analysis, and data needs.Click "Download" above to read the full paper.

Suggested Citation

  • Fraas, Arthur G. & Kopits, Elizabeth & Wolverton, Ann, 2021. "A Retrospective Review of Retrospective Cost Analyses," RFF Working Paper Series 21-29, Resources for the Future.
    • Handle: RePEc:rff:dpaper:dp-21-29
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.rff.org/documents/3076/WP_21-29.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Kopits, Elizabeth, 2014. "A retrospective assessment of the costs of EPA’s 1998 Locomotive Emission Standards," Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 5(2), pages 285-314, June.
    2. Simpson, R. David, 2014. "Do regulators overestimate the costs of regulation?," Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 5(2), pages 315-332, June.
    3. Winston Harrington & Richard D. Morgenstern & Peter Nelson, 2000. "On the accuracy of regulatory cost estimates," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 19(2), pages 297-322.
    4. Wolverton Ann, 2014. "Retrospective evaluation of costs associated with methyl bromide critical use exemptions for open field strawberries in California," Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis, De Gruyter, vol. 5(2), pages 225-257, June.
    5. Richard Schmalensee & Robert N. Stavins, 2019. "Policy Evolution under the Clean Air Act," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 33(4), pages 27-50, Fall.
    6. Brown, Jennifer & Hastings, Justine & Mansur, Erin T. & Villas-Boas, Sofia B., 2008. "Reformulating competition Gasoline content regulation and wholesale gasoline prices," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 55(1), pages 1-19, January.
    7. Bohi, Douglas R. & Burtraw, Dallas, 1997. "SO2 Allowance Trading: How Experience and Expectations Measure Up," Discussion Papers 10878, Resources for the Future.
    8. Suzi Kerr & Richard G. Newell, 2003. "Policy‐Induced Technology Adoption: Evidence from the U.S. Lead Phasedown," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 51(3), pages 317-343, September.
    9. Meredith Fowlie & Nicholas Muller, 2019. "Market-Based Emissions Regulation When Damages Vary across Sources: What Are the Gains from Differentiation?," Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, University of Chicago Press, vol. 6(3), pages 593-632.
    10. Elrod, Aaron A. & Malik, Arun S., 2017. "The effect of environmental regulation on plant-level product mix: A study of EPA's Cluster Rule," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 83(C), pages 164-184.
    11. Morgan Cynthia & Simon Nathalie B., 2014. "National primary drinking water regulation for arsenic: A retrospective assessment of costs," Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis, De Gruyter, vol. 5(2), pages 259-284, June.
    12. Morgan, Cynthia & Pasurka, Carl & Shadbegian, Ron, 2014. "Ex ante and ex post cost estimates of the Cluster Rule and MACT II Rule," Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 5(2), pages 195-224, June.
    13. Morgan, Cynthia & Simon, Nathalie B., 2014. "National primary drinking water regulation for arsenic: A retrospective assessment of costs," Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 5(2), pages 259-284, June.
    14. Elaine F. Frey, 2013. "Technology Diffusion and Environmental Regulation: The Adoption of Scrubbers by Coal-Fired Power Plants," The Energy Journal, International Association for Energy Economics, vol. 0(Number 1).
    15. Gabriel E Lade & C-Y Cynthia Lin Lawell & Aaron Smith, 2018. "Designing Climate Policy: Lessons from the Renewable Fuel Standard and the Blend Wall," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 100(2), pages 585-599.
    16. Curtis Carlson & Dallas Burtraw & Maureen Cropper & Karen L. Palmer, 2000. "Sulfur Dioxide Control by Electric Utilities: What Are the Gains from Trade?," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 108(6), pages 1292-1326, December.
    17. Mérel, Pierre & Smith, Aaron & Williams, Jeffrey & Wimberger, Emily, 2014. "Cars on crutches: How much abatement do smog check repairs actually provide?," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 67(3), pages 371-395.
    18. David Popp, 2003. "Pollution control innovations and the Clean Air Act of 1990," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 22(4), pages 641-660.
    19. Arimura, Toshi H., 2002. "An Empirical Study of the SO2 Allowance Market: Effects of PUC Regulations," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 44(2), pages 271-289, September.
    20. Meghan R. Busse & Nathaniel O. Keohane, 2007. "Market effects of environmental regulation: coal, railroads, and the 1990 Clean Air Act," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 38(4), pages 1159-1179, December.
    21. Chan, H. Ron & Chupp, B. Andrew & Cropper, Maureen L. & Muller, Nicholas Z., 2018. "The impact of trading on the costs and benefits of the Acid Rain Program," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 88(C), pages 180-209.
    22. John R. Swinton, 2002. "The Potential for Cost Savings in the Sulfur Dioxide Allowance Market: Empirical Evidence from Florida," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 78(3), pages 390-404.
    23. James Hammitt, 2000. "Are The Costs of Proposed Environmental Regulations Overestimated? Evidence from the CFC Phaseout," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 16(3), pages 281-302, July.
    24. Stephen P. Ryan, 2012. "The Costs of Environmental Regulation in a Concentrated Industry," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 80(3), pages 1019-1061, May.
    25. Bohi, Douglas R. & Burtraw, Dallas, 1997. "SO2 allowance trading: How do expectations and experience measure up?," The Electricity Journal, Elsevier, vol. 10(7), pages 67-75.
    26. Joshua Linn, 2008. "Technological Modifications in the Nitrogen Oxides Tradable Permit Program," The Energy Journal, International Association for Energy Economics, vol. 0(Number 3), pages 153-176.
    27. Meredith Fowlie, 2010. "Emissions Trading, Electricity Restructuring, and Investment in Pollution Abatement," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 100(3), pages 837-869, June.
    28. Chakravorty, Ujjayant & Nauges, Celine & Thomas, Alban, 2008. "Clean Air regulation and heterogeneity in US gasoline prices," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 55(1), pages 106-122, January.
    29. Wolverton, Ann & Ferris, Ann E. & Simon, Nathalie B., 2019. "Retrospective Evaluation of the Costs of Complying with Light-Duty Vehicle Surface Coating Requirements," Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 10(1), pages 39-64, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Joseph E. Aldy & Maximilian Auffhammer & Maureen Cropper & Arthur Fraas & Richard Morgenstern, 2022. "Looking Back at 50 Years of the Clean Air Act," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 60(1), pages 179-232, March.
    2. Aldy, Joseph E. & Auffhammer, Maximillian & Cropper, Maureen L. & Fraas, Arthur G. & Morgenstern, Richard D., 2020. "Looking Back at Fifty Years of the Clean Air Act," RFF Working Paper Series 20-01, Resources for the Future.
    3. Burtraw, Dallas & Szambelan, Sarah Jo, 2009. "U.S. Emissions Trading Markets for SO2 and NOx," RFF Working Paper Series dp-09-40, Resources for the Future.
    4. Stratford Douglas & Seth Wiggins, 2015. "Effects of Acid Rain Regulations on Production of Eastern Coals of Varying Sulfur Content," Working Papers 15-38, Department of Economics, West Virginia University.
    5. Holland, Stephen P. & Moore, Michael R., 2013. "Market design in cap and trade programs: Permit validity and compliance timing," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 66(3), pages 671-687.
    6. Morgan, Cynthia & Pasurka, Carl & Shadbegian, Ron & Belova, Anna & Casey, Brendan, 2023. "Estimating the cost of environmental regulations and technological change with limited information," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 204(PA).
    7. Simon, Daniel H. & Zirogiannis, Nikolaos & Hollingsworth, Alex, 2017. "Estimating Co-pollutant Benefits from Climate Change Policies in the Electricity Sector: An Empirical Approach," 2017 Annual Meeting, July 30-August 1, Chicago, Illinois 259116, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    8. Revesz, Richard & Stavins, Robert, 2004. "Environmental Law and Policy," Working Paper Series rwp04-023, Harvard University, John F. Kennedy School of Government.
    9. Stavins, Robert, 2001. "Lessons From the American Experiment With Market-Based Environmental Policies," RFF Working Paper Series dp-01-53, Resources for the Future.
    10. Robert W. Hahn & Robert N. Stavins, 2011. "The Effect of Allowance Allocations on Cap-and-Trade System Performance," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 54(S4), pages 267-294.
    11. Jihad C. Elnaboulsi & Wassim Daher & Yiğit Sağlam, 2023. "Environmental taxation, information precision, and information sharing," Journal of Public Economic Theory, Association for Public Economic Theory, vol. 25(2), pages 301-341, April.
    12. Richard Schmalensee & Robert N. Stavins, 2019. "Policy Evolution under the Clean Air Act," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 33(4), pages 27-50, Fall.
    13. Olivier Rousse & Benoît Sévi, 2005. "Behavioral Heterogeneity in the US Sulfur Dioxide Emissions Allowance Trading Program," ERSA conference papers ersa05p550, European Regional Science Association.
    14. Richard Schmalensee & Robert N. Stavins, 2013. "The SO 2 Allowance Trading System: The Ironic History of a Grand Policy Experiment," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 27(1), pages 103-122, Winter.
    15. Burtraw, Dallas & Palmer, Karen L., 2003. "The Paparazzi Take a Look at a Living Legend: The SO2 Cap-and-Trade Program for Power Plants in the United States," Discussion Papers 10665, Resources for the Future.
    16. Stavins, Robert N., 2003. "Experience with market-based environmental policy instruments," Handbook of Environmental Economics, in: K. G. Mäler & J. R. Vincent (ed.), Handbook of Environmental Economics, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 9, pages 355-435, Elsevier.
    17. Popp, David & Newell, Richard G. & Jaffe, Adam B., 2010. "Energy, the Environment, and Technological Change," Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, in: Bronwyn H. Hall & Nathan Rosenberg (ed.), Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, edition 1, volume 2, chapter 0, pages 873-937, Elsevier.
    18. Burtraw, Dallas & Evans, David A. & Krupnick, Alan J. & Palmer, Karen L. & Toth, Russell, 2005. "Economics of Pollution Trading for SO2 and NOx," Discussion Papers 10488, Resources for the Future.
    19. Hancevic, Pedro Ignacio, 2016. "Environmental regulation and productivity: The case of electricity generation under the CAAA-1990," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(C), pages 131-143.
    20. Antoine Dechezleprêtre & Misato Sato, 2017. "The Impacts of Environmental Regulations on Competitiveness," Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 11(2), pages 183-206.

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:dpaper:dp-21-29. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc 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 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.