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

Bryan Hubbell and Alan Krupnick
Additional contact information
Bryan Hubbell: Resources for the Future
Alan Krupnick: Resources for the Future

No 26-04, RFF Reports from 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.

Date: 2026-01-30
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://www.rff.org/documents/5162/Report_26-04.pdf (application/pdf)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:rff:report:rp-26-04

Access Statistics for this paper

More papers in RFF Reports from Resources for the Future Contact information at EDIRC.
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Resources for the Future ().