Consumer\u27s Guide to Regulatory Impact Analysis: Ten Tips for Being an Informed Policymaker

Regulatory impact analyses (RIAs) weigh the benefits of regulations against the burdens they impose and are invaluable tools for informing decision makers.We offer 10 tips for nonspecialist policymakers and interested stakeholders who will be reading RIAs as consumers. Core problem: Determine whether the RIA identifies the core problem (compelling public need) the regulation is intended to address. Alternatives: Look for an objective, policy-neutral evaluation of the relative merits of reasonable alternatives. Baseline: Check whether the RIA presents a reasonable “counterfactual” against which benefits and costs are measured. Increments: Evaluate whether totals and averages obscure relevant distinctions and trade-offs. Uncertainty: Recognize that all estimates involve uncertainty, and ask what effect key assumptions, data, and models have on those estimates. Transparency: Look for transparency and objectivity of analytical inputs. Benefits: Examine how projected benefits relate to stated objectives. Costs: Understand what costs are included. Distribution: Consider how benefits and costs are distributed. Symmetrical treatment: Ensure that benefits and costs are presented symmetrically

Consumer\u27s Guide to Regulatory Impact Analysis: Ten Tips for Being an Informed Policymaker

Regulatory impact analyses (RIAs) weigh the benefits of regulations against the burdens they impose and are invaluable tools for informing decision makers.We offer 10 tips for nonspecialist policymakers and interested stakeholders who will be reading RIAs as consumers. Core problem: Determine whether the RIA identifies the core problem (compelling public need) the regulation is intended to address. Alternatives: Look for an objective, policy-neutral evaluation of the relative merits of reasonable alternatives. Baseline: Check whether the RIA presents a reasonable “counterfactual” against which benefits and costs are measured. Increments: Evaluate whether totals and averages obscure relevant distinctions and trade-offs. Uncertainty: Recognize that all estimates involve uncertainty, and ask what effect key assumptions, data, and models have on those estimates. Transparency: Look for transparency and objectivity of analytical inputs. Benefits: Examine how projected benefits relate to stated objectives. Costs: Understand what costs are included. Distribution: Consider how benefits and costs are distributed. Symmetrical treatment: Ensure that benefits and costs are presented symmetrically

Ancillary human health benefits of improved air quality resulting from climate change mitigation

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Greenhouse gas (GHG) mitigation policies can provide ancillary benefits in terms of short-term improvements in air quality and associated health benefits. Several studies have analyzed the ancillary impacts of GHG policies for a variety of locations, pollutants, and policies. In this paper we review the existing evidence on ancillary health benefits relating to air pollution from various GHG strategies and provide a framework for such analysis.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We evaluate techniques used in different stages of such research for estimation of: (1) changes in air pollutant concentrations; (2) avoided adverse health endpoints; and (3) economic valuation of health consequences. The limitations and merits of various methods are examined. Finally, we conclude with recommendations for ancillary benefits analysis and related research gaps in the relevant disciplines.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>We found that to date most assessments have focused their analysis more heavily on one aspect of the framework (e.g., economic analysis). While a wide range of methods was applied to various policies and regions, results from multiple studies provide strong evidence that the short-term public health and economic benefits of ancillary benefits related to GHG mitigation strategies are substantial. Further, results of these analyses are likely to be underestimates because there are a number of important unquantified health and economic endpoints.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Remaining challenges include integrating the understanding of the relative toxicity of particulate matter by components or sources, developing better estimates of public health and environmental impacts on selected sub-populations, and devising new methods for evaluating heretofore unquantified and non-monetized benefits.</p

Attention to Distribution in U.S. Regulatory Analyses

Before promulgating a major environmental, health, or safety regulation, U.S. government agencies are generally expected to analyze the distribution of its impacts as well as its total costs and benefits. We review several regulatory analyses to determine whether this expectation is being met. We find that agencies’ analyses provide little information on distributional impacts. Often they note only that the regulation will not adversely affect the health of children, minorities, or low-income groups. This lack of attention to distribution may be philosophical, with regulators believing they should choose the option that maximizes net benefits as long as the health of these groups is not harmed. It may also be motivated by pragmatic reasons, including concerns about political and legal implications; an assumption that distributional impacts are small; or data, time, and resource constraints. We argue that this focus on the possibility of health-related losses, and the lack of analysis of the full distribution of both benefits and costs, is problematic. However, the feasibility and desirability of more extensive and rigorous distributional analysis remains unclear. Further research is needed to increase our understanding of the distribution of both costs and benefits and to determine whether the benefits of requiring routine provision of such information would outweigh the costs entailed