Is There a Role for Benefit-Cost Analysis in Environmental, Health, and Safety Regulation?

Benefit-cost analysis has a potentially important role to play in helping inform regulatory decision-making, although it should not be the sole basis for such decision-making. This paper offers eight principles on the appropriate use of benefit-cost analysis.Environment, Health and Safety, Regulatory Reform

Benefit-Cost Analysis in Environmental, Health, and Safety Regulation: A Statement of Principles

Benefit-cost analysis can play a very important role in legislative and regulatory policy debates on improving the environment, health, and safety. It can help illustrate the tradeoffs that are inherent in public policymaking as well as make those tradeoffs more transparent. It can also help agencies set regulatory priorities. Benefit-cost analysis should be used to help decisionmakers reach a decision. Contrary to the views of some, benefit-cost analysis is neither necessary nor sufficient for designing sensible public policy. If properly done, it can be very helpful to agencies in the decisionmaking process. Decisionmakers should not be precluded from considering the economic benefits and costs of different policies in the development of regulations. Laws that prohibit costs or other factors from being considered in administrative decisionmaking are inimical to good public policy. Currently, several of the most important regulatory statutes have been interpreted to imply such prohibitions. Benefit-cost analysis should be required for all major regulatory decisions, but agency heads should not be bound by a strict benefit-cost test. Instead, they should be required to consider available benefit-cost analyses and to justify the reasons for their decision in the event that the expected costs of a regulation far exceed the expected benefits. Agencies should be encouraged to use economic analysis to help set regulatory priorities. Economic analyses prepared in support of particularly important decisions should be subjected to peer review both inside and outside government. Benefits and costs of proposed major regulations should be quantified wherever possible. Best estimates should be presented along with a description of the uncertainties. Not all benefits or costs can be easily quantified, much less translated into dollar terms. Nevertheless, even qualitative descriptions of the pros and cons associated with a contemplated action can be helpful. Care should be taken to ensure that quantitative factors do not dominate important qualitative factors in decisionmaking. The Office of Management and Budget, or some other coordinating agency, should establish guidelines that agencies should follow in conducting benefit-cost analyses. Those guidelines should specify default values for the discount rate and certain types of benefits and costs, such as the value of a small reduction in mortality risk. In addition, agencies should present their results using a standard format, which summarizes the key results and highlights major uncertainties.

More Than Forty Prominent Economists Urge Supreme Court to Allow EPA to Consider Costs and Consequences of Clean Air Regulations

More than forty prominent economists filed a Friend of the Court brief with the Supreme Court, asking the justices to overturn a lower court ruling that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) may not take into account the costs of regulations when setting standards under the Clean Air Act. Calling the lower court ruling "economically unsound," the economists argued that the EPA "should be allowed to consider explicitly the full consequences" of regulatory decisions, including costs, benefits, and any other relevant facts. In their Amici Curiae brief, the economists contended that the "plain aim" of the Clean Air Act "is protecting the public health&quo.t; That aim, they said, "is unlikely to be achieved without, at least, an implicit balancing of benefits and costs." The Supreme Court filing was organized by the American Enterprise Institute-Brookings Joint Center for Regulatory Studies. The bipartisan group of economists signing the brief included three Nobel laureates, seven former chairmen of the President's Council of Economic Advisers, and two former directors of the White House Office of Management and Budget. The case, American Trucking Association v. Carol M. Browner, Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency , was appealed to the Supreme Court after a Federal Court in Washington D.C. ruled that the EPA was not permitted to consider costs in setting regulatory standards for enforcing the Clean Air Act. "We believe it would be imprudent for the EPA to ignore costs totally, particularly given their magnitude in this case," the economists stated in the brief. "The EPA estimates that those [clean air] standards could cost on the order of $50 billion annually." The brief argued, "Not considering costs makes it difficult to set a defensible standard, especially when there is no threshold below which health risks disappear." Ignoring costs, the economists said, "could lead to a decision to set the standard at zero pollution," which would threaten "the very economic prosperity on which public health primarily depends." The economists declared: "The importance of this issue cannot be overstated. Both direct benefits and costs of environmental, health, and safety regulations are substantial, estimated to be several hundred billion dollars annually." If the Supreme Court overturns the lower court ruling and allows the EPA to consider costs in establishing clear air regulations, the brief argued, it would be "a historic moment in the making of regulatory policy."Environment, Other Topics

Compressed representation of a partially defined integer function over multiple arguments

In OLAP (OnLine Analitical Processing) data are analysed in an n-dimensional cube. The cube may be represented as a partially defined function over n arguments. Considering that often the function is not defined everywhere, we ask: is there a known way of representing the function or the points in which it is defined, in a more compact manner than the trivial one

Measurement of isolated photon production in pp and PbPb collisions at sqrt(sNN) = 2.76 TeV

Isolated photon production is measured in proton-proton and lead-lead collisions at nucleon-nucleon centre-of-mass energies of 2.76 TeV in the pseudorapidity range |eta|<1.44 and transverse energies ET between 20 and 80 GeV with the CMS detector at the LHC. The measured ET spectra are found to be in good agreement with next-to-leading-order perturbative QCD predictions. The ratio of PbPb to pp isolated photon ET-differential yields, scaled by the number of incoherent nucleon-nucleon collisions, is consistent with unity for all PbPb reaction centralities.Comment: Submitted to Physics Letters

Beam dynamics corrections to the Run-1 measurement of the muon anomalous magnetic moment at Fermilab

This paper presents the beam dynamics systematic corrections and their uncertainties for the Run-1 dataset of the Fermilab Muon g-2 Experiment. Two corrections to the measured muon precession frequency ωam are associated with well-known effects owing to the use of electrostatic quadrupole (ESQ) vertical focusing in the storage ring. An average vertically oriented motional magnetic field is felt by relativistic muons passing transversely through the radial electric field components created by the ESQ system. The correction depends on the stored momentum distribution and the tunes of the ring, which has relatively weak vertical focusing. Vertical betatron motions imply that the muons do not orbit the ring in a plane exactly orthogonal to the vertical magnetic field direction. A correction is necessary to account for an average pitch angle associated with their trajectories. A third small correction is necessary, because muons that escape the ring during the storage time are slightly biased in initial spin phase compared to the parent distribution. Finally, because two high-voltage resistors in the ESQ network had longer than designed RC time constants, the vertical and horizontal centroids and envelopes of the stored muon beam drifted slightly, but coherently, during each storage ring fill. This led to the discovery of an important phase-acceptance relationship that requires a correction. The sum of the corrections to ω_{a}^{m} is 0.50±0.09 ppm; the uncertainty is small compared to the 0.43 ppm statistical precision of ω_{a}^{m}

Magnetic-field measurement and analysis for the Muon g − 2 Experiment at Fermilab

The Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory (FNAL) Muon g - 2 Experiment has measured the anomalous precession frequency a_{μ}(g_{μ} - 2)/2 of the muon to a combined precision of 0.46 parts per million with data collected during its first physics run in 2018. This paper documents the measurement of the magnetic field in the muon storage ring. The magnetic field is monitored by systems and calibrated in terms of the equivalent proton spin precession frequency in a spherical water sample at 34.7C. The measured field is weighted by the muon distribution resulting in \tilde{ω}'_{p}, the denominator in the ratio \tilde{ω}_{a}/\tilde{ω}'_{p} that together with known fundamental constants yields aμ. The reported uncertainty on \tilde{ω}'_{p} for the Run-1 data set is 114 ppb consisting of uncertainty contributions from frequency extraction, calibration, mapping, tracking, and averaging of 56 ppb, and contributions from fast transient fields of 99 ppb

Measurement of the Positive Muon Anomalous Magnetic Moment to 0.20 ppm

We present a new measurement of the positive muon magnetic anomaly, a_{μ}≡(g_{μ}-2)/2, from the Fermilab Muon g-2 Experiment using data collected in 2019 and 2020. We have analyzed more than 4 times the number of positrons from muon decay than in our previous result from 2018 data. The systematic error is reduced by more than a factor of 2 due to better running conditions, a more stable beam, and improved knowledge of the magnetic field weighted by the muon distribution, ω[over ˜]_{p}^{'}, and of the anomalous precession frequency corrected for beam dynamics effects, ω_{a}. From the ratio ω_{a}/ω[over ˜]_{p}^{'}, together with precisely determined external parameters, we determine a_{μ}=116 592 057(25)×10^{-11} (0.21 ppm). Combining this result with our previous result from the 2018 data, we obtain a_{μ}(FNAL)=116 592 055(24)×10^{-11} (0.20 ppm). The new experimental world average is a_{μ}(exp)=116 592 059(22)×10^{-11} (0.19 ppm), which represents a factor of 2 improvement in precision