Next Article in Journal
Dental Scaling Decreases the Risk of Parkinson’s Disease: A Nationwide Population-Based Nested Case-Control Study
Next Article in Special Issue
The Trade-Off between Optimizing Flight Patterns and Human Health: A Case Study of Aircraft Noise in Queens, NY, USA
Previous Article in Journal
Household Food Insecurity and Mental Health Among Teenage Girls Living in Urban Slums in Varanasi, India: A Cross-Sectional Study
Previous Article in Special Issue
Spatiotemporal Assessment of PM2.5-Related Economic Losses from Health Impacts during 2014–2016 in China
Review

What Are the Net Benefits of Reducing the Ozone Standard to 65 ppb? An Alternative Analysis

1
Toxicology Division, Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, P.O. Box 13087, MC-168, Austin, TX 78711, USA
2
Department of Economics, Management, and Project Management, West Carolina University, Cullowhee, NC 28723, USA
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
S.S. Lange and S.E. Mulholland are equally contributing authors.
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2018, 15(8), 1586; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph15081586
Received: 12 June 2018 / Revised: 19 July 2018 / Accepted: 21 July 2018 / Published: 26 July 2018
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Economic Evaluation of Environmental Policies and Interventions)
In October 2015, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) lowered the level of the ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) from 0.075 ppm to 0.070 ppm (annual 4th highest daily maximum 8-h concentration, averaged over three years). The EPA estimated a 2025 annual national non-California net benefit of $1.5 to $4.5 billion (2011$, 7% discount rate) for a 0.070 ppm standard, and a −$1.0 to $14 billion net benefit for an alternative 0.065 ppm standard. The purpose of this work is to present a combined toxicological and economic assessment of the EPA’s benefit-cost analysis of the 2015 ozone NAAQS. Assessing the quality of the epidemiology studies based on considerations of bias, confounding, chance, integration of evidence, and application of the studies for future population risk estimates, we derived several alternative benefits estimates. We also considered the strengths and weaknesses of the EPA’s cost estimates (e.g., marginal abatement costs), as well as estimates completed by other authors, and provided our own alternative cost estimate. Based on our alternative benefits and cost calculations, we estimated an alternative net benefit of between −$0.3 and $1.8 billion for a 0.070 ppm standard (2011 $, 7% discount rate) and between −$23 and −$17 billion for a 0.065 ppm standard. This work demonstrates that alternative reasonable assumptions can generate very difference cost and benefits estimates that may impact how policy makers view the outcomes of a major rule. View Full-Text
Keywords: ozone; air pollution toxicology; air pollution standards; environmental policy; benefit-cost analysis ozone; air pollution toxicology; air pollution standards; environmental policy; benefit-cost analysis
Show Figures

Figure 1

MDPI and ACS Style

Lange, S.S.; Mulholland, S.E.; Honeycutt, M.E. What Are the Net Benefits of Reducing the Ozone Standard to 65 ppb? An Alternative Analysis. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2018, 15, 1586. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph15081586

AMA Style

Lange SS, Mulholland SE, Honeycutt ME. What Are the Net Benefits of Reducing the Ozone Standard to 65 ppb? An Alternative Analysis. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2018; 15(8):1586. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph15081586

Chicago/Turabian Style

Lange, Sabine S., Sean E. Mulholland, and Michael E. Honeycutt 2018. "What Are the Net Benefits of Reducing the Ozone Standard to 65 ppb? An Alternative Analysis" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 15, no. 8: 1586. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph15081586

Find Other Styles
Note that from the first issue of 2016, MDPI journals use article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Access Map by Country/Region

1
Back to TopTop