Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-mkpzs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T16:54:32.989Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Retrospective Evaluation of the Costs of Complying with Light-Duty Vehicle Surface Coating Requirements

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 December 2018

Ann Wolverton ,
Ann E. Ferris  and
Nathalie B. Simon
Ann Wolverton*
Affiliation:
U.S. EPA, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, MC 1809T, Washington, D.C. 20460, USA, e-mail: [email protected]
Ann E. Ferris
Affiliation:
U.S. EPA, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, MC 1809T, Washington, D.C. 20460, USA, e-mail: [email protected]
Nathalie B. Simon
Affiliation:
U.S. EPA, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, MC 1809T, Washington, D.C. 20460, USA, e-mail: [email protected]
*
*e-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper compares the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) ex ante compliance cost estimates for the 2004 Automobile and Light-Duty Truck Surface Coating National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants to ex post evidence on the actual costs of compliance based on ex post cost data gathered from a subset of the industry via pilot survey and follow-up interviews. Unlike many prior retrospective studies on the cost of regulatory compliance, we use this newly gathered information to identify the key drivers of any differences between the ex ante and ex post estimates. We find that the U.S. EPA overestimated the cost of compliance for the plants in our sample and that overestimation was driven primarily by differences in the method of compliance rather than differences in the per-unit cost associated with a given compliance approach. In particular, the U.S. EPA expected facilities to install pollution abatement control technologies in their paint shops to reduce emissions of hazardous air pollutants, but instead these plants complied by reformulating coatings.

Keywords

Q52Q53Q55Q58air regulationbenefit-cost analysisretrospective cost analysistransportation
Type
Article
Information
Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis , Volume 10 , Issue 1 , Spring 2019 , pp. 39 - 64
Copyright
© Society for Benefit-Cost Analysis 2018 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

The views expressed in this paper are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

References

Akafush, Nelson K., Poozesh, Sadegh, Salaimeh, Ahmad, Patrick, Gabriela, Lawler, Kevin, and Saito, Kozo. 2016. “Evolution of the Automotive Body Coating Process: A Review.” Coatings, 6(2): 1–22.Google Scholar
Fraas, Art and Egorenkov, Alex. 2018. “Retrospective Analyses Are Hard: A Cautionary Tale from EPA’s Air Toxics Regulations.” Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis, 9(2): 247–284.Google Scholar
Freedonia Group. 1999. Automotive Coatings, Adhesives & Sealants in the United States to 2003 – Automotive Adhesives, Market Share and Competitive Strategies. OH: Cleveland.Google Scholar
Freedonia Group. 2008. Automotive Coatings, Adhesives & Sealants: U.S. Industry Study with Forecasts for 2012 & 2017. OH: Cleveland.Google Scholar
Gallaher, Michael P., Murray, Brian C., Nicholson, Rebecca L., and Ross, Martin T.. 2006. Redesign of the Pollution Abatement Costs and Expenditures (PACE) Survey: Findings and Recommendations from the Pretest and Follow-up Visits. Final Report.Google Scholar
Geffen, Charlette A. and Rothenberg, Sandra. 2000. “Suppliers and Environmental Innovation: The Automotive Paint Process.” International Journal of Operations and Production Management, 20(2): 166–186.Google Scholar
Goodstein, Eban and Hodges, Hart. 1997. “Behind the Numbers: Polluted Data.” The American Prospect, Nov.–Dec.Google Scholar
Gordon, Ed. 2005. “The Decline of the ‘Big Three’ U.S. Auto Makers.” NPR News, May 4.Google Scholar
Hammitt, James K. 2000. “Are the Costs of Proposed Environmental Regulations Overestimated? Evidence from the CFC Phaseout.” Environmental and Resource Economics, 16(3): 281–302.Google Scholar
Harrington, Winston, Morgenstern, Richard D., and Nelson, Peter. 2000. “On the Accuracy of Regulatory Cost Estimates.” Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 19(2): 297–322.Google Scholar
Hodges, Hart. 1997. Falling Prices: Cost of Complying with Environmental Regulations Almost Always Less than Advertised. Economic Policy Institute Briefing Paper #69.Google Scholar
ICIS. 2008. Indicative Chemical Prices: A-Z. https://www.icis.com/chemicals/channel-info-chemicals-a-z/. Accessed Aug. 9, 2017.Google Scholar
Kopits, Elizabeth, Cynthia Morgan, Al McGartland, Ron Shadbegian, Carl Pasurka, Simon, Nathalie B., Simpson, David, and Wolverton, Ann. 2014. “Retrospective Cost Analyses of EPA Regulations: A Case Study Approach.” Journal of Benefit Cost Analysis, 5(2): 173–193.Google Scholar
Kropko, M. R. 2006. “Cities Face Life Without 16 Ford Plants.” USA Today, Dec. 10.Google Scholar
Meschievitz, Tom, Rahangdale, Yogen, and Pearson, Richard. 1995. “U.S. Council for Automotive Research (USCAR) Low-Emission Paint Consortium: A Unique Approach to Powder Painting Technology Development.” Metal Finishing, 93(10): 26–31.Google Scholar
Morgenstern, Richard D.2015. The RFF Regulatory Performance Initiative: What Have We Learned? Resources for the Future Discussion Paper #15–47.Google Scholar
New York Times. 1993. Auto Makers in Paint Deal. Feb. 18.Google Scholar
Papasavva, Stella, Kia, Sheila, Claya, Joseph, and Gunther, Raymond. 2001. “Characterization of Automotive Paints: An Environmental Impact Analysis.” Progress in Organic Coatings, 43: 193–206.Google Scholar
Putnam, Hayes and Bartlett, Inc. 1980. Comparisons of Estimated and Actual Pollution Capital Expenditures for Selected Industries. Report prepared for the U.S. EPA, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
Ross, Martin T., Gallaher, Michael P., Murray, Brian C., Throneburg, Wanda W., and Levinson, Arik. 2004. PACE Survey: Background, Applications, and Data Quality Issues. NCEE Working Paper #2004-09.Google Scholar
Taylor, Alex. 2007. “Behind Ford’s Scary $12.7 Billion Loss.” Fortune, Jan. 26.Google Scholar
U.S. EPA. 1995. Emission Factors & AP 42, Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors. Volume I: Stationary Point and Area Sources Fifth Edition. Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards.Google Scholar
U.S. EPA. 2002. Supporting Documents for the Proposed National Emission Standards for Automobile and Light Duty Truck Surface Coating: 40 CFR 63, Subpart IIII. Oct.Google Scholar
U.S. EPA. 2004. Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Final Automobile and Light-Duty Truck Surface Coating NESHAP. Final Report. EPA-452/R-04-007.Google Scholar
U.S. EPA. 2010. Guidelines for Preparing Economic Analyses. Report 240-R-10-001.Google Scholar
U.S. EPA. 2014. Retrospective Study of the Costs of EPA Regulations: A Report of Four Case Studies. Report 240-F-14-001.Google Scholar
U.S. OMB (Office of Management and Budget). 2005. Validating Regulatory Analysis: 2005 Report to Congress on the Costs and Benefits of Federal Regulations and Unfunded Mandates on State, Local, and Tribal Entities. Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
White House. 2012. Executive Order 13610, Identifying and Reducing Regulatory Burdens. 81 FR 4213. May 10.Google Scholar
Wolverton, Ann, Ferris, Ann E., and Simon, Nathalie B.. 2017. Retrospective Evaluation of the Costs Associated with the 2004 Automobile and Light-Duty Truck Surface Coating NESHAP. NCEE Working Paper #2017-07.Google Scholar