This activity asks you to analyze a report that uses research to accomplish its purpose.
Pick one of these reports to analyze:
Research_Clean Air_ExemplarDownload Research_Clean Air_Exemplar
As you skim the report, focus on the research included in each section. As you do, answer the following questions:
What is the purpose of the report?
What types of research do you see in the report? (Think back to Ch. 2 from Just Enough Research.)
How is the research being used? How does the research contribute to the achievement of the report’s purpose?
Which sections have the most research? Why do you suppose that is?
Your analysis of the report should develop a sense of the role of research in professional and technical documents, which will prepare you for conducting that type of research as you comploooooete your own work.
Summary of Findings and Recommendations
Findings
the research Research_Clean Air_ExemplarDownload Research_Clean Air_Exemplar
This study evaluates the benefits and costs of programs implemented pursuant to the 1990
Clean Air Act Amendments, relative to a hypothetical baseline which assumes control programs
established under the 1970 Clean Air Act and 1977 Amendments stayed fixed at their 1990 levels of
scope and stringency. The study applies the framework and principles of benefit?cost analysis to
estimate significant beneficial and costly effects of these programs, express these effects where feasible
and appropriate in dollar value terms to
facilitate comparison of disparate effects, and
then calculate the overall net economic
benefits (benefits minus costs) of the changes
in Clean Air Act?related programs resulting
from the 1990 Amendments.
Based on the scenarios analyzed in this
study, the costs of public and private
efforts to meet 1990 Clean Air Act
Amendment requirements rise
throughout the 1990 to 2020 period of
the study, and are expected to reach an
annual value of about $65 billion by
2020.1
Though costly, these efforts are
projected to yield substantial air quality
improvements which lead to significant
reductions in air pollution?related
premature death and illness, improved
economic welfare of Americans, and
better environmental conditions. The
economic value of these improvements is
estimated to reach almost $2 trillion for
the year 2020, a value which vastly
exceeds the cost of efforts to comply
with the requirements of the 1990
Clean Air Act Amendments.
The extent to which estimated benefits exceed estimated costs and an in?depth analysis of
uncertainties indicate that it is extremely unlikely the costs of 1990 Clean Air Act Amendment
programs would exceed their benefits under any reasonable combination of alternative
assumptions or methods identified during this study. Even if one were to adopt the extreme
assumption that air pollution has no effect on premature mortality -or that avoiding such effects
has no valuethe benefits of reduced non?fatal health effects and visibility improvements alone are
more than twice the total cost of compliance with 1990 Clean Air Act Amendment requirements.
Economy?wide modeling was also conducted to estimate the effect of the 1990 Amendments on
overall U.S. economic growth and the economic welfare of American households. When some of
the beneficial economic effects of clean air programs were incorporated along with the costs of
these programs, economy?wide modeling projected net overall improvements in economic growth
and welfare. These improvements are projected to occur because cleaner air leads to better health
and productivity for American workers as well as savings on medical expenses for air pollution?
related health problems. The beneficial economic effects of these two improvements more than
offset the costly effects across the economy of expenditures for pollution control.
The most significant known human health effects from exposure to air pollution are associated
with exposures to fine particles2 and ground?level ozone pollution. Many of these effects could be
quantified for this study; but other health effects of fine particles and ozone, health effects
associated with other air pollutants, and most air pollution?related environmental effects could be
quantified only partially, if at all. Future improvements in the scientific and economic information
needed to quantify these effects would be expected to further increase the estimated benefits of
clean air programs.
This report is the third in a series of EPA studies
which estimate and compare the benefits and
costs of the Clean Air Act and related programs.
The first report was called the Retrospective
Study, and was published in 1997. This first
study estimated the benefits and costs through
1990 of programs implemented pursuant to the
1970 Clean Air Act and the 1977 Amendments,
and included an analysis of the benefits and
costs of phasing out leaded gasoline.
The second report was called the First
Prospective Study. Published in 1999, it
evaluated the incremental benefits and costs of
the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments and
associated programs through the year 2010,
relative to controls in place as of 1990. In
addition to evaluating the effects on human
health, the economy, and the environment of
Titles I through V of the Amendments,3 the First
Prospective Study analyzed the benefits and
costs of phasing out stratospheric ozone
depleting chemicals such as chlorofluorocarbons
(CFCs) under Title VI.
The current report is called the Second
Prospective Study. This new study updates and
expands the First Prospective Study by using
new and better data and modeling tools. The
new study also looks further out into the future
by evaluating the costs and benefits of 1990
Clean Air Act Amendment programs through the
year 2020.
3 The Clean Air Act is comprised of a number of statutory titles. Title I requires attainment of national air quality
standards for designated pollutants such as ozone, Title II focuses on mobile source control programs, Title III
addresses hazardous air pollutants, Title IV establishes programs to address acid deposition and related effects,
Title V establishes permitting requirements, and Title VI focuses on protection of the stratospheric ozone layer.
Exhibit 2. Clean Air Act Section 312 statutory language
(abridged) as amended by Section 812 of the 1990
Amendments. The text of the law defines Congress’
direction to EPA regarding the scope and review of these
studies.
The Benefits and Costs of the Clean Air Act from 1990 to 2020: Summary Report
6
The Second Prospective Study focuses on evaluating the significant changes made over the last decade
in the implementation of Titles I through IV. Readers interested in benefit and cost information related
to Title V (permits) and Title VI (stratospheric ozone protection) are referred to the First Prospective
Study and subsequent EPA Regulatory Impact Analyses.
The effects of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments estimated herein reflect actions and partnerships
across multiple levels of government, private organizations, households, and individuals. This combined
effort involves federal standard setting and implementation, state and local programs to meet federal
standards, and expenditures by private entities to achieve the requisite emissions reductions.
Goals and Objectives of the Study
During the legislative efforts leading up to enactment of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments, members
of Congress working on the Act’s reauthorization made it clear they wanted more and better
information from EPA about the economic, health, and environmental effects of air pollution control
programs. To ensure this improved information was available to support future policymaking, Congress
added statutory language which required EPA to conduct periodic studies to evaluate the benefits and
costs of the Clean Air Act itself. Enhanced credibility and continual improvement in data and methods
were promoted by requiring that the design, implementation, and results of each study would be
reviewed by a multidisciplinary panel of outside experts.
To meet Congress’ goals for the third study in this series of Clean Air Act benefit?cost analyses, EPA
defined a central objective and three supplementary objectives. Consistent with the central objectives
defined for the two preceding studies, the current study was designed to estimate the direct4 costs and
direct benefits of the Clean Air Act as a whole, including the major federal, state, and local programs
implemented to meet its requirements. The present study focuses on estimating the incremental
effects of the 1990 Amendments in particular, and covers the period from 1990 -when these most
recent Amendments were passedthrough the year 2020.
A second, subsidiary objective of the study was to gauge the economy?wide effects of the 1990 Clean Air
Act programs, including evaluation of the Act’s effects on the overall growth of the U.S. economy and
the economic well?being of American households.
4 In this study, “direct” costs or benefits refer to first?order economic effects of pollution control programs. For
example, the expenditure of funds to purchase, install, and operate pollution control equipment is considered a
direct cost of a pollution control program. Similarly, the reduction in risk of a pollution?related health effect is a
direct benefit of the reduction in emissions achieved by the use of that equipment. Indirect effects are those
which emerge as consequences of the direct effect, such as the higher cost of producing steel if the direct cost to
an electric utility of installing pollution control equipment leads to an increase in electricity prices paid by a steel
plant. An example of an indirect benefit is the improvement in worker productivity achieved when the direct
benefit of avoiding pollution?related illness helps workers avoid sick days. The present study focuses on evaluation
of direct benefits and costs but also, to a limited extent, assesses indirect effects through economy?wide modeling.
The Benefits and Costs of the Clean Air Act from 1990 to 2020: Summary Report
7
Exhibit 3. Second Prospective Study scenarios conceptual
schematic. This exhibit is a schematic depiction of the scenarios to
illustrate their timing and conceptual foundations. The differences
in emissions between studies and between years are not to scale
and should not be viewed as a comparison of emission reductions
achieved between studies or between years.
EPA also sought, as a third objective, to be as comprehensive as possible -subject to practical limitations
imposed by budget and information constraintsby considering a wide range of human health, human
welfare (i.e., quality of life), and ecological effects. While some of these effects may contribute only
minimally, if at all, to the quantitative estimates of benefits and costs generated for this study, looking
at a broad range of effects was intended to ensure that (a) effects of concern to various stakeholders
were included and (b) EPA and outside researchers could obtain additional insights about any
deficiencies in the scope and quality of current information.
A fourth and final objective of the current study was to assess its limitations and uncertainties to identify
opportunities for improving data and methods, and to explore the need for refining the scope and
design of future air pollution benefit?cost studies. External peer review by the outside experts serving
on the Council was a critical aspect of efforts to meet this objective, as well as the other objectives of
this study.
Study Design
The current study is similar to the previous two in its fundamental design. To isolate the effects of Clean
Air Act programs, the study configures and compares two alternative states of the world: one with the
1990 Clean Air Act Amendments, and one which assumes the 1990 Amendments were not passed.
In particular, the first scenario was built to reflect the actual history of post?1990 Clean Air Act
implementation, including known programs already established, and future programs and control
strategies anticipated in the later years of the study period. This scenario was called the “with 1990
Clean Air Act Amendments scenario,”
or With?CAAA case for short, and it
represents a world of lower emissions
but higher costs following enactment
of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments.
The With?CAAA case is represented by
the lower line in Exhibit 3, which
depicts a not?to?scale schematic
illustrating the scenarios analyzed.
The second, contrasting scenario
reflects a hypothetical world which
assumes federal Clean Air Act and
related programs were frozen as of
November 1990, the month the
Amendments were signed into law.
Therefore, 1990 serves as the “base
year” of the analysis when the two
The Benefits and Costs of the Clean Air Act from 1990 to 2020: Summary Report
8
scenarios are initially set as equal but then begin to diverge. The counterfactual scenario was called the
“without 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments scenario,” or Without?CAAA case. The hypothetical Without?
CAAA case is represented in Exhibit 3 by the upper 1990 to 2020 trend line showing the higher emissions
which would result if standards stayed fixed but the economy and the population of the U.S. grew over
the 1990 to 2020 period.
Once they were configured, the With?CAAA and Without?CAAA scenarios were processed through a
series of economic and physical effects models, and their differences were estimated and compared.
Specifically, each scenario was analyzed using a sequence of models to estimate what pollution control
measures were (or might be) taken by government, private industry, and individuals; and what the
effects of those measures might be in terms of economic and environmental change. The sequence of
modeling steps followed to analyze the two scenarios is shown in Exhibit 4. Detailed descriptions of
each analytical step -including the particular data, models, and methodologies used and their attendant
uncertaintiesare provided in the full integrated report and supporting technical documents.
One consequence of this sequential modeling approach is that the scenarios were defined early in the
study. As such, this study reflects a particular snapshot in time with respect to known and anticipated
control programs, especially those incorporated in the With?CAAA scenario. Several important
programs, however, have been initiated or revised since the analytical scenarios were locked for the
study in late 2005. For example, the With?CAAA scenario reflects the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR)
which had been recently promulgated when the scenarios
were set, but this rule is now being replaced by a different rule
designed to address the problem of long?range atmospheric
transport of air pollution. Information about the estimated
benefits and costs of recent rules is available in the relevant
EPA Regulatory Impact Analyses.
To ensure high?quality, credible results, the study used the
best available data and state?of?the?art modeling tools and
methodologies. Most important, the design of the study,
many of the intermediate methodological choices and
findings, and the final results and their interpretation were all
reviewed by the Council and its three technical
subcommittees. The specialized expert review of the
emissions and air quality, human health effects, and ecological
effects study components by the three technical
subcommittees complemented and supported the Council’s
broad expertise, which included substantial expertise in
economics.
Exhibit 4. Analytical sequence of the
Second Prospective Study. This flowchart
shows the order of the major analytical
steps followed to conduct the study. The Benefits and Costs of the Clean Air Act from 1990 to 2020: Summary Report
8
scenarios are initially set as equal but then begin to diverge. The counterfactual scenario was called the
“without 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments scenario,” or Without?CAAA case. The hypothetical Without?
CAAA case is represented in Exhibit 3 by the upper 1990 to 2020 trend line showing the higher emissions
which would result if standards stayed fixed but the economy and the population of the U.S. grew over
the 1990 to 2020 period.
Once they were configured, the With?CAAA and Without?CAAA scenarios were processed through a
series of economic and physical effects models, and their differences were estimated and compared.
Specifically, each scenario was analyzed using a sequence of models to estimate what pollution control
measures were (or might be) taken by government, private industry, and individuals; and what the