1. Applications of Benefit-Cost/ Cost-Effectiveness Analysis 1.Tuolumne River preservation 2.Lead in drinking water 3.Habitat Protection

2. “Saving the Tuolumne” Dam proposed for hydroelectric power generation. The “tension”: valuable electricity vs. loss in environmental amenities. Benefits: hydroelectric power, some recreation. Costs: environmental, rafting, fishing, hiking, other recreation. Question: Should the dam be built? Influential analysis by economist, Stavins.

3. Tuolumne: background Originates in Yosemite Nat’l Park Flows west 158 miles, 30 miles free-flow Many RTE species rely on river Historic significance World-class rafting: 15,000 trips in 1982 Recreation: 35,000 user-days annually

4. The Tuolumne: A nice place

5. Hydroelectric power generation River’s steep canyon walls ideal for power generation “Tuolumne River Preservation Trust” lobbied for protection under Wild & Scenic 1983: existing hydro captured 90% water Municipal, agricultural, hydroelectric Rapid growth of region would require more water & more power

6. New hydroelectric projects 2 proposed hydro projects: Clavey River, Wards Ferry 3 year study on Wild & Scenic stalled FERC (Fed. Energy Reg. Comm.) from assessing feasibility of hydro projects. April 1983, FERC granted permit to study feasibility of Clavey-Wards Ferry Project (CWF).

7. Clavey-Wards Ferry project 2 new dams & reservoirs, 5 mile diversion tunnel Jawbone Dam 175’ high Wards Ferry Dam 450’ high Generate 980 gigawatt-hours annually Annual water supply of 12,000 AF Increased recreational opportunities Cost: $860 million (1995 dollars)

8. The opposition Historical context: John Muir & Sierra Club lost Hetch Hetchy Valley fight. Dams would damage Fishing, rafting, wildlife populations, wild character. Recreational opps created are minimal Cheaper alternative sources of energy

9. Economic evaluation EDF economists to evaluate costs and benefits, including environmental costs Traditionally, environmental losses only measured qualitatively. Difficult to compare with quantified $ Benefits. Stavins: “Rather than looking at it from a narrow financial perspective, we believed we could look at it from a broader social perspective by trying to internalize some of the environmental externalities”.

10. Differences in the CBA’s Stavins’ CBA: Used data from original project proposal Included environmental externalities (mostly in lost rafting and fishing opportunities). Took dynamic approach – evaluated costs and benefits over entire life of project (50 year “planning horizon”), r=10.72% 10.72% = 40 year bond rate for district

11. The costs and benefits Benefits: $188 million annually Electricity benefits: $184.2 million Water yield: $3.4 million Social Costs: $214 million annually Internal project costs: $134 million Lost recreation: $80 million C (214) > B (188)

12. Tuolumne River: prologue Clavey-Wards Ferry project dams were not built….partly due to formal CBA. Intense lobbying forced the political decision to forbid project. Pete Wilson was senator. Stavins said: “[Wilson] couldn’t say ‘I did it because I love wild rivers and I don’t like electricity’, but he could do it by holding up the study and saying, ‘look, I changed my vote for solid economic reasons.’”

13. “Lead in drinking water” Should the EPA control lead contamination of drinking water? Should water utilities be responsible for the quality of water at the tap? Would benefits of such a program outweigh costs? Economic analysis at EPA formed basis for adoption of this rule.

14. Background Lead in drinking water is byproduct of corrosion in public water systems Water leaves treatment plant lead-free, lead leaches into water from pipes. Factors associated with risk: Corrosivity of pipe material Length of time water sits in pipe Lead in plumbing Water temperature (hotter -> more lead)

15. Primary issues Evidence of lead-related health effects even from low exposure Tendency of lead to contaminate water in the house Decreasing corrosivity of water, also reap extra economic benefits by reducing damage to plumbing.

16. Scientific & analytical problems No baseline data on lead levels in tap water High variability in lead levels in tap water Corrosion control is system specific Uncertainty over reliability of corrosion control treatment Corrosion control treatment may change water quality and require further treatment.

17. Approach Stakeholders: 44% of U.S. population. 2 regulatory approaches: Define a single water quality standard at the tap or at the distribution center, OR Establish corrosion treatment requirements. Compare costs and benefits for each regulator approach

18. Estimating costs [1 of 2] 1.Source water treatment: for systems with high lead in water entering dist’n system. 880 water systems, $90 million/yr. 2.Corrosion control treatment: either (1) adjust pH, (2) water stabilization, or (3) chemical corrosion inhibitors [engineering judgement] $220 million/yr. 3.Lead pipe replacement: 26% of public water systems have lead pipes; usually best to increase corrosion treatment, $80-370 million/yr.

19. Estimating costs [2 of 2] 4.Public education: inform consumers about risks $30 million/yr. 5.State implementation: $40 million/yr. 6.Monitoring: (1) source water, (2) corrosion, (3) lead pipe replacement, $40 million/yr. Total costs: $500-$800 million/yr.

20. Benefits: children’s health Avoided medical costs from lead-related blood disorders: $70,000/yr. Avoided costs to compensate for lead- induced cognitive damage ($4,600 per lost IQ point) $900 million/yr. Offset compensatory education $2 million/yr. Total: $900 million/yr.

21. Benefits: adult health Avoided hypertension, $399 million/yr ($628 per case). Avoided heart attacks, $818 million/yr ($1 million per event). Avoided strokes, $609 million/yr ($1 million per event). Avoided deaths, $1.6 billion/yr ($2.5 million per death). Total: $3.4 billion/yr. Total (all health): $4.3 billion/yr.

22. Key uncertainties & sensitivity Current lead level in drinking water Efficacy of corrosion treatment Likelihood of decreased lead in blood Precise link between lead exposure and cognitive damage. Sensitivity Analysis: Adjusting parameters leads to a range of costs and benefits.

23. Summary of costs & benefits Costs: $500-$800 million/yr. NPV = $4 - $7 billion Benefits: $4.3 billion/yr. NPV = $30 - $70 billion Benefits outweigh costs by ~ 10:1

25. Reflections on analysis CBA played prominent role in regulation Very stringent rule was adopted by EPA Widespread EPA/public support Quantitative analysis more likely to have impact if: Credibly done and Done early in process

26. Ando et al: Species Distributions, Land Values, and Efficient Conservation Basic Question: are we spending our species conservation $ wisely? Habitat protection often focuses on biologically rich land Focusing on biologically rich land results in fewer acres of habitat to protect species

27. Cost-effectiveness Analysis Goal Provide habitat to a fixed number of species No issue of how many species to protect Compare two approaches Acquire cheapest land to provide protection Acquire smallest amount of land to provide protection Why is this an interesting question?

28. Approach Conduct analysis at county level in US Use average ag land value for price of land Use database of species location by county (endangered or proposed endangered) Assume if land acquired in county where species lives  species is protected

29. Results Locations for 453 species Blue: cost-min only Yellow: site-min only Green: both Site minimizing vs. cost minimizing

30. Cost-minimizing Problem Subject to For all iεI where J = {j j = 1,..., n} is the index set of candidate reserve sites, I = {i i = 1,..., m} is the index set of species to be covered, Ni is the subset of J that contain species i, c j is the loss associated with selecting site j, and xj = 1 if site j is selected and 0 otherwise.

31. Conclusions Cost minimizing much more efficient that site minimizing Total cost savings of about 80% Result similar to: Santa Clara River Group Project “Ecological Linkages” Group Project

32. Mini-Group Project Hints Try to explain the problem & setup to another person. Solve it without Excel. Computers are dumb – they can only do what we ask them to do. What is our objective? What are we choosing in order to meet it? What are the constraints?

33. Multicriteria Analysis: The Concept of an Efficient Frontier LBV Prob Frog Prob Attainable Points Efficient Frontier

34. Excel needs 3 things: 1.An “objective” function cell 1. The thing Excel is trying to maximize (the probability of survival) 2.A “policy” cell or block of cells 1. The thing Excel changes in order to maximize the objective (amount of each site selected). 3.Constraints 1. Things that “bound” the problem (X i >0, X i <100, C <20,000,000)