English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

This paper compares EPA’s  ex ante  cost analysis of the Cluster Rule, EPA’s first integrated, multi-media regulation, and MACT II Rule to an  ex post  cost assessment. The goal of this assessment is to determine if actual costs diverged from  ex ante  costs and, if so, what factors caused this divergence. We find the EPA  ex ante  costs overestimated the  ex post  capital costs for the Cluster Rule by 30 to 100%. Contributing factors appear to be use of cleaner technology, flexible compliance options, site-specific rules, shutdowns and consolidations.  Ex ante  estimates for the MACT II Rule are found to be overestimated by 25% for capital costs and 200 or more percent for annual costs. The primary reason for the overestimate is the use of the bubble compliance strategy that required fewer paper mills to install pollution abatement equipment than anticipated by EPA.

Ex ante and ex post cost estimates of the Cluster Rule and MACT II Rule