IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/annopr/v255y2017i1d10.1007_s10479-015-2020-4.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Optimal profits under environmental regulation: the benefits from emission intensity averaging

Author

Listed:
  • Benjamin Hampf

    (Darmstadt University of Technology)

  • Kenneth Løvold Rødseth

    (Institute of Transport Economics - Norwegian Centre for Transport Research)

Abstract

In this paper we analyze the economic effects of implementing EPA’s newly proposed regulations for carbon dioxide ( $$\hbox {CO}_2$$ CO 2 ) on existing U.S. coal-fired power plants using nonparametric methods on a sample of 144 electricity generating units. Moreover, we develop an approach for evaluating the economic gains from averaging emission intensities among the utilities’ generating units, compared to implementing unit-specific performance standards. Our results show that the implementation of flexible standards leads to up to 2.7 billion dollars larger profits compared to the uniform standards. Moreover, we find that by adopting best practices, current profits can be maintained even if an intensity standard of 0.88 tons of $$\hbox {CO}_2$$ CO 2 per MWh is implemented. However, our results also indicate a trade-off between environmental and profit gains, since aggregate $$\hbox {CO}_2$$ CO 2 emissions are higher with emission intensity averaging than with uniform standards.

Suggested Citation

  • Benjamin Hampf & Kenneth Løvold Rødseth, 2017. "Optimal profits under environmental regulation: the benefits from emission intensity averaging," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 255(1), pages 367-390, August.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:annopr:v:255:y:2017:i:1:d:10.1007_s10479-015-2020-4
    DOI: 10.1007/s10479-015-2020-4
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10479-015-2020-4
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10479-015-2020-4?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Rolf Färe & Shawna Grosskopf & Gerald Whittaker, 2014. "Network DEA II," International Series in Operations Research & Management Science, in: Wade D. Cook & Joe Zhu (ed.), Data Envelopment Analysis, edition 127, chapter 0, pages 307-327, Springer.
    2. Kenneth Rødseth & Eirik Romstad, 2014. "Environmental Regulations, Producer Responses, and Secondary Benefits: Carbon Dioxide Reductions Under the Acid Rain Program," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 59(1), pages 111-135, September.
    3. Ambec, Stefan & Barla, Philippe, 2005. "Can Environmental Regulations be Good for Business? an Assessment of the Porter Hypothesis," Cahiers de recherche 0505, Université Laval - Département d'économique.
    4. Benjamin Hampf, 2014. "Separating environmental efficiency into production and abatement efficiency: a nonparametric model with application to US power plants," Journal of Productivity Analysis, Springer, vol. 41(3), pages 457-473, June.
    5. M. Khodabakhshi & K. Aryavash, 2014. "The fair allocation of common fixed cost or revenue using DEA concept," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 214(1), pages 187-194, March.
    6. Henry Tulkens & Philippe Eeckaut, 2006. "Nonparametric Efficiency, Progress and Regress Measures For Panel Data: Methodological Aspects," Springer Books, in: Parkash Chander & Jacques Drèze & C. Knox Lovell & Jack Mintz (ed.), Public goods, environmental externalities and fiscal competition, chapter 0, pages 395-429, Springer.
    7. Ayres, Robert U & Kneese, Allen V, 1969. "Production , Consumption, and Externalities," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 59(3), pages 282-297, June.
    8. Färe, Rolf & Grosskopf, Shawna & Pasurka,, Carl A., 2013. "Tradable permits and unrealized gains from trade," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 40(C), pages 416-424.
    9. Léopold Simar & Paul Wilson, 2011. "Inference by the m out of n bootstrap in nonparametric frontier models," Journal of Productivity Analysis, Springer, vol. 36(1), pages 33-53, August.
    10. Forsund, Finn R., 2009. "Good Modelling of Bad Outputs: Pollution and Multiple-Output Production," International Review of Environmental and Resource Economics, now publishers, vol. 3(1), pages 1-38, August.
    11. Mohr, Robert D., 2006. "Environmental performance standards and the adoption of technology," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 58(2), pages 238-248, June.
    12. Noor Ramli & Susila Munisamy & Behrouz Arabi, 2013. "Scale directional distance function and its application to the measurement of eco-efficiency in the manufacturing sector," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 211(1), pages 381-398, December.
    13. Alfons Oude Lansink & Arno Van Der Vlist, 2008. "Non‐Parametric Modelling of CO2 Emission Quota," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 59(3), pages 487-497, September.
    14. Hampf, Benjamin, 2014. "Separating Environmental Efficiency into Production and Abatement Efficiency - A Nonparametric Model with Application to U.S. Power Plants," Publications of Darmstadt Technical University, Institute for Business Studies (BWL) 69997, Darmstadt Technical University, Department of Business Administration, Economics and Law, Institute for Business Studies (BWL).
    15. Nielsen, Rasmus, 2012. "Introducing individual transferable quotas on nitrogen in Danish fresh water aquaculture: Production and profitability gains," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 75(C), pages 83-90.
    16. Nasim Nasrabadi & Akram Dehnokhalaji & Narsis Kiani & Pekka Korhonen & Jyrki Wallenius, 2012. "Resource allocation for performance improvement," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 196(1), pages 459-468, July.
    17. Dominique Deprins & Léopold Simar & Henry Tulkens, 2006. "Measuring Labor-Efficiency in Post Offices," Springer Books, in: Parkash Chander & Jacques Drèze & C. Knox Lovell & Jack Mintz (ed.), Public goods, environmental externalities and fiscal competition, chapter 0, pages 285-309, Springer.
    18. Färe, Rolf & Grosskopf, Shawna & Pasurka, Carl A., 2014. "Potential gains from trading bad outputs: The case of U.S. electric power plants," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 36(1), pages 99-112.
    19. Welch, Eric & Barnum, Darold, 2009. "Joint environmental and cost efficiency analysis of electricity generation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(8-9), pages 2336-2343, June.
    20. Hampf, Benjamin & Rødseth, Kenneth Løvold, 2015. "Carbon dioxide emission standards for U.S. power plants: An efficiency analysis perspective," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 50(C), pages 140-153.
    21. Fare, Rolf & Grosskopf, Shawna & Noh, Dong-Woon & Weber, William, 2005. "Characteristics of a polluting technology: theory and practice," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 126(2), pages 469-492, June.
    22. Rolf Färe & Shawna Grosskopf, 2003. "Nonparametric Productivity Analysis with Undesirable Outputs: Comment," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 85(4), pages 1070-1074.
    23. Runar Brännlund & Rolf Färe & Shawna Grosskopf, 1995. "Environmental regulation and profitability: An application to Swedish pulp and paper mills," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 6(1), pages 23-36, July.
    24. Lauwers, Ludwig, 2009. "Justifying the incorporation of the materials balance principle into frontier-based eco-efficiency models," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(6), pages 1605-1614, April.
    25. Chien-Ming Chen, 2014. "Evaluating eco-efficiency with data envelopment analysis: an analytical reexamination," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 214(1), pages 49-71, March.
    26. Zofio, Jose L. & Prieto, Angel M., 2001. "Environmental efficiency and regulatory standards: the case of CO2 emissions from OECD industries," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 23(1), pages 63-83, January.
    27. Zhou, P. & Ang, B.W. & Poh, K.L., 2008. "A survey of data envelopment analysis in energy and environmental studies," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 189(1), pages 1-18, August.
    28. Adam Jaffe & Richard Newell & Robert Stavins, 2002. "Environmental Policy and Technological Change," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 22(1), pages 41-70, June.
    29. Fare, Rolf, et al, 1989. "Multilateral Productivity Comparisons When Some Outputs Are Undesirable: A Nonparametric Approach," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 71(1), pages 90-98, February.
    30. Fare, Rolf & Grosskopf, Shawna & Pasurka, Carl Jr., 2007. "Pollution abatement activities and traditional productivity," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 62(3-4), pages 673-682, May.
    31. Johnson, Andrew L. & Ruggiero, John, 2011. "Allocative efficiency measurement with endogenous prices," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 111(1), pages 81-83, April.
    32. Mekaroonreung, Maethee & Johnson, Andrew L., 2012. "Estimating the shadow prices of SO2 and NOx for U.S. coal power plants: A convex nonparametric least squares approach," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 34(3), pages 723-732.
    33. Scheel, Holger, 2001. "Undesirable outputs in efficiency valuations," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 132(2), pages 400-410, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Rødseth, Kenneth Løvold, 2023. "Shadow pricing of electricity generation using stochastic and deterministic materials balance models," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 341(C).
    2. Andreas Eder, 2022. "Environmental efficiency measurement when producers control pollutants under heterogeneous conditions: a generalization of the materials balance approach," Journal of Productivity Analysis, Springer, vol. 57(2), pages 157-176, April.
    3. repec:zbw:inwedp:752021 is not listed on IDEAS
    4. Morgan, Cynthia & Pasurka, Carl & Shadbegian, Ron & Belova, Anna & Casey, Brendan, 2023. "Estimating the cost of environmental regulations and technological change with limited information," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 204(PA).
    5. Andreas Eder, 2021. "Environmental efficiency measurement when producers control pollutants under heterogeneous conditions: a generalization of the materials balance approach," Working Papers 752021, University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences, Vienna, Department of Economics and Social Sciences, Institute for Sustainable Economic Development.
    6. Andong Liu & Xuesong Gu, 2020. "Environmental Regulation, Technological Progress and Corporate Profit: Empirical Research Based on the Threshold Panel Regression," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(4), pages 1-15, February.
    7. Zhang, Zixuan & Chen, Huaichao, 2022. "Dynamic interaction of renewable energy technological innovation, environmental regulation intensity and carbon pressure: Evidence from China," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 192(C), pages 420-430.
    8. Chanyuan Liu & Long Xin & Jinye Li & Huaping Sun, 2022. "The Impact of Renewable Energy Technology Innovation on Industrial Green Transformation and Upgrading: Beggar Thy Neighbor or Benefiting Thy Neighbor," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(18), pages 1-28, September.
    9. Hampf, Benjamin, 2018. "Cost and environmental efficiency of U.S. electricity generation: Accounting for heterogeneous inputs and transportation costs," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 163(C), pages 932-941.
    10. Hampf, Benjamin & Rødseth, Kenneth Løvold, 2019. "Environmental efficiency measurement with heterogeneous input quality: A nonparametric analysis of U.S. power plants," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 81(C), pages 610-625.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Kenneth Løvold Rødseth, 2017. "Environmental regulations and allocative efficiency: application to coal-to-gas substitution in the U.S. electricity sector," Journal of Productivity Analysis, Springer, vol. 47(2), pages 129-142, April.
    2. Hampf, Benjamin & Rødseth, Kenneth Løvold, 2015. "Carbon dioxide emission standards for U.S. power plants: An efficiency analysis perspective," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 50(C), pages 140-153.
    3. Hampf, Benjamin & Rødseth, Kenneth Løvold, 2014. "Optimal profits under environmental regulation: The benefits from emission intensity averaging," Darmstadt Discussion Papers in Economics 220, Darmstadt University of Technology, Department of Law and Economics.
    4. Hampf, Benjamin & Rødseth, Kenneth Løvold, 2019. "Environmental efficiency measurement with heterogeneous input quality: A nonparametric analysis of U.S. power plants," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 81(C), pages 610-625.
    5. Sueyoshi, Toshiyuki & Yuan, Yan & Goto, Mika, 2017. "A literature study for DEA applied to energy and environment," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 62(C), pages 104-124.
    6. Hampf, Benjamin & Rødseth, Kenneth Løvold, 2014. "Optimal Profits under Environmental Regulation: The Benefits from Emission Intensity Averaging," Publications of Darmstadt Technical University, Institute for Business Studies (BWL) 68011, Darmstadt Technical University, Department of Business Administration, Economics and Law, Institute for Business Studies (BWL).
    7. Hampf, Benjamin, 2018. "Cost and environmental efficiency of U.S. electricity generation: Accounting for heterogeneous inputs and transportation costs," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 163(C), pages 932-941.
    8. Kenneth Løvold Rødseth, 2017. "Axioms of a Polluting Technology: A Materials Balance Approach," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 67(1), pages 1-22, May.
    9. Atkinson, Scott E. & Tsionas, Mike G., 2021. "Generalized estimation of productivity with multiple bad outputs: The importance of materials balance constraints," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 292(3), pages 1165-1186.
    10. Wang, Ke & Wei, Yi-Ming & Huang, Zhimin, 2018. "Environmental efficiency and abatement efficiency measurements of China's thermal power industry: A data envelopment analysis based materials balance approach," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 269(1), pages 35-50.
    11. Finn R. Førsund, 2018. "Multi-equation modelling of desirable and undesirable outputs satisfying the materials balance," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 54(1), pages 67-99, February.
    12. Aparicio, Juan & Kapelko, Magdalena & Zofío, José L., 2020. "The measurement of environmental economic inefficiency with pollution-generating technologies," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 62(C).
    13. Jeanneaux, Philippe & Latruffe, Laure, 2016. "Modelling pollution-generating technologies in performance benchmarking: Recent developments, limits and future prospects in the nonparametric frameworkAuthor-Name: Dakpo, K. Hervé," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 250(2), pages 347-359.
    14. Ke Wang & Yi-Ming Wei & Zhimin Huang, 2017. "Environmental efficiency and abatement efficiency measurements of China¡¯s thermal power industry: A data envelopment analysis based materials balance approach," CEEP-BIT Working Papers 108, Center for Energy and Environmental Policy Research (CEEP), Beijing Institute of Technology.
    15. Rødseth, Kenneth Løvold, 2016. "Environmental efficiency measurement and the materials balance condition reconsidered," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 250(1), pages 342-346.
    16. Benjamin Hampf, 2018. "Measuring inefficiency in the presence of bad outputs: Does the disposability assumption matter?," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 54(1), pages 101-127, February.
    17. Ke Wang & Zhifu Mi & Yi‐Ming Wei, 2019. "Will Pollution Taxes Improve Joint Ecological and Economic Efficiency of Thermal Power Industry in China?: A DEA‐Based Materials Balance Approach," Journal of Industrial Ecology, Yale University, vol. 23(2), pages 389-401, April.
    18. Hampf, Benjamin, 2017. "Rational inefficiency, adjustment costs and sequential technologies," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 263(3), pages 1095-1108.
    19. Andreas Eder, 2022. "Environmental efficiency measurement when producers control pollutants under heterogeneous conditions: a generalization of the materials balance approach," Journal of Productivity Analysis, Springer, vol. 57(2), pages 157-176, April.
    20. Andreas Eder, 2021. "Environmental efficiency measurement when producers control pollutants under heterogeneous conditions: a generalization of the materials balance approach," Working Papers 752021, University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences, Vienna, Department of Economics and Social Sciences, Institute for Sustainable Economic Development.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Environmental regulation; Profit maximization; Emission intensity averaging; Nonparametric efficiency analysis;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • D24 - Microeconomics - - Production and Organizations - - - Production; Cost; Capital; Capital, Total Factor, and Multifactor Productivity; Capacity
    • L50 - Industrial Organization - - Regulation and Industrial Policy - - - General
    • Q54 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Climate; Natural Disasters and their Management; Global Warming

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:annopr:v:255:y:2017:i:1:d:10.1007_s10479-015-2020-4. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.