IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/rffdps/10884.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Emissions Trading with Telecommuting Credits: Regulatory Background and Institutional Barriers

Author

Listed:
  • Nelson, Peter

Abstract

The 1999 National Telecommuting and Air Quality Act created pilot programs in five metropolitan areas in the United States to examine whether a particular type of economic incentive, tradable emissions credits created from telecommuting, represents a viable strategy for reducing vehicle miles traveled and improving air quality (H.R. 2094, 2000). Under the ecommute program, companies could generate emissions credits by reducing the vehicle miles traveled (VMT) of their workforce through telework programs. They would then be able to sell the credits to firms that needed the reductions to comply with air quality regulations. This paper provides some context for evaluating whether such a trading scheme represents a feasible approach to reducing mobile source emissions and promoting telecommuting and reviews the limited experience with mobile source emission trading programs. From a regulatory perspective, the most substantial drawback to such a program is its questionable environmental integrity, which is a result of difficulties in establishing sufficiently rigorous quantification protocols to measure accurately the emission reductions from telecommuting. Perhaps more importantly, such a program is not likely to be cost-effective; the emissions reductions from a single telecommuter are extremely small, meaning that any trading program will have relatively high transaction costs to environmental benefits. A comparison of estimated emission reductions from the five pilot cities with historical and projected emission credit and allowance prices indicates that the yearly revenue per participant is likely to be well under $100, substantially below what firms participating in the program said would be an adequate incentive to induce a substantial increase in telecommuting. This discussion paper is the final paper in a series of four on telecommuting published in by RFF in December 2004. In discussion paper 04-42, Walls and Nelson analyze data from five pilot cities enrolled in the "ecommute" program. In 04-43 Safirova and Walls examine the 2002 Telework survey conducted in California and, in 04-44, these authors review the empirical literature on telecommuting with a focus on trip reduction impacts. The studies by RFF are part of a larger report on the ecommute program completed by the Global Environment and Technology Foundation (GETF) for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. More information about the overall project can be found on the ecommute/GETF website: http://www.ecommute.net/program/.

Suggested Citation

  • Nelson, Peter, 2004. "Emissions Trading with Telecommuting Credits: Regulatory Background and Institutional Barriers," Discussion Papers 10884, Resources for the Future.
  • Handle: RePEc:ags:rffdps:10884
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.10884
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/10884/files/dp040045.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.10884?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Kruger, Joseph & Pizer, William A., 2004. "The EU Emissions Trading Directive: Opportunities and Potential Pitfalls," Discussion Papers 10679, Resources for the Future.
    2. Safirova, Elena & Gillingham, Kenneth & Houde, Sébastien, 2007. "Measuring marginal congestion costs of urban transportation: Do networks matter?," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 41(8), pages 734-749, October.
    3. Burtraw, Dallas & Palmer, Karen L., 2003. "The Paparazzi Take a Look at a Living Legend: The SO2 Cap-and-Trade Program for Power Plants in the United States," Discussion Papers 10665, Resources for the Future.
    4. Walls, Margaret & Nelson, Peter, 2004. "Telecommuting and Emissions Reductions: Evaluating Results from the ecommute Program," Discussion Papers 10628, Resources for the Future.
    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. Millard-Ball, Adam & Ortolano, Leonard, 2010. "Constructing carbon offsets: The obstacles to quantifying emission reductions," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(1), pages 533-546, January.
    2. Margaret Walls & Peter Nelson & Elena Safirova, 2005. "Telecommuting and environmental policy - lessons from the Ecommute program," ERSA conference papers ersa05p801, European Regional Science Association.

    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. Nelson, Per-Kristian, 2004. "Emissions Trading with Telecommuting Credits: Regulatory Background and Institutional Barriers," RFF Working Paper Series dp-04-45, Resources for the Future.
    2. Margaret Walls & Peter Nelson & Elena Safirova, 2005. "Telecommuting and environmental policy - lessons from the Ecommute program," ERSA conference papers ersa05p801, European Regional Science Association.
    3. Soleille, Sebastien, 2006. "Greenhouse gas emission trading schemes: a new tool for the environmental regulator's kit," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(13), pages 1473-1477, September.
    4. Lei Zhang & David Levinson, 2006. "Economics of Road Network Ownership," Working Papers 200908, University of Minnesota: Nexus Research Group.
    5. Coria, Jessica & Sterner, Thomas, 2008. "Tradable Permits in Developing Countries: Evidence from Air Pollution in Santiago, Chile," RFF Working Paper Series dp-08-51, Resources for the Future.
    6. Regina Betz & Wolfgang Eichhammer & Joachim Schleich, 2004. "Designing National Allocation Plans for Eu-Emissions Trading — A First Analysis of the Outcomes," Energy & Environment, , vol. 15(3), pages 375-425, July.
    7. Axel Michaelowa & Sonja Butzengeiger, 2005. "EU emissions trading: navigating between Scylla and Charybdis," Climate Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 5(1), pages 1-9, January.
    8. Beat Hintermann, 2011. "Market Power, Permit Allocation and Efficiency in Emission Permit Markets," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 49(3), pages 327-349, July.
    9. Ian W.H. Parry, 2009. "Pricing Urban Congestion," Annual Review of Resource Economics, Annual Reviews, vol. 1(1), pages 461-484, September.
    10. Michael Pollan, 2005. "Opportunities for GHG Mitigation in Latin America: Carbon Finance and the Clean Development Mechanism," IDB Publications (Working Papers) 25198, Inter-American Development Bank.
    11. Sandoff, Anders & Schaad, Gabriela, 2009. "Does EU ETS lead to emission reductions through trade? The case of the Swedish emissions trading sector participants," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(10), pages 3967-3977, October.
    12. Hintermann, Beat, 2010. "Allowance price drivers in the first phase of the EU ETS," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 59(1), pages 43-56, January.
    13. Gillenwater, Michael & Breidenich, Clare, 2009. "Internalizing carbon costs in electricity markets: Using certificates in a load-based emissions trading scheme," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(1), pages 290-299, January.
    14. Schleich, Joachim & Betz, Regina & Rogge, Karoline S., 2007. "EU emission trading: better job second time around?," Working Papers "Sustainability and Innovation" S2/2007, Fraunhofer Institute for Systems and Innovation Research (ISI).
    15. Kruger, Joseph & Pizer, William A., 2004. "The EU Emissions Trading Directive: Opportunities and Potential Pitfalls," Discussion Papers 10679, Resources for the Future.
    16. Walls, Margaret & Safirova, Elena, 2004. "A Review of the Literature on Telecommuting and Its Implications for Vehicle Travel and Emissions," Discussion Papers 10492, Resources for the Future.
    17. William A. Pizer, 2005. "The case for intensity targets," Climate Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 5(4), pages 455-462, July.
    18. Hilary Sigman, 2011. "Monitoring and Enforcement of Climate Policy," NBER Chapters, in: The Design and Implementation of US Climate Policy, pages 213-225, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    19. Safirova, Elena A. & Houde, Sébastien & Harrington, Winston, 2007. "Spatial Development and Energy Consumption," RFF Working Paper Series dp-07-51, Resources for the Future.
    20. M. Rouhani, Omid, 2015. "Impact of Value of Time (VOT) on toll roads," MPRA Paper 65087, University Library of Munich, Germany.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Environmental Economics and Policy;

    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:ags:rffdps:10884. 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: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/rffffus.html .

    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.