IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/dar/wpaper/68011.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Optimal Profits under Environmental Regulation: The Benefits from Emission Intensity Averaging

Author

Listed:
  • Hampf, Benjamin
  • Rødseth, Kenneth Løvold

Abstract

In this paper we analyze the economic effects of implementing EPA’s newly proposed regulations for carbon dioxide (CO2) 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 CO2 per MWh is implemented. However, our results also indicate a trade-off between environmental and profit gains, since aggregate CO2 emissions are higher with emission intensity averaging than with uniform standards.

Suggested Citation

  • 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).
    • Handle: RePEc:dar:wpaper:68011
    Note: for complete metadata visit http://tubiblio.ulb.tu-darmstadt.de/68011/
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/107658/1/814200893.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. 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).
    5. 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.
    6. 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.
    7. 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.
    8. 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.
    9. 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.
    10. 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.
    11. 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.
    12. Johnson, Andrew L. & Ruggiero, John, 2011. "Allocative efficiency measurement with endogenous prices," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 111(1), pages 81-83, April.
    13. 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.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. 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.
    7. Hampf, Benjamin, 2015. "Estimating the materials balance condition: A stochastic frontier approach," Darmstadt Discussion Papers in Economics 226, Darmstadt University of Technology, Department of Law and Economics.
    8. 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.
    9. 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.
    10. 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.
    11. 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.
    12. 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.
    13. Sebastián Lozano, 2017. "Technical and environmental efficiency of a two-stage production and abatement system," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 255(1), pages 199-219, August.
    14. Hampf, Benjamin, 2017. "Rational inefficiency, adjustment costs and sequential technologies," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 263(3), pages 1095-1108.
    15. Li, Hai-ling & Zhu, Xue-hong & Chen, Jin-yu & Jiang, Fei-tao, 2019. "Environmental regulations, environmental governance efficiency and the green transformation of China's iron and steel enterprises," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 165(C), pages 1-1.
    16. Hampf, Benjamin, 2016. "Rational Inefficiency, Adjustment Costs and Sequential Technologies," VfS Annual Conference 2016 (Augsburg): Demographic Change 145796, Verein für Socialpolitik / German Economic Association.
    17. 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.
    18. 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.
    19. Sushama Murty & R. Robert Russell, "undated". "Bad Outputs," Centre for International Trade and Development, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi Discussion Papers 17-06, Centre for International Trade and Development, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi, India.
    20. 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.

    More about this item

    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:dar:wpaper:68011. 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: Dekanatssekretariat (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/ivthdde.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.