IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/nbr/nberwo/21259.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Strategic Policy Choice in State-Level Regulation: The EPA's Clean Power Plan

Author

Listed:
  • James B. Bushnell
  • Stephen P. Holland
  • Jonathan E. Hughes
  • Christopher R. Knittel

Abstract

Flexibility in environmental regulations can lead to reduced costs if it allows additional abatement from lower cost sources or if policy tailoring and experimentation across states increases regulatory efficiency. The EPA's 2014 Clean Power Plan, which implements greenhouse gas regulation of power plants under the Clean Air Act, allows substantial regulatory flexibility. The Clean Power Plan sets state-level 2030 goals for emissions rates (in lbs CO2 per MWh) with substantial variation in the goals across states. The Clean Power Plan allows states considerable flexibility in attaining these goals. In particular, states can choose whether to implement the rate standards goals or equivalent mass-based goals (i.e., emissions cap and trade, CAT). Moreover, states can choose whether or not to join with other states in implementing their goals. We analyze incentives to adopt inefficient rate standards versus efficient CAT standards using both analytical and simulation models. We have five main results. First, we theoretically show that industry supply can be efficient under both CAT regulation and rate-based regulation. However, under rate-based standards the carbon price must equal the social cost of carbon and the rate standard must be equal across all the states. Second, we illustrate important differences in the incentives of a unified coalition of states and the incentives of a single state. Third, our simulation results show that when states fail to coordinate on a policy, the merit order can be ``scrambled'' quite dramatically leading to significant inefficiencies. Fourth, the Nash equilibrium of a game between coastal and inland western states is an inefficient policy for consumers and an uncoordinated policy for generators. Finally, we show that how new plants are treated under the Clean Power Plan has large effects on the scale and location of entry.

Suggested Citation

  • James B. Bushnell & Stephen P. Holland & Jonathan E. Hughes & Christopher R. Knittel, 2015. "Strategic Policy Choice in State-Level Regulation: The EPA's Clean Power Plan," NBER Working Papers 21259, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  • Handle: RePEc:nbr:nberwo:21259
    Note: EEE IO POL
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.nber.org/papers/w21259.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. James B. Bushnell & Stephen P. Holland & Jonathan E. Hughes & Christopher R. Knittel, 2017. "Strategic Policy Choice in State-Level Regulation: The EPA's Clean Power Plan," American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, American Economic Association, vol. 9(2), pages 57-90, May.
    2. Bushnell, James & Chen, Yihsu, 2012. "Allocation and leakage in regional cap-and-trade markets for CO2," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 34(4), pages 647-668.
    3. Stavins, Robert N., 2008. "A Meaningful U.S. Cap-and-Trade System to Address Climate Change," Climate Change Modelling and Policy Working Papers 44469, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei (FEEM).
    4. Richard G. Newell & William A. Pizer & Daniel Raimi, 2014. "Carbon Markets: Past, Present, and Future," Annual Review of Resource Economics, Annual Reviews, vol. 6(1), pages 191-215, October.
    5. Huang, Haixiao & Khanna, Madhu & Önal, Hayri & Chen, Xiaoguang, 2013. "Stacking low carbon policies on the renewable fuels standard: Economic and greenhouse gas implications," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 56(C), pages 5-15.
    6. Holland, Stephen P., 2012. "Emissions taxes versus intensity standards: Second-best environmental policies with incomplete regulation," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 63(3), pages 375-387.
    7. Carolyn Fischer, 2003. "Combining rate-based and cap-and-trade emissions policies," Climate Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 3(sup2), pages 89-103, December.
    8. William A. Pizer, 2005. "The case for intensity targets," Climate Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 5(4), pages 455-462, July.
    9. Dallas Burtraw & Karen Palmer & Anthony Paul & Sophie Pan, 2015. "A Proximate Mirror: Greenhouse Gas Rules and Strategic Behavior Under the US Clean Air Act," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 62(2), pages 217-241, October.
    10. Koichiro Ito, 2014. "Do Consumers Respond to Marginal or Average Price? Evidence from Nonlinear Electricity Pricing," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 104(2), pages 537-563, February.
    11. Helfand, Gloria E, 1991. "Standards versus Standards: The Effects of Different Pollution Restrictions," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 81(3), pages 622-634, June.
    12. Kamerschen, David R. & Porter, David V., 2004. "The demand for residential, industrial and total electricity, 1973-1998," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 26(1), pages 87-100, January.
    13. John E. Kwoka, 1983. "The Limits of Market-Oriented Regulatory Techniques: The Case of Automotive Fuel Economy," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 98(4), pages 695-704.
    14. Fischer, Carolyn, 2001. "Rebating Environmental Policy Revenues: Output-Based Allocations and Tradable Performance Standards," Discussion Papers 10709, Resources for the Future.
    15. Meredith L. Fowlie, 2009. "Incomplete Environmental Regulation, Imperfect Competition, and Emissions Leakage," American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, American Economic Association, vol. 1(2), pages 72-112, August.
    16. James Bushnell & Carla Peterman & Catherine Wolfram, 2008. "Local Solutions to Global Problems: Climate Change Policies and Regulatory Jurisdiction," Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 2(2), pages 175-193, Summer.
    17. Stephen P. Holland & Jonathan E. Hughes & Christopher R. Knittel, 2009. "Greenhouse Gas Reductions under Low Carbon Fuel Standards?," American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, American Economic Association, vol. 1(1), pages 106-146, February.
    18. Bushnell, James & Chen, Yihsu & Zaragoza-Watkins, Matthew, 2014. "Downstream regulation of CO2 emissions in California's electricity sector," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 64(C), pages 313-323.
    19. -, 2009. "The economics of climate change," Sede Subregional de la CEPAL para el Caribe (Estudios e Investigaciones) 38679, Naciones Unidas Comisión Económica para América Latina y el Caribe (CEPAL).
    20. Chen, Yihsu, 2009. "Does a regional greenhouse gas policy make sense? A case study of carbon leakage and emissions spillover," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 31(5), pages 667-675, September.
    21. Peter C. Reiss & Matthew W. White, 2005. "Household Electricity Demand, Revisited," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 72(3), pages 853-883.
    22. Lester D. Taylor, 1975. "The Demand for Electricity: A Survey," Bell Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 6(1), pages 74-110, Spring.
    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. Becker, Jonathon M., 2023. "Tradable performance standards in a dynamic context," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 73(C).
    2. Holland, Stephen P., 2012. "Emissions taxes versus intensity standards: Second-best environmental policies with incomplete regulation," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 63(3), pages 375-387.
    3. Fell, Harrison & Maniloff, Peter, 2018. "Leakage in regional environmental policy: The case of the regional greenhouse gas initiative," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 1-23.
    4. Kato, Shinya & Takeuchi, Kenji, 2017. "A CGE analysis of a rate-based policy for climate change mitigation," Journal of the Japanese and International Economies, Elsevier, vol. 43(C), pages 88-95.
    5. Palmer, Karen & Burtraw, Dallas & Paul, Anthony & Yin, Hang, 2017. "Using Production Incentives to Avoid Emissions Leakage," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(S1), pages 45-56.
    6. Lade, Gabriel E. & Lin Lawell, C.-Y. Cynthia, 2015. "The design and economics of low carbon fuel standards," Research in Transportation Economics, Elsevier, vol. 52(C), pages 91-99.
    7. Alejandro Caparrós & Richard E. Just & David Zilberman, 2015. "Dynamic Relative Standards versus Emission Taxes in a Putty-Clay Model," Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, University of Chicago Press, vol. 2(2), pages 277-308.
    8. Bielen, David A., 2018. "Do differentiated performance standards help coal? CO2 policy in the U.S. electricity sector," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 53(C), pages 79-100.
    9. Mar Reguant, 2018. "The Efficiency and Sectoral Distributional Implications of Large-Scale Renewable Policies," NBER Working Papers 24398, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    10. Frans Vries & Bouwe Dijkstra & Matthew McGinty, 2014. "On Emissions Trading and Market Structure: Cap-and-Trade versus Intensity Standards," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 58(4), pages 665-682, August.
    11. Goulder, Lawrence H. & Long, Xianling & Lu, Jieyi & Morgenstern, Richard D., 2022. "China's unconventional nationwide CO2 emissions trading system: Cost-effectiveness and distributional impacts," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 111(C).
    12. Harrison Fell & Daniel Kaffine & Daniel Steinberg, 2017. "Energy Efficiency and Emissions Intensity Standards," Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, University of Chicago Press, vol. 4(S1), pages 201-226.
    13. Christoph Böhringer & Carolyn Fischer & Nicholas Rivers, 2023. "Intensity-Based Rebating of Emission Pricing Revenues," Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, University of Chicago Press, vol. 10(4), pages 1059-1089.
    14. Paolo Giorgio Garella & Maria Teresa Trentinaglia, 2019. "Carbon Tax, Emission Standards, and Carbon Leak Under Price Competition," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 72(4), pages 941-964, April.
    15. Jinhua Zhao, 2022. "Aggregate emission intensity targets: Applications to the Paris Agreement," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 60(4), pages 1875-1897, October.
    16. Zhang, Duan & Chen, Yihsu & Tanaka, Makoto, 2018. "On the effectiveness of tradable performance-based standards," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 456-469.
    17. Bushnell, James & Chen, Yihsu, 2012. "Allocation and leakage in regional cap-and-trade markets for CO2," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 34(4), pages 647-668.
    18. Campbell, Alrick, 2018. "Price and income elasticities of electricity demand: Evidence from Jamaica," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 19-32.
    19. Bento, Antonio M. & Garg, Teevrat & Kaffine, Daniel, 2018. "Emissions reductions or green booms? General equilibrium effects of a renewable portfolio standard," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 90(C), pages 78-100.
    20. Kellogg, Ryan, 2020. "Output and attribute-based carbon regulation under uncertainty," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 190(C).

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • L5 - Industrial Organization - - Regulation and Industrial Policy
    • L9 - Industrial Organization - - Industry Studies: Transportation and Utilities
    • Q48 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Energy - - - Government Policy
    • Q54 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Climate; Natural Disasters and their Management; Global Warming

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:nbr:nberwo:21259. 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: the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/nberrus.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.