IDEAS home Printed from
   My bibliography  Save this article

Phase I Completed: An Empirical Assessment of the 1990 CAAA


  • John Swinton



With the conclusion of Phase I trading of SO 2 allowances, the EPA declared the allowance trading policy to be a success. The time had come to include cap-and-trade programs in the arsenal of effective policy tools. In terms of reducing atmospheric emissions of sulfur dioxide, the program appears to be successful. It is not clear, however, whether or not the program has minimized the cost of achieving the emission reductions. The measure of the true success of a market-based incentive program, however, has yetto be quantified: Has the program resulted in converging marginalabatement costs across participant plants? In this study I report theshadow prices of Phase I power plants from 1994 to 1998 anddetermine that there are more costs to be saved within theambitious public policy experiment. Copyright Kluwer Academic Publishers 2004

Suggested Citation

  • John Swinton, 2004. "Phase I Completed: An Empirical Assessment of the 1990 CAAA," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 27(3), pages 227-246, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:kap:enreec:v:27:y:2004:i:3:p:227-246
    DOI: 10.1023/B:EARE.0000017662.36573.2c

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

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

    References listed on IDEAS

    1. John R. Swinton, 1998. "At What Cost do We Reduce Pollution? Shadow Prices of SO2 Emissions," The Energy Journal, International Association for Energy Economics, vol. 0(Number 4), pages 63-83.
    2. Montgomery, W. David, 1972. "Markets in licenses and efficient pollution control programs," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 5(3), pages 395-418, December.
    3. Coggins, Jay S. & Swinton, John R., 1996. "The Price of Pollution: A Dual Approach to Valuing SO2Allowances," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 30(1), pages 58-72, January.
    4. Diewert, W.E., 1993. "Duality approaches to microeconomic theory," Handbook of Mathematical Economics,in: K. J. Arrow & M.D. Intriligator (ed.), Handbook of Mathematical Economics, edition 4, volume 2, chapter 12, pages 535-599 Elsevier.
    5. Fare, R. & Grosskopf, S. & Pasurka, C., 1986. "Effects on relative efficiency in electric power generation due to environmental controls," Resources and Energy, Elsevier, vol. 8(2), pages 167-184, June.
    6. Fare, Rolf, et al, 1993. "Derivation of Shadow Prices for Undesirable Outputs: A Distance Function Approach," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 75(2), pages 374-380, May.
    7. Krupnick, Alan J. & Oates, Wallace E. & Van De Verg, Eric, 1983. "On marketable air-pollution permits: The case for a system of pollution offsets," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 10(3), pages 233-247, September.
    8. John R. Swinton, 2002. "The Potential for Cost Savings in the Sulfur Dioxide Allowance Market: Empirical Evidence from Florida," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 78(3), pages 390-404.
    9. Atkinson, Scott E. & Tietenberg, T. H., 1982. "The empirical properties of two classes of designs for transferable discharge permit markets," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 9(2), pages 101-121, June.
    10. Robert A. Collinge & Wallace E. Oates, 1982. "Efficiency in Pollution Control in the Short and Long Runs: A System of Rental Emission Permits," Canadian Journal of Economics, Canadian Economics Association, vol. 15(2), pages 347-354, May.
    11. 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.
    12. Atkinson, Scott & Tietenberg, Tom, 1991. "Market failure in incentive-based regulation: The case of emissions trading," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 21(1), pages 17-31, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)


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

    Cited by:

    1. Kumar, Surender & Managi, Shunsuke, 2010. "Sulfur dioxide allowances: Trading and technological progress," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(3), pages 623-631, January.
    2. Du, Limin & Mao, Jie, 2015. "Estimating the environmental efficiency and marginal CO2 abatement cost of coal-fired power plants in China," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 85(C), pages 347-356.
    3. Lee, Sang-choon & Oh, Dong-hyun & Lee, Jeong-dong, 2014. "A new approach to measuring shadow price: Reconciling engineering and economic perspectives," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 46(C), pages 66-77.
    4. Du, Limin & Hanley, Aoife & Wei, Chu, 2015. "Estimating the Marginal Abatement Cost Curve of CO2 Emissions in China: Provincial Panel Data Analysis," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 48(C), pages 217-229.
    5. Kumar, Surender & Gupta, Sreekant, 2004. "Resource use efficiency of US electricity generating plants during the SO2 trading regime: A distance function approach," Working Papers 04/17, National Institute of Public Finance and Policy.
    6. He, Xiaoping, 2015. "Regional differences in China's CO2 abatement cost," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 80(C), pages 145-152.
    7. Kosnik, Lea & Lange, Ian, 2011. "Contract renegotiation and rent re-distribution: Who gets raked over the coals?," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 62(2), pages 155-165, September.
    8. repec:eee:ejores:v:262:y:2017:i:1:p:361-369 is not listed on IDEAS
    9. Zhou, P. & Zhou, X. & Fan, L.W., 2014. "On estimating shadow prices of undesirable outputs with efficiency models: A literature review," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 130(C), pages 799-806.

    More about this item


    distance function; energy; pollution abatement;


    Access and download statistics


    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:kap:enreec:v:27:y:2004:i:3:p:227-246. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Sonal Shukla) or (Rebekah McClure). General contact details of provider: .

    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 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.