IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/mee/wpaper/0309.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Lessons from Phase 2 Compliance with the U.S. Acid Rain Program

Author

Listed:
  • A. Denny Ellerman

Abstract

The acid rain provisions of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments, included in Title IV, required fossil-fuel-fired electricity generating units to reduce sulfur dioxide (SO2) emissions by 50% in two phases. In the first, known as Phase I and extending from 1995 through 1999, generating units of 100 MWe of capacity and larger, having an SO2 emission rate in 1985 of 2.5 lbs. per million Btu (#/mmBtu) or higher, were required to take a first step and to reduce SO2 emissions to an average of 2.5 #/mmBtu during these transitional years. Phase II, which began in 2000 and continues indefinitely, expanded the scope of the program by including all fossil-fuel-fired generating units greater than 25 MWe and increased its stringency by requiring affected units to reduce emissions to an average emission rate that would be approximately 1.2 #/mmBtu at average annual heat or Btu input in 1985-87, and that would be proportionately lower for increased total fossil-fuel fired heat input.

Suggested Citation

  • A. Denny Ellerman, 2003. "Lessons from Phase 2 Compliance with the U.S. Acid Rain Program," Working Papers 0309, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Center for Energy and Environmental Policy Research.
  • Handle: RePEc:mee:wpaper:0309
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://tisiphone.mit.edu/RePEc/mee/wpaper/2003-009.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Holmstrom, Bengt & Tirole, Jean, 2000. "Liquidity and Risk Management," Journal of Money, Credit and Banking, Blackwell Publishing, vol. 32(3), pages 295-319, August.
    2. Paul Joskow & Jean Tirole, 2005. "Merchant Transmission Investment," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 53(2), pages 233-264, June.
    3. Littlechild, Stephen C, 2003. "Wholesale Spot Price Pass-Through," Journal of Regulatory Economics, Springer, vol. 23(1), pages 61-91, January.
    4. Paul L. Joskow, 2001. "California's Electricity Crisis," Oxford Review of Economic Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 17(3), pages 365-388.
    5. Catherine D. Wolfram, 1999. "Measuring Duopoly Power in the British Electricity Spot Market," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 89(4), pages 805-826, September.
    6. Joskow, Paul L & Tirole, Jean, 1999. "Transmission Rights and Market Power on Electric Power Networks I: Financial Rights," CEPR Discussion Papers 2093, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    7. Joskow, Paul L, 1974. "Inflation and Environmental Concern: Structural Change in the Process of Public Utility Price Regulation," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 17(2), pages 291-327, October.
    8. Green, Richard, 2000. "Can Competition Replace Regulation for Small Utility Customers?," CEPR Discussion Papers 2406, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    9. Paul L. Joskow, 1997. "Restructuring, Competition and Regulatory Reform in the U.S. Electricity Sector," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 11(3), pages 119-138, Summer.
    10. Oren, Shmuel S. & Spiller, Pablo T. & Varaiya, Pravin & Wu, Felix, 1995. "Nodal prices and transmission rights: A critical appraisal," The Electricity Journal, Elsevier, vol. 8(3), pages 24-35, April.
    11. repec:dau:papers:123456789/12331 is not listed on IDEAS
    12. Green, Richard J & Newbery, David M, 1992. "Competition in the British Electricity Spot Market," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 100(5), pages 929-953, October.
    13. Severin Borenstein & James B. Bushnell & Frank A. Wolak, 2002. "Measuring Market Inefficiencies in California's Restructured Wholesale Electricity Market," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 92(5), pages 1376-1405, December.
    14. Monica Giulietti & Catherine Waddams Price & Michael Waterson, 2005. "Consumer Choice and Competition Policy: a Study of UK Energy Markets," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 115(506), pages 949-968, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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:mee:wpaper:0309. 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: (Sharmila Ganguly). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/cemitus.html .

    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.

    We have no references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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.