IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/nev/wpaper/wp200804.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Technology Diffusion and Environmental Regulation: The Adoption of Scrubbers by Coal-Fired Power Plants

Author

Listed:
  • Elaine Frey

Abstract

This research examines the technological diffusion of scrubbers, a sulfur dioxide (SO2) abatement technology, in response to Title IV of the Clean Air Act. Title IV implemented a tradable pollution permit system for SO2, which is radically different from the state emission rate standards that were in place previously. I find that power plants with strict state regulations (or command-and-control regulations) and low expected scrubber installation costs have a high probability of installing a scrubber. These findings suggest that, although Title IV has encouraged diffusion, some scrubbers have been installed because of state regulatory pressure. Since policies are often evaluated based on the incentives they provide to promote adoption of new technologies, it is important that policy makers understand the relationship between technological diffusion and regulatory structure to make informed decisions. Although tradable permit systems are thought to give firms more flexibility in choosing abatement technologies, I show that interactions between a permit system and pre-existing command-and-control regulations can limit that flexibility.

Suggested Citation

  • Elaine Frey, 2008. "Technology Diffusion and Environmental Regulation: The Adoption of Scrubbers by Coal-Fired Power Plants," NCEE Working Paper Series 200804, National Center for Environmental Economics, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, revised Mar 2008.
  • Handle: RePEc:nev:wpaper:wp200804
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.epa.gov/environmental-economics/working-paper-technology-diffusion-and-environmental-regulation-adoption
    File Function: First version, 2008
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Nancy L. Rose & Paul L. Joskow, 1990. "The Diffusion of New Technologies: Evidence from the Electric Utility Industry," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 21(3), pages 354-373, Autumn.
    2. Geroski, P. A., 2000. "Models of technology diffusion," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 29(4-5), pages 603-625, April.
    3. Stoneman, Paul & Kwon, Myung-Joong, 1994. "The Diffusion of Multiple Process Technologies," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 104(423), pages 420-431, March.
    4. Ireland, N & Stoneman, P, 1986. "Technological Diffusion, Expectations and Welfare," Oxford Economic Papers, Oxford University Press, vol. 38(2), pages 283-304, July.
    5. Lori D. Snyder & Nolan H. Miller & Robert N. Stavins, 2003. "The Effects of Environmental Regulation on Technology Diffusion: The Case of Chlorine Manufacturing," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 93(2), pages 431-435, May.
    6. Jung, Chulho & Krutilla, Kerry & Boyd, Roy, 1996. "Incentives for Advanced Pollution Abatement Technology at the Industry Level: An Evaluation of Policy Alternatives," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 30(1), pages 95-111, January.
    7. repec:sae:ecolab:v:16:y:2006:i:2:p:1-2 is not listed on IDEAS
    8. Jaffe, Adam B. & Newell, Richard G. & Stavins, Robert N., 2003. "Chapter 11 Technological change and the environment," Handbook of Environmental Economics,in: K. G. Mäler & J. R. Vincent (ed.), Handbook of Environmental Economics, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 11, pages 461-516 Elsevier.
    9. Fischer, Carolyn & Parry, Ian W. H. & Pizer, William A., 2003. "Instrument choice for environmental protection when technological innovation is endogenous," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 45(3), pages 523-545, May.
    10. Kiefer, Nicholas M, 1988. "Economic Duration Data and Hazard Functions," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 26(2), pages 646-679, June.
    11. Suzi Kerr & Richard G. Newell, 2003. "Policy-Induced Technology Adoption: Evidence from the U.S. Lead Phasedown," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 51(3), pages 317-343, September.
    12. Bellas, Allen S., 1998. "Empirical evidence of advances in scrubber technology," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 20(4), pages 327-343, December.
    13. Nikolay Nenovsky & S. Statev, 2006. "Introduction," Post-Print halshs-00260898, HAL.
    14. M. Ruth & K. Donaghy & P. Kirshen, 2006. "Introduction," Chapters,in: Regional Climate Change and Variability, chapter 1 Edward Elgar Publishing.
    15. Gray, Wayne B & Shadbegian, Ronald J, 1998. "Environmental Regulation, Investment Timing, and Technology Choice," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 46(2), pages 235-256, June.
    16. Massoud Karshenas & Paul L. Stoneman, 1993. "Rank, Stock, Order, and Epidemic Effects in the Diffusion of New Process Technologies: An Empirical Model," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 24(4), pages 503-528, Winter.
    17. Hannan, Timothy H & McDowell, John M, 1987. "Rival Precedence and the Dynamics of Technology Adoption: An Empirical Analysis," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 54(214), pages 155-171, May.
    18. David Popp, 2001. "Pollution Control Innovations and the Clean Air Act of 1990," NBER Working Papers 8593, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    19. Milliman, Scott R. & Prince, Raymond, 1989. "Firm incentives to promote technological change in pollution control," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 17(3), pages 247-265, November.
    20. Downing, Paul B. & White, Lawrence J., 1986. "Innovation in pollution control," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 13(1), pages 18-29, March.
    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. Gabriel Chan & Robert Stavins & Robert Stowe & Richard Sweeney, 2012. "The SO2 Allowance Trading System and the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990: Reflections on Twenty Years of Policy Innovation," NBER Working Papers 17845, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.

    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:nev:wpaper:wp200804. 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: (Cynthia Morgan). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/nepgvus.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.

    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.