IDEAS home Printed from
MyIDEAS: Log in (now much improved!) to save this paper

What Did the Market Buy? Cost Savings Under the U. S. Tradeable Permits Program for Sulfur Dioxide

Listed author(s):
  • Nathaniel O. Keohane


    (School of Management)

Title IV of the 1990 Clean Air Act instituted a nationwide system of tradeable pollution permits for sulfur dioxide emitted by electric power plants. This paper asks: What were the cost savings from using a market-based instrument, rather than a more conventional prescriptive approach? Using an econometric model of the decision whether or not to install a scrubber under different policy regimes, I simulate the decisions that would have been made under prescriptive regulation. I find that under an uniform emissions-rate standard chosen to achieve the same aggregate abatement as actually occurred, the total number of scrubbers would have been about one-third higher than under the baseline cap-and-trade program. The change in the distribution of scrubbers among units is more striking. Under prescriptive regulation, installed scrubbers would have had systematically higher scrubbing costs than they actually did, and would have been installed at plants with significantly higher costs of switching to low-sulfur coal (the principal alternative to scrubbing). At the aggregate level, these effects translate into aggregate costs of compliance that would have been greater than actual costs by an estimated $150 million to $270 million per year. Thus the use of the market-based instrument resulted in cost savings of between 16% and 25%. The results provide a concrete demonstration of the influence of policy design on both unit-level choices of abatement technique and aggregate abatement costs.

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

File URL:
Download Restriction: no

Paper provided by Yale School of Management in its series Yale School of Management Working Papers with number ysm437.

in new window

Date of creation: 10 Dec 2003
Handle: RePEc:ysm:somwrk:ysm437
Contact details of provider: Web page:

More information through EDIRC

No references listed on IDEAS
You can help add them by filling out this form.

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ysm:somwrk:ysm437. 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: ()

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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 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.

This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.