Search

There is a growing demand for degreed science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) professionals, but the production of degreed STEM students is not keeping pace. Problems exist at every juncture along the pipeline. Too few students choose to major in STEM disciplines. Many of those who do major in STEM drop out or change majors. Females and minorities remain underrepresented in STEM. The success rate of college students who are from low-income background or first-generation students is much lower than that of students who do not face such challenges. Some of those who successfully complete their degree need help in making the transition to the workforce after graduation. A program at Lamar University takes a multidisciplinary approach to addressing these problems. It is designed to recruit, retain and transition undergraduates to careers in STEM, focusing its efforts on five science disciplines and on these “at-risk” students. The program was supported by a 5-year grant from the National Science Foundation and is supported through August 31, 2016 by Lamar University and a grant from ExxonMobil. A formal assessment plan documents the program’s success. The program received an award from the Texas Higher Education Board for its contributions towards Closing the Gaps in Higher Education in Texas. This paper describes the program’s theoretical framework, research questions, methods, evaluation plan, and instruments. It presents an analysis of the results achieved using these methods and implications for improvements to the program resulting from lessons learned.

This paper explores the synergies between two transformational forces — implementation of the Clean Power Plan and the advent of the “utility of the future” — that could lead to a lower-carbon electric grid with more options and new services for electricity customers. The paper reviews key issues that will shape the transition to new utility market and regulatory structures and finds that some of the same principles that will guide policymakers on the design of these structures can help shape decisions on compliance pathways for the Clean Power Plan. The paper recommends a “future-ready” approach for the Clean Power Plan that will adapt to different market and regulatory structures. This approach includes a mass-based emissions target that covers all sources in the power sector and transparent allowance distribution that accommodates state priorities and provides a level playing field for incumbent utilities and third-party market participants.

Member States in the European Union (EU) are responsible for National Allocation Plans governing the initial distribution of emission allowances in the CO2 Emission Trading System, including rules governing allocations to installations that close and to new entrants. The European Commission has provided guidelines to discourage the use of allocation methodologies that provide incentives affecting firms’ compliance behavior, for example by rewarding one type of compliance investment over another. We find that the treatment of closures and new entrants by Member States is inconsistent with the general guidelines provided by the EU. We propose stronger EU guidance regarding closures and new entrants, a more precise compensation criterion on which to justify free allocations, and a Ten-Year Rule as a component of future EU policy that can guide a transition from current practice to an approach that places greater weight on efficiency.

In 2005, the European Union introduced the largest and most ambitious emissions trading program in the world to meet its Kyoto commitments for the containment of global climate change. The EU Emissions Trading Scheme (EU ETS) has some distinctive features that differentiate it from the more standard model of emissions trading. In particular, it has a relatively decentralized structure that gives individual member states responsibility for setting targets, allocating permits, determining verification and enforcement, and making some choices about flexibility. It is also a “cap-within-a-cap,” seeking to achieve the Kyoto targets while only covering about half of EU emissions. Finally, it is a program that many hope will link with other greenhouse gas trading programs in the future—something we have not seen among existing trading systems. Examining these features coupled with recent EU ETS experience offers lessons about how cost effectiveness, equity, flexibility, and compliance fare in a multi-jurisdictional trading program, and highlights the challenges facing a global emissions trading regime.

The European Union is head and shoulders ahead of the rest of the world as it embarks on its new emissions trading system early next year, but there are still a number of large uncertainties to work out.

The use of emissions trading (cap and trade) is gaining worldwide recognition as an extremely effective policy tool. More than 4 million tons of SO2 have been reduced annually from sources participating in the US SO2 emissions trading program. Ambient SO2 levels and sulfate deposition have decreased by over 25 percent in the most sensitive ecosystems. By harnessing market forces, the program has led to significant cost savings. This paper discusses the results of the US SO2 emissions trading program and emerging efforts in the US and around the world to use emissions trading.

Much has been written about the economic and environmental performance of US emissions trading programs for “acid rain” (sulfur dioxide) and nitrogen oxides. Less explored have been the unique roles and interactions of environmental regulators and the companies they regulate. I first examine how these roles change the way that regulators and companies operate within their own organizations and with each other. Next, I use examples from US trading programs to illustrate the design and administrative features that allow program administrators and industry to best fulfill their respective roles and maximize economic benefits. Finally, I determine whether these features are present in the EU Emissions Trading System and examine the implications for its effectiveness.

The success of the United States sulfur dioxide (SO2) trading program has led to worldwide interest in emissions trading. The program has become a model for policymakers in the United States and in other countries that are considering cap-and-trade programs to reduce emissions. Once a theoretical option discussed only by economists, emissions trading is now considered a mainstream policy instrument in the United States with bipartisan political support. Internationally, emissions trading is no longer considered a crazy American idea. It is now a fundamental component of the international framework to address climate change. Even developing countries from Chile to China are beginning to consider emissions trading programs to control conventional pollutants (U.S. EPA 2004).

In 2005, the European Union introduced the largest and most ambitious emissions trading program in the world to meet its Kyoto commitments for the containment of global climate change. The EU Emissions Trading Scheme (EU ETS) has some distinctive features that differentiate it from the more standard model of emissions trading. In particular, it has a relatively decentralized structure that gives individual member states responsibility for setting targets, allocating permits, determining verification and enforcement, and making some choices about flexibility. It is also a "cap-within-a-cap," seeking to achieve the Kyoto targets while only covering about half of EU emissions. Finally, it is a program that many hope will link with other greenhouse gas trading programs in the future - something we have not seen among existing trading systems. Examining these features coupled with recent EU ETS experience offers lessons about how cost effectiveness, equity, flexibility, and compliance fare in a multi-jurisdictional trading program, and highlights the challenges facing a global emissions trading regime.

The use of emissions trading (cap and trade) is gaining worldwide recognition as an extremely effective policy tool. The U.S. Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) Emissions Trading Program has achieved an unprecedented level of environmental protection in a cost-effective manner. The successful results of the program have led domestic and foreign governments to consider the application of cap and trade to address other air quality issues. Certain analyses are particularly important in determining whether or not cap and trade is an appropriate policy tool. This paper offers a set of questions that can be used as criteria for determining whether or not cap and trade is the preferred policy approach to an environmental problem.