Search

Like other climate-related disasters, wildfires are intensifying. Property owners can reduce their vulnerability to wildfire losses but are not well informed about the costs and benefits of available self-protection investments. Technological advances mean that insurers are increasingly able to monitor household mitigation behavior. We revisit the problem of self-protection from risk in a setting where households have incomplete insurance and limited information about self-protection investments. Insurer discounts for self-protection generate additional value by informing households about self-protection investments that also reduce uninsured losses. This information provision increases the responsiveness of self-protection to ex post disaster assistance, with implications for optimal government transfers.

Economists have for decades recommended that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases be taxed – or otherwise priced – to provide incentives for their reduction. The USA does not have a federal carbon tax; however, many state and federal programs to reduce carbon emissions effectively price carbon – for example, through cap-and-trade systems or regulations. There are also programs that subsidize reductions in carbon emissions. At the 2022 meetings of the American Economic Association, the Society for Benefit-Cost Analysis brought together five well-known economists – Joe Aldy, Dallas Burtraw, Carolyn Fischer, Meredith Fowlie, and Rob Williams – to discuss how the USA does, in fact, price carbon and how it could price carbon. Maureen Cropper chaired the panel. This paper summarizes their remarks.

Almost all of the world’s energy demand growth is projected to occur in low- and medium-income countries (LMICs). Targeted energy efficiency investments have the potential to mitigate tensi...

Governments taxing carbon emissions within their jurisdiction can impose a commensurate tax on emissions embodied in imports in order to mitigate emissions leakage. California offers a rare opportunity to investigate how such a border carbon adjustment (BCA) is working in practice. Experience to date highlights important tensions between greenhouse gas accounting accuracy, market efficiency, and concerns about trade protectionism. We simulate electricity market outcomes under BCA designs that differ in terms of how the carbon intensity of imports is assessed. Simulations suggest significant potential for leakage via resource shuffling. Realized emissions outcomes indicate that this potential has not been fully realized.

We study default effects in the context of a residential electricity-pricing program. In the large-scale randomized controlled trial we analyse, one treatment group was given the option to opt-in to time-varying pricing while another was defaulted into the program but allowed to opt-out. We provide dramatic evidence of a default effect on program participation, consistent with previous research. A novel feature of our study is that we also observe how the default manipulation impacts customers’ subsequent electricity consumption. Passive consumers who did not opt-out but would not have opted in—comprising more than 70$\%$ of the sample—nonetheless reduce consumption in response to higher prices. Observing of this follow-on behaviour enables us to assess competing explanations for the default effect. We draw conclusions about the likely welfare effects of defaulting customers onto time-varying pricing.

As of late 2020, the Trump administration had initiated almost 100 rollbacks of US environmental regulations. A careful assessment of the benefits and costs of rolling back an existing regu...

As of late 2020, the Trump administration had initiated almost one hundred rollbacks of U.S. environmental regulations. A careful assessment of the benefits and costs of rolling back an existing regulation can and should inform such decisions. When assessing the potential rollback of an existing regulation, analysts can often learn from the regulation’s implementation through retrospective analysis as well as from advances in scientific knowledge. We discuss recent actions concerning the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS) to illustrate the potential lessons from doing so. In the case of MATS, advances in science have shed light on broader exposure pathways and previously unquantified health effects, suggesting that the benefits of reducing mercury emissions may exceed previous estimates. At the same time, changes in the energy sector have altered the mix of fuels used to produce electricity, which impacts both the benefits and costs of the regulation.

Executive SummaryThis article considers the treatment of cobenefits in benefit-cost analysis of federal air quality regulations. Using a comprehensive data set on all major Clean Air Act rules issu...

This paper considers the treatment of co-benefits in benefit-cost analysis of federal air quality regulations. Using a comprehensive data set on all major Clean Air Act rules issued by the Environmental Protection Agency over the period 1997-2019, we show that (1) co-benefits make up a significant share of the monetized benefits; (2) among the categories of co-benefits, those associated with reductions in fine particulate matter are the most significant; and (3) co-benefits have been pivotal to the quantified net benefit calculation in exactly half of cases. Motivated by these trends, we develop a simple conceptual framework that illustrates a critical point: co-benefits are simply a semantic category of benefits that should be included in benefit-cost analyses. We also address common concerns about whether the inclusion of co-benefits is problematic because of alternative regulatory approaches that may be more cost-effective and the possibility for double counting. Institutional subscribers to the NBER working paper series, and residents of developing countries may download this paper without additional charge at www.nber.org.

Concerns about emissions leakage, i.e., the increase in emissions in foreign jurisdictions induced by a domestic emissions regulation, loom large in debates about unilateral climate change policy. Correctly identifying the kinds of economic activities most at risk of carbon leakage is a critical first step in the design of effective leakage mitigation. We briefly summarize current approaches to assessing leakage risk and highlight a sizable gap between academic research and real-world policy implementation. An emerging research agenda that aims to close this gap is discussed.

Greenhouse gas mitigation efforts in the electricity sector have emphasized accelerated deployment of energy efficiency (EE) measures and renewable energy (RE) resources. We evaluate renewa...

The ability of automakers to improve the fuel economy of vehicles using engineering design modifications that compromise other performance attributes, such as acceleration, is not currently considered when setting fuel economy and greenhouse-gas emission standards for passenger cars and light trucks. We examine the role of these design tradeoffs by simulating automaker responses to recently reformed vehicle standards with and without the ability to adjust acceleration performance. Results indicate that acceleration tradeoffs can be important in two respects: (1) they can reduce the compliance costs of the standards, and (2) they can significantly reduce emissions associated with a particular level of the standards by mitigating incentives to shift sales toward larger vehicles and light trucks relative to passenger cars. We contrast simulation-based results with observed changes in vehicle attributes under the reformed standards. We find evidence that is consistent with firms using acceleration tradeoffs t...

We use state-of-the-art, satellite-based PM 2.5 data products to assess the extent to which the Environmental Protection Agency's existing, monitor-based measurements over- or underestimate true exposure to PM 2.5 pollution. Treating satellite-based estimates as truth implies a substantial number of “policy errors”--overregulating areas that are in compliance with the air quality standards and under-regulating other areas that appear to be in violation. We investigate the health implications of these apparent errors. We also highlight the importance of accounting for prediction error in satellite-based estimates. Once prediction errors are accounted for, conclusions with regards to “policy errors” become substantially more uncertain.

We assess the static and dynamic implications of alternative market-based policies limiting greenhouse gas emissions in the US cement industry. Our results highlight two countervailing market distortions. First, emissions regulation exacerbates distortions associated with the exercise of market power in the domestic cement market. Second, emissions “leakage” in trade-exposed markets offsets domestic emissions reductions. Taken together, these forces can result in social welfare losses under policy regimes that fully internalize the emissions externality. Market-based policies that incorporate design features to mitigate the exercise of market power and emissions leakage deliver welfare gains when damages from carbon emissions are high.

This paper finds striking evidence that individuals and households bypass opportunities to improve energy efficiency that require zero out-of-pocket expenditures and are widely believed to be privately beneficial. We report results from a large-scale randomized controlled trial that significantly reduced barriers to participation in the Federal Weatherization Assistance Program (WAP). This program, the largest residential energy efficiency program in the country, aims to reduce the energy burden of low-income Americans by installing energy efficiency measures in their homes. Since the program’s inception in 1976, more than 7 million households have received weatherization assistance. Related work (Fowlie, Greenstone, and Wolfram 2015) finds that participation in this program significantly reduces energy consumption—and associated energy expenditures— among participating households. 1 These sizeable

About 40% of all coal mined in the United States is extracted from lands owned by the federal government, under leases managed by the U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI). Burning that coal accounts for 13% of U.S. energy-related greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions ( 1 ). With the largest and lowest-cost reserves in the United States, federal coal alone—estimated at nearly 10% of the world's known reserves—has potential to contribute substantially to atmospheric CO2 concentrations ( 2 ). In response to calls for reform, DOI has issued a moratorium on new leases while it develops a Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement to guide the first major reform of the program since 1982. We review existing knowledge of key issues relevant to reform, highlighting the social costs of coal extraction, the extent of substitution away from federal coal induced by raising additional leasing revenue, the lack of competition in the leasing auctions, and the incentives inherent in the current leasing program structure. We then turn to critical areas of research that can be done in the near term and would contribute to more informed debate and policy development.

We study default effects in the context of a residential electricity pricing program. We implement a large-scale randomized controlled trial in which one treatment group is given the option to opt-in to time-based pricing while another is defaulted into the program but allowed to opt-out. We provide dramatic evidence of a default effect – a significantly higher fraction of households defaulted onto the time-based pricing plan enroll in the program, even though opting out simply involved making a phone call or clicking through to a website. A distinguishing feature of our empirical setting is that we observe follow-on behavior subsequent to the default manipulation. Specifically, we observe customers’ electricity consumption in light of the pricing plan they face. This, in conjunction with randomization of the default provision, allows us to separately identify the electricity consumption response of “complacent” households (i.e., those who only enroll in time-based pricing if assigned to the opt-out treatment). We find that the complacent households do reduce electricity use during higher priced peak periods, though significantly less on average compared to customers who actively opt in. However, with complacents comprising approximately 75 percent of the population, we observe significantly larger average demand reductions among consumers assigned to the opt-out group. We examine the extent to which the behavioral responses we observe are consistent with a standard model of switching costs, or with alternative mechanisms including inattention, and preferences constructed based on contextual features of the choice setting.

Standard economic theory predicts that if property rights to pollute are clearly established, equilibrium outcomes in an efficient emissions permit market will be independent of how the emissions permits are initially distributed. This so-called independence property has important implications for policy design and implementation. Past studies document a strong positive correlation between the initial permit allocation and firm-level emissions, raising concerns that the independence property is failing to hold in real-world settings. We exploit the random assignment of firms to different permit allocation cycles in Southern California's RECLAIM program in order to test the independence of permit allocation and emissions. Our results lend empirical support to the independence hypothesis. © 2013 The President and Fellows of Harvard College and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

The benefits and costs of increasing solar electricity generation depend on the scale of the increase and on the time frame over which it occurs. Short-run analyses focus on the cost-effectiveness of incremental increases in solar capacity, holding the rest of the power system fixed. Solar’s variability adds value if its power occurs at high-demand times and displaces relatively carbon-intensive generation. Medium-run analyses consider the implications of nonincremental changes in solar capacity. The cost of each installation may fall through experience effects, but the cost of grid integration increases when solar requires ancillary services and fails to displace investment in other types of generation. Long-run analyses consider the role of solar in reaching twenty-first-century carbon targets. Solar’s contribution depends on the representation of grid integration costs, on the availability of other low-carbon technologies, and on the potential for technological advances. By surveying analyses for different time horizons, this article begins to connect and integrate a fairly disjointed literature on the economics of solar energy.

An advantage of cap-and-trade programs over more prescriptive environmental regulation is that compliance flexibility and cost effectiveness can make more stringent emissions reductions politically feasible. However, when markets (versus regulators) determine where emissions occur, it becomes more difficult to assure that mandated emissions reductions are equitably achieved. We investigate these issues in the context of Southern California's RECLAIM program by matching facilities in RECLAIM with similar California facilities also in nonattainment areas. Our results indicate that average emissions fell 20 percent at RECLAIM facilities relative to our counterfactual. Furthermore, observed changes in emissions do not vary significantly with neighborhood demographic characteristics. (JEL H23, L51, Q53, Q58)

For political and practical reasons, environmental regulations sometimes treat point-source polluters, such as power plants, differently from mobile-source polluters, such as vehicles. This paper measures the extent of this regulatory asymmetry in the case of nitrogen oxides (NOx), the most recalcitrant criteria air pollutant in the United States. We find significant differences in marginal abatement costs across source types: the marginal cost of reducing NOx from cars is less than half the marginal cost of reducing NOx from power plants. Our results measure the possible efficiency gains and distributional implications associated with increasing the sectoral scope of environmental regulations.(JEL Q53, Q58, R41)

This paper analyzes an emissions trading program that was introduced to reduce smog-causing pollution from large stationary sources. Using variation in state level electricity industry restructuring activity, I identify the effect of economic regulation on pollution permit market outcomes. There are two main findings. First, deregulated plants in restructured electricity markets were less likely to adopt more capital intensive environmental compliance options as compared to regulated or publicly owned plants. Second, as a consequence of heterogeneity in electricity market regulations, a larger share of the permitted pollution is being emitted in states where air quality problems tend to be more severe. (JEL L51, L94, L98, Q53, Q58) When the US federal government first began regulating major sources of air pollution in the 1960s, the conventional approach to meeting air quality standards involved establishing maxi mum emissions rates or technology based standards for regulated stationary sources. However, economists have long maintained that an emissions permit market could more efficiently coor dinate pollution abatement activities provided a series of assumptions are met. Over the past few decades, market based "cap and trade" (CAT) approaches to regulating emissions from industrial point sources have become a centerpiece of environmental regulation in the United States. In the theoretical first-best permit market equilibrium, the total social cost of meeting an emis sions cap is minimized. Each firm chooses a level of pollution abatement such that its marginal cost of reducing pollution is set equal to the social marginal benefit from emissions reduction. In practice, preexisting distortions in product markets that are subject to CAT regulation may interfere with the emissions permit market's ability to operate efficiently. This paper studies the effects of electricity market regulation on permit market outcomes in the context of a major US emissions trading program (the NOx Budget Program). The recent wave of electricity industry restructuring in the United States has resulted in significant interstate variation in economic regulation. Consequently, facilities in the same CAT program face very different economic regu lation and investment incentives in their respective electricity markets. Whereas rate base regu lated plants are guaranteed to earn a rate of return on prudent investments in pollution abatement equipment, "deregulated" plants operating in restructured electricity markets are offered no such

A growing number of policies and programs aim to increase investment in energy efficiency, because conventional wisdom suggests that people fail to take up these investments even though they have positive private returns and generate environmental benefits. Many explanations for this energy efficiency gap have been put forward, but there has been surprisingly little field testing of whether the conventional wisdom is correct. This article reports on the results of an experimental evaluation of the nation’s largest residential energy efficiency program—the Weatherization Assistance Program—conducted on a sample of approximately 30,000 households in Michigan. The findings suggest that the upfront investment costs are about twice the actual energy savings. Furthermore, the model-projected savings are more than three times the actual savings. Although this might be attributed to the “rebound” effect—when demand for energy end uses increases as a result of greater efficiency—the article fails to find evidence of significantly higher indoor temperatures at weatherized homes. Even when accounting for the broader societal benefits derived from emissions reductions, the costs still substantially outweigh the benefits; the average rate of return is approximately −7.8% annually.

Conventional wisdom suggests that energy efficiency (EE) policies are beneficial because they induce investments that pay for themselves and lead to emissions reductions. However, this belief is primarily based on projections from engineering models. This paper reports on the results of an experimental evaluation of the nation’s largest residential EE program conducted on a sample of more than 30,000 households. The findings suggest that the upfront investment costs are about twice the actual energy savings. Further, the model-projected savings are roughly 2.5 times the actual savings. While this might be attributed to the “rebound” effect – when demand for energy end uses increases as a result of greater efficiency – the paper fails to find evidence of significantly higher indoor temperatures at weatherized homes. Even when accounting for the broader societal benefits of energy efficiency investments, the costs still substantially outweigh the benefits; the average rate of return is approximately -9.5% annually.

We document very low take‐up of an energy efficiency program that is widely believed to be privately beneficial. Program participants receive a substantial home “weatherization” retrofit; all installation and equipment costs are covered by the program. Less than one percent of presumptively eligible households take up the program in the control group. This rate increased only modestly after we took extraordinary efforts to inform households -- via multiple channels -- about the sizeable benefits and zero monetary costs. These findings are consistent with high non‐monetary costs associated with program participation and/or energy efficiency investments.

This article presents the results of the first large-scale mail survey of non-residential green power customers in the United States. The survey explored the motivations, attitudes, and experiences of 464 business, non-profit, and public-sectorcustomers that have voluntarily opted to purchase - and frequently pay a premium for - renewable electricity. Results of this study should be of value to marketers interested in targeting these customer segments, to policymakers interested in fostering and understanding non-residential demand for green power, and to academics pondering the motivations for firms to engage in such voluntary environmental initiatives.

For much of the air pollution currently regulated under US emissions trading programs, health and environmental damages vary significantly with the location of the source. Existing policies...

We assess the long-run dynamic implications of market-based regulation of carbon dioxide emissions in the US Portland cement industry. We consider several alternative policy designs, including mechanisms that use production subsidies to partially offset compliance costs and border tax adjustments to penalize emissions associated with foreign imports. Our results highlight two general countervailing market distortions. First, following Buchanan (1969), reductions in product market surplus and allocative inefficiencies due to market power in the domestic cement market counteract the social benefits of carbon abatement. Second, trade exposure to unregulated foreign competitors leads to emissions "leakage" which offsets domestic emissions reductions. Taken together, these forces result in social welfare losses under policy regimes that fully internalize the emissions externality. In contrast, market-based policies that incorporate design features to mitigate the exercise of market power and emissions leakage can deliver welfare gains.

We explore the long run dynamic implications of subjecting an imperfectly competitive industry to market-based pollution regulation. We are particularly interested in understanding how the allocation of emissions permits in a cap-and-trade program can influence the evolution of a trade exposed oligopolistic industry. Using two decades of panel data on the US Portland cement industry, we estimate a fully dynamic model of firms’ strategic entry, exit, production, and investment decisions. We then use the model to simulate counterfactual outcomes under three general classes of allocation regimes: auctioning, grandfathering, and contingent updating. We find that the dynamic evolution of market structure can vary significantly across the policy scenarios we consider. We quantify the overall costs of achieving desired emissions reductions and the distribution of those costs.

In June, the Obama Administration unveiled its proposal for a Clean Power Plan, which it estimates would reduce carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from existing U.S. power plants 30% below 2005 levels by 2030 (see the chart). Power plant emissions have declined substantially since 2005, so the plan is seeking reductions of about 18% from current levels. Electricity generation accounts for about 40% of U.S. CO2 emissions.

U.S. adoption of a cap-and-trade program for greenhouse gases could place some domestic producers at a disadvantage relative to international competitors who do not face similar regulation. To address this issue, proposed federal climate change legislation includes a provision that would freely allocate (or rebate) emission allowances to eligible sectors using a continuously updating output-based formula. Eligibility for the rebates would be determined at the industry-level based on emissions or energy intensity and a measure of import penetration. Dynamic updating of permit allocations has the potential to mitigate adverse competitiveness impacts and emissions leakage in eligible industries. It can also under

U.S. adoption of a cap-and-trade program for greenhouse gases could place some domestic producers at a disadvantage relative to international competitors who do not face similar regulation. To address this issue, proposed federal climate change legislation includes a provision that would freely allocate (or rebate) emission allowances to eligible sectors using a continuously updating output-based formula. Eligibility for the rebates would be determined at the industry-level based on emissions or energy intensity and a measure of import penetration. Dynamic updating of permit allocations has the potential to mitigate adverse competitiveness impacts and emissions leakage in eligible industries. It can also undermine the cost-effectiveness of permit market outcomes, as more of the mandated emissions reductions must then be achieved by sources deemed ineligible for rebates. This chapter investigates both the benefits and the costs of output-based updating. It identifies differences between proposed eligibility criteria and those consistent with standard measures of economic efficiency. The analysis underlines the importance of taking both benefits and costs into account when determining the scale and scope of output-based rebating provisions in cap-and-trade programs.

A perceived advantage of cap-and-trade programs over more prescriptive environmental regulation is that enhanced compliance flexibility and cost effectiveness can make more stringent emissions reductions politically feasible. However, increased compliance flexibility can also result in an inequitable distribution of pollution. We investigate these issues in the context of Southern California's RECLAIM program. We match facilities in RECLAIM with similar California facilities also located in non-attainment areas. Our results indicate that emissions fell approximately 24 percent, on average, at RECLAIM facilities relative to our counterfactual. Furthermore, we find that observed changes in emissions do not vary significantly with neighborhood demographic characteristics.

For political and practical reasons, environmental regulations sometimes treat point source polluters, such as power plants, differently from mobile source polluters, such as vehicles. This paper measures the extent of this regulatory asymmetry in the case of nitrogen oxides (NOx), the criteria air pollutant that has proven to be the most recalcitrant in the United States. We find significant differences in marginal abatement costs across source types with the marginal cost of reducing NOx from cars less than half of the marginal cost of reducing NOx from power plants. Our findings have important implications for the efficiency of NOx emissions reductions and, more broadly, the benefits from increasing the sectoral scope of environmental regulation. We estimate that the costs of achieving the desired emissions reductions could have been reduced by nearly $2 billion, or 9 percent of program costs, had marginal abatement costs been equated across source types.

For political, jurisdictional and technical reasons, environmental regulation of industrial pollution is often incomplete: regulations apply to only a subset of facilities contributing to a pollution problem. Policymakers are increasingly concerned about the emissions leakage that may occur if unregulated production can be easily substituted for production at regulated firms. This paper analyzes emissions leakage in an incompletely regulated and imperfectly competitive industry. When regulated producers are less polluting than their unregulated ounterparts, emissions under incomplete regulation can exceed the level of emissions that would have occurred in the absence of regulation. Converseley, when regulated firms are relatively more polluting, aggregate emissions under complete regulation can exceed aggregate emissions under incomplete regulation. In a straightforward application of the theory of the second best, I show that incomplete regulation can welfare dominate complete regulation of emissions from an asymmetric oligopoly. The model is used to simulate greenhouse gas emissions from California's electricity sector under a source-based cap-and-trade program. Incomplete regulation that exempts out-of-state producers achieves approximately a third of the emissions reductions achieved under complete regulation at more than twice the cost per ton of emissions abated.

Author(s): Auffhammer, Maximilian; Blumstein, Carl; Fowlie, Meredith | Abstract: The key finding of an influential paper that received the International Association for Energy Economists' Best Paper Award (2004) is that utilities have been overstating electricity savings and underestimating costs associated with energy efficiency demand side management (DSM) programs. This claim is based on point estimates of average DSM-related savings and costs implied by an econometric model of residential electricity demand. In this response we first argue that the choice of test statistics, by not weighting estimated savings and costs by utility electricity sales and DSM expenditures respectively, biases results in favor of rejecting the null hypothesis that utility-reported electricity savings reflect true values. We also note that utility estimates of average program savings and costs are rejected based on point estimates alone; no attempt is made to evaluate the uncertainty surrounding these estimates. We use the same data and econometric model to estimate the appropriate test statistics. We then construct nonparametric bootstrap confidence intervals. We fail to reject the average electricity savings and DSM program costs reported by utilities using both the weighted and unweighted test statistics. Our results suggest that the evidence for rejecting utility estimates of DSM savings and costs should be re-interpreted.