[go: up one dir, main page]
IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/rff/dpaper/dp-03-37.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

The Market-based Lead Phasedown

Author

Listed:
  • Newell, Richard

    (Resources for the Future)

  • Rogers, Kristian
Abstract
The U.S. lead phasedown was effective in meeting its environmental objectives, and did so more quickly with the allowance of permit banking. The marketable lead permit system was highly costeffective, saving hundreds of millions of dollars relative to comparable policies not allowing trading or banking. Estimates suggest that transaction costs brought about only a modest reduction in program efficiency. The market-based nature of the program also provided incentives for more efficient adoption of new lead-removing technology, relative to a uniform standard. Distributionally, it is likely that the program was actually more responsive to the cost concerns of small refiners than a similar uniform standard would have been. The flexibility of the program likely increased the amount of violations, however, and added an unexpected monitoring and enforcement burden. On the other hand, one of the efficiency advantages of the incentive-based program is that it provided opportunities for unanticipated means of cost-effective compliance.

Suggested Citation

  • Newell, Richard & Rogers, Kristian, 2003. "The Market-based Lead Phasedown," RFF Working Paper Series dp-03-37, Resources for the Future.
    • Handle: RePEc:rff:dpaper:dp-03-37
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.rff.org/RFF/documents/RFF-DP-03-37.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. 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.
    2. Helfand, Gloria E, 1991. "Standards versus Standards: The Effects of Different Pollution Restrictions," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 81(3), pages 622-634, June.
    3. Malueg, David A., 1989. "Emission credit trading and the incentive to adopt new pollution abatement technology," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 16(1), pages 52-57, January.
    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. Wang, Banban & Pizer, William A. & Munnings, Clayton, 2022. "Price limits in a tradable performance standard," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 116(C).
    2. Dallas Burtraw & Josh Linn & Karen Palmer & Anthony Paul, 2014. "The Costs and Consequences of Clean Air Act Regulation of CO2 from Power Plants," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 104(5), pages 557-562, May.
    3. Burtraw, Dallas & Fraas, Arthur G. & Richardson, Nathan, 2012. "Tradable Standards for Clean Air Act Carbon Policy," RFF Working Paper Series dp-12-05, Resources for the Future.
    4. Burtraw, Dallas & Woerman, Matt, 2013. "Technology Flexibility and Stringency for Greenhouse Gas Regulations," RFF Working Paper Series dp-13-24, Resources for the Future.
    5. Burtraw, Dallas & Woerman, Matt, 2013. "Economic ideas for a complex climate policy regime," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 40(S1), pages 24-31.
    6. Gary D. Libecap, 2013. "Addressing Global Environmental Externalities: Transaction Costs Considerations," NBER Working Papers 19501, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    7. Dallas Burtraw & Matt Woerman & Alan Krupnick, 2016. "Flexibility and Stringency in Greenhouse Gas Regulations," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 63(2), pages 225-248, February.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Stavins, Robert, 2001. "Lessons From the American Experiment With Market-Based Environmental Policies," RFF Working Paper Series dp-01-53, Resources for the Future.
    2. Zhang, Hui & Cao, Libin & Zhang, Bing, 2017. "Emissions trading and technology adoption: An adaptive agent-based analysis of thermal power plants in China," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 121(C), pages 23-32.
    3. Stavins, Robert & Jaffe, Adam & Newell, Richard, 2000. "Technological Change and the Environment," Working Paper Series rwp00-002, Harvard University, John F. Kennedy School of Government.
    4. Arguedas, Carmen & van Soest, Daan P., 2009. "On reducing the windfall profits in environmental subsidy programs," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 58(2), pages 192-205, September.
    5. Newell, Richard G. & Jaffe, Adam B. & Stavins, Robert N., 2006. "The effects of economic and policy incentives on carbon mitigation technologies," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 28(5-6), pages 563-578, November.
    6. Qi Zhu, 2017. "A Perspective of Evolution for Carbon Emissions Trading Market: The Dilemma between Market Scale and Government Regulation," Discrete Dynamics in Nature and Society, Hindawi, vol. 2017, pages 1-7, February.
    7. Newell, Richard G & Stavins, Robert N, 2003. "Cost Heterogeneity and the Potential Savings from Market-Based Policies," Journal of Regulatory Economics, Springer, vol. 23(1), pages 43-59, January.
    8. Becker, Jonathon M., 2023. "Tradable performance standards in a dynamic context," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 73(C).
    9. Jie Jiang & Qihang Zhang & Yifan Hui, 2023. "The Impact of Market and Non-Market-Based Environmental Policy Instruments on Firms’ Sustainable Technological Innovation: Evidence from Chinese Firms," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(5), pages 1-21, March.
    10. Newell, Richard G. & Pizer, William A., 2008. "Indexed regulation," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 56(3), pages 221-233, November.
    11. Stavins, Robert N., 2003. "Experience with market-based environmental policy instruments," Handbook of Environmental Economics, in: K. G. Mäler & J. R. Vincent (ed.), Handbook of Environmental Economics, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 9, pages 355-435, Elsevier.
    12. Frans Vries & Bouwe Dijkstra & Matthew McGinty, 2014. "On Emissions Trading and Market Structure: Cap-and-Trade versus Intensity Standards," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 58(4), pages 665-682, August.
    13. Verhoef, Erik T. & Nijkamp, Peter, 1999. "Second-best energy policies for heterogeneous firms," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 21(2), pages 111-134, April.
    14. Martin Woerter & Tobias Stucki, 2016. "Intra-Firm Diffusion of Green Energy Technologies and the Choice of Policy Instruments," KOF Working papers 16-401, KOF Swiss Economic Institute, ETH Zurich.
    15. Martin Larsson, 2017. "EU Emissions Trading: Policy-Induced Innovation, or Business as Usual? Findings from Company Case Studies in the Republic of Croatia," Working Papers 1705, The Institute of Economics, Zagreb.
    16. Erik Verhoef & Peter Nijkamp, 1997. "The Adoption of Energy Efficiency Enhancing Technologies," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 97-077/3, Tinbergen Institute.
    17. Stavins, Robert, 2003. "Market-Based Environmental Policies: What Can We Learn from U.S. Experience and Related Research?," Working Paper Series rwp03-031, Harvard University, John F. Kennedy School of Government.
    18. Gagelmann, Frank, 2003. "E.T. and innovation - science fiction or reality? An assessment of the impact of emissions trading on innovation," UFZ Discussion Papers 13/2003, Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research (UFZ), Division of Social Sciences (ÖKUS).
    19. Åsa L�fgren & Markus Wr�ke & Tomas Hagberg & Susanna Roth, 2014. "Why the EU ETS needs reforming: an empirical analysis of the impact on company investments," Climate Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 14(5), pages 537-558, September.
    20. 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.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    lead phasedown; gasoline; tradable permit; market-based policy; technology adoption;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • Q25 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Renewable Resources and Conservation - - - Water
    • Q28 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Renewable Resources and Conservation - - - Government Policy
    • Q21 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Renewable Resources and Conservation - - - Demand and Supply; Prices

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:rff:dpaper:dp-03-37. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    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 bibliographic 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.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Resources for the Future (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/rffffus.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.