Abstract: Over the last half decade, a variety of federal legislative proposals for limiting greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions have been put forward, most of which would set a price on carbon. As of early 2013, the one politically plausible policy appears to be a carbon tax, passed as part of a larger fiscal reform package. Meanwhile, the US Environmental Protection Agency has begun regulating GHG emissions from a variety of sources using its authority under the Clean Air Act. It may be necessary to choose between these two policies, however. The Waxman–Markey cap-and-trade bill that failed in 2009 would have preempted much of this authority, and it appears likely that a carbon tax law would do the same. But how can one make this choice? What are the key questions and issues to consider? The purpose of this paper is to compare these policies. Our aim here is therefore not to determine whether an exchange is wise or unwise. Instead, our intention is to give policymakers and other interested readers an impartial assessment of both policies and, in particular, the features that are important to a comparative evaluation. We don’t give answers, but hope at least to give the right questions to ask.

Abstract: Biomass energy is expected to play a major role in the substitution of renewable energy sources for fossil fuels over the next several decades. The US Energy Information Administration (EIA 2012) forecasts increases in the share of biomass in US energy production from 8 percent in 2009 to 15 percent by 2035. The general view has been that carbon emitted into the atmosphere from biological materials is carbon neutral—part of a closed loop whereby plant regrowth simply recaptures the carbon emissions associated with the energy produced. Recently this view has been challenged, and the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is considering regulations to be applied to biomass energy carbon emissions. A basic approach for analyses of environmental impacts has been the use of life cycle assessment (LCA), a methodology for assessing and measuring the environmental impact of a product over its lifetime—from raw material extraction through materials processing, manufacture, distribution, use, repair and maintenance, and disposal or recycling. However, LCA approaches vary, and the results of alternative methodologies often differ (Helin et al. 2012). This study investigates and compares the implications of these alternative approaches for emissions from wood biomass energy, the carbon footprint, and also highlights the differences in LCA environmental impacts.

Abstract: Several recent studies have used simulation models to quantify the potential effects of recent environmental regulations on power plants, including the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS), one of the US Environmental Protection Agency’s most expensive regulations. These studies have produced inconsistent results about the effects on the industry, making general conclusions difficult. We attempt to reconcile these differences by representing the variety of assumptions in these studies within a common modeling platform. We find that the assumptions, and their differences from the way MATS will be implemented, make a substantial impact on projected retirement of coal-fired capacity and generation, investments that are required, and emissions reductions. Almost uniformly, the actual regulation, when examined in its final form and in isolation, provides more flexibility than is represented in most models. We find this leads to a smaller impact on the composition of the electricity generating fleet than most studies have predicted.

Abstract: Several different economic models have been applied to try to understand how new regulations by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) could impact coal-fired generation in the United States as well as the electricity system as a whole. This paper provides an overview of many of the key studies and the models used to analyze the potential impacts of EPA’s rules. The regulations surveyed include the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR), the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS), the proposed Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 316(b) rule, and the proposed Coal Combustion Residuals (CCR) rule. The models generally agree that these regulations will result in coal plant retirements, though there is far less agreement on how much generation may retire. Assumptions about the price of natural gas and the expected stringency of regulations play a key role in determining modeling results. The models provide useful guidance for policymakers when considering the potential impact of EPA regulation.

Abstract: In 2009, President Obama pledged that, by 2020, the United States would achieve reductions in greenhouse gas emissions of 17 percent from 2005 levels. With the failure of Congress to adopt comprehensive climate legislation in 2010, the feasibility of the pledge was put in doubt. However, we find the United States is near to reaching this goal; currently, the country is on course to achieve reductions of 16.3 percent from 2005 levels in 2020. Three factors contribute to this outcome: greenhouse gas regulations under the Clean Air Act, secular trends including changes in relative fuel prices and energy efficiency, and subnational efforts. Nonetheless, global emissions likely will be greater than if comprehensive climate legislation had passed because of the absence of offsets, and at this point the United States is expected to fail to meet its financing commitments under the Copenhagen Accord for 2020.

Abstract: Economic approaches are expected to achieve environmental goals at less cost than traditional regulations, but they have yet to find widespread application. One reason is the way these tools interact with existing institutions. The federalist nature of governmental authority assigns to subnational governments much of the implementation of environmental policy and primary authority for planning the infrastructure that affects environmental outcomes. The federalist structure also interacts with the choice of economic instruments; a national emissions cap erodes the additionality of actions by subnational governments. Even the flagship application of sulfur dioxide emissions trading has been outperformed by the venerable Clean Air Act, and greenhouse gas emissions in the United States are on course to be less than they would have been if Congress had frozen emissions with a cap in 2009. The widespread application of economic tools requires a stronger political theory of how they interact with governing institutions.

Abstract: Two decades have passed since the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 launched a grand experiment in market-based environmental policy: the SO2 cap-and-trade system. That system performed well but created four striking ironies. First, by creating this system to reduce SO2 emissions to curb acid rain, the government did the right thing for the wrong reason. Second, a substantial source of this system’s cost-effectiveness was an unanticipated consequence of earlier railroad deregulation. Third, it is ironic that cap-and-trade has come to be demonized by conservative politicians in recent years, since this market-based, cost-effective policy innovation was initially championed and implemented by Republican administrations. Fourth, court decisions and subsequent regulatory responses have led to the collapse of the SO2 market, demonstrating that what the government gives, the government can take away.

Abstract: While the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is in the process of regulating greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions under its Clean Air Act (CAA) authority, Congress has considered several different bills that would preempt CAA regulation of GHGs and replace it with a comprehensive national climate policy. Policymakers should be aware that there are other existing federal statutes granting GHG regulatory authority, and new legislation would likely preempt them as well. This paper surveys these other statutes in order to highlight existing federal authority that might be given up with the passage of a new comprehensive bill. It explores the possibility of direct regulation of GHGs under the Clean Water Act (CWA), along with federal authority to block projects that contribute to climate change under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and conservation statutes such as the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Newer statutes like the Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA) mandate narrower regulation, but they are also considered here.

Abstract: This paper explores the policy options available to the United States for regulating greenhouse gas emissions from aircraft under existing law: the Clean Air Act (CAA). Europe has unilaterally and controversially moved to include aviation emissions in its Emissions Trading System. The United States can, however, allow its airlines to escape this requirement by imposing “equivalent” regulation. U.S. aviation emissions rules could also have significant environmental benefits and would limit domestic emissions beyond the reach of the European Union. With new legislation unlikely, the CAA is the only plausible vehicle for such regulation. Title II Part B of the CAA does grant EPA broad regulatory authority over aviation emissions, though this authority has not been used aggressively. EPA could impose meaningful aviation GHG limits and, by using performance standards, give airlines incentives to creatively comply. It might further be possible to allow some forms of emissions trading, though the law is unclear. Emissions by foreign airlines in the United States could be covered under the act, though international law might impose barriers.

Abstract: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) proposed greenhouse gas (GHG) performance standards for power plants are an important step forward in regulating GHGs in terms of both their substantive impact and legal precedent. Nevertheless, we have some concerns with the proposal, which we discuss in the following comments submitted to the agency. The majority of our comments are directed to ways that EPA can increase certainty for the industry—reducing costs and, possibly, improving environmental outcomes. We highlight two specific areas of concern. First, the current proposal contributes to the significant uncertainty facing existing sources. Second, EPA’s proposed averaging option for new facilities that will install carbon capture-and-storage (CCS) technology in the future, although intended to create a flexible pathway, unfortunately creates some new regulatory uncertainty. We also comment on EPA’s decision to combine most coal and gas generators into a single source category. We believe this decision is legally valid and practically important, and that EPA should resist pressure to reconsider.

Abstract: Implementation of new environmental regulations in the electricity industry has triggered concerns about system reliability. We find these regulations are unlikely to create the shock to the system as some worry. They lead to little change in generation capacity. The large costs associated with investments in pollution control technologies are partially offset by a decrease in the cost burden associated with tradable emissions allowances. The combined effects contribute to a 1 percent increase in retail electricity prices and a decrease in producer profits of about $3–$5 billion in 2020. Though it varies across scenarios and regions, over the simulation horizon, consumers pay approximately 70 percent of total costs. In 2020, for example, total annual costs are between $6.6 billion and $7.1 billion. The investment in pollution controls leads to substantial reductions in emissions of mercury and sulfur dioxide.

Abstract: The Clean Air Act has assumed the central role in U.S. climate policy, directing the Environmental Protection Agency to develop regulations governing the emissions of greenhouse gases from existing coal-fired power plants. The cost and environmental effectiveness of policy options depend on abatement costs, the magnitude of emissions reduction opportunities, and the sensitivity of plant utilization. This paper examines the operation of electricity-generating units over 25 years to estimate the marginal costs and potential magnitude of emissions reductions that could result from improvements in their operating efficiency. We find that a 10 percent increase in coal prices causes a 0.3 to 0.9 percent heat rate reduction, broadly consistent with engineering assessments of abatement costs and opportunities. We also find that coal prices have a significant effect on utilization, but that will vary depending on the policy design. The results are used to compare cost-effectiveness of alternative policies.

Abstract: The introduction of the U.S. SO2 allowance-trading program to address the threat of acid rain as part of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 is a landmark event in the history of environmental regulation. The program was a great success by almost all measures. This paper, which draws upon a research workshop and a policy roundtable held at Harvard in May 2011, investigates critically the design, enactment, implementation, performance, and implications of this path-breaking application of economic thinking to environmental regulation. Ironically, cap and trade seems especially well suited to addressing the problem of climate change, in that emitted greenhouse gases are evenly distributed throughout the world’s atmosphere. Recent hostility toward cap and trade in debates about U.S. climate legislation may reflect the broader political environment of the climate debate more than the substantive merits of marketbased regulation.

Abstract: Climate change policy analysis has focused almost exclusively on national policy and even on harmonizing climate policies across countries, implicitly assuming that harmonization of climate policies at the subnational level would be mandated or guaranteed. We argue that the design and implementation of climate policy in a federal union will diverge in important ways from policy design in a unitary government. National climate policies built on the assumption of a unitary model of governance are unlikely to achieve the expected outcome because of interactions with policy choices made at the subnational level. In a federal system, the information and incentives generated by a national policy must pass through various levels of subnational fiscal and regulatory policy. Effective policy design must recognize both the constraints and the opportunities presented by a federal structure of government. Furthermore, policies that take advantage of the federal structure of government can improve climate governance outcomes.

Abstract: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) continues to move ahead with regulation of greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act (CAA). Previous work has indicated that basic forms of compliance flexibility—trading—appear to be legally permissible under the relevant part (Section 111) of the CAA. This paper takes a close look at more expansive and ambitious types of flexibility: trading between different kinds of sources, biomass co-firing, and, above all, offsets. It concludes that most types of such extended flexibility are either legally incompatible with the CAA, or so legally problematic that EPA is unlikely to adopt them. This has important implications for both the costs of CAA climate policy and the level of environmental benefits that are achievable. It also creates tension between CAA climate policy and state-level policies, such as California’s, that aim to include various forms of extended flexibility.