Unintended Consequences of California’s Cap-and-Trade: An Examination of Industrial Electricity Productivity since California Enacted Assembly Bill 32, the California Global Warming Solutions Act



Abstract Views
397

Downloads
333

Citations

Share

##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.sidebar##

Submitted Jul 26, 2018
Published Aug 28, 2018
10.24018/ejeng.2018.3.8.844

Abstract viewed = 397 times

Table of Contents

##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.main##

Greater American regulatory moving from federal to state governments has resulted in varying levels of environmental legislation and regulation. One example is the cap-and-trade system in California, which has been deemed a success in limiting greenhouse gas emissions as well as in earning revenue for the state. However, the coinciding production rates for polluting organizations has not been analyzed on a macro level. This study examined the air pollution and production rates of electricity organizations operating in California since cap-and-trade went into effect and found that since the legislation took effect, not only did production decreased slightly, but also, contrary to much analysis, the rates of air pollution from these organizations increased sharply. 

Keywords: Air Pollution Sustainability Regulatory Authority Energy Sector

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

  1. Altshuler, A., & Luberoff, D. (2003). Mega-Projects: The changing politics of urban public investment. Washington, DC: Brookings Press.
     Google Scholar
  2. Donovan, T., Mooney, C., & Smith, D. (2009). State and Local Politics: Institutions and Reform. Florence, KY: Wadsworth Cengage Learning.
     Google Scholar
  3. Gerber, B., & Teske, P. (2000). Regulatory policymaking in the American states: A review of theories and evidence. Political Research Quarterly, 53(4), 849-886.
     Google Scholar
  4. Sapat, A. (2004, March-April). Devolution and Innovation: The adoption of state environmental policy innovations by administrative agencies. Public Administration Review, 64(2), 141-151.
     Google Scholar
  5. Daley, D., Haider-Markel, D., & Whitford, A. (2007). Checks, Balances, and the Cost of Regulation: Evidence from the American States. Political Research Quarterly, 60(4), 696-706.
     Google Scholar
  6. Potoski, M., & Woods, N. (2002). Dimensions of State Environmental Policies: Air pollution regulation in the United States. Policy Studies Journal, 30(2), 208-226.
     Google Scholar
  7. Harris, P. (2002). The Environment, International Relations, and U.S. Foreign Policy. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
     Google Scholar
  8. Blonigen, B. (2005). A Review of Empirical Literature on FDI Determinants. Atlantic Economic Journal, 33, 383-403.
     Google Scholar
  9. Copeland, B. & Taylor, S. (2000, April). Free Trade and Global Warming: A trade theory view of the Kyoto Protocol. National Bureau of Economic Research: Cambridge, MA.
     Google Scholar
  10. Dasgupta, S., Hamilton, K., Pandey, K., & Wheeler, D. (2006, September). World Development. Environment During growth: Accounting for governance and vulnerability. 34(9).
     Google Scholar
  11. Williams, M. (2016, April 14). What causes air pollution? Retrieved from. https://phys.org/news/2016-04-air-pollution.html
     Google Scholar
  12. Burtraw, D., Linn, J., Palmer, K., & Paul, A. (2014). The Costs and Consequences of Clean Air Act Regulation of CO₂ from Power Plants. The American Economic Review, 104(5), 557-562.
     Google Scholar
  13. Center for Sustainable Systems University of Michigan. (2017, August). Greenhouse Gases Factsheet. Retrieved from. http://css.umich.edu/factsheets/greenhouse-gases-factsheet
     Google Scholar
  14. U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA). (2017, May 10). Frequently Asked Questions? How much of U.S. carbon dioxide emissions are associated with electricity generation? Retrieved fromhttps://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=77&t=11%20EIA,%202017
     Google Scholar
  15. Williams, J. (1997, June 1). Energy and the Making of Modern California (Series on Technology and the Environment) Reprint, 1998 Edition. Akron, OH: University of Akron Press.
     Google Scholar
  16. Thompson, V. (2014, February 15). Sophisticated Interdependence in Climate Policy: Federalism in the United States, Brazil, and Germany (Anthem Environment and Sustainability). New York, NY: Anthem Press.
     Google Scholar
  17. Schmalensee, R. & Stavins, R. (2015). Lessons Learned from Three Decades of Experience with Cap-and-Trade (Rep.). Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei (FEEM).
     Google Scholar
  18. Durning, A. & Bauman, Y. (2014, May 22). 17 Things to Know About California’s Carbon Cap. The Golden (State's) rules.
     Google Scholar
  19. Ansolabehere, S. (2014, August 8). Cheap and Clean: How Americans Think about Energy in the Age of Global Warming. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
     Google Scholar
  20. Kasler, D. (2016, August 23). California’s cap-and-trade carbon program sputters again. Retrieved from. http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article97380457.html
     Google Scholar
  21. Center for Climate and Energy Solutions. (2017). California Cap and Trade. Retrieved from https://www.c2es.org/content/california-cap-and-trade/
     Google Scholar
  22. Environmental Defense Fund (EDF). (2017). How cap and trade works. The system reduces emissions by setting a limit on pollution and creating a market.
     Google Scholar
  23. Bushnell, J. (2008, January). The design of California's cap-and-trade and its impact on electricity markets. Journal of Climate Policy, 8(3), 277-292.
     Google Scholar
  24. Murphy, K. (2017, September 12). Here’s how California plans to spend $1.5 billion in cap-and-trade money. The Mercury News.
     Google Scholar
  25. Carmona, R., Fehr, M., Hinz, J., & Porchet, A. (2010). Market Design for Emission Trading Schemes. SIAM Review, 52(3), 403-452.
     Google Scholar
  26. Kaswan, A. (2012, April 24). Applying the Clean Air Act to Greenhouse Gases: What Does It Mean for Traditional Pollutants?
     Google Scholar
  27. Marland, E. & Domke, G. & Hoyle, J. & Marland, G. & Bates, L. & Helms, A. & Jones, B. & Kowalczyk ,T. & Tuseva, T. & Szymanski, C. (2017, March 30). Understanding and Analysis: The California Air Resources Board Forest Offset Protocol (SpringerBriefs in Environmental Science). New York, NY: Springer.
     Google Scholar
  28. California Air Resources Board. “Quarterly auction information.” Washington GPO, 22 Feb. 2017. Web. 21 Feb. 2017.
     Google Scholar
  29. Gallagher, D. (2012, September 19). Environmental Leadership: A Reference Handbook 1st Edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.
     Google Scholar
  30. Cook, J. (2013, December). The Future of Electricity Prices in California: Understanding Market Drivers and Forecasting Prices to 2040.
     Google Scholar
  31. Levin, A. & Pepper, R. (2017, July 28). California Extends Greenhouse Gas Cap-and-Trade Program Through 2030. Retrieved from. https://www.environmentallawandpolicy.com/2017/07/california-extends-greenhouse-gas-cap-trade-program-2030/
     Google Scholar
  32. Purdon, M., Houle, D., & Lachapelle, E. (2014). The Political Economy of California and Québec’s Cap-and-Trade Systems. Sustainable Prosperity Research Report.
     Google Scholar
  33. Reyes, O. (2016, August 26). State should look beyond cap and trade to develop more effective climate policies. Retrieved from http://www.sacbee.com/opinion/op-ed/soapbox/article97914327.html
     Google Scholar
  34. Broekhoff, D. (2015, February 18). There Are Still Promising Alternatives to Carbon Taxes. Retrieved from https://www.brinknews.com/there-are-still-promising-alternatives-to-carbon-taxes/
     Google Scholar
  35. Metcalf, G. (2009). Market-Based Policy Options to Control U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions. The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 23(2), 5-27.
     Google Scholar
  36. Goulder, L. & Schein, A. (2013). CARBON TAXES VERSUS CAP AND TRADE: A CRITICAL REVIEW. Climate Change Economics, 4(3), 1-28.
     Google Scholar
  37. World Bank Group. (2014, May). State and Trends of Carbon Pricing. California Trade and Cap Program. Washington, DC: Publishing and Knowledge Division.
     Google Scholar
  38. Nivola, P. (1997, July 1). Comparative Disadvantages? Social regulations and the global economy. Brookings Washington, DC: Institution Press.
     Google Scholar
  39. Managi, S. (2011, September 14). Technology, Natural Resources and Economic Growth: Improving the Environment for a Greener Future. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Pub.
     Google Scholar
  40. Gollop, F., & Roberts, M. (1983). Environmental Regulations and Productivity Growth: The Case of Fossil-fueled Electric Power Generation. Journal of Political Economy, 91(4), 654-674.
     Google Scholar
  41. Gray, W. (1987). The Cost of Regulation: OSHA, EPA and the Productivity Slowdown. The American Economic Review, 77(5), 998-1006.
     Google Scholar
  42. Weber, W., & Domazlicky, B. (2001). Productivity Growth and Pollution in State Manufacturing. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 83(1), 195-199.
     Google Scholar
  43. Farber, D. (2012). Pollution Markets and Social Equity: Analyzing the Fairness of Cap and Trade. Ecology Law Quarterly, 39(1), 1-56.
     Google Scholar
  44. Clarke, J. (2015). California's New Majority Confronts Climate Crisis. Race, Poverty & the Environment, 20(1), 18-26.
     Google Scholar
  45. Cox, J. (2017, July 16). Cap and Trade opponent: Climate change gives California Democrats an excuse to raise taxes. The Mercury News.
     Google Scholar
  46. Lunsford, L. (2010, April 8). You're Fired! Why Liberals should never run the Government. (pp. 15). Bloomington, IN: Xlibris.
     Google Scholar
  47. Kryzanek, M. (2010, August 9). Debates, Differences and Divisions: The 25 Issues That Shape American Politics. Abingdon, UK: Routledge.
     Google Scholar
  48. Bakker, C. & Francioni, F. (2014, September 19). The EU, the US and Global Climate Governance. Abingdon, UK: Routledge.
     Google Scholar
  49. Raymond, L. (2016, September 16). Reclaiming the Atmospheric Commons: The regional greenhouse gas initiative and a new model of emissions trading. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
     Google Scholar
  50. Brinkerhoff, N. Straehley, S. (2014, July 16). When Companies Break Environmental Laws, Why are Responsible Individuals Not Prosecuted?
     Google Scholar
  51. Kaufman, N. (2016, March 1). Carbon Tax vs. Cap-and-Trade: What’s a Better Policy to Cut Emissions? Retrieved from. http://www.wri.org/blog/2016/03/carbon-tax-vs-cap-and-trade-what%E2%80%99s-better-policy-cut-emissions
     Google Scholar
  52. Antisdel, T. (2017). Specialist/Database Administrator for the United States EPA; personal communication.
     Google Scholar
  53. EPA. (2017, January 19). Greenhouse Gases Equivalencies Calculator: Calculations and references. Energy/Environment section. Retrieved from https://www.epa.gov/energy/greenhouse-gases-equivalencies-calculator-calculations-and-references.
     Google Scholar
  54. Tanoos, J. (2012). Who’s Polluting the Hoosier Air? An Examination of International versus Domestic Industry Operating in Indiana. International Journal of Management Sciences, 1(9), 41-60.
     Google Scholar