Title IV of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments implemented a pollution permit system for sulfur dioxide (SO2) emissions that departs from state command-and-control regulations that were in place prior to and during its implementation. This paper develops a technology diffusion model, relying on rank effects or firm heterogeneity, to explain the adoption of scrubbers, a SO2 abatement technology. Using survival analysis, empirical results show that generating units regulated under Phase I of Title IV, units facing more stringent state regulations, and units with low expected installation costs are much more likely to install a scrubber. In addition, there is evidence of positive scale effects of adoption, meaning larger units are more likely to adopt because expected installation costs are lower. Tradable permit systems should give firms more flexibility in choosing abatement technologies, but results show that when command-and-control regulations overlap with a market-based system, the technology choice is restricted.
AcemogluDaronAghionPhilippeBursztynLeonardoHemousDavid (2009). “The Environment and Directed Technical Change.” NBER Working Paper Series, #15451.
2.
AkaikeH (1974). “A New Look at the Statistical Model Identification.” IEEE Transaction and Automatic Control AC-19: 716-723. http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/TAC.1974.1100705.
3.
BeckNathaniel (1999). Modeling Space and Time: The Event History Approach, Research Strategies in Social Science. Oxford University Press.
4.
BellasAllen S. (1998). “Empirical Evidence of Advances in Scrubber Technology.” Resource and Energy Economics20: 327-343. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0928-7655(97)00039-0.
5.
BuisMaarten L. (2006). “An Introduction to Survival Analysis.” Working Paper.
6.
DavidP. (1969). “A Contribution to the Theory of Diffusion.” Center for Research in Economic Growth Research Memorandum, No. 71, Stanford University.
7.
DowningPaul B. and Lawrence J. White (1986). “Innovation in Pollution Control.” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management13: 18-29. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0095-0696(86)90014-8.
8.
DunneTimothy (1994). “Plant Age and Technology Use in U.S. Manufacturing Industries.” The RAND Journal of Economics25 (3): 488-499. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2555774.
9.
DennyEllerman A.JoskowPaul L.SchmalenseeRichardMonteroJuan-PabloBaileyElizabeth M. (2000). Markets for Clean Air: The U.S. Acid Rain Program. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
10.
FischerCarolynParryIan W. H.PizerWilliam A. (2003). “Instrument Choice for Environmental Protection when Technological Innovation is Endogenous.” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management45: 523-545. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0095-0696(03)00002-0.
11.
FreyElaine F. (2012). “Technology Diffusion and Environmental Regulation: The Adoption of Natural Gas-Fired Combined Cycle Generating Units.” Forthcoming in Economics of Innovation and New Technology.
12.
FuglieKeith O. and Catherine A. Kascak (2001). “Adoption and Diffusion of Natural-Resource-Conserving Agricultural Technology.” Review of Agricultural Economics23 (2): 386-403. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1467-9353.00068.
13.
GeroskiPaul A. (2000). “Models of Technology Diffusion.” Research Policy29: 603-626. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(99)00092-X.
14.
GrayWayne B. and Ronald J. Shadbegian (1998). “Environmental Regulation, Investment Timing and Technology Choice.” Journal of Industrial Economics46: 235-256. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1467-6451.00070.
15.
GrilichesZvi (1957). “Hybrid Corn: An Exploration in the Economics of Technological Change.” Econometrica24 (4): 501-522. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1905380.
16.
GutierrezRoberto G. (2002). “Parametric Frailty and Shared Frailty Survival Models.” The Stata Journal2 (1): 22-44.
17.
HallBronwyn H. and Beethika Khan (2003). Adoption of New Technology, New Economy Handbook, Chapter 10. Academic Press.
18.
HannanTimothy H. and John M. McDowell (1987). “Rival Precedence and the Dynamics of Technology Adoption: An Empirical Analysis.” Economica, New Series54 (214): 155-171. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2554388.
19.
IrelandNorman J. and Paul L. Stoneman (1986). “Technological Diffusion, Expectations and Welfare.” Oxford Economic Papers, New Series38 (2): 283-304.
20.
JaffeAdam B.NewellRichard G.StavinsRobert N. (2002). “Technological Change and the Environment.” Environmental and Resource Economics22: 41-69. http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1015519401088.
21.
JaffeAdam B. and Robert N. Stavins (1995). “Dynamic Incentives of Environmental Regulations: The Effects of Alternative Policy Instruments on Technology Diffusion.” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management29: S-43-S63. http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/jeem.1995.1060.
22.
JungChulhoKrutillaKerryBoydRoy (1996). “Incentives for Advanced Pollution Abatement Technology at the Industry Level: An Evaluation of Policy Alternatives.” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management30: 95-111. http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/jeem.1996.0007.
23.
KarshenasMassoudStonemanPaul L. (1993). “Rank, Stock, Order, and Epidemic Effects in the Diffusion of New Process Technologies: An Empirical Model.” The RAND Journal of Economics24 (4): 503-528. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2555742.
24.
KeohaneNathaniel O. (2005). “Environmental Policy and the Choice of Abatement Technique: Evidence from Coal-Fired Power Plants.” Yale University Mimeo.
25.
KeohaneNathaniel O. (2006). “Environmental Policy Design and Technology Diffusion.” Yale School of Management Working Paper.
26.
KeohaneNathaniel O.MansurErin T.VoynovAndrey (2009). “Averting Regulatory Enforcement: Evidence from New Source Review.” NBER Working Paper Series, #13512.
27.
KerrSuziNewellRichard G. (2003). “Policy Induced Technology Adoption: Evidence from the U.S. Lead Phasedown.” Journal of Industrial Economics51 (3): 317-343. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1467-6451.00203.
28.
KieferNicholas M. (1988). “Economic Duration Data and Hazard Functions.” Journal of Economic Literature26 (2): 646-679.
29.
LileRonandBertrawDallas (1998). “State-Level Policies and Regulatory Guidance for Compliance in the Early Years of the SO2 Emission Allowance Trading Program.” RFF Discussion Paper no. 98-35, Washington, DC.
30.
McGilchristC. A.AisbettC. W. (1991). “Regression with frailty in survival analysis.” Biometrics47: 461-466. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2532138.
31.
MillimanScott R. and Raymond Prince (1989). “Firm Incentives to Promote Technological Change in Pollution Control.” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management17: 247-265. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0095-0696(89)90019-3.
32.
PoppDavid (2001). “Pollution Control Innovations and The Clean Air Act of 1990.” NBER Working Paper Series, #8593.
33.
PoppDavid (2006). “Exploring Links Between Innovation and Diffusion: Adoption of NOx Control Technologies at U.S. Coal-Fired Power Plants.” NBER Working Paper Series #12119.
34.
RoseNancy L. and Paul L. Joskow (1990). “The Diffusion of New Technologies: Evidence from the Electric Utility Industry.” The RAND Journal of Economics21 (3): 354-373. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2555614.
35.
SchumpeterJ. (1942). Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy. New York: Harper.
36.
SnyderLoriMillerNolandStavinsRobert (2003). “The Effects of Environmental Regulation on Technology Diffusion: The Case of Chlorine Manufacturing.” The American Economic Review93 (2): 431-435. http://dx.doi.org/10.1257/000282803321947470.
37.
StonemanPaul L. (2001). The Economics of Technological Diffusion. Massachusetts: Blackwell Publishers.
38.
StonemanPaul L. and Myung-Joong Kwon (1994). “The Diffusion of Multiple Process Technologies.” The Economic Journal104: 420-431. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2234761.
39.
TaylorMargaret R.RubinEdward S.HounshellDavid A. (2005). “Regulation as the Mother of Innovation: The Case of SO2 Control.” Law and Policy27 (2): 348-378. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9930.2005.00203.x.
40.
U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration (1985-2001). Steam-Electric Plant Operation and Design Report. EIA Form 767.
41.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air and Radiation (2003). “Air Pollution Control Technology Fact Sheet.” EPA-452/F-03–034.
