IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/enepol/v49y2012icp182-191.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Lost opportunities: Modeling commercial building energy code adoption in the United States

Author

Listed:
  • Nelson, Hal T.

Abstract

This paper models the adoption of commercial building energy codes in the US between 1977 and 2006. Energy code adoption typically results in an increase in aggregate social welfare by cost effectively reducing energy expenditures. Using a Cox proportional hazards model, I test if relative state funding, a new, objective, multivariate regression-derived measure of government capacity, as well as a vector of control variables commonly used in comparative state research, predict commercial building energy code adoption. The research shows little political influence over historical commercial building energy code adoption in the sample. Colder climates and higher electricity prices also do not predict more frequent code adoptions. I do find evidence of high government capacity states being 60 percent more likely than low capacity states to adopt commercial building energy codes in the following year. Wealthier states are also more likely to adopt commercial codes. Policy recommendations to increase building code adoption include increasing access to low cost capital for the private sector and providing noncompetitive block grants to the states from the federal government.

Suggested Citation

  • Nelson, Hal T., 2012. "Lost opportunities: Modeling commercial building energy code adoption in the United States," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(C), pages 182-191.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:enepol:v:49:y:2012:i:c:p:182-191
    DOI: 10.1016/j.enpol.2012.05.033
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421512004454
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.enpol.2012.05.033?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. George J. Stigler, 1971. "The Theory of Economic Regulation," Bell Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 2(1), pages 3-21, Spring.
    2. Gray, Virginia, 1973. "Innovation in the States: A Diffusion Study," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 67(4), pages 1174-1185, December.
    3. Gene M. Grossman & Alan B. Krueger, 1995. "Economic Growth and the Environment," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 110(2), pages 353-377.
    4. Koichiro Ito, 2014. "Do Consumers Respond to Marginal or Average Price? Evidence from Nonlinear Electricity Pricing," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 104(2), pages 537-563, February.
    5. Grant D. Jacobsen & Matthew J. Kotchen, 2013. "Are Building Codes Effective at Saving Energy? Evidence from Residential Billing Data in Florida," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 95(1), pages 34-49, March.
    6. Peltzman, Sam, 1976. "Toward a More General Theory of Regulation," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 19(2), pages 211-240, August.
    7. Berry, Frances Stokes & Berry, William D., 1990. "State Lottery Adoptions as Policy Innovations: An Event History Analysis," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 84(2), pages 395-415, June.
    8. Melvin Burstein & Arthur J. Rolnick, 1995. "Congress should end the economic war between the states," Annual Report, Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, vol. 9(Mar), pages 2-20.
    9. Huang, Ming-Yuan & Alavalapati, Janaki R.R. & Carter, Douglas R. & Langholtz, Matthew H., 2007. "Is the choice of renewable portfolio standards random?," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(11), pages 5571-5575, November.
    10. Jaffe Adam B. & Stavins Robert N., 1995. "Dynamic Incentives of Environmental Regulations: The Effects of Alternative Policy Instruments on Technology Diffusion," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 29(3), pages 43-63, November.
    11. Andrews, Clinton J. & Krogmann, Uta, 2009. "Technology diffusion and energy intensity in US commercial buildings," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(2), pages 541-553, February.
    12. Siddharth Swaminathan & John Thomas, 2007. "Saving the Next Generation: Political Capacity and Infant Mortality Decline in India's States," International Interactions, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 33(3), pages 217-242, July.
    13. Kenneth Gillingham & Richard G. Newell & Karen Palmer, 2009. "Energy Efficiency Economics and Policy," Annual Review of Resource Economics, Annual Reviews, vol. 1(1), pages 597-620, September.
    14. Fabrizio Gilardi, 2010. "Who Learns from What in Policy Diffusion Processes?," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 54(3), pages 650-666, July.
    15. Lester D. Taylor, 1975. "The Demand for Electricity: A Survey," Bell Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 6(1), pages 74-110, Spring.
    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. Xiaojing Sun & Marilyn A. Brown & Matt Cox & Roderick Jackson, 2016. "Mandating better buildings: a global review of building codes and prospects for improvement in the United States," Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Energy and Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 5(2), pages 188-215, March.

    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. Felix Strebel & Thomas Widmer, 2012. "Visibility and facticity in policy diffusion: going beyond the prevailing binarity," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 45(4), pages 385-398, December.
    2. Woo, C.K. & Liu, Y. & Zarnikau, J. & Shiu, A. & Luo, X. & Kahrl, F., 2018. "Price elasticities of retail energy demands in the United States: New evidence from a panel of monthly data for 2001–2016," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 222(C), pages 460-474.
    3. Toshi H. Arimura, Shanjun Li, Richard G. Newell, and Karen Palmer, 2012. "Cost-Effectiveness of Electricity Energy Efficiency Programs," The Energy Journal, International Association for Energy Economics, vol. 0(Number 2).
    4. Ando, Amy Whritenour, 2001. "Economies of Scope in Endangered-Species Protection: Evidence from Interest-Group Behavior," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 41(3), pages 312-332, May.
    5. Sam, Abdoul G. & Zhang, Xiaodong, 2020. "Value relevance of the new environmental enforcement regime in China," Journal of Corporate Finance, Elsevier, vol. 62(C).
    6. Yuanyuan Huang & Lizhen Wei & Guiwen Liu & Wenjing Cui & Fangyun Xie & Xun Deng, 2022. "“Inspiring” Policy Transfer: Analysis of Urban Renewal in Four First-Tier Chinese Cities," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(1), pages 1-31, December.
    7. Marlene Kammerer & Chandreyee Namhata, 2018. "What drives the adoption of climate change mitigation policy? A dynamic network approach to policy diffusion," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 51(4), pages 477-513, December.
    8. Côme Billard & Anna Creti & Antoine Mandel, 2020. "How Environmental Policies Spread? A Network Approach to Diffusion in the U.S," Working Papers 2020.12, FAERE - French Association of Environmental and Resource Economists.
    9. Nico Heiden & Felix Strebel, 2012. "What about non-diffusion? The effect of competitiveness in policy-comparative diffusion research," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 45(4), pages 345-358, December.
    10. Aydin, Erdal, 2016. "Energy conservation in the residential sector : The role of policy and market forces," Other publications TiSEM b9cedba8-1310-4097-90fb-b, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    11. Brian Y. An & Adam Butz & Min-Kyeong Cha & Joshua L. Mitchell, 2023. "Following neighbors or regional leaders? Unpacking the effect of geographic proximity in local climate policy diffusion," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 56(4), pages 825-868, December.
    12. Aydin, Erdal & Brounen, Dirk, 2019. "The impact of policy on residential energy consumption," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 169(C), pages 115-129.
    13. Xiangning Chen & Yahua Wang, 2024. "Pioneer advantage or late-mover advantage? An examination of the interplay between policy diffusion sequence and policy outcomes," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 57(4), pages 851-873, December.
    14. Kitchens, Carl T. & Jaworski, Taylor, 2017. "Ownership and the price of residential electricity: Evidence from the United States, 1935–1940," Explorations in Economic History, Elsevier, vol. 64(C), pages 53-61.
    15. Schnellenbach, Jan & Schubert, Christian, 2015. "Behavioral political economy: A survey," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 40(PB), pages 395-417.
    16. Lars P. Feld & Horst Zimmermann & Thomas Döring, 2003. "Föderalismus, Dezentralität und Wirtschaftswachstum," Vierteljahrshefte zur Wirtschaftsforschung / Quarterly Journal of Economic Research, DIW Berlin, German Institute for Economic Research, vol. 72(3), pages 361-377.
    17. Noailly, Joëlle, 2012. "Improving the energy efficiency of buildings: The impact of environmental policy on technological innovation," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 34(3), pages 795-806.
    18. Çetin, Tamer & Yasin Eryigit, Kadir, 2013. "The economic effects of government regulation: Evidence from the New York taxicab market," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 25(C), pages 169-177.
    19. Shapiro, Jesse M., 2016. "Special interests and the media: Theory and an application to climate change," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 144(C), pages 91-108.
    20. Sophie Perrin & Thomas Bernauer, 2010. "International regime formation revisited: Explaining ratification behaviour with respect to long-range transboundary air pollution agreements in Europe," European Union Politics, , vol. 11(3), pages 405-426, September.

    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:eee:enepol:v:49:y:2012:i:c:p:182-191. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/enpol .

    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.