IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/enreec/v3y1993i5p437-455.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Technological change under residual risk regulation: The case of coke ovens in the U.S. steel industry

Author

Listed:
  • Timothy Considine
  • Graham Davis
  • Donita Marakovits

Abstract

An engineering-economic model is used within a dynamic setting to determine the least cost mix of investment and import activities as the U.S. steel industry faces successively tighter controls on coke oven emissions over the next 10 years. In response to Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) standards proposed for 1995, U.S. steel producers would likely export their toxic pollution by importing 6 million tons of coke per year. About 4 million tons of coke oven capacity is retrofit and about 1 million tons of annual coke consumption is replaced by new iron technologies, such as Corex. The Lowest Achievable Emission Rate (LAER) standards proposed for 1998 roughly double the coke oven retirements estimated to occur under MACT. Coke imports also are substantial but are no higher than under MACT because the additional time allows the industry to invest in more coke-saving blast furnaces and in new less toxic coke-making technologies, such as the Jewell process. The LAER standards in conjunction with higher capital costs, however, force coke imports to more than 8 million tons per year and sharply increase imports of semi-finished steel. Such a situation could exacerbate existing disputes on international steel trade. Copyright Kluwer Academic Publishers 1993

Suggested Citation

  • Timothy Considine & Graham Davis & Donita Marakovits, 1993. "Technological change under residual risk regulation: The case of coke ovens in the U.S. steel industry," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 3(5), pages 437-455, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:kap:enreec:v:3:y:1993:i:5:p:437-455
    DOI: 10.1007/BF00310247
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1007/BF00310247
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/BF00310247?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. Dowlatabadi, Hadi & Toman, Michael, 1990. "Technology choice in electricity generation under different market conditions," Resources and Energy, Elsevier, vol. 12(3), pages 231-251, September.
    2. Milliman, Scott R. & Prince, Raymond, 1989. "Firm incentives to promote technological change in pollution control," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 17(3), pages 247-265, November.
    3. Ann Fisher & Lauraine G. Chestnut & Daniel M. Violette, 1989. "The value of reducing risks of death: A note on new evidence," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 8(1), pages 88-100.
    4. Karlson, Stephen H, 1986. "Adoption of Competing Inventions by United States Steel Producers," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 68(3), pages 415-422, August.
    5. Downing, Paul B. & White, Lawrence J., 1986. "Innovation in pollution control," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 13(1), pages 18-29, March.
    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. Lange, Ian, 2010. "Steam versus coking coal and the acid rain program," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(3), pages 1251-1254, 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. Revesz, Richard & Stavins, Robert, 2004. "Environmental Law and Policy," Working Paper Series rwp04-023, Harvard University, John F. Kennedy School of Government.
    2. Rabah Amir & Adriana Gama & Katarzyna Werner, 2018. "On Environmental Regulation of Oligopoly Markets: Emission versus Performance Standards," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 70(1), pages 147-167, May.
    3. Stavins, Robert, 2001. "Lessons From the American Experiment With Market-Based Environmental Policies," RFF Working Paper Series dp-01-53, Resources for the Future.
    4. 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.
    5. Stavins, Robert, 2004. "Environmental Economics," RFF Working Paper Series dp-04-54, Resources for the Future.
    6. SANIN, Maria Eugenia & ZANAJ, Skerdilajda, 2007. "Environmental innovation under Cournot competition," LIDAM Discussion Papers CORE 2007050, Université catholique de Louvain, Center for Operations Research and Econometrics (CORE).
    7. Yasushi Ito, 2012. "The effects of carbon/energy taxes on R&D expenditure in Sweden," Chapters, in: Larry Kreiser & Ana Yábar Sterling & Pedro Herrera & Janet E. Milne & Hope Ashiabor (ed.), Carbon Pricing, Growth and the Environment, chapter 14, pages 220-229, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    8. Requate, Till, 1998. "Incentives to innovate under emission taxes and tradeable permits," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 14(1), pages 139-165, February.
    9. Carlo Carraro & Domenico Siniscalco, 1992. "Environmental innovation policy and international competition," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 2(2), pages 183-200, March.
    10. 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.
    11. Daigee Shaw & Ming-Feng Hung, 2001. "Evolution and evaluation of air pollution control policy in Taiwan," Environmental Economics and Policy Studies, Springer;Society for Environmental Economics and Policy Studies - SEEPS, vol. 4(3), pages 141-166, September.
    12. Cristian Sima & Gheorghe Marinescu, 2012. "Scarcity Natural Resources and the History of their Exploitation," International Journal of Academic Research in Accounting, Finance and Management Sciences, Human Resource Management Academic Research Society, International Journal of Academic Research in Accounting, Finance and Management Sciences, vol. 2(Special 1), pages 259-266, May.
    13. Heindl, Peter, 2012. "Transaction costs and tradable permits: Empirical evidence from the EU emissions trading scheme," ZEW Discussion Papers 12-021, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.
    14. Allen Bellas & Duane Finney & Ian Lange, 2013. "Technological Advance in Cooling Systems at U.S. Power Plants," Economics of Energy & Environmental Policy, International Association for Energy Economics, vol. 0(Number 2).
    15. Wood, Peter J. & Heindl, Peter & Jotzo, Frank & Löschel, Andreas, 2013. "Linking price and quantity pollution controls under uncertainty," ZEW Discussion Papers 13-025, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.
    16. Erik Verhoef & Peter Nijkamp, 1997. "The Adoption of Energy Efficiency Enhancing Technologies," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 97-077/3, Tinbergen Institute.
    17. Luca Lambertini & George Leitmann, 2013. "Market Power, Resource Extraction and Pollution: Some Paradoxes and a Unified View," Dynamic Modeling and Econometrics in Economics and Finance, in: Jesús Crespo Cuaresma & Tapio Palokangas & Alexander Tarasyev (ed.), Green Growth and Sustainable Development, edition 127, pages 143-164, Springer.
    18. Carmen Arguedas & Eva Camacho & José Zofío, 2010. "Environmental Policy Instruments: Technology Adoption Incentives with Imperfect Compliance," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 47(2), pages 261-274, October.
    19. Cropper, Maureen L & Oates, Wallace E, 1992. "Environmental Economics: A Survey," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 30(2), pages 675-740, June.
    20. Parry, Ian W H, 1998. "Pollution Regulation and the Efficiency Gains from Technological Innovation," Journal of Regulatory Economics, Springer, vol. 14(3), pages 229-254, November.

    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:kap:enreec:v:3:y:1993:i:5:p:437-455. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.