IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/zbw/darddp/219.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Carbon dioxide emission standards for US power plants: An efficiency analysis perspective

Author

Listed:
  • Hampf, Benjamin
  • Rødseth, Kenneth Løvold

Abstract

On June 25, 2013, President Obama announced his plan to introduce carbon dioxide emission standards for electricity generation. This paper proposes an efficiency analysis approach that addresses which mission rates (and standards) would be feasible if the existing generating units adopt best practices. A new efficiency measure is introduced and further decomposed to identify different sources' contributions to emission rate improvements. Estimating two Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA) models - the well-known joint production model and the new materials balance model - on a dataset consisting of 160 bituminous-fired generating units, we find that the average generating unit's electricity-to-carbon dioxide ratio is 15.3 percent below the corresponding best-practice ratio. Further examinations reveal that this discrepancy can largely be attributed to non-discretionary factors and not to managerial inefficiency. Moreover, even if the best practice ratios could be implemented, the generating units would not be able to comply with the EPA's recently proposed carbon dioxide standard.

Suggested Citation

  • Hampf, Benjamin & Rødseth, Kenneth Løvold, 2014. "Carbon dioxide emission standards for US power plants: An efficiency analysis perspective," Darmstadt Discussion Papers in Economics 219, Darmstadt University of Technology, Department of Law and Economics.
    • Handle: RePEc:zbw:darddp:219
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/107659/1/783727313.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Kenneth Rødseth & Eirik Romstad, 2014. "Environmental Regulations, Producer Responses, and Secondary Benefits: Carbon Dioxide Reductions Under the Acid Rain Program," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 59(1), pages 111-135, September.
    2. Hoang, Viet-Ngu & Coelli, Tim, 2011. "Measurement of agricultural total factor productivity growth incorporating environmental factors: A nutrients balance approach," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 62(3), pages 462-474.
    3. Murty, Sushama & Russell, R. Robert, 2010. "On modeling pollution-generating technologies," The Warwick Economics Research Paper Series (TWERPS) 931, University of Warwick, Department of Economics.
    4. Simar, Léopold & Vanhems, Anne & Wilson, Paul W., 2012. "Statistical inference for DEA estimators of directional distances," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 220(3), pages 853-864.
    5. Coggins, Jay S. & Swinton, John R., 1996. "The Price of Pollution: A Dual Approach to Valuing SO2Allowances," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 30(1), pages 58-72, January.
    6. Fare, Rolf & Grosskopf, Shawna & Tyteca, Daniel, 1996. "An activity analysis model of the environmental performance of firms--application to fossil-fuel-fired electric utilities," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 18(2), pages 161-175, August.
    7. Stephen P. Holland, 2010. "Spillovers from Climate Policy," NBER Working Papers 16158, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    8. Léopold Simar & Paul W. Wilson, 1998. "Sensitivity Analysis of Efficiency Scores: How to Bootstrap in Nonparametric Frontier Models," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 44(1), pages 49-61, January.
    9. Rolf Färe & Shawna Grosskopf, 2003. "Nonparametric Productivity Analysis with Undesirable Outputs: Comment," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 85(4), pages 1070-1074.
    10. Ellerman, A.D., 2003. "Lessons form Phase 2 Compliance with the US Acid Rain Program," Cambridge Working Papers in Economics 0325, Faculty of Economics, University of Cambridge.
    11. Fare, Rolf, 1989. "Multilateral Productivity Comparisons When Some Outputs Are Undesirable: A Nonparametric Approach," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 71(1), pages 90-98, February.
    12. Zhou, P. & Ang, B.W. & Poh, K.L., 2008. "Measuring environmental performance under different environmental DEA technologies," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 30(1), pages 1-14, January.
    13. Mekaroonreung, Maethee & Johnson, Andrew L., 2012. "Estimating the shadow prices of SO2 and NOx for U.S. coal power plants: A convex nonparametric least squares approach," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 34(3), pages 723-732.
    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. Dakpo, K & Jeanneaux, Philippe & Latruffee, Laure, 2015. "Empirical comparison of pollution generating technologies in nonparametric modelling: The case of greenhouse gas emissions in French sheep meat farming," 2015 Conference, August 9-14, 2015, Milan, Italy 211557, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    2. Jeanneaux, Philippe & Latruffe, Laure, 2016. "Modelling pollution-generating technologies in performance benchmarking: Recent developments, limits and future prospects in the nonparametric frameworkAuthor-Name: Dakpo, K. Hervé," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 250(2), pages 347-359.
    3. K Hervé Dakpo & Philippe Jeanneaux & Laure Latruffe, 2014. "Inclusion of undesirable outputs in production technology modeling:The case of greenhouse gas emissions in French meat sheep farming," Working Papers SMART 14-08, INRAE UMR SMART.
    4. Lee, Chia-Yen, 2018. "Mixed-strategy Nash equilibrium in data envelopment analysis," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 266(3), pages 1013-1024.
    5. Roshdi, Israfil & Hasannasab, Maryam & Margaritis, Dimitris & Rouse, Paul, 2018. "Generalised weak disposability and efficiency measurement in environmental technologies," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 266(3), pages 1000-1012.
    6. Duan, Na & Guo, Jun-Peng & Xie, Bai-Chen, 2016. "Is there a difference between the energy and CO2 emission performance for China’s thermal power industry? A bootstrapped directional distance function approach," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 162(C), pages 1552-1563.

    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. Hampf, Benjamin & Rødseth, Kenneth Løvold, 2015. "Carbon dioxide emission standards for U.S. power plants: An efficiency analysis perspective," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 50(C), pages 140-153.
    2. Jeanneaux, Philippe & Latruffe, Laure, 2016. "Modelling pollution-generating technologies in performance benchmarking: Recent developments, limits and future prospects in the nonparametric frameworkAuthor-Name: Dakpo, K. Hervé," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 250(2), pages 347-359.
    3. Leleu, Hervé, 2013. "Shadow pricing of undesirable outputs in nonparametric analysis," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 231(2), pages 474-480.
    4. Hampf, Benjamin & Rødseth, Kenneth Løvold, 2019. "Environmental efficiency measurement with heterogeneous input quality: A nonparametric analysis of U.S. power plants," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 81(C), pages 610-625.
    5. Sueyoshi, Toshiyuki & Yuan, Yan & Goto, Mika, 2017. "A literature study for DEA applied to energy and environment," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 62(C), pages 104-124.
    6. Kenneth Løvold Rødseth, 2017. "Axioms of a Polluting Technology: A Materials Balance Approach," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 67(1), pages 1-22, May.
    7. Gómez-Calvet, Roberto & Conesa, David & Gómez-Calvet, Ana Rosa & Tortosa-Ausina, Emili, 2014. "Energy efficiency in the European Union: What can be learned from the joint application of directional distance functions and slacks-based measures?," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 132(C), pages 137-154.
    8. Hampf, Benjamin, 2015. "Estimating the materials balance condition: A stochastic frontier approach," Darmstadt Discussion Papers in Economics 226, Darmstadt University of Technology, Department of Law and Economics.
    9. Hoang, Viet-Ngu & Rao, D.S. Prasada, 2010. "Measuring and decomposing sustainable efficiency in agricultural production: A cumulative exergy balance approach," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(9), pages 1765-1776, July.
    10. Dakpo, K Hervé, 2016. "On modeling pollution-generating technologies: a new formulation of the by-production approach," Working Papers 245191, Institut National de la recherche Agronomique (INRA), Departement Sciences Sociales, Agriculture et Alimentation, Espace et Environnement (SAE2).
    11. Ke Wang & Yujiao Xian & Chia-Yen Lee & Yi-Ming Wei & Zhimin Huang, 2019. "On selecting directions for directional distance functions in a non-parametric framework: a review," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 278(1), pages 43-76, July.
    12. Halkos, George & Tzeremes, Nickolaos, 2011. "Towards a culture of environmental efficiency: An application of conditional partial nonparametric frontiers," MPRA Paper 28690, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    13. Lee, Chia-Yen, 2018. "Mixed-strategy Nash equilibrium in data envelopment analysis," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 266(3), pages 1013-1024.
    14. Dakpo, Hervé K & Jeanneaux, Philippe & Latruffe, Laure, 2014. "Inclusion of undesirable outputs in production technology modeling: The case of greenhouse gas emissions in French meat sheep farming," Working Papers 207806, Institut National de la recherche Agronomique (INRA), Departement Sciences Sociales, Agriculture et Alimentation, Espace et Environnement (SAE2).
    15. Skevas, Theodoros & Lansink, Alfons Oude & Stefanou, Spiro E., 2012. "Measuring technical efficiency in the presence of pesticide spillovers and production uncertainty: The case of Dutch arable farms," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 223(2), pages 550-559.
    16. Kenneth Løvold Rødseth, 2017. "Environmental regulations and allocative efficiency: application to coal-to-gas substitution in the U.S. electricity sector," Journal of Productivity Analysis, Springer, vol. 47(2), pages 129-142, April.
    17. Tim Coelli & Ludwig Lauwers & Guido Huylenbroeck, 2007. "Environmental efficiency measurement and the materials balance condition," Journal of Productivity Analysis, Springer, vol. 28(1), pages 3-12, October.
    18. K Hervé Dakpo, 2016. "On modeling pollution-generating technologies: a new formulation of the by-production approach," Working Papers SMART 16-06, INRAE UMR SMART.
    19. Tsolas, Ioannis E., 2011. "Performance assessment of mining operations using nonparametric production analysis: A bootstrapping approach in DEA," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(2), pages 159-167, June.
    20. George Halkos & Nickolaos Tzeremes, 2013. "National culture and eco-efficiency: an application of conditional partial nonparametric frontiers," Environmental Economics and Policy Studies, Springer;Society for Environmental Economics and Policy Studies - SEEPS, vol. 15(4), pages 423-441, October.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Emission standards; Carbon dioxide emissions; Materials balance condition; Electricity generation; Weak G-disposability; Data Envelopment Analysis;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • Q53 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Air Pollution; Water Pollution; Noise; Hazardous Waste; Solid Waste; Recycling
    • Q48 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Energy - - - Government Policy
    • D24 - Microeconomics - - Production and Organizations - - - Production; Cost; Capital; Capital, Total Factor, and Multifactor Productivity; Capacity

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:zbw:darddp:219. 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: ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/vwthdde.html .

    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.