Carbon Prices and Fuel Switching: A Quasi-experiment in Electricity Markets

  • Ling HuangEmail author
  • Yishu Zhou


Within the Pennsylvania–New Jersey–Maryland electricity market, Delaware and Maryland participate in the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) but other states do not, providing a quasi-experimental setting to study the RGGI program. Using a difference-in-difference framework, we find that, overall the RGGI program led to 6.22 million short tons of CO2 reduction per year in Delaware and Maryland, or about 19.10% of the average total potential annual emissions in these two states from 2009 to 2013. Counterintuitively however, the reduction is mainly achieved through reduction of coal inputs and emission leakage instead of fuel switching from coal to natural gas or from fossil fuel (coal and natural gas) to non-fossil fuel.


Carbon emission market RGGI Fuel switching 



  1. Aichele R, Felbermayr G (2015) Kyoto and carbon leakage: an empirical analysis of the carbon content of bilateral trade. Rev Econ Stat 97(1):104–115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Babiker HM (2005) Climate change policy, market structure and carbon leakage. J Int Econ 65(2):421–445CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bovenberg AL, Lawrence HG, Gurney DJ (2005) Efficiency costs of meeting industry-distributional constraints under environmental permits and taxes. RAND J Econ 36:951–971Google Scholar
  4. Burniaux J-M, Martins JO (2012) Carbon leakages: a general equilibrium view. Econ Theory 49(2):473–495CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bushnell JB, Mansur ET, Saravia C (2008) Vertical arrangements, market structure, and competition: an analysis of restructured US electricity markets. Am Econ Rev 98(1):237–266CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. CCES (2013) Leveraging natural gas to reduce greenhouse GasEmissions. Technical report. Center for Climate and Energy SolutionsGoogle Scholar
  7. Chan HR, Fell H, Lange I, Li S (2017) Efficiency and environmental impacts of electricity restructuring on coal-fired power plants. J Environ Econ Manag 81:1–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cullen JA, Mansur ET (2014) Inferring carbon abatementcosts in electricity markets: a revealed preference approach using the shale revolution. Technical report. National Bureau of Economic ResearchGoogle Scholar
  9. Cullenward D, Wara M (2014) Carbon markets: effective policy? Science 344(6191):1460CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. EIA (2014) Levelized cost and levelized avoided cost of new generation resources in the annual energy outlook 2015. Technical report. U.S. Energy Information AdministrationGoogle Scholar
  11. Ellerman AD, Montero J-P (1998) The declining trend in sulfur dioxide emissions: implications for allowance prices. J Environ Econ Manag 36:26–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Ellerman AD, Joskow PL, Schmalensee R, Montero J-P, Bailey EM (2000) Markets for clean air: the US acid rain program. The Press Syndicate of the University of Cambridge, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Fabra N, Toro J (2005) Price wars and collusion in the spanish electricity market. Int J Ind Org 23(3–4):155–181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Fell H, Manilof P (2018) Leakage in regional environmental policy: the case of the regional greenhouse gas initiative. J Environ Econ Manag 87:1–23 (Working paper) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Fowlie M (2010) Emissions trading, electricity restructuring, and investment in pollution abatement. Am Econ Rev 100:837–869CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Galiani S, Gertler P, Schargrosky E (2005) Water for life: the impact of the privatization of water services. J Polit Econ 113:83–119CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Greenstone M, Hanna R (2014) Environmental regulations, air and water pollution, and infant mortality in India. Am Econ Rev 104(10):3038–3072CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hart SL, Ahuja G (1996) Does it pay to be green? an empirical examination of the relationship between emission reduction and firm performance. Bus Strategy Environ 5:30–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hitaj C, Stocking A (2014) Market efficiency and the U.S. market for sulfur dioxide allowances. Working paperGoogle Scholar
  20. Jha A (2015) Dynamic regulatory distortions: coal procurement at U.S power plants. Working paperGoogle Scholar
  21. Joskow PL, Schmalensee R, Bailey EM (1998) The market for sulfur dioxide emissions. Am Econ Rev 88(4):669–685Google Scholar
  22. Kossoy A, Guigon P (2012) State and trends of the carbon market 2012. Technical report. World BankGoogle Scholar
  23. Linn J, Mastrangelo E, Burtraw D (2014) Regulating greenhouse gases from coal power plants under the clean air act. J Assoc Environ Resour Econ 1(1/2):97–134Google Scholar
  24. McKibbin WJ, Morris AC, Wilcoxen PJ (2014) Pricing carbon in the US: a model-based analysis of power-sector-only approaches. Resour Energy Econ 36(1):130–150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Murray BC, Maniloff PT (2015) Why have greenhouse emissions in RGGI states declined? an econometric attribution to economic, energy market, and policy factors. Energy Econ 51:581–589CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. NACAA (2015) Implementing EPA’s clean power plan: a menu of options. Technical report. National Association of Clean Air AgenciesGoogle Scholar
  27. Newell RG, Pizer WA, Raimi D (2014) Carbon market lessons and global policy outlook. Science 343:1316–1317CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. RGGI (2014). CO2 emissions from electricity generation and imports in the regional greenhouse gas initiative: 2012 monitoring report. Technical report. Regional Greenhouse Gas InitiativeGoogle Scholar
  29. Rubin JD (1996) A model of intertemporal emission trading, banking, and borrowing. J Environ Econ Manag 31(3):269–286CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Smale R, Hartley M, Hepburn C, Ward J, Grubb M (2006) The impact of CO2 emissions trading on firm profits and market prices. Clim Policy 6(1):31–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Stavins RN (1998) What can we learn from the grand policy experiment? lessons from SO2 allowance trading. J Econ Perspect 12(3):69–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Stavins RN (2003) Chapter 9—experience with market-based environmental policy instruments. Handb Environ Econ 1:355–435CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Sterner T (2003) Policy instruments for environmental and natural resource management. RFF Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  34. Swinton JR (1998) At what cost do we reduce pollution? shadow prices of SO2 emissions. Energy J 19:63–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Wolak FA (2000) An empirical analysis of the impact of hedge contracts on bidding behavior in a competitive electricity market. Int Econ J 14(2):1–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of EconomicsUniversity of ConnecticutStorrsUSA
  2. 2.Department of EconomicsMissouri University of Science and TechnologyRollaUSA

Personalised recommendations