CREAT: Census Research Exploration and Analysis Tool

Papers Containing Keywords(s): 'costs pollution'

The following papers contain search terms that you selected. From the papers listed below, you can navigate to the PDF, the profile page for that working paper, or see all the working papers written by an author. You can also explore tags, keywords, and authors that occur frequently within these papers.
Click here to search again

Frequently Occurring Concepts within this Search

Viewing papers 1 through 10 of 11


  • Working Paper

    Is Air Pollution Regulation Too Lenient? Evidence from US Offset Markets

    June 2023

    Working Paper Number:

    CES-23-27R

    This paper describes a framework to estimate the marginal cost of air pollution regulation, then applies it to assess whether a large set of existing U.S. air pollution regulations have marginal benefits exceeding their marginal costs. The approach utilizes an important yet under-explored provision of the Clean Air Act requiring new or expanding plants to pay incumbents in the same or neighboring counties to reduce their pollution emissions. These "offset" regulations create several hundred decentralized, local markets for pollution that differ by pollutant and location. Economic theory and empirical tests suggest these market prices reveal information about the marginal cost of abatement for new or expanding firms. We compare estimates of the marginal benefit of abatement from leading air quality models to offset prices. We find that, for most regions and pollutants, the marginal benefits of pollution abatement exceed mean offset prices more than ten-fold. In at least one market, however, estimated marginal benefits are below offset prices.
    View Full Paper PDF
  • Working Paper

    ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION AND INDUSTRY EMPLOYMENT: A REASSESSMENT

    July 2013

    Working Paper Number:

    CES-13-36

    This paper examines the impact of environmental regulation on industry employment, using a structural model based on data from the Census Bureau's Pollution Abatement Costs and Expenditures Survey. This model was developed in an earlier paper (Morgenstern, Pizer, and Shih (2002) - MPS). We extend MPS by examining additional industries and additional years. We find widely varying estimates across industries, including many implausibly large positive employment effects. We explore several possible explanations for these results, without reaching a satisfactory conclusion. Our results call into question the frequent use of the average impacts estimated by MPS as a basis for calculating the quantitative impacts of new environmental regulations on employment.
    View Full Paper PDF
  • Working Paper

    Do Environmental Regulations Disproportionately Affect Small Businesses? Evidence from the Pollution Abatement Costs and Expenditures Survey

    September 2012

    Working Paper Number:

    CES-12-25R

    It remains an open question whether the impact of environmental regulations differs by the size of the business. Such differences might be expected because of statutory, enforcement, and/or compliance asymmetries. Here, we consider the net effect of these three asymmetries, by estimating the relationship between plant size and pollution abatement expenditures, using establishment-level data on U.S. manufacturers from the Census Bureau's Pollution Abatement Costs and Expenditures (PACE) surveys of 1974-1982, 1984-1986, 1988-1994, 1999, and 2005, combined with data from the Annual Survey of Manufactures and Census of Manufactures. We model establishments' PAOC intensity - that is, their pollution abatement operating costs per unit of economic activity - as a function of establishment size, industry, and year. Our results show that PAOC intensity increases with establishment size. We also find that larger firms spend more per unit of output than do smaller firms.
    View Full Paper PDF
  • Working Paper

    Issues and Challenges in Measuring Environmental Expenditures by U.S. Manufacturing: The Redevelopment of the PACE Survey

    July 2007

    Working Paper Number:

    CES-07-20

    The Pollution Abatement Costs and Expenditures (PACE) survey is the most comprehensive source of information on U.S. manufacturing's capital expenditures and operating costs associated with pollution abatement. In 2003, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency began a significant initiative to redevelop the survey, guided by the advice of a multi-disciplinary workgroup consisting of economists, engineers, survey design experts, and experienced data users, in addition to incorporating feedback from key manufacturing industries. This paper describes some of these redevelopment efforts. Issues discussed include the approach to developing the new survey instrument, methods used to evaluate (and improve) its performance, innovations in sampling, and the special development and role of outside expertise. The completely redesigned PACE survey was first administered in early 2006.
    View Full Paper PDF
  • Working Paper

    A Change of PACE: Comparing the 1994 and 1999 Pollution Abatement Costs and Expenditures Surveys

    July 2004

    Working Paper Number:

    CES-04-09

    Since 1973, the Pollution Abatement Costs and Expenditures (PACE) survey has been the principle source of information on U.S. industries' capital expenditure and operating costs associated with pollution abatement efforts. The PACE survey was discontinued after 1994 and then revived in 1999 for one year ' in a substantially different form than the preceding surveys however, making longitudinal analysis quite difficult. Conceptual differences include matters as fundamental as the scope and meaning of pollution abatement as well as the definition of operating costs. A number of other critical changes also exist, including ones of industrial coverage and sample selection. This paper is the first comprehensive effort to document the many changes in the PACE survey across these years and to provide a detailed guide for researchers and policymakers who wish to compare the 1994 and 1999 data. Overall, we find a 27% decline in environmental spending by the manufacturing sector between these two years, though there appears to be significant heterogeneity across industries. We discuss potential reasons for this dramatic decline, focusing mainly on issues of survey methodology and design. This paper should help inform current efforts to redevelop the PACE survey and re-establish it as a regular, annual survey.
    View Full Paper PDF
  • Working Paper

    Pollution Abatement Expenditures and Plant-Level Productivity: A Production Function Approach

    August 2003

    Working Paper Number:

    CES-03-16

    In this paper, we investigate the impact of environmental regulation on productivity using a Cobb-Douglas production function framework. Estimating the effects of regulation on productivity can be done with a top-down approach using data for broad sectors of the economy, or a more disaggregated bottom-up approach. Our study follows a bottom-up approach using data from the U.S. paper, steel, and oil industries. We measure environmental regulation using plant-level information on pollution abatement expenditures, which allows us to distinguish between productive and abatement expenditures on each input. We use annual Census Bureau information (1979-1990) on output, labor, capital, and material inputs, and pollution abatement operating costs and capital expenditures for 68 pulp and paper mills, 55 oil refineries, and 27 steel mills. We find that pollution abatement inputs generally contribute little or nothing to output, especially when compared to their '''productive''' equivalents. Adding an aggregate pollution abatement cost measure to a Cobb-Douglas production function, we find that a $1 increase in pollution abatement costs leads to an estimated productivity decline of $3.11, $1.80, and $5.98 in the paper, oil, and steel industries respectively. These findings imply substantial differences across industries in their sensitivity to pollution abatement costs, arguing for a bottom-up approach that can capture these differences. Further differentiating plants by their production technology, we find substantial differences in the impact of pollution abatement costs even within industries, with higher marginal costs at plants with more polluting technologies. Finally, in all three industries, plants concentrating on change-in-production-process abatement techniques have higher productivity than plants doing predominantly end-of-line abatement, but also seem to be more affected by pollution abatement operating costs. Overall, our results point to the importance using detailed, disaggregated analyses, even below the industry level, when trying to model the costs of forcing plants to reduce their emissions.
    View Full Paper PDF
  • Working Paper

    What Determines Environmental Performance at Paper Mills? The Roles of Abatement Spending, Regulation, and Efficiency

    April 2003

    Working Paper Number:

    CES-03-10

    This paper examines the determinants of environmental performance at paper mills, measured by air pollution emissions per unit of output. We consider differences across plants in air pollution abatement expenditures, local regulatory stringency, and productive efficiency. Emissions are significantly lower in plants with a larger air pollution abatement capital stock: a 10 percent increase in abatement capital stock appears to reduce emissions by 6.9 percent. This translates into a sizable social return: one dollar of abatement capital stock is estimated to provide and annual return of about 75 cents in pollution reduction benefits. Local regulatory stringency and productive efficiency also matter: plants in non-attainment counties have 43 percent lower emissions and plants with 10 percent higher productivity have 2.5 percent lower emissions. For pollution abatement operating costs we find (puzzlingly) positive, but always insignificant, coefficients.
    View Full Paper PDF
  • Working Paper

    Plant Vintage, Technology, and Environmental Regulation

    September 2001

    Working Paper Number:

    CES-01-08

    Does the impact of environmental regulation differ by plant vintage and technology? We answer this question using annual Census Bureau information on 116 pulp and paper mills' vintage, technology, productivity, and pollution abatement operating costs for 1979-1990. We find a significant negative relationship between pollution abatement costs and productivity levels. This is due almost entirely to integrated mills (those incorporating a pulping process), where a one standard deviation increase in abatement costs is predicted to reduce productivity by 5.4 percent. Older plants appear to have lower productivity but are less sensitive to abatement costs, perhaps due to 'grandfathering' of regulations. Mills which undergo renovations are also less sensitive to abatement costs, although these vintage and renovation results are not generally significant. We find similar results using a log-linear version of a three input Cobb-Douglas production function in which we include our technology, vintage, and renovation variables. Sample calculations of the impact of pollution abatement on productivity show the importance of allowing for differences based on plant technology. In a model incorporating technology interactions we estimate that total pollution abatement costs reduce productivity levels by an average of 4.7 percent across all the plants. The comparable estimate without technology interactions is 3.3 percent, approximately 30% lower.
    View Full Paper PDF
  • Working Paper

    Costs of Air Quality Regulation

    July 1999

    Working Paper Number:

    CES-99-09

    This paper explores some costs associated with environmental regulation. We focus on regulation pertaining to ground-level- ozone (O) and its effects on two manufacturing industries - industrial organic chemicals (SIC 2865-9) and miscellaneous plastic products (SIC 308). Both are major emitters of volatile organic compounds (VOC) and nitrogen oxides (NO), the chemical precursors to ozone. Using plant-level data from the Census Bureau's Longitudinal Research Database (LRD), we examine the effects of regulation on the timing and magnitudes of investments by firms and on the impact it has had on their operating costs. As an alternative way to assess costs, we also employ plant-level data from the Pollution Abatement Costs and Expenditures (PACE) survey. Analyses employing average total costs functions reveal that plants' production costs are indeed higher in (heavily-regulated) non-attainment areas relative to (less-regulated) attainment areas. This is particularly true for younger plants, consistent with the notion that regulation is most burdensome for new (rather existing) plants. Cost estimates using PACE data generally reveal lower costs. We also find that new heavily-regulated plants start out much larger than less-regulated plants, but then do not invest as much. Among other things, this highlights the substantial fixed costs involved in obtaining expansion permits. We also discuss reasons why plants may restrict their size.
    View Full Paper PDF
  • Working Paper

    Evaluation And Use Of The Pollution Abatement Costs And Expenditures Survey Micro Data

    January 1996

    Working Paper Number:

    CES-96-01

    The Pollution Abatement Costs and Expenditures Survey (PACE) is an annual survey of manufacturing establishment=s operating costs and capital investment expenditures for pollution abatement purposes. This paper provides a description and evaluation of the PACE micro data available at the Center for Economic Studies (CES). The paper provides an overview of the survey, how the sample is drawn, how the survey questionnaire has changed over time, an assessment of the data quality, and suggestions for the use of the data, as well as its limitations. Also included are suggestions for modifying the survey design and data processing procedures. The PACE data series, linked to the economic data in CES= Longitudinal Research Database (LRD), covers the years 1979-1993, excluding 1983 and 1987.
    View Full Paper PDF