CREAT: Census Research Exploration and Analysis Tool

Papers Containing Tag(s): 'Environmental Protection Agency'

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

Annual Survey of Manufactures - 28

Center for Economic Studies - 27

Census of Manufactures - 23

Pollution Abatement Costs and Expenditures - 23

National Ambient Air Quality Standards - 19

North American Industry Classification System - 18

Longitudinal Research Database - 17

Standard Industrial Classification - 16

National Science Foundation - 15

Ordinary Least Squares - 15

Toxics Release Inventory - 14

National Bureau of Economic Research - 14

Longitudinal Business Database - 13

Energy Information Administration - 13

Total Factor Productivity - 12

Special Sworn Status - 12

Chicago Census Research Data Center - 12

American Community Survey - 11

Census Bureau Disclosure Review Board - 11

Bureau of Economic Analysis - 11

Manufacturing Energy Consumption Survey - 11

PAOC - 11

Census of Manufacturing Firms - 9

Federal Statistical Research Data Center - 9

Department of Energy - 9

Internal Revenue Service - 8

Cobb-Douglas - 8

Bureau of Labor Statistics - 8

Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development - 7

North American Free Trade Agreement - 7

General Accounting Office - 6

University of Chicago - 6

Disclosure Review Board - 6

CAAA - 6

Standard Statistical Establishment List - 6

Census Bureau Longitudinal Business Database - 6

Supreme Court - 5

Decennial Census - 5

Protected Identification Key - 5

UC Berkeley - 5

Economic Census - 5

Longitudinal Employer Household Dynamics - 5

Journal of Economic Literature - 5

Research Data Center - 5

Code of Federal Regulations - 5

Boston Research Data Center - 5

Department of Economics - 4

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention - 4

National Center for Health Statistics - 4

State Energy Data System - 4

Federal Register - 4

American Economic Association - 4

New York Times - 4

Census Bureau Center for Economic Studies - 4

Schools Under Registration Review - 4

Small Business Administration - 3

Department of Health and Human Services - 3

W-2 - 3

Columbia University - 3

National Research Council - 3

American Housing Survey - 3

Michigan Institute for Teaching and Research in Economics - 3

Social Security Administration - 3

United States Census Bureau - 3

Establishment Micro Properties - 3

Geographic Information Systems - 3

Current Population Survey - 3

Social Security Number - 3

County Business Patterns - 3

Service Annual Survey - 3

Alfred P Sloan Foundation - 3

Metropolitan Statistical Area - 3

emission - 44

pollution - 44

epa - 40

environmental - 40

pollutant - 34

regulation - 30

expenditure - 29

polluting - 29

econometric - 26

regulatory - 24

production - 18

consumption - 16

manufacturing - 15

efficiency - 15

environmental regulation - 15

produce - 14

cost - 14

pollution abatement - 14

industrial - 12

demand - 12

concentration - 11

estimating - 11

costs pollution - 11

refinery - 11

abatement expenditures - 11

economist - 10

manufacturer - 10

polluting industries - 10

market - 9

impact - 9

economically - 8

pollution exposure - 8

estimates pollution - 8

fuel - 8

depreciation - 8

regulation productivity - 8

environmental expenditures - 8

chemical - 7

pollution regulation - 7

spending - 7

regulated - 7

expense - 7

exposure - 6

macroeconomic - 6

plant productivity - 6

electricity - 6

energy - 6

renewable - 6

housing - 6

socioeconomic - 5

population - 5

company - 5

estimation - 5

gdp - 5

utility - 5

recession - 5

productive - 5

export - 5

spillover - 5

disadvantaged - 4

tax - 4

energy prices - 4

electricity prices - 4

mortality - 4

sector - 4

endogeneity - 4

generation - 4

efficient - 4

development - 4

subsidy - 4

revenue - 4

residential - 4

house - 4

homeowner - 4

accounting - 4

rent - 4

state - 4

plant - 4

area - 3

disparity - 3

industry concentration - 3

pricing - 3

energy efficiency - 3

econometrically - 3

regression - 3

rate - 3

health - 3

heterogeneity - 3

productivity plants - 3

estimator - 3

growth - 3

enterprise - 3

survey - 3

consumer - 3

econometrician - 3

corporation - 3

tariff - 3

factory - 3

payroll - 3

labor - 3

unobserved - 3

industries estimate - 3

neighborhood - 3

home - 3

amenity - 3

renter - 3

metropolitan - 3

budget - 3

compliance - 3

Viewing papers 51 through 60 of 64


  • Working Paper

    Estimating the Hidden Costs of Environmental Regulation

    May 2002

    Working Paper Number:

    CES-02-10

    This paper examines whether accounting systems identify all the costs of environmental regulation. We estimate the relation between the 'visible' cost of regulatory compliance, i.e., costs that are correctly classified in firms' accounting systems, and 'hidden' costs i.e., costs that are embedded in other accounts. We use plant-level data from 55 steel mills to estimate hidden costs, and we follow up with structured interviews of corporate-level managers and plant-level accountants. Empirical results show that a $1 increase in the visible cost of environmental regulation is associated with an increase in total cost (at the margin) of $10-11, of which $9-10 are hidden in other accounts. The findings suggest that inappropriate identification and accumulation of the costs of environmental compliance are likely to lead to distorted costs in firms subject to environmental regulation.
    View Full Paper PDF
  • Working Paper

    When Do Firms Shift Production Across States to Avoid Environmental Regulation?

    December 2001

    Working Paper Number:

    CES-01-18

    This paper examines whether a firm's allocation of production across its plants responds to the environmental regulation faced by those plants, as measured by differences in stringency across states. We also test whether sensitivity to regulation differs based on differences across firms in compliance behavior and/or differences across states in industry importance and concentration. We use Census data for the paper and oil industries to measure the share of each state in each firm's production during the 1967-1992 period. We use several measures of state environmental stringency and test for interactions between regulatory stringency and three factors: the firm's overall compliance rate, a Herfindahl index of industry concentration in the state, and the industry's share in the state economy. We find significant results for the paper industry: firms allocate smaller production shares to states with stricter regulations. This impact is concentrated among firms with low compliance rates, suggesting that low compliance rates are due to high compliance costs, not low compliance benefits. The interactions between stringency and industry characteristics are less often significant, but suggest that the paper industry is more affected by regulation where it is larger or more concentrated. Our results are weaker for the oil industry, reflecting either less opportunity to shift production across states or a greater impact of environmental regulation on paper mills.
    View Full Paper PDF
  • Working Paper

    Air Pollution Abatement Costs Under the Clean Air Act: Evidence from the PACE Survey

    December 2001

    Authors: Randy Becker

    Working Paper Number:

    CES-01-12

    This paper uses establishment-level data from the U.S. Census Bureau's Pollution Abatement Costs and Expenditures (PACE) survey to investigate the effects of air quality regulation on the air pollution abatement capital expenditures and operating costs of manufacturing plants from 1979-1988. Results, based on some 90,000 observations, show that heavy emitters of the 'criteria' air pollutants (covered under the Clean Air Act) had significantly larger APA costs, and those subject to greater 'local' regulation (due to county NAAQS non-attainment) had expenditures that were greater still. The local regulation of a particular air pollutant generally resulted in hundreds of thousands of dollars (or more) of additional costs, with larger establishments and capital expenditures disproportionately affected. Federal and state environmental standards appear to have played a notable role, particularly in industries producing chemicals, petroleum, primary metals, and nonmetallic minerals. The findings of this paper support those of several recent studies.
    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

    Manufacturing Plant Location: Does State Pollution Regulation Matter?

    July 1997

    Authors: Wayne B Gray

    Working Paper Number:

    CES-97-08

    This paper tests whether differences across states in pollution regulation affect the location of manufacturing activity in the U.S. Plant-level data from the Census Bureau's Longitudinal Research Database is used to identify new plant births in each state over the 1963-1987 period. This is combined with several measures of state regulatory intensity, including business pollution abatement spending, regulatory enforcement activity, congressional pro-environment voting, and an index of state environmental laws. A significant connection is found: states with more stringent environmental regulation have fewer new manufacturing plants. These results persist across a variety of econometric specifications, and the strongest regulatory coefficients are similar in magnitude to thos4e on other factors expected to influence location, such as unionization rates. However, a subsample of high-pollution industries, which might have been expected to show much larger impacts, gets similar coefficients. This raises the possibility that differences between states other than environmental regulation might be influencing the results.
    View Full Paper PDF
  • Working Paper

    The Silver Lining Of Rust Belt Manufacturing Decline: Killing Off Pollution Externalities

    June 1997

    Authors: Matthew E Kahn

    Working Paper Number:

    CES-97-07

    This paper expoloits a unique merger of air quality and county manufacturing data to quantify manufacturing's pollution externality by industry. By linking pollution to local production, I estimate cross-sectional pollution production regressions. Rust Belt cities that were endowed with the largest concentrations of the dirtiest industries experience reduced pollution externalities. I estimate that Gary, Indiana adn Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania experienced substantial pollution declines as local primary metals activity declined in the 1970s and 1980s.
    View Full Paper PDF
  • Working Paper

    Are We Overstating the Economic Costs of Environmental Protection?

    May 1997

    Working Paper Number:

    CES-97-12

    Reported expenditures for environmental protection in the U.S. are estimated to exceed $150 billion annually or about 2% of GDP. This estimate is often used as an assessment of the burden of current regulatory efforts and a standard against which the associated benefits are measured. This makes it a key statistic in the debate surrounding both current and future environmental regulation. Little is known, however, about how well reported expenditures relate to true economic cost. True economic cost depends on whether reported environmental expenditures generate incidental savings, involve uncounted burdens, or accurately reflect the total cost of environmental protection. This paper explores the relationship between reported expenditures and economic cost in a number of major manufacturing industries. Previous research has suggested that an incremental $1 of reported environmental expenditures increases total production costs by anywhere from $1 to $12, i.e., increases in reported costs probably understate the actual increase in economic cost. Surprisingly, our results suggest the reverse, that increases in reported costs may overstate the actual increase in economic cost. Our results are based a large plant-level data set for eleven four-digit SIC industries. We employ a cost-function modeling approach that involves three basic steps. First, we treat real environmental expenditures as a second output of the plant, reflecting perceived environmental abatement efforts. Second, we model the joint production of conventional output and environmental effort as a cost-minimization problem. Third, we calculate the effect of an incremental dollar of reported environmental expenditures at the plant, industry, and manufacturing sector levels. Our approach differs from previous work with similar data by considering a large number of industries, using a cost-function modeling approach, and paying particular attention to plant-specific effects. Our preferred, fixed-effects model obtains an aggregate estimate of thirteen cents in increased costs for every dollar of reported incremental pollution control expenditures, with a standard error of sixty-one cents. This single estimate, however, conceals the wide range of values observed at the industry and plant level. We also find that estimates using an alternative, random-effects model are uniformly higher. Although the higher, random-effects estimates are more consistent with previous work, we believe they are biased by omitted variables characterizing differences among plants. While further research is needed, our results suggest that previous estimates of the economic cost associated with environmental expenditures have been biased upward and that the possibility of overstatement is quite real. Key words: environmental costs, fixed-effects, translog cost model
    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
  • Working Paper

    Innovation and Regulation in the Pesticide Industry

    December 1995

    Working Paper Number:

    CES-95-14

    This paper examines the hypothesis that regulation negatively affects pesticide innovation, causes pesticide companies to introduce more harmful pesticides, and discourages firms from developing pesticides for minor crop markets. The results confirm that pesticide regulation adversely affects innovation and discourages firms from developing pesticides for minor crop markets. Contrary to the hypothesis, however, regulation encourages firms to develop less toxic pesticides. Estimates suggest that it requires about $29 million in industry expenditures on health and environmental testing to affect the toxicity of one new pesticide.
    View Full Paper PDF