Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Bush v. Gore and the Effect of New Source Review on Power Plant Emissions

  • Published:
Environmental and Resource Economics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

New Source Review (NSR) is a Clean Air Act regulation that requires electric utilities to meet emission standards when making modifications to existing power plants. The regulation increases the cost of replacing worn out parts, and limits the firm’s scope of potential capital investments. Such restrictions may lead to greater retirements and lower utilization, adversely affecting profits. Prior to the 2000 presidential election, investors expected Bush to have a narrower interpretation of NSR than Gore. Therefore, we use changes in stock prices to estimate the effect on profits of differences in NSR policy. Our results indicate that investors expected the average boiler to be $38 million more valuable under the Bush administration. Over the boilers’ lifetimes, the additional utilization will have increased emissions by 19 million tons of sulfur dioxide, 5.9 million tons of nitrogen oxides and 980 million tons of carbon dioxide, relative to natural gas generation.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Bellas A (1998). Empirical evidence of advances in scrubber technology. Resour Energy Econ 20(4): 327–343

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boehmer E, Musumeci J and Poulsen AB (1991). Event-study methodology under conditions of event-induced variance. J Financ Econ 30: 253–272

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bushnell J, Wolfram C (2007) The economic effects of vintage-differentiated regulations: the case of new source review. Center for the Study of Energy Markets. Paper CSEMWP-157

  • Electric Utility Week (April 24, 2000) States meet to eye reform for air program; political edge criticized

  • Energy Information Administration (2004) Electric power annual. Energy Information Administration, Washington DC

  • Fabrizio K, Rose N and Wolfram C (2007). Do markets reduce costs? Assessing the impact of regulatory restructuring on U.S. Electric Generation Efficiency. Am Econ Rev 97(4): 1250–1277

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fama EF and French KR (1993). Common risk factors in the returns on stocks and bonds. J Financ Econ 33: 3–56

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hughes P (2006). Do EPA defendenants prefer republicans? Evidence from the 2000 election. Econ Inq 44(3): 579–585

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Inside (2000) OMB clash over mercury controls on power plants. 11(25). http://insideepa.com/. Cited 10 June 2006

  • Keohane NO, Mansur ET, Voynov A (2006) Averting enforcement: strategic response to the threat of environmental regulation. NBER working paper 13512, Mimeo

  • Knight B (2006). Are policy platforms capitalized into equity prices? Evidence from the Bush/Gore 2000 election. J Public Econ 90: 751–773

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Linn J (2006) Stock prices and the cost of environmental regulation. AEI-Brookings Related Publication 06-16

  • List J, Millimet D, McHone W (2004) The unintended disincentive in the clean air act. Adv Econ Anal Policy 4(2), Article 2

  • MacKinlay C (1997). Event studies in economics and finance. J Econ Lit 35: 13–39

    Google Scholar 

  • Maloney M and Brady G (1988). Capital turnover and marketable pollution rights. J Law Econ 31(1): 203–226

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • National Academy of Public Administration (2003) A breath of fresh air: reviving the new source review program

  • Salinger M (1992). Standard errors in event studies. J Financ Quant Anal 27: 39–53

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stanton T (1993). Capacity utilization and new source bias: evidence from the US Electric Power Industry. Energy Econ 15(1): 57–60

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stavins R (2005) The effects of vintage-differentiated environmental regulation. RFF Discussion Paper 05-12

  • United States Department of Justice (November 3, 1999) U.S. sues electric utilities in unprecedented action to enforce the clean air act. Press release no. 524

  • United States. Energy Information Administration (2000) The changing structure of the Electric Power Industry: an update. Energy Information Administration, Washington DC.

  • United States Environmental Protection Agency (2004) IPM documentation report. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/epa-ipm/

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. National Center for Environmental Economics, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave NW, MC 1809T, Washington, DC, 20460, USA

    Ian Lange

  2. Department of Economics, University of Illinois at Chicago, 2102UH, MC 144, 601 South Morgan St., Chicago, IL, 60607-7121, USA

    Joshua Linn

Authors
  1. Ian Lange
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Joshua Linn
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Joshua Linn.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Lange, I., Linn, J. Bush v. Gore and the Effect of New Source Review on Power Plant Emissions. Environ Resource Econ 40, 571–591 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10640-007-9170-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10640-007-9170-z

Keywords

JEL Classification

Search

Navigation