Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The effect of deregulation on environmental research by electric utilities

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Journal of Regulatory Economics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper analyzes the impact of deregulation and restructuring on public-interest environmental research conducted by electric utilities in the US from 1990 to 2001. I find that deregulation has had a substantial negative impact on such expenditures, which have declined by 40%. However, restructuring has had no significant impact. In addition, the 1990 Clear Air Act Amendments have adversely affected such expenditures, contrary to the positive impact these regulations had on pollution abatement R&D as shown in the literature. Results also suggest that state and firm characteristics and regulator preferences play a strong role in the conduct of such research.

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

  • Arora S., Cason T.N. (1999). Do community characteristics influence environmental outcomes? Evidence from the toxic release inventory. Southern Economic Journal 65(4): 691–716

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blumstein C., & Bushnell J. (1994) A Guide to the Blue Book: Issues in California’s Electric Industry Restructuring and Reform. Electricity Journal, 7, September.

  • Blumstein C. (1997). What is public interest R&D. Energy Views. POWER Notes Newsletter. Fall. University of California Energy Institute, Berkeley.

  • Borenstein S., & Bushnell J. (1997). An empirical analysis of market power in a deregulated California electricity market. Power Working Paper. no. 44r. University of California Energy Institute, Berkeley.

  • Bushnell J., & Stoft S. (1995) Transmission and generation investment in a competitive electric power industry, California Energy Commission. Power Working Paper. no. 30 1995, University of California Energy Institute, Berkeley.

  • Cohen W.M., & Levin R.C. (1989). Empirical studies of innovation and market structure. In R. Schmalensee & R. Willig (Eds.), Handbook of industrial organization. (Vol. II, Chap. 18). North Holland, Amsterdam: Elsevier Science Publishers.

  • DeCanio S.J., Watkins W.E. (1998). Investments in energy efficiency: Do the characteristics of firms matter?. Review of Economics and Statistics 80(1): 95–107

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dixit A., Pindyck R. (1994). Investment under Uncertainty. Princeton, NJ, Princeton University Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Dooley J.J. (1996). Energy R&D in the United States, Prepared for U.S. Department of Energy under Contract DE-AC06-76RLO 1830, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, operated for the U.S. Department of Energy by Battelle Memorial Institute. PNNL 12188

  • Energy and Environment Subcommittee (March 31st, 1998). Electric utility deregulation: Implications for research and development. US House of Representatives. Committee on Science, Subcommittee on Energy and Environment.

  • GAO Report (1996). Federal research: Changes in electricity-related R&D funding. Statement of Victor S. Rezendes, Director, Energy, Resources and Science Issues Resources. Community and Economic Development Division, Testimony before the Subcommittee on Energy and Environment, Committee on Science, House of Representatives, GAO/T-RCED-96-203

  • GAO Report (1998). Electric utility restructuring—Implications for electricity R&D. Statement of Victor S. Rezendes, Director, Energy, Resources and Science Issues, Resources, Community and Economic Development Division, Testimony before the Subcommittee on Energy and Environment, Committee on Science, House of Representatives, GAO/T-RCED-98-144.

  • Gollop F.M., Roberts M.J. (1983). Environmental regulations and productivity growth—The case of fossil-fueled electric power generation. The Journal of Political Economy 91(4): 654–674

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hassett K.A., Metcalf G.E. (1993). Energy conservation investment. Energy Policy 21(6): 710–716

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hirsch R.L. (1998). Statement before the Subcommittee on Energy and the Environment of the Committee of Science of the US House of Representatives on the Subject of Electric Utility Deregulation, March 31.

  • Jaffe A.B., Newell R.G., Stavins R.N. (2002). Environmental policy and technological change. Environmental and Resource Economics 22(1): 41–70

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jaffe A.B., Palmer K. (1997). Environmental regulation and innovation: A panel data study. Review of Economics and Statistics 79(4): 610–619

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Joskow P. (1999). Deregulation and regulatory reform in the US electric power sector. Discussion draft for Brookings AEI Conference on Deregulation in Network Industries.

  • Joskow P. (1997). Restructuring, competition, and regulatory reform in the US electric sector. Journal of Economic Perspectives 11(3): 119–138

    Google Scholar 

  • Kamien M.I., Schwartz N.L. (1975). Market structure and innovation: A survey. Journal of Economic Literature 13(1): 1–37

    Google Scholar 

  • Kennedy P. (1981). Estimation with correctly interpreted dummy variables in semilogarithmic equations. American Economic Review71: 801

    Google Scholar 

  • Lunn J. (1986). An empirical analysis of process and product Patenting: A simultaneous equation framework. Journal of Industrial Economics 34(3): 319–330

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Magat W.A. (1976). Regulation and the rate and direction of induced technical change. The Bell Journal of Economics 7(2): 478–496

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pechman C. (1993). Regulating power: The economics of electricity in the information age. Kluwer Academic Publishers.

  • Popp D. (2002). Induced innovation and energy prices. American Economic Review 92(1): 160–180

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Popp D. (2003). Pollution control innovations and the clean air act of 1990. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 22(4): 641–660

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rajan R.G., Zingales L. (1995). What do we Know about capital structure? Some evidence from international data. The Journal of Finance 50(5): 1421–1460

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Riorden M.H. (1992). Regulation and preemptive technology adoption. The Rand Journal of Economics 23(3): 334–349

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taylor M.R., Rubin E.S., Hounshell D.A. (2005). Regulation as the mother of innovation: The case of SO2 control. Law and Policy 27(2): 348–358

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taylor M.R., Rubin E.S., Hounshell D.A. (2003). The effect of government actions on technological innovation for SO2 Control. Environmental Science and Technology 37(20): 4527–4534

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Testimony (March 31, 1998). Electric utility deregulation: implications for research and development. U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on Science, Subcommittee on Energy and Environment.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Economics & IBS, Brandeis University, MS 021, 415 South Street, Waltham, MA, 02454, USA

    Paroma Sanyal

Authors
  1. Paroma Sanyal
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Paroma Sanyal.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Sanyal, P. The effect of deregulation on environmental research by electric utilities. J Regul Econ 31, 335–353 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11149-007-9023-2

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11149-007-9023-2

Keywords

JEL Classifications

Search

Navigation