The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Sulfur Dioxide Control by Electric Utilities: What Are the Gains from Trade?
Open accessAbstract
Title IV of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA) established a market for transferable sulfur dioxide (SO2) emission allowances among electric utilities. This market offers firms facing high marginal abatement costs the opportunity to purchase the right to emit SO2 from firms with lower costs, and this is expected to yield cost savings compared to a command‐and‐control approach to environmental regulation. This paper uses econometrically estimated marginal abatement cost functions for power plants affected by Title IV of the CAAA to evaluate the performance of the SO2 allowance market. Specifically, we investigate whether the much‐heralded fall in the cost of abating SO2, compared to original estimates, can be attributed to allowance trading. We demonstrate that, for plants that use low‐sulfur coal to reduce SO2 emissions, technical change and the fall in prices of low‐sulfur coal have lowered marginal abatement cost curves by over 50 percent since 1985. The flexibility to take advantage of these changes is the main source of cost reductions, rather than trading per se. In the long run, allowance trading may achieve cost savings of $700–$800 million per year compared to an “enlightened” command‐and‐control program characterized by a uniform emission rate standard. The cost savings would be twice as great if the alternative to trading were forced scrubbing. However, a comparison of potential cost savings in 1995 and 1996 with modeled costs of actual emissions suggests that most trading gains were unrealized in the first two years of the program.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
The Network of Global Corporate Control
Vitali, S., Glattfelder, J. B., & Battiston, S. (2011) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0025995 · Cited by 827
Liaisons dangereuses: Increasing connectivity, risk sharing, and systemic risk
Battiston, S., Delli Gatti, D., Gallegati, M., Greenwald, B., & Stiglitz, J. E. (2012) · Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control · doi:10.1016/j.jedc.2012.04.001 · Cited by 734
Bank competition and financial stability in Asia Pacific
Fu, X. (., Lin, Y. (., & Molyneux, P. (2014) · Journal of Banking & Finance · doi:10.1016/j.jbankfin.2013.09.012 · Cited by 608
Allowance price drivers in the first phase of the EU ETS
Hintermann, B. (2010) · Journal of Environmental Economics and Management · doi:10.1016/j.jeem.2009.07.002 · Cited by 441
Credit Contagion from Counterparty Risk
JORION, P., & ZHANG, G. (2009) · The Journal of Finance · doi:10.1111/j.1540-6261.2009.01494.x · Cited by 435
Metadata
- Authors
- Carlson, C., Burtraw, D., Cropper, M., & Palmer, K. L.
- Venue
- Journal of Political Economy
- Publisher
- University of Chicago Press
- Published
- 2000-12
- Volume
- 108
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 1292-1326
- ISSN
- 0022-3808 (ISSN-L)
- 1537-534X
- OpenAlex
- W3125122495
- Cited by
- 1,186
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 50.93
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Sulfur Dioxide Control by Electric Utilities: What Are the Gains from Trade? https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1086/317681
- The paper
- Carlson, C., Burtraw, D., Cropper, M., & Palmer, K. L. (2000). Sulfur Dioxide Control by Electric Utilities: What Are the Gains from Trade? Journal of Political Economy. https://doi.org/10.1086/317681
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.