Public Policies for Environmental Protection
INTRODUCTION
Paul R. Portney
Resources for the Future
Robert N. Stavins
John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University
Resources for the Future
Washington, D.C.: RFF Press, Forthcoming 2000
June 30, 2000
1
Portney is President and Senior Fellow, Resources for the Future. Stavins is Albert Pratt Professor of Business and
Government, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, and University Fellow, Resources for the
Future. Valuable research assistance was provided by Sheila Cavanagh, but the authors are responsible for any errors.
Public Policies for Environmental Protection, 2nd Edition
INTRODUCTION
by
Paul R. Portney and Robert N. Stavins
1
In the decade that has passed since the appearance of the first edition of Public Policies for
Environmental Protection, significant changes have occurred in U.S. environmental policies, related
policy debates, and the context in which they have occurred. Here we briefly review these policy
developments and describe how the book has evolved to reflect them. We also describe the scope and
level of the book, and highlight ways in which it can be used as a complement to texts and other readings
in the science, economics, and politics of the environment. Finally, we provide brief previews of the book’s
chapters.
1. Environmental Policy Developments and Trends Since the Previous Edition (1989)
Six trends, of varying importance, stand out. First, there has been greatly increased interest in
market-based instruments for environmental protection, as evidenced by the creation of the sulfur dioxide
(SO
2
) allowance trading program in the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990. Second, there has been a
proliferation of information provision programs, such as in the expansion of the Toxic Release Inventory.
Third, there has been a moderate expansion in the use of benefit-cost analysis under several environmental
statutes and executive orders. Fourth, distributional issues on both the benefit and cost sides of the
regulatory equation have gained heightened attention, often under the rubric of “environmental justice.”
Fifth, concerns about global climate change have emerged as an important focal point of many policy
debates. Sixth and finally, there has been an upsurge of recycling activity and a related new focus of federal
waste management policy.
1.1 Market-Based Instruments
The most striking change that has taken place since the first edition of this book is with regard to
the employment of economic-incentive or market-based environmental policy instruments, approaches that
encourage behavior through market signals rather than through explicit directives regarding pollution control
levels or methods. These policy instruments, such as tradable permits, pollution charges, and deposit-
refund systems, are often characterized as “harnessing market forces” because if they are well designed and
implemented, they encourage firms (and/or individuals) to undertake pollution control efforts that are in their
own interests and that collectively meet policy goals. In political terms, market-based instruments have by
now moved center stage, and policy debates look very different from the time when these ideas were
characterized as “licenses to pollute” or dismissed as impractical. Indeed, they often seem to have become
a new conventional wisdom among policy makers in the environmental realm, at least in the United States.
In 1989, the Federal government set up a tradable permit system and levied an excise tax on
specific chloroflourocarbons to meet international obligations established under the Montreal Protocol to
limit the release of chemicals that deplete stratospheric ozone. One year later, the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) began to allow averaging, banking, and trading of credits for nitrogen oxide
(NO
x
) and particulate emissions reductions among eleven heavy-duty truck and bus engine manufacturers.
Also enacted in 1990 was the most important application ever made of a market-based instrument for
environmental protection: the tradable permit system intended to reduce SO
2
emissions by 10 million tons
below 1980 levels. A robust market of bilateral SO
2
permit trading gradually emerged, resulting in cost
savings on the order of $1 billion annually (Carlson, Burtraw, Cropper, and Palmer 2000). Subsequently,
twelve northeastern states and the District of Columbia implemented under EPA guidance a regional
nitrogen oxide (NO
x
) cap-and-trade system. Potential compliance cost savings of 40 to 47 percent have
been estimated for the period 1999-2003 (Farrell et al. 1999).
In addition, there has been considerable action with market-based instruments at the state and local
level. The South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), which is responsible for controlling
emissions in a four-county area of southern California, launched a tradable permit program in January,
1994, to reduce nitrogen oxide and sulfur dioxide emissions in the Los Angeles area. One prospective
analysis predicted 42 percent cost savings, amounting to $58 million annually (Anderson 1997). Also since
1989, California, Colorado, Georgia, Illinois, Louisiana, Michigan and New York have established NO
x
and VOC emissions credit programs, authorized under the U.S. EPA Emissions Trading Program
framework (Bryner 1999).
1.2 Information Programs
Over the past decade, there has been a proliferation of information-based environmental policies.
Most prominently, the U.S. Toxics Release Inventory (TRI), mandated in 1986 under the Emergency
Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act, requires firms to report to local emergency planning agencies
information on use, storage, and release of hazardous chemicals. Such information reporting serves
compliance and enforcement purposes, but may also increase public awareness of firms’ actions, which
can encourage firms to alter their behavior, although the evidence is mixed (Konar and Cohen 1997;
Hamilton and Viscusi 1999).
The U.S. Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA) of 1975 requires that some household
appliances carry labels with information on energy efficiency and estimated annual energy costs, and that
new cars carry labels indicating fuel efficiency. The Energy Policy Act of 1992 added flourescent and
incandescent lamps to the list of products requiring labels, and it expanded the EPCA labeling requirements
to include water flow information for showerheads, faucets, and toilets. Since 1996, EPA also requires
uniform labeling of certain types of rechargeable batteries (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2000).
2
The Flood Control Act of 1936 may include the first legislative mandate to use benefit-cost analysis. Since then,
several statutes have been interpreted as restricting the ability of regulators to consider benefits and costs, while
others clearly require regulators to consider benefits and costs (Arrow et al. 1996).
Notification requirements extend to the public sector, as well. The 1996 Amendments to the Safe
Drinking Water Act (SDWA) require all community drinking water systems to mail to each customer an
annual report containing information about source water quality and the levels of various contaminants.
1.3 Expanded Use of Benefit-Cost Analysis
Although there has not been a dramatic increase in the use of benefit-cost analysis in environmental
regulation since the first edition of this book was published,
2
it is also true that the use of benefit-cost
analysis has been expanded by Presidential executive orders and legislation. Presidents Carter, Reagan,
Bush, and Clinton all introduced formal processes for reviewing economic implications of major
environmental, health, and safety regulations. In 1993, President Clinton replaced Executive Orders 12291
and 12498, issued by President Reagan, with Executive Orders 12866 and 12875, whereby regulation is
considered appropriate only upon “reasoned justification that benefits justify costs,” and benefit-cost
analysis is required for all “significant regulatory actions.”
Congress has supported requirements for benefit-cost analysis only in selected contexts. Section
812 of Title VII of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 requires EPA to conduct a comprehensive
analysis of the retrospective benefits and costs of the Clean Air Act from 1970 to 1990, in addition to
biennial analyses of the benefits and costs of the 1990 Amendments, which must include future projections.
EPA issued its final retrospective report in October 1997, following six years of controversial development
and review. The Agency’s first prospective report, covering the period 1990-2010, was released in
November 1999 (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 1999).
The 1996 amendments to the Safe Drinking Water Act allow EPA to consider overall risk
reduction when setting standards and direct EPA to conduct benefit-cost analyses for new regulations.
Further, the amendments allow EPA to adjust maximum contaminant levels in light of the results of benefit-
cost analysis. More broadly, Congress enacted in 1995 the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, which
requires quantitative comparison of benefits and costs for all proposed and final rules, including
environmental regulations, with an expected annual cost greater than or equal to $100 million. In addition,
the Act mandates that agencies choose the least-cost regulatory alternative, or explain why the least-cost
alternative was not chosen, but evidence indicates that these benefit-cost policies have had only limited
effects on agency rule making (U.S. General Accounting Office 1998; Hahn et al. 2000).
Distributional concerns have long been the focus of political debates, and in recent years have
become an explicit element in required economic analyses. Clinton’s Executive Orders require examination
of “distributive impacts” and “equity.” In 1994, Executive Order 12898 formalized the President’s position
by instructing Federal agencies to identify and address “disproportionately high and adverse human health
or environmental effects of its programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income
populations.” In addition, the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 requires EPA
(and other affected agencies) to prepare regulatory flexibility analysis of all rules with “significant economic
impact” on a “substantial number” of small entities (businesses, non-profits, and small government
organizations).
1.4 Global Climate Policy
In 1989, there was little serious attention by U.S. government agencies to the possibility of global
climate change, due to the greenhouse effect, linked primarily with the combustion of fossil fuels. Times
have changed. Partly as a result of pronouncements by the United Nations-chartered Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change, this problem is taken much more seriously today than it was five years ago, let
alone a decade past. Although by the summer of 2000 the United States has not ratified (and appears
unlikely to ratify in the near future) the Kyoto Protocol — the international agreement establishing reduction
targets for carbon dioxide (CO
2
) and other greenhouse gases — a considerable amount of high-level policy
discussion and legislative consideration increasingly focuses on this issue.
1.5 Recycling and Federal Waste Management Policy
Since 1990, there has been a significant increase in recycling activity in the United States and a
related shift in emphasis of Federal waste management policy. For example, President Clinton’s 1993
Executive Order 12873 requires Federal agencies to purchase only recycled copy paper, and the 1996
Mercury-Containing and Rechargeable Battery Management Act initiated a national voluntary take-back
system for rechargeable batteries (in other words, those selling these batteries must accept them for
disposal at the end of their useful life). States and municipalities have also moved forward on these issues.
Through the mid-1990's, 16 states had some form of recycling investment tax credit, nine states had
deposit-refund systems for beverage containers, and 13 states had established standards for the recycled
content of newsprint. At the local level, nearly 4,000 U.S. communities now levy user charges, often called
pay-as-you-throw or unit-based pricing, on municipal solid waste, a substantial change from zero prices,
which are still the overall norm (Miranda et al. 1998).
2. Scope, Level, and Audience
Over the past ten years, there has been a proliferation of environmental economics and
environmental science text books, and there are an increasing number of texts that focus on environmental
politics. Even the best of these texts, however, cannot (and are not intended to) provide timely surveys of
the state of environmental policy. But this is precisely the purpose of this book, which can serve as an
effective complement for a wide variety of texts in environmental economics, environmental science, and
environmental politics courses, and can likewise serve as a central source for courses in environmental
policy.
The book should be useful for a diverse set of practitioners, as well as students at all levels. A
central criterion used in editing the selections has been the notion that chapters should not only be sound,
original, and well written, but also nontechnical, and hence broadly accessible. In order to address the
important developments and trends reviewed above, the current edition introduces four new chapters:
market-based instruments; global climate policy; hazardous waste and toxic substance policies; and solid
waste policy. The book also includes fully updated versions of three other chapters: the evolution of
Federal environmental regulation; air pollution policy; and water pollution policy. Together these changes
have resulted in what is fundamentally a new book, and one that reflects the current state of U.S.
environmental policy and the results of the current state of the art in analyzing such policy.
A few words about the scope of the book are in order. We focus exclusively on public policies
in the environmental realm, chiefly those that reduce concentrations of pollution, as opposed to those that
operate in the natural resources realm and achieve various goals of resource management. This means, for
example, that whereas various types of public policies to reduce air and water pollutant emissions are
reviewed, tradeable development rights, wetlands mitigation banking, and tradeable permit systems used
to govern the allocation of fishing rights are not considered. The distinction between environmental and
natural resource policies is sometimes arbitrary, but it is generally a useful distinction that will match with
the defined scope of many courses and the interest areas of many practitioners.
3. Highlights of the Chapters
Following this introduction, the book consists of seven additional chapters which span the scope
of U.S. environmental policy. Following two chapters on over-arching issues, EPA and the Evolution of
Regulation, and Market-Based Environmental Policies, successive chapters examine: Air Pollution Policy,
Climate Change Policy, Water Pollution Policy, Hazardous Waste and Toxic Substances Policies, and
Solid Waste Policy.
In Chapter 2, Paul Portney examines the justification for Federal intervention in environmental,
health and safety regulation, and reviews the evolution of Federal regulation in the United States. He
outlines the creation and growth of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency from 1970 to the present,
and assesses two alternatives to conventional environmental regulation: legal liability and private
negotiation/mediation. Portney also considers the challenges of designing Federal intervention (deciding
when to intervene, through which level of government, and in pursuit of how much protection from risk),
choosing the means of attainment of environmental standards (on a scale from direct, centralized regulation
to incentive-based, decentralized regulation), and monitoring for compliance. The chapter considers how
these challenges have resulted in a hybrid approach to environmental regulation. In closing, Portney
highlights problems facing EPA in an era of complex environmental laws, high expectations, emphasis on
redistributive goals, and complicated and expensive monitoring.
In Chapter 3, Robert Stavins begins by recognizing that nearly all environmental policies consist
of two components: the identification of an overall goal and some means to achieve that goal. The chapter
focuses exclusively on the second component, the means — the “instruments” — of environmental policy,
and considers, in particular, economic-incentive or market-based policy instruments. Stavins notes that
it was some eighty years ago that economists first proposed the use of corrective taxes to internalize
environmental and other externalities. Fifty years later, the portfolio of potential economic-incentive
instruments was expanded to include quantity-based mechanisms — tradeable permits. Thus, economic-
incentive approaches to environmental protection are clearly not a new policy idea, and over the past two
decades, they have held varying degrees of prominence in environmental policy discussions. The chapter
provides a comprehensive review of U.S. experiences with such market-based policy instruments,
including: pollution charges; deposit-refund systems; tradeable permits; market barrier reductions; and
government subsidy reductions.
In Chapter 4, Paul Portney provides a detailed review and assessment of U.S. air pollution policy.
He describes the structure of the Clean Air Act, including the important series of amendments that have
characterized its evolution over thirty years, and reviews trends in air quality in the United States. As a
means of providing an assessment of the Clean Air Act and its amendments, he reviews the growing body
of empirical evidence on the benefits that have been produced by the statute and the costs that have thereby
been incurred. Finally, Portney reviews a variety of important and timely topics where economic thinking
and economic analysis can contribute to informed discussion and debate.
The subject turns to global climate change policy in Chapter 5. Jason Shogren and Michael Toman
discuss the most important policy developments. The authors begin with a review of current knowledge
on the possible causes and extent of global climate change, as well as its potential physical and
socioeconomic consequences. They also offer a chronology of policy and institutional responses to climate
change, including international approaches and U.S. policy developments. Shogren and Toman go on to
explore the costs and benefits of climate change risk mitigation, and they discuss alternatives to a benefit-
cost analysis framework. They emphasize throughout the complications of estimating the benefits and costs
of avoiding damages from climate change, as well as the potential value of waiting for more and better
information before incurring significant costs. The authors outline some important considerations in the
design of climate change policies and the choice of policy instruments, and they emphasize the need for a
stable, coherent international climate change policy architecture, in addition to sound domestic policies.
In Chapter 6, Myrick Freeman reviews the history and evolution of Federal water pollution control
policy, highlighting issues that have directed policy toward greater Federal responsibility over time for
standard-setting, implementation, and financing. Freeman appraises the key features of the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act of 1972 that have defined the contemporary approach to water policy, as well as
revisions to that framework by the 1977, 1981 and 1987 amendments and by related statutes. He reviews
accomplishments in water effluent discharge control and water quality improvements, to the extent that
these can and have been measured. Finally, he compares the costs and benefits of water pollution control
policy, considers relative cost-effectiveness, and uses his analysis to evaluate two policies: Federal
subsidies for municipal sewage treatment plants, and the evolving Federal approach to nonpoint source
water pollution control.
In Chapter 7, Hilary Sigman considers two related sets of Federal environmental policies:
hazardous waste and toxic substances regulation. She begins with an overview of hazardous waste
management methods and recent trends in hazardous waste management, including treatment, storage and
disposal prices, disposal quantities and methods, and total waste generation. Sigman analyzes the likely
impact of the Federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) on these trends, and assesses
RCRA’s provisions in a benefit-cost framework. She comments on the recent focus on distribution of
impacts across households of various racial and economic groups. Sigman also reviews regulations
regarding cleanup of contaminated sites, primarily RCRA’s Corrective Action and Superfund, as well as
debates over who should pay for cleanup and “how clean is clean,” that is, the appropriate scale of
contaminated site remedies. In her discussion of Federal policies to control general exposure to toxic
substances, Sigman examines the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), the Federal Insecticide,
Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), and the Emergency Planning and Community-Right-to-Know
Act (EPCRA). She focuses on the Toxic Release Inventory (TRI), created by EPCRA in 1986, examining
the question of whether it has contributed to the observed decline in toxic chemical releases.
Finally, Molly Macauley and Margaret Walls review Federal solid waste policies in Chapter 8.
They describe the composition of municipal solid waste in the United States, its generation, and its
regulation. They discuss the rationale for such regulation, identify specific externalities, and suggest
corrective mechanisms, with cost-effectiveness as one important criterion. Macauley and Walls appraise
other potential goals of solid waste policies, such as resource conservation, meeting demand for secondary
materials, reducing GHG emissions, and addressing life-cycle externalities. They find, however, that solid
waste policy should not attempt to address these concerns directly. They conclude by suggesting that
pricing solid waste collection and disposal directly can be a first-best solution for market failures in solid
waste management, if illegal disposal is not a serious problem, and that among alternative (second-best)
policies, deposit-refund systems may reduce waste disposal at least cost.
4. An Invitation to Readers
As we emphasized at the outset, environmental policy is very much a moving target. Furthermore,
from different vantage points there will be differing views of what would be the most useful level and the
most appropriate scope for a book such as this. Hence we invite all readers of this edition of Public
Policies for Environmental Protection, whether practitioners, teachers, or students, to send us or the
publisher any thoughts or suggestions for future editions. We intend to keep this book as up to date as is
permitted by that scarcest of contemporary scarce resources, time.
REFERENCES
Anderson, R. (1997), The U.S. Experience with Economic Incentives in Environmental Pollution
Control Policy (Environmental Law Institute, Washington, D.C.).
Arrow, K.J., M.L. Cropper, G.C. Eads, R.W. Hahn, L.B. Lave, R.G. Noll, P.R. Portney, M. Russell, R.
Schmalensee, V.K. Smith, and R.N. Stavins (1996), “Is There a Role for Benefit-Cost Analysis
in Environmental, Health, and Safety Regulation?” Science 272 (12 April):221-222.
Bryner, G.C. (1999), “New Tools for Improving Government Regulation: An Assessment of Emissions
Trading and Other Market-Based Regulatory Tools”, Report, PricewaterhouseCoopers
Endowment for The Business of Government, Arlington, VA.
Carlson, C., D. Burtraw, M. Cropper, and K. Palmer (2000), “Sulfur Dioxide Control by Electric Utilities:
What Are the Gains from Trade?,” Discussion Paper no. 98-44-REV (Resources for the Future,
Washington, DC).
Farrell, A., R. Carter and R. Raufer (1999), “The NO
x
Budget: market-based control of tropospheric
ozone in the northeastern United States”, Resource and Energy Economics 21:103-124.
Hahn, R.W., J.K. Burnett, Y.I. Chan, E.A. Mader and P.R. Moyle (2000), “Assessing the Quality of
Regulatory Impact Analyses” Working Paper 00-1 (AEI-Brookings Joint Center for Regulatory
Studies, Washington, D.C.).
Hamilton, J. and Kip Viscusi (1999), Calculating Risks? The Spatial and Political Dimensions of
Hazardous Waste Policy (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA).
Konar, S. and M.A. Cohen (1997), “Information as Regulation: The Effect of Community Right to Know
Laws on Toxic Emissions”, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 32:109-24.
Miranda, M.L., S. LaPalme and D.Z. Bynum (1998), Unit Based Pricing in the United States: A Tally
of Communities, Report to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (July).
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2000), Environmental Labeling: A Comprehensive Review of
Issues, Policies and Practices Worldwide (EPA, Washington, D.C.).
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1999), The Benefits and Costs of the Clean Air Act
Amendments of 1990, Final Report to Congress, EPA 410-R-99-001 (Washington, D.C.).
U.S. General Accounting Office (1998), Unfunded Mandates: Reform Act Has Little Effect on
Agencies’ Rulemaking Actions, GAO/GGD-98-30 (U.S. Government Printing Office,
Washington, D.C.).
