What drives climate policy adoption in the U.S. states?

Trachtman, Samuel

doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2019.111214

Cited by 21 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 25 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…When ϵ < 0, DR is positive (negative) and ACI is greater (less) than CI, if low-carbon travel cost is less (greater) than ICEV travel cost. The DR-driven difference between ACI and CI also depends on the carbon intensity of the technology being adopted, as shown by (4). As a result, the effect of DR on ACI diminishes as BEVs are decarbonized, e.g., when progressing from EVUSavg to EVCAavg and EVDecarb.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Technology-level evaluations are important for informing distributed decision-making, since private citizens, corporations, and government decision makers often have greater agency over technology-level decisions than over aggregate economy-wide ones. − This makes technology-focused policies common choices for distributed decision makers, including industry-specific fuel efficiency standards, low-carbon fuel standards, and feed-in tariffs for low-carbon technologies . Performance intensity measures in the form of performance per unit service (e.g., emissions or costs per energy unit or miles traveled) are used for evaluating and comparing technology-level impacts when setting benchmarks and policy targets .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Evaluating Low-Carbon Transportation Technologies When Demand Responds to Price

Roy

Ghoddusi

Trancik

2022

Environ. Sci. Technol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The carbon intensity (CI) of travel is commonly used to evaluate transportation technologies. However, when travel demand is sensitive to price, CI alone does not fully capture the emissions impact of a technology. Here, we develop a metric to account for both CI and the demand response to price (DR) in technology evaluation, for use by distributed decision-makers in industry and government, who are becoming increasingly involved in climate change mitigation as the costs of lowercarbon technologies fall. We apply this adjusted carbon intensity (ACI) to evaluate ethanol-fueled, hybrid, and battery electric vehicles individually and against policy targets. We find that all of these technologies can be used to help meet a 2030 greenhouse gas emissions reduction target of up to 40% below 2005 levels and that decarbonized battery electric vehicles can meet a 2050 target of 80%, even when evaluated using the ACI instead of CI. Using the CI alone could lead to a substantial overshoot of emissions targets especially in markets with significant DR, including in rapidly growing economies with latent travel demand. The ACI can be used to adjust decarbonization transition plans to mitigate this risk. For example, in examining several transportation technologies, we find that accelerating low-carbon technology transitions by roughly 5−10 years would mitigate the risk associated with DR estimates. One particularly robust strategy is to remove carbon from fuels through faster decarbonization of electricity and vehicle electrification.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluating Low-Carbon Transportation Technologies When Demand Responds to Price

Roy

Ghoddusi

Trancik

2022

Environ. Sci. Technol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Various kinds of institutional arrangements are likely to structure political outcomes in different ways at all levels of government (Hughes and Urpelainen 2015). Specific to American climate politics at the state level, the degree of unified Democratic state government control or advantage in Democratic partisan identification at the voter level may increase a state's likelihood of an increasingly stringent climate policy (Trachtman 2020). Public opinion on environmental policyand particularly government environmental spendingseems to be represented somewhat by state elected leaders (e.g., Fowler 2016;Johnson, Brace, and Arceneaux 2005).…”

Section: Climate Political Economy and The American Statesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In this paper's primary regressions, I include a handful of covariates (i.e., control variables) that could plausibly drive differences in outcomes. One pair of control variables is unified Democratic state government control and gap in partisan affiliation of a state's electorate (i.e., Democrats minus Republicans), 27 because a prior study (Trachtman 2020) found that those both correlate quite well with a state adopting stringent renewable energy policy. This is intuitive, as it is generally understood in American politics that the Democratic Party coalition contains climate and environmental groups, while the Republican Party virtually does not.…”

Section: Pretreatment Control Variablesmentioning

confidence: 99%

The US Political Economy of Climate Change: Impacts of the “Fracking” Boom on State-Level Climate Policies

Zacher

2023

State Politics Policy Q.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In the face of the intensifying global climate crisis, the US has failed to implement comprehensive policies to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions. During the 2000s, the shale oil and gas extraction (i.e., “fracking”) revolution highlighted the American energy economy. Is the fracking boom partially to blame for US lagging on climate policy? Political economy theory suggests that economic resources are primary drivers of policy outcomes. In this paper, I originally evaluate that claim in the context of the American states, the governments most powerful to mitigate emissions while the federal government faces gridlock. I first introduce an original measure of one state-level climate policy: adoption of the low-emission vehicle (LEV) policy from 1991 to 2015. I then frame the US fracking boom of the mid-to-late 2000s as a natural experiment, employing a difference-in-difference design to compare the effects of fracking on two climate policies across the American states – LEV and renewable electricity policy. Results yield evidence of a causal impact of the fracking boom on state LEV adoption and more suggestive evidence of an impact on renewable electricity mandates. I conclude by arguing that efforts to evaluate the influence of business on policy should account for “structural power” mechanisms.

show abstract

“…An RPS requires that an electric utility add a specified fraction of wind, solar, or other qualified renewables‐based electricity to its production mix over time (Berry & Jaccard, 2001). A large range of issues associated with RPS design and implementation have been studied, including: adoption, compliance, impacts on electric rates and employment, economic efficiency including benefit‐cost analysis, political economy, technology assessment, renewable energy certificate trading and other design features, and the role of an RPS in the reduction of air pollution and greenhouse gases (e.g., Davies, 2014; Barbose et al, 2016; Barbose, 2019; Greenstone & Nath, 2019; Heeter, Speer, & Glick, 2019; Thombs & Jorgenson, 2020; Trachtman, 2020). One generally neglected topic in the RPS literature is studies on state programs that have set voluntary renewable energy goals in lieu of a mandatory RPS target.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Renewable Portfolio Standards: Do Voluntary Goals vs. Mandatory Standards Make a Difference?

Solomon

Zhou

2021

Review of Policy Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This research investigates whether an obligation to meet a Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) target in U.S. states affects the policy effectiveness, which is defined as the RPS‐related renewable electricity capacity additions. A voluntary RPS target can serve as a political device for signaling commitment to certain goals, though there is no penalty if the goal is not met. Alternatively, mandatory RPS targets have varying stringency and uneven enforcement. Our results indicate that the compulsoriness of a state RPS is an insignificant determinant of RPS‐related renewable electricity capacity additions. Factors other than whether an RPS target or goal is compulsory are more important in influencing renewable electricity development, including policy stringency. If a state seeks a modest level of renewable electricity development, setting a voluntary goal can sometimes be effective and more efficient. Nonetheless, a mandatory RPS may be required to accomplish a more significant level of renewable electricity deployment.

show abstract

What drives climate policy adoption in the U.S. states?

Cited by 21 publications

References 25 publications

Evaluating Low-Carbon Transportation Technologies When Demand Responds to Price

Evaluating Low-Carbon Transportation Technologies When Demand Responds to Price

The US Political Economy of Climate Change: Impacts of the “Fracking” Boom on State-Level Climate Policies

Renewable Portfolio Standards: Do Voluntary Goals vs. Mandatory Standards Make a Difference?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About