An empirical analysis of economic strategies for controlling air pollution

In evaluating current environmental protection policy, economists often note that current regulations are more costly than necessary to meet environmental quality standards. While the a priori case is strong that current regulatory approaches are resulting in higher-than-necessary costs to attain environmental standards, there is relatively little empirical evidence to support this claim. The purpose of this paper is to supply some of the missing evidence by presenting the results of one study that assesses some of the potential savings associated with implementing economic, rather than command-and-control, regulatory approaches to abate one type of air pollution in one region of the country. Specifically, the paper examines the costs of meeting a prospective short-term standard for nitrogen dioxide under a range of alternative emissions control strategies for stationary sources of nitrogen oxide emissions in the Chicago Air Quality Control Region. The alternative strategies that are considered range from those that might result under current regulatory policy to those that economic policy approaches (such as emissions charges or marketable permits) are designed to implement. The analysis shows that the most efficient program of emissions controls may be more than an order of magnitude less costly than current regulatory strategies, and that economic approaches have additional advantages over more conventional regulatory approaches.