Multimedia Pollution Regulation and Environmental Performance: EPA’s Cluster Rule

In 1998 the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) promulgated its first integrated, multimedia (air and water) regulation, known as the Cluster Rule (CR), which aimed to reduce toxic releases from pulp and paper mills. By integrating the air and water regulations, EPA tried to reduce the overall regulatory burden on the affected plants. In this paper, we compare EPA’s ex ante expected reductions to an ex post assessment of those reductions. Using data from 1991 to 2009 for approximately 150 pulp and paper mills for both toxic and conventional pollutants, we find significant reductions in chloroform releases, nearly identical to the ex ante prediction of 99 percent reductions. We see some reductions in air toxics, smaller than the ex ante prediction and not always significant. Reductions in VOC emissions are similar in magnitude to the ex ante predictions for OLS models but smaller for fixed-effect models. No significant impact is found on PM10 emissions. We draw conclusions for regulatory impact analyses and retrospective analyses, including the importance of carefully identifying expected compliance methods and the potential sensitivity of these analyses to the definition of the baseline.

[1]  Abdoul G. Sam,et al.  1 Voluntary Pollution Reductions and the Enforcement of Environmental Law : An Empirical Study of the 33 / 50 Program , 2004 .

[2]  Wayne B. Gray,et al.  Assessing multi-dimensional performance: environmental and economic outcomes , 2005 .

[3]  Jay P. Shimshack,et al.  Regulator reputation, enforcement, and environmental compliance , 2005 .

[4]  Ronald J. Shadbegian,et al.  Ex ante and ex post cost estimates of the Cluster Rule and MACT II Rule , 2014, Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis.

[5]  Ron S. Jarmin,et al.  The Longitudinal Business Database , 2002 .

[6]  David Popp,et al.  Policy vs. Consumer Pressure: Innovation and Diffusion of Alternative Bleaching Technologies in the Pulp Industry , 2007 .

[7]  Ronald J. Shadbegian,et al.  What Determines Environmental Performance at Paper Mills? The Roles of Abatement Spending, Regulation, and Efficiency , 2003 .

[8]  B. Sianesi,et al.  PSMATCH2: Stata module to perform full Mahalanobis and propensity score matching, common support graphing, and covariate imbalance testing , 2003 .

[9]  D. Rubin.  For objective causal inference, design trumps analysis , 2008, 0811.1640.

[10]  Madhu Khanna,et al.  EPA's Voluntary 33/50 Program: Impact on Toxic Releases and Economic Performance of Firms , 1999 .

[11]  Robert N. Stavins,et al.  The Effects of Environmental Regulation on Technology Diffusion: The Case of Chlorine Manufacturing , 2003 .

[12]  W. Viscusi,et al.  Effectiveness of the EPA's Regulatory Enforcement: The Case of Industrial Effluent Standards , 1990, The Journal of Law and Economics.

[13]  Leigh J. Maynard,et al.  Determinants of Cleaner Technology Investments in the U.S. Bleached Kraft Pulp Industry , 2001, Land Economics.

[14]  Keith Brouhle,et al.  Evaluating the role of EPA policy levers: An examination of a voluntary program and regulatory threat in the metal-finishing industry , 2009 .

[15]  B. Laplante,et al.  Environmental Inspections and Emissions of the Pulp and Paper Industry in Quebec , 1996 .

[16]  D. Rubin,et al.  The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects , 1983 .

[17]  Wayne B. Gray,et al.  Do EPA Regulations Affect Labor Demand? Evidence from the Pulp and Paper Industry , 2013 .