Searching for the Profit in Pollution Prevention: Case Studies in the Corporate Evaluation of Environmental Opportunities

The concept of pollution prevention, or "P2," signifies a new, proactive environmental mindset that targets the causes, rather than the consequences, of polluting activity. While anecdotal evidence suggests that P2 opportunities exist and that many have been pursued, there is also the perception that the pace of P2 is far too slow. To explore that claim—and to shed light on barriers to P2 innovation—this paper presents case studies of industrial P2 projects that were in some way unsuccessful. While based on a very limited sample, the evidence contradicts the view that firms suffer from organizational weaknesses that make them unable to appreciate the financial benefits of P2 investments. Instead, the projects foundered because of significant unresolved technical difficulties, marketing challenges, and regulatory barriers. Based on evidence from the cases, the paper concludes with a discussion of environmental policy reforms likely to promote P2 innovation..

The Benefits of Improved Environmental Accounting: An Economic Framework to Identify Priorities

Improved environmental accounting is increasingly seen by corporate managers and environmental advocates alike as a necessary complement to improved environmental decision-making within the private sector. This paper develops an economic approach to the evaluation of environmental accounting's benefits and derives the value, and determinants, of improved accounting information in several production and capital budgeting contexts. Using concepts from managerial economics, finance, and organizational theory, the analysis identifies the types of environmental accounting improvement that are most likely to yield significant financial and environmental benefits.

Banking on "Green Money:" Are Environmental Financial Responsibility Rules Fulfilling Their Promise?

Financial responsibility rules are an increasingly common form of environmental regulation. Currently, the operators of landfills, underground petroleum storage tanks, offshore rigs, and oil tankers must demonstrate the existence of adequate levels of capital as a precondition to the legal operation of their businesses. Environmental financial responsibility ensures that firms possess the resources to compensate society for pollution costs created in the course of business operations. In addition to providing a source of funds for victim compensation and pollution remediation, financial responsibility is thought to motivate better decision-making, particularly regarding the management of long-term risks. This article describes both the promise of financial responsibility as a complement to conventional environmental regulation and a set of weaknesses associated with its current implementation under U.S. environmental statutes.

Global Compensation for Oil Pollution Damages: The Innovations of the American Oil Pollution Act

Via technology and operations standards, U.S. regulation exerts an important influence over worldwide marine safety standards. But in addition, several other aspects of U.S. law deserve wider international consideration and adoption. First, the Oil Pollution Act’s natural resource damage provisions are an innovative and effective way to deter marine pollution and provide for the restoration of injured ecological resources. Second, the relatively strict financial requirements imposed on marine transporters help ensure that polluters, rather than the public, pay if damage is caused. Liability and financial responsibility rules are not unknown in other countries. But the United States has a longer history with implementation and applies its rules more expansively. As both environmental concerns and global marine trade flows increase, U.S. experience with these rules will be instructive to other nations contemplating oil pollution reforms.Oil Pollution Act, Natural Resource Damages, Environmental Liability, Financial Assurance, Financial Responsibility, Valuation

Water Pollution Taxes: A Good Idea Doomed to Failure?

Water pollution taxes, or effluent fees, have long been advocated by environmental economists as a regulatory approach to cost effectively achieve water quality improvements. The article reviews the arguments in favor of taxes and traces the history of the idea in U.S. policy debates. Particular attention is given to the institutional challenges presented by a tax system and its application in watershed contexts where transport phenomena are important. The article also addresses the question of why effluent taxes are so rarely seen in practice.water quality, effluent fees, market-based incentives

The "Regulatory Compact" and Implicit Contracts: Should Stranded Costs Be Recoverable?

Progress toward electricity market deregulation has brought controversy over whether or not utilities are entitled to compensation for "stranded costs," i.e., costs utilities will not be able to recover due to the advent of competition in their markets. This paper uses a legal and economic analysis of contracts to address the desirability of utility cost recovery. First, underlying principles of law are reviewed to determine whether or not there is a legal presumption of recovery. Then, the analysis considers whether or not an implicit "regulatory compact" between utilities and regulators follows from principles in the economic analysis of law, particularly theories of efficient breach and implicit contracts. The paper concludes that recovery should occur in only a proscribed set of circumstances and that, when called for, compensation should be partial, rather than full.

Financial Assurance Rules and Natural Resource Damage Liability: A Working Marriage?

The study explores challenges associated with, and the feasibility of, financial assurance requirements for liabilities arising under U.S. environmental statutes, with a particular emphasis on liabilities associated with natural resource damages (NRDs). The overlap between federal NRD liability and financial assurance arises in the context of two financial assurance rules: one for waterborne vessels that carry oil or hazardous substances, and one for offshore facilities used for oil exploration, drilling, production, or transport. The report addresses the rules’ history, their role as a complement to other forms of environmental regulation, and their impact on the regulated community and providers of coverage. Despite numerous difficulties and over objections from the regulated community, the rules have been implemented with success and without significant shortfalls in coverage availability.financial assurance, financial responsibility, natural resource damages, liability