Publications of Billy Pizer    :chronological  alphabetical  combined listing:

We've launched a new site so please go to People & Research for current information on our faculty and staff.

%% Books   
@book{fds194734,
   Author = {William A. Pizer and Richard Morgenstern},
   Title = {Reality Check: The Nature and Performance of Voluntary
             Programs in the United States, Europe, and
             Japan},
   Publisher = {RFF Press},
   Address = {Washington, DC},
   Year = {2007},
   Key = {fds194734}
}

@book{fds194735,
   Author = {William A. Pizer and Raymond Kopp},
   Title = {Assessing U.S. Climate Policy Options: A report summarizing
             work at RFF as part of the inter-industry U.S. Climate
             Policy Forum},
   Publisher = {RFF Press},
   Address = {Washington, DC},
   Year = {2007},
   url = {http://www.rff.org/cpfreport},
   Key = {fds194735}
}


%% Journal Articles   
@article{fds342118,
   Author = {Newell, RG and Pizer, WA and Raimi, D},
   Title = {U.S. federal government subsidies for clean energy: Design
             choices and implications},
   Journal = {Energy Economics},
   Volume = {80},
   Pages = {831-841},
   Year = {2019},
   Month = {May},
   url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2019.02.018},
   Abstract = {© 2019 Elsevier B.V. Subsidies for clean energy deployment
             have become a major component of U.S. federal energy and
             climate policy. After a surge in spending under the American
             Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, they are an even
             larger component but now face increased scrutiny. Given
             their lasting presence, how does one design these subsidies
             to be as cost-effective as possible? Surprisingly, the
             conceptual framework and empirical evidence available to
             help policymakers identify which subsidies generate the most
             “bang for the buck” are limited. To help answer this
             question, we begin with an overview of the justifications
             for, and the arguments against, subsidizing clean energy
             technologies. Next, we briefly describe major subsidies.
             Finally, we summarize key design choices, suggesting an
             increased focus on upfront cash payments for physical
             outcomes such as capacity. This contrasts with the
             considerable focus on tax credits, loan guarantees,
             production, and cost-based subsidies which have been more
             prominent to date.},
   Doi = {10.1016/j.eneco.2019.02.018},
   Key = {fds342118}
}

@article{fds336242,
   Author = {Fischer, C and Pizer, WA},
   Title = {Horizontal Equity Effects in Energy Regulation},
   Journal = {Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource
             Economists},
   Volume = {6},
   Number = {S1},
   Pages = {S209-S237},
   Publisher = {University of Chicago Press},
   Year = {2019},
   Month = {March},
   url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/701192},
   Doi = {10.1086/701192},
   Key = {fds336242}
}

@article{fds342570,
   Author = {Deryugina, T and Fullerton, D and Pizer, WA},
   Title = {An Introduction to Energy Policy Trade-Offs between Economic
             Efficiency and Distributional Equity},
   Journal = {Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource
             Economists},
   Volume = {6},
   Number = {S1},
   Pages = {S1-S6},
   Publisher = {University of Chicago Press},
   Year = {2019},
   Month = {March},
   url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/701515},
   Doi = {10.1086/701515},
   Key = {fds342570}
}

@article{fds336243,
   Author = {Pizer, WA and Sexton, S},
   Title = {The Distributional Impacts of Energy Taxes},
   Journal = {Review of Environmental Economics and Policy},
   Volume = {13},
   Number = {1},
   Pages = {104-123},
   Year = {2019},
   Month = {February},
   url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/reep/rey021},
   Abstract = {© The Author(s) 2019. Published by Oxford University Press
             on behalf of the Association of Environmental and Resource
             Economists. All rights reserved. For permissions, please
             email: journals.permissions@oup.com. Taxes have long been
             advocated by economists for efficient pollution control,
             particularly in the energy sector. However, these taxes may
             enjoy less political support than standards-based regulation
             at least partly because of the common assumption that they
             place a greater burden on the poor than the rich. This
             article evaluates the validity of that assumption by
             reviewing the literature on the distributional impacts of
             energy taxes and by analyzing energy consumption surveys in
             select countries. The evidence suggests that energy taxes
             need not be as regressive as is often assumed. We find that
             the incidence (i.e., distributional impact) of such taxes
             depends upon the energy commodities that are taxed; the
             physical, social, and climatic characteristics of the
             jurisdictions in which they are implemented; and the use of
             energy tax revenues. We also show that the variation in
             household energy expenditure is greater within income groups
             than across income groups and that such variation is not
             easily reduced.},
   Doi = {10.1093/reep/rey021},
   Key = {fds336243}
}

@article{fds340746,
   Author = {Li, Y and Pizer, WA and Wu, L},
   Title = {Climate change and residential electricity consumption in
             the Yangtze River Delta, China.},
   Journal = {Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the
             United States of America},
   Volume = {116},
   Number = {2},
   Pages = {472-477},
   Year = {2019},
   Month = {January},
   url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1804667115},
   Abstract = {Estimating the impact of climate change on energy use across
             the globe is essential for analysis of both mitigation and
             adaptation policies. Yet existing empirical estimates are
             concentrated in Western countries, especially the United
             States. We use daily data on household electricity
             consumption to estimate how electricity consumption would
             change in Shanghai in the context of climate change. For
             colder days <7 °C, a 1 °C increase in daily temperature
             reduces electricity consumption by 2.8%. On warm days >25
             °C, a 1 °C increase in daily temperatures leads to a 14.5%
             increase in electricity consumption. As income increases,
             households' weather sensitivity remains the same for hotter
             days in the summer but increases during the winter. We use
             this estimated behavior in conjunction with a collection of
             downscaled global climate models (GCMs) to construct a
             relationship between future annual global mean surface
             temperature (GMST) changes and annual residential
             electricity consumption. We find that annual electricity
             consumption increases by 9.2% per +1 °C in annual GMST. In
             comparison, annual peak electricity use increases by as much
             as 36.1% per +1 °C in annual GMST. Although most accurate
             for Shanghai, our findings could be most credibly extended
             to the urban areas in the Yangtze River Delta, covering
             roughly one-fifth of China's urban population and one-fourth
             of the gross domestic product.},
   Doi = {10.1073/pnas.1804667115},
   Key = {fds340746}
}

@article{fds336240,
   Author = {Bielen, DA and Newell, RG and Pizer, WA},
   Title = {Who did the ethanol tax credit benefit? An event analysis of
             subsidy incidence},
   Journal = {Journal of Public Economics},
   Volume = {161},
   Pages = {1-14},
   Publisher = {Elsevier BV},
   Year = {2018},
   Month = {May},
   url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jpubeco.2018.03.005},
   Abstract = {© 2018 Elsevier B.V. At the end of 2011, the Volumetric
             Ethanol Excise Tax Credit (VEETC), which had subsidized the
             blending of ethanol in gasoline, was allowed to expire.
             During its tenure, the subsidy was the subject of intense
             scrutiny concerning who benefited from its existence. Using
             commodity price data, we estimate the subsidy incidence
             accruing to corn farmers, ethanol producers, gasoline
             blenders, and gasoline consumers around the time of
             expiration. Our empirical approach contributes
             methodologically to the event studies literature by
             analyzing futures contract prices (as opposed to spot
             prices) when possible. Ultimately, we find compelling
             evidence that, at the date of VEETC expiration, ethanol
             producers captured about 25¢ of the 45¢ subsidy per gallon
             of ethanol blended. We find suggestive, albeit inconclusive,
             evidence that a portion of this benefit (about 5¢ per
             gallon) was passed further upstream from ethanol producers
             to corn farmers. Most of the remainder seems most likely to
             have been captured by the blenders themselves. On the
             petroleum side, we find no evidence that oil refiners
             captured any part of the subsidy. We also find no evidence
             that the subsidy was passed downstream to gasoline consumers
             in the form of lower gasoline prices.},
   Doi = {10.1016/j.jpubeco.2018.03.005},
   Key = {fds336240}
}

@article{fds332833,
   Author = {Iyer, G and Calvin, K and Clarke, L and Edmonds, J and Hultman, N and Hartin, C and McJeon, H and Aldy, J and Pizer, W},
   Title = {Implications of sustainable development considerations for
             comparability across nationally determined
             contributions},
   Journal = {Nature Climate Change},
   Volume = {8},
   Number = {2},
   Pages = {124-129},
   Publisher = {Springer Nature},
   Year = {2018},
   Month = {February},
   url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41558-017-0039-z},
   Abstract = {© 2018 The Author (s), under exclusive licence to Macmillan
             Publishers Limited, part of Springer Nature. An important
             component of the Paris Agreement is the assessment of
             comparability across nationally determined contributions
             (NDCs). Indeed, game-theory literature on international
             environmental agreements highlights the need for comparable
             emission-mitigation efforts by countries to avoid
             free-riding 1 . At the same time, there are well-recognized
             links between mitigation and other national priorities,
             including but not limited to the 17 United Nations
             Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) 2-6, which raises the
             question of how such links might influence comparability
             assessments. Here, using a global integrated assessment
             model 7, we demonstrate that geographical distributions of
             the influence of meeting the domestic mitigation component
             of the NDCs on a subset of the broader SDGs may not align
             with distributions of effort across NDCs obtained from
             conventional emissions-based or cost-based comparability
             metrics 8-11 . This implies that comparability assessments
             would be altered if interactions between mitigation and
             other SDGs were accounted for. Furthermore, we demonstrate
             that the extent to which these distributions differ depends
             on the degree to which mitigation activities directly affect
             broader SDGs domestically and indirectly affect
             international goals, and whether these effects are
             synergistic or antagonistic. Our analysis provides a
             foundation for assessing how comparability across NDCs could
             be better understood in the larger context of
             sustainability.},
   Doi = {10.1038/s41558-017-0039-z},
   Key = {fds332833}
}

@article{fds327319,
   Author = {Pizer, WA},
   Title = {What's the damage from climate change?},
   Journal = {Science (New York, N.Y.)},
   Volume = {356},
   Number = {6345},
   Pages = {1330-1331},
   Year = {2017},
   Month = {June},
   url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.aan5201},
   Doi = {10.1126/science.aan5201},
   Key = {fds327319}
}

@article{fds330471,
   Author = {Cao, J and Ho, MS and Li, Y and Newell, RG and Pizer,
             WA},
   Title = {Chinese residential electricity consumption: Estimation and
             forecast using micro-data},
   Journal = {Resource and Energy Economics},
   Publisher = {Elsevier BV},
   Year = {2017},
   Month = {January},
   url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.reseneeco.2017.10.003},
   Abstract = {© 2017 Elsevier B.V. Based on econometric estimation using
             data from the Chinese Urban Household Survey, we develop a
             preferred forecast range of 85-143 percent growth in
             residential per capita electricity demand over 2009-2025.
             Our analysis suggests that per capita income growth drives a
             43% increase, with the remainder due to an unexplained time
             trend. Roughly one-third of the income-driven demand comes
             from increases in the stock of specific major appliances,
             particularly AC units. The other two-thirds comes from
             non-specific sources of income-driven growth and is based on
             an estimated income elasticity that falls from 0.28 to 0.11
             as income rises. While the stock of refrigerators is not
             projected to increase, we find that they contribute nearly
             20 percent of household electricity demand. Alternative
             plausible time trend assumptions are responsible for the
             wide range of 85-143 percent. Meanwhile we estimate a price
             elasticity of demand of -0.7. These estimates point to
             carbon pricing and appliance efficiency policies that could
             substantially reduce demand.},
   Doi = {10.1016/j.reseneeco.2017.10.003},
   Key = {fds330471}
}

@article{fds317869,
   Author = {Aldy, JE and Pizer, WA},
   Title = {Alternative metrics for comparing domestic climate change
             mitigation efforts and the emerging international climate
             policy architecture},
   Journal = {Review of Environmental Economics and Policy},
   Volume = {10},
   Number = {1},
   Pages = {3-24},
   Publisher = {Oxford University Press (OUP)},
   Year = {2016},
   Month = {December},
   url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/reep/rev013},
   Doi = {10.1093/reep/rev013},
   Key = {fds317869}
}

@article{fds328044,
   Author = {Aldy, JE and Pizer, WA and Akimoto, K},
   Title = {Transparency, Policy Surveillance, and the Comparison of
             Mitigation Efforts},
   Year = {2016},
   Month = {November},
   Key = {fds328044}
}

@article{fds320241,
   Author = {Aldy, J and Pizer, W and Tavoni, M and Reis, LA and Akimoto, K and Blanford, G and Carraro, C and Clarke, LE and Edmonds, J and Iyer, GC and McJeon, HC and Richels, R and Rose, S and Sano, F},
   Title = {Economic tools to promote transparency and comparability in
             the Paris Agreement},
   Journal = {Nature Climate Change},
   Volume = {6},
   Number = {11},
   Pages = {1000-1004},
   Publisher = {Springer Nature},
   Year = {2016},
   Month = {November},
   url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nclimate3106},
   Abstract = {© 2016 Macmillan Publishers Limited, part of Springer
             Nature. The Paris Agreement culminates a six-year transition
             towards an international climate policy architecture based
             on parties submitting national pledges every five years. An
             important policy task will be to assess and compare these
             contributions. We use four integrated assessment models to
             produce metrics of Paris Agreement pledges, and show
             differentiated effort across countries: wealthier countries
             pledge to undertake greater emission reductions with higher
             costs. The pledges fall in the lower end of the
             distributions of the social cost of carbon and the
             cost-minimizing path to limiting warming to 2 °C,
             suggesting insufficient global ambition in light of leaders'
             climate goals. Countries' marginal abatement costs vary by
             two orders of magnitude, illustrating that large efficiency
             gains are available through joint mitigation efforts and/or
             carbon price coordination. Marginal costs rise almost
             proportionally with income, but full policy costs reveal
             more complex regional patterns due to terms of trade
             effects.},
   Doi = {10.1038/nclimate3106},
   Key = {fds320241}
}

@article{fds336244,
   Author = {Pizer, WA and Prest, B},
   Title = {Prices Versus Quantities with Policy Updating},
   Year = {2016},
   Month = {June},
   Key = {fds336244}
}

@article{fds317867,
   Author = {Dietz, S and Groom, B and Pizer, WA},
   Title = {Weighing the costs and benefits of climate change to our
             children},
   Journal = {The Future of Children},
   Volume = {26},
   Number = {1},
   Pages = {133-155},
   Publisher = {Johns Hopkins University Press},
   Year = {2016},
   Month = {March},
   url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1353/foc.2016.0007},
   Abstract = {© 2016, Center for the Future of Children. All rights
             reserved. Our efforts to put the brakes on climate change or
             adapt to a warming climate present a fundamental tradeoff
             between costs borne today and benefits that accrue to the
             children and grandchildren of the current generation. In
             making investments today that affect future generations’
             prospects, we need to think carefully about how we value
             their welfare compared to our own. A common economic formula
             recommends giving up only 5 cents today for every dollar of
             benefits 100 years in the future; we call this discounting
             the future. Underlying this approach is the assumption that
             future generations will be much better off than our own,
             just as we are much wealthier than our ancestors were. Would
             our descendants’ agree with this approach? Are there
             reasons to put more value on future benefits? William Pizer,
             Ben Groom, and Simon Dietz discuss three possible reasons
             that we might put a higher value on future benefits. First,
             people disagree considerably about the correct discount
             rate. Other plausible interpretations of society’s
             preferences or observed data could increase the weight we
             place on future benefits by as much as a factor of five.
             Second, we may have failed to correctly value future climate
             change impacts, particularly those related to the loss of
             environmental amenities that have no close monetary
             substitutes. Third, we may not be properly valuing the risk
             that a warming climate could cause sudden and catastrophic
             changes that would drastically alter the size of the
             population. Ultimately, the authors write, many of the
             choices about how we value future generations’ welfare
             come down to ethical questions, and many of the decisions we
             must make come down to societal preferences—all of which
             will be difficult to extract from data or
             theory.},
   Doi = {10.1353/foc.2016.0007},
   Key = {fds317867}
}

@article{fds267327,
   Author = {Buntaine, MT and Pizer, WA},
   Title = {Encouraging clean energy investment in developing countries:
             what role for aid?},
   Journal = {Climate Policy},
   Volume = {15},
   Number = {5},
   Pages = {543-564},
   Year = {2015},
   Month = {September},
   ISSN = {1469-3062},
   url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2014.953903},
   Abstract = {© 2014 Taylor & Francis. A large portion of foreign
             assistance for climate change mitigation in developing
             countries is directed to clean energy facilities. To support
             international mitigation goals, however, donors must make
             investments that have effects beyond individual facilities.
             They must reduce barriers to private-sector investment by
             generating information for developers, improving relevant
             infrastructure, or changing policies. We examine whether
             donor agencies target financing for commercial-scale wind
             and solar facilities to countries where private investment
             in clean energy is limited and whether donor investments
             lead to more private investments. On average, we find no
             positive evidence for these patterns of targeting and
             impact. Coupled with model results that show feed-in tariffs
             increase private investment, we argue that donor agencies
             should reallocate resources to improve policies that promote
             private investment in developing countries, rather than
             finance individual clean energy facilities. Policy relevance
             We suggest that international negotiations could usefully
             shift the focus of climate change finance towards adaptation
             in exchange for mitigation-improving policy reforms in
             developing countries. There is little evidence that
             mitigation-related financing is having broader effects on
             energy production, so new financial arrangements should be
             the focus of future negotiations. Additionally,
             international donors should focus efforts on reforming
             policies to attract private investment.},
   Doi = {10.1080/14693062.2014.953903},
   Key = {fds267327}
}

@article{fds267329,
   Author = {Pizer, WA and Yates, AJ},
   Title = {Terminating links between emission trading
             programs},
   Journal = {Journal of Environmental Economics and Management},
   Volume = {71},
   Pages = {142-159},
   Publisher = {Elsevier BV},
   Year = {2015},
   Month = {May},
   ISSN = {0095-0696},
   url = {http://hdl.handle.net/10161/10258 Duke open
             access},
   Abstract = {© 2015 Elsevier Inc. Links between emission trading
             programs are not immutable, as highlighted by New Jersey's
             exit from the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative in 2011.
             This raises the question of what to do with existing permits
             that are banked for future use-choices that have
             consequences for market behavior in advance of, or upon
             speculation about, delinking. We consider two delinking
             policies. One differentiates banked permits by origin, the
             other treats banked permits the same. We describe the price
             behavior and relative cost-effectiveness of each policy.
             Treating permits differently generally leads to higher
             costs, and may lead to price divergence, even with only
             speculation about delinking.},
   Doi = {10.1016/j.jeem.2015.03.003},
   Key = {fds267329}
}

@article{fds267328,
   Author = {Murray, BC and Pizer, WA and Ross, MT},
   Title = {Regulating existing power plants under the U.S. Clean Air
             Act: Present and future consequences of key design
             choices},
   Journal = {Energy Policy},
   Volume = {83},
   Pages = {87-98},
   Publisher = {Elsevier BV},
   Year = {2015},
   Month = {January},
   ISSN = {0301-4215},
   url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2015.03.028},
   Abstract = {© 2015 Elsevier Ltd. In June 2014, the U.S. EPA released
             its proposed rules to regulate carbon dioxide emissions from
             existing fossil fuel power plants, triggering considerable
             debate on the proposal's design and its environmental and
             economic consequences. One question not addressed by this
             debate is this: What if the EPA regulations turn out to be
             inadequate to address future mitigation goals? That is, what
             will the landscape for future policies look like if these
             regulations turn out to be just an interim measure? This
             analysis compares potential short- and long-term
             consequences of several key regulatory design choices,
             including mass-based versus rate-based standards, tradable
             versus non-tradable standards, and differentiated versus
             single standards. It finds that long-term consequences may
             be significant in terms of the legacy they leave for future
             policy revisions: tradable standards lead to lower
             electricity prices and become weaker over time;
             differentiated tradable standards lead to relatively greater
             investment in coal retrofits; non-tradable standards lead to
             relatively greater retirement of coal capacity. It may be
             the case that key policy choices entail one set of
             trade-offs if proposed EPA rules are viewed as relatively
             permanent and final and another set of tradeoffs if the
             rules are viewed as an interim solution.},
   Doi = {10.1016/j.enpol.2015.03.028},
   Key = {fds267328}
}

@article{fds267332,
   Author = {Pizer, W and Adler, M and Aldy, J and Anthoff, D and Cropper, M and Gillingham, K and Greenstone, M and Murray, B and Newell, R and Richels,
             R and Rowell, A and Waldhoff, S and Wiener, J},
   Title = {Using and improving the social cost of carbon},
   Journal = {Science (New York, N.Y.)},
   Volume = {346},
   Number = {6214},
   Pages = {1189-1190},
   Year = {2014},
   Month = {December},
   url = {http://www.sciencemag.org/content/346/6214/1189.full},
   Doi = {10.1126/science.1259774},
   Key = {fds267332}
}

@article{fds267330,
   Author = {Aldy, JE and Pizer, WA},
   Title = {Comparability of Effort in International Climate Policy
             Architecture},
   Year = {2014},
   Month = {February},
   Abstract = {The comparability of domestic actions to mitigate global
             climate change has important implications for the stability,
             equity, and efficiency of international climate agreements.
             We examine a variety of metrics that could be used to
             evaluate countries’ climate change mitigation effort and
             illustrate their potential application for large developed
             and developing countries. We also explain how transparent
             measures of the comparability of effort can contribute to
             the design of international and domestic climate change
             policy along several dimensions. For example, such measures
             can facilitate participation and compliance in an agreement
             if they can illustrate that all parties are doing their
             “fair share.” Second, these measures can inform the
             bilateral linking of domestic cap-and-trade programs in a
             manner akin to how nations negotiate the lowering of trade
             barriers more generally in trade policy. Third, assessments
             of the comparability of effort can affect whether to
             implement and, if necessary, the stringency of unilateral
             border measures (e.g., a border tax). Finally, such
             assessments demonstrate the need for a well-functioning
             policy surveillance regime.},
   Key = {fds267330}
}

@article{fds267333,
   Author = {Newell, RG and Pizer, WA and Raimi, D},
   Title = {Carbon markets: Past, present, and future},
   Journal = {Annual Review of Resource Economics},
   Volume = {6},
   Number = {1},
   Pages = {191-215},
   Publisher = {ANNUAL REVIEWS},
   Year = {2014},
   Month = {January},
   ISSN = {1941-1340},
   url = {http://hdl.handle.net/10161/10262 Duke open
             access},
   Abstract = {© 2014 by Annual Reviews. Carbon markets are substantial
             and expanding. There are many lessons from experience over
             the past 9 years: fewer free allowances, careful moderation
             of low and high prices, and a recognition that trading
             systems require adjustments that have consequences for
             market participants and market confidence. Moreover, the
             emerging international architecture features separate
             emissions trading systems serving distinct jurisdictions.
             These programs are complemented by a variety of other types
             of policies alongside the carbon markets. This architecture
             sits in sharp contrast to the integrated global trading
             architecture envisioned 15 years ago by the designers of the
             Kyoto Protocol and raises a suite of new questions. In this
             new architecture, jurisdictions with emissions trading have
             to decide how, whether, and when to link with one another,
             and policy makers must confront how to measure both the
             comparability of efforts among markets and the comparability
             between markets and a variety of other policy
             approaches.},
   Doi = {10.1146/annurev-resource-100913-012655},
   Key = {fds267333}
}

@article{fds267335,
   Author = {Arrow, KJ and Cropper, ML and Gollier, C and Groom, B and Heal, GM and Newell, RG and Nordhaus, WD and Pindyck, RS and Pizer, WA and Portney,
             PR and Sterner, T and Tol, RSJ and Weitzman, ML},
   Title = {Should governments use a declining discount rate in project
             analysis?},
   Journal = {Review of Environmental Economics and Policy},
   Volume = {8},
   Number = {2},
   Pages = {145-163},
   Publisher = {Oxford University Press (OUP)},
   Year = {2014},
   Month = {January},
   ISSN = {1750-6816},
   url = {http://hdl.handle.net/10161/10268 Duke open
             access},
   Abstract = {At a workshop held at Resources for the Future in September
             2011, twelve of the authors were asked by the US
             Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to provide advice on
             the principles to be used in discounting the benefits and
             costs of projects that affect future generations. Maureen L.
             Cropper chaired the workshop. Much of the discussion in this
             article is based on the authors' recommendations and advice
             presented at the workshop. © The Author
             2014.},
   Doi = {10.1093/reep/reu008},
   Key = {fds267335}
}

@article{fds267336,
   Author = {Newell, RG and Pizer, WA and Raimi, D},
   Title = {Carbon markets: Effective policy? - Response},
   Journal = {Science (New York, N.Y.)},
   Volume = {344},
   Number = {6191},
   Pages = {1460-1461},
   Year = {2014},
   Month = {January},
   ISSN = {0036-8075},
   url = {http://hdl.handle.net/10161/10261 Duke open
             access},
   Doi = {10.1126/science.344.6191.1460-c},
   Key = {fds267336}
}

@article{fds267337,
   Author = {Cropper, ML and Freeman, MC and Groom, B and Pizer,
             WA},
   Title = {Declining discount rates},
   Journal = {American Economic Review},
   Volume = {104},
   Number = {5},
   Pages = {538-543},
   Publisher = {American Economic Association},
   Year = {2014},
   Month = {January},
   ISSN = {0002-8282},
   url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1257/aer.104.5.538},
   Doi = {10.1257/aer.104.5.538},
   Key = {fds267337}
}

@article{fds267338,
   Author = {Newell, RG and Pizer, WA and Raimi, D},
   Title = {Carbon market lessons and global policy outlook},
   Journal = {Science (New York, N.Y.)},
   Volume = {343},
   Number = {6177},
   Pages = {1316-1317},
   Year = {2014},
   Month = {January},
   ISSN = {0036-8075},
   url = {http://hdl.handle.net/10161/10260 Duke open
             access},
   Abstract = {Ongoing work on linking markets and mixing policies builds
             on successes and failures in pricing and trading
             carbon.},
   Doi = {10.1126/science.1246907},
   Key = {fds267338}
}

@article{fds317870,
   Author = {Arrow, KJ and Cropper, M and Gollier, C and Groom, B and Heal, GM and Newell, RG and Nordhaus, WD and Pindyck, RS and Pizer, WA and Portney,
             P and Sterner, T and Tol, RSJ and Weitzman, M},
   Title = {How Should Benefits and Costs Be Discounted in an
             Intergenerational Context? The Views of an Expert
             Panel},
   Year = {2013},
   Month = {December},
   Abstract = {In September 2011, the US Environmental Protection Agency
             asked 12 economists how the benefits and costs of
             regulations should be discounted for projects that affect
             future generations. This paper summarizes the views of the
             panel on three topics: the use of the Ramsey formula as an
             organizing principle for determining discount rates over
             long horizons, whether the discount rate should decline over
             time, and how intra- and intergenerational discounting
             practices can be made compatible. The panel members agree
             that the Ramsey formula provides a useful framework for
             thinking about intergenerational discounting. We also agree
             that theory provides compelling arguments for a declining
             certainty-equivalent discount rate. In the Ramsey formula,
             uncertainty about the future rate of growth in per capita
             consumption can lead to a declining consumption rate of
             discount, assuming that shocks to consumption are positively
             correlated. This uncertainty in future consumption growth
             rates may be estimated econometrically based on historic
             observations, or it can be derived from subjective
             uncertainty about the mean rate of growth in mean
             consumption or its volatility. Determining the remaining
             parameters of the Ramsey formula is, however,
             challenging.},
   Key = {fds317870}
}

@article{fds267341,
   Author = {Newell, RG and Pizer, WA and Raimi, D},
   Title = {Carbon markets 15 years after Kyoto: Lessons learned, new
             challenges},
   Journal = {The Journal of Economic Perspectives : a Journal of the
             American Economic Association},
   Volume = {27},
   Number = {1},
   Pages = {123-146},
   Publisher = {American Economic Association},
   Year = {2013},
   Month = {December},
   ISSN = {0895-3309},
   url = {http://hdl.handle.net/10161/10264 Duke open
             access},
   Doi = {10.1257/jep.27.1.123},
   Key = {fds267341}
}

@article{fds267339,
   Author = {Arrow, K and Cropper, M and Gollier, C and Groom, B and Heal, G and Newell,
             R and Nordhaus, W and Pindyck, R and Pizer, W and Portney, P and Sterner,
             T and Tol, RSJ and Weitzman, M},
   Title = {Determining benefits and costs for future
             generations},
   Journal = {Science (New York, N.Y.)},
   Volume = {341},
   Number = {6144},
   Pages = {349-350},
   Year = {2013},
   Month = {January},
   ISSN = {0036-8075},
   url = {http://hdl.handle.net/10161/10265 Duke open
             access},
   Abstract = {The United States and others should consider adopting a
             different approach to estimating costs and benefits in light
             of uncertainty.},
   Doi = {10.1126/science.1235665},
   Key = {fds267339}
}

@article{fds218831,
   Author = {William A. Pizer},
   Title = {Carbon Market 15 Years after Kyoto: Lessons Learned, New
             Challenges},
   Journal = {Journal of Economic Perspectives},
   Year = {2013},
   Key = {fds218831}
}

@article{fds317871,
   Author = {Kerr, S and Leining, C and Sefton, J and Montero, J-P and Vicuna, S and Sanhueza, JE and Grasty, M and Lubowski, RN and Sterner, T and Pizer,
             WA and Dodwell, C and Hobley, A},
   Title = {Roadmap for Implementing a Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading
             System in Chile: Core Design Options and Policy
             Decision-Making Considerations},
   Journal = {Motu Working Paper},
   Number = {12},
   Year = {2012},
   Month = {December},
   Abstract = {Motu and partners were contracted by the World Bank through
             its Partnership for Market Readiness (PMR) initiative to
             “Draft a proposal for the implementation in Chile of a
             Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading System (ETS)”. The
             specific objective in the terms of reference is to
             “Propose a detailed roadmap, including its design
             elements, to inform decision-making for an advanced model of
             an ETS in Chile”. This is one of a set of four related
             reports commissioned to assist the Chilean government in
             preparing its “market readiness proposal” (MRP) for
             submission to the World Bank. This report is the first step
             in a process that aims to clarify how an ETS could work in
             Chile and what the environmental, economic and social
             impacts would be. This process will allow the Chilean
             government and key stakeholders to assess, in a more
             informed way, whether an ETS would be desirable in Chile, as
             well as the optimal design of an ETS to achieve policy
             objectives and priorities. Given that Chile intends to move
             forward with a climate policy, an ETS presents several
             environmental, economic, and political advantages relative
             to other instruments, but also some challenges. This report
             addresses each of the core components of an ETS: sector
             coverage; point of obligation for regulated sectors; the
             level of ambition; linking to other markets and use of
             (domestic and international) offsets; emissions trading
             phases; and allocation of units. Cost containment, price
             stabilisation and potential use of border carbon adjustments
             are not covered in detail in this report. Design options are
             analysed from a largely conceptual basis, but drawing on
             lessons learned in operating schemes and taking account of
             Chile’s national circumstances to the extent of available
             information, as well as highlighting critical points of
             divergence in scheme design depending on the underlying
             policy goals. The design options are brought together in a
             decision-making framework out of which we identify a smaller
             number of central options that appear to make the most sense
             for Chile. Each of the sections on core components
             identifies issues where Chile-specific research is needed to
             better inform key design decisions and technical
             implementation of the scheme ultimately chosen. Research
             needs for the next phase of policy development are
             discussed. We conclude with a high-level discussion of
             process going forward, both in terms of education and
             learning to enable an informed national debate, and in terms
             of developing broad (political, industry, and public)
             support for more serious consideration of an ETS as an
             option for Chile. Chile could have several overlapping
             objectives for an ETS: cost-effectively contributing to
             global emission reductions; lowering the carbon-footprint of
             Chile’s exports in anticipation of potential trade
             restrictions against high-emitting countries and products;
             driving sustainable development including stimulation of new
             technology; profiting from sales of units to international
             buyers; generating co-benefits and avoiding perverse
             outcomes. The balance among objectives will affect design
             decisions so clarity about their relative weight and their
             implications for design is useful. There was a clear signal
             at the Durban climate change conference (2012) that at some
             point developing countries will be asked to have
             commitments. Chile will want to be prepared to respond to
             this. Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions trading systems evolved
             out of domestic cap-and-trade systems that control local
             pollutants. If there were a global GHG agreement with a cap,
             Chile would simply be one entity within the global
             cap-and-trade market. Absent a global GHG agreement with a
             cap, every ETS is a compromise between a system that
             contributes cost-effectively to global emissions, and a
             system that protects local interests in an unstable and
             uncertain world. The greatest strength of emissions trading
             is that it encourages private actors to use their own
             knowledge and skill to find the best mitigation actions,
             including long-term investments. In a perfect world
             mitigation is done by the myriad of actors who can influence
             emissions, at the times and in the places where it is lowest
             cost. Even in an imperfect global market, if it is possible
             to link emissions markets across countries, linking
             facilitates cost-effective location of mitigation effort
             across countries by equalising prices across markets, and is
             likely to allow Chile to create a more ambitious system
             without imposing unacceptable costs on its economy as a
             whole. In the current imperfect world, with an uncertain
             long-term price and short-term prices that could be quite
             different from the long-term price, simply linking to the
             “international price” without further price
             stabilisation measures would impose risk and volatility on
             Chile and would not necessarily move it effectively toward a
             low-carbon economy. Linking to other ETS (as a seller) may
             also not be feasible in the near term, since the
             international market rules post-2012 are still under
             negotiation in the United Nations Framework Convention on
             Climate Change (UNFCCC) and bilateral agreements outside
             this framework are still evolving; linking in order to sell
             units can be a complex process. However, an ETS can benefit
             Chile even before international ETS linking is possible. It
             could facilitate financing for a highly credible Nationally
             Appropriate Mitigation Action (NAMA) or through Reducing
             Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation (REDD); send a
             regulatory and price signal that influences long-lived
             investment decisions and stimulates new technology
             development, thus placing Chile on a lower-emission
             sustainable development pathway; establish Chile as a
             leader; avoid any negative emissions-related trade
             repercussions from other countries; generate in-country
             revenue that can support government policy objectives; and
             produce additional environmental, economic, and social
             co-benefits. As international pressure builds for more
             ambitious global mitigation, Chile will be better prepared
             to contribute to international climate change agreements and
             compete effectively in a carbon-constrained global economy.
             In a world with an agreed global cap-and-trade system, there
             would be much work involved in designing and negotiating
             that system, but the domestic implementation would then
             follow. In our present situation, design involves a series
             of compromises – essentially domestic negotiations – in
             terms of the domestic cap, international linking and price
             control and stabilisation and protection against leakage.
             The aims when making these compromises are to achieve
             credibility of emissions reduction effort, a level of carbon
             price that Chile is comfortable with, and an acceptable
             overall impact on the Chilean economy. This tension from
             these compromises arises in each section below. Each offers
             one or more proposals for specific design decisions. Our
             final prototype draws on the design considerations specific
             to each section, and creates a package of coordinated
             compromises across issues. These are not recommendations but
             sensible options to consider as starting places for further
             analysis and discussion among government, researchers, and
             stakeholders.},
   Key = {fds317871}
}

@article{fds317872,
   Author = {Ghosh, A and Muller, B and Pizer, WA and Wagner, G},
   Title = {Mobilizing the Private Sector: Quantity-Performance
             Instruments for Public Climate Funds},
   Year = {2012},
   Month = {September},
   Abstract = {In recent years, public sector funding, in general, and for
             the support of activities in developing countries, in
             particular, has become more and more “results” and
             “performance” oriented. There are different methods by
             which performance can be “indicated” (or even
             “measured”). The focus of this brief is on activities
             that are associated with quantitative performance
             indicators, i.e., performance assessed in terms of measured
             quantities — such as tonnes (of carbon), kilowatt-hours,
             or hectares — as carried out by the private sector. The
             aim of this brief is to review options for the use of such
             Quantity-Performance (QP) instruments as a way of channeling
             public funds to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions in a
             cost-effective way. QP instruments reward quantified
             mitigation performance, typically measured in tonnes of
             carbon dioxide-equivalent of achieved emissions reductions.
             As such, they imply exactly the kind of results monitoring
             that the current trend in public funding demands. They could
             be used by governments or multilateral funds, such as the
             Green Climate Fund, to mobilize the private sector and
             private sector finance for mitigation activities in
             developing countries.},
   Key = {fds317872}
}

@article{fds317873,
   Author = {Branstetter, L and Pizer, WA},
   Title = {Facing the Climate Change Challenge in a Global
             Economy},
   Year = {2012},
   Month = {July},
   Abstract = {Over the past two decades, the international community has
             struggled to deal constructively with the problem of
             mitigating climate change. This is considered by many to be
             the preeminent public policy challenge of our time, but
             actual policy responses have been relatively modest. This
             essay provides an abbreviated narrative history of
             international policy in this domain, with a special emphasis
             on aspects of the problem, proposed solutions, and
             unresolved issues that are of interest to international
             economists and informed observers of the global economic
             system. We also discuss the potential conflict that could
             emerge between free trade principles on the one hand and
             environmental policy objectives on the other.},
   Key = {fds317873}
}

@article{fds321873,
   Author = {Morgenstern, RD and Pizer, WA},
   Title = {The effectiveness of voluntary environmental
             programs},
   Pages = {88-89},
   Publisher = {Routledge},
   Year = {2012},
   Month = {January},
   url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.4324/9781936331253},
   Doi = {10.4324/9781936331253},
   Key = {fds321873}
}

@article{fds343242,
   Author = {Aldy, JE and Pizer, WA},
   Title = {The Competitiveness Impacts of Climate Change Mitigation
             Policies},
   Year = {2012},
   Month = {January},
   Key = {fds343242}
}

@article{fds267324,
   Author = {Morgenstern, RD and Pizer, WA},
   Title = {The effectiveness of voluntary environmental
             programs},
   Journal = {Issues of the Day: 100 Commentaries on Climate, Energy, the
             Environment, Transportation, and Public Health
             Policy},
   Pages = {88-89},
   Year = {2012},
   url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.4324/9781936331253},
   Doi = {10.4324/9781936331253},
   Key = {fds267324}
}

@article{fds267364,
   Author = {Fell, H and MacKenzie, IA and Pizer, WA},
   Title = {Prices versus quantities versus bankable
             quantities},
   Journal = {Resource and Energy Economics},
   Volume = {34},
   Number = {4},
   Pages = {607-623},
   Publisher = {Elsevier BV},
   Year = {2012},
   ISSN = {0928-7655},
   url = {http://hdl.handle.net/10161/10276 Duke open
             access},
   Abstract = {Quantity-based regulation with banking allows regulated
             firms to shift obligations across time in response to
             periods of unexpectedly high or low marginal costs. Despite
             its wide prevalence in existing and proposed emission
             trading programs, banking has received limited attention in
             past welfare analyses of policy choice under uncertainty. We
             address this gap with a model of banking behavior that
             captures two key constraints: uncertainty about the future
             from the firm's perspective and a limit on negative bank
             values (e.g. borrowing). We show conditions where banking
             provisions reduce price volatility and lower expected costs
             compared to quantity policies without banking. For plausible
             parameter values related to U.S. climate change policy, we
             find that bankable quantities produce behavior quite similar
             to price policies for about two decades and, during this
             period, improve welfare by about a $1 billion per year over
             fixed quantities. © 2012 Elsevier B.V.},
   Doi = {10.1016/j.reseneeco.2012.05.004},
   Key = {fds267364}
}

@article{fds267367,
   Author = {Pizer, WA and Morgenstern, R and Shih, JS},
   Title = {The performance of industrial sector voluntary climate
             programs: Climate Wise and 1605(b)},
   Journal = {Energy Policy},
   Volume = {39},
   Number = {12},
   Pages = {7907-7916},
   Publisher = {Elsevier BV},
   Year = {2011},
   Month = {December},
   ISSN = {0301-4215},
   url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2011.09.040},
   Abstract = {Corporate voluntary climate programs have had limited
             evaluation. The self-selection of participants-an essential
             element of such initiatives-poses challenges to researchers
             because the decision to participate may not be random and
             may be correlated with outcomes. This study aims to gage the
             environmental effectiveness of the industrial sector
             elements of two early voluntary climate change programs with
             established track records, the U.S. Environmental Protection
             Agency's Climate Wise and the U.S. Department of Energy's
             Voluntary Reporting of Greenhouse Gases Program (1605(b)).
             Particular attention is paid to the participation decision
             and how various assumptions affect estimates of program
             outcomes using propensity score matching methods applied to
             plant-level Census data. Overall, the effects are modest:
             reductions in fuel and electricity expenditures are no more
             than 10 percent and probably less than 5 percent. Virtually
             no evidence suggests either program has a statistically
             significant effect on fuel costs. Some evidence indicates
             that participation in Climate Wise led to a 3-5 percent
             increase in electricity costs that vanished after two years.
             Stronger evidence suggests that participation in 1605(b) led
             to a 4-8 percent decrease in electricity costs that
             persisted for at least three years. These results suggest
             that while voluntary programs can play some role in
             addressing climate change, they are unlikely to bring about
             the kinds of steep reductions called for in the current
             debate. © 2011 Elsevier Ltd.},
   Doi = {10.1016/j.enpol.2011.09.040},
   Key = {fds267367}
}

@article{fds343243,
   Author = {Aldy, JE and Pizer, WA},
   Title = {The Competitiveness Impacts of Climate Change Mitigation
             Policies},
   Year = {2011},
   Month = {December},
   Key = {fds343243}
}

@article{fds267384,
   Author = {Aldy, JE and Krupnick, AJ and Newell, RG and Parry, IWH and Pizer,
             WA},
   Title = {Designing climate mitigation policy},
   Journal = {Journal of Economic Literature},
   Volume = {48},
   Number = {4},
   Pages = {903-934},
   Publisher = {American Economic Association},
   Year = {2010},
   Month = {December},
   ISSN = {0022-0515},
   url = {http://hdl.handle.net/10161/7011 Duke open
             access},
   Abstract = {This paper provides (for the nonspecialist) a highly
             streamlined discussion of the main issues, and
             controversies, in the design of climate mitigation policy.
             The first part of the paper discusses how much action to
             reduce greenhouse gas emissions at the global level is
             efficient under both the cost-effectiveness and
             welfare-maximizing paradigms. We then discuss various issues
             in the implementation of domestic emissions control policy,
             instrument choice, and incentives for technological
             innovation. Finally, we discuss alternative policy
             architectures at the international level.},
   Doi = {10.1257/jel.48.4.903},
   Key = {fds267384}
}

@article{fds343244,
   Author = {Aldy, JE and Krupnick, AJ and Newell, RG and Parry, IWH and Pizer,
             WA},
   Title = {Designing Climate Mitigation Policy},
   Year = {2010},
   Month = {December},
   Abstract = {This paper provides (for the nonspecialist) a highly
             streamlined discussion of the main issues, and
             controversies, in the design of climate mitigation policy.
             The first part of the paper discusses how much action to
             reduce greenhouse gas emissions at the global level is
             efficient under both the cost-effectiveness and
             welfare-maximizing paradigms. We then discuss various issues
             in the implementation of domestic emissions control policy,
             instrument choice, and incentives for technological
             innovation. Finally, we discuss alternative policy
             architectures at the international level. (JEL Q54,
             Q58)},
   Key = {fds343244}
}

@article{fds267385,
   Author = {Blackman, A and Lahiri, B and Pizer, W and Rivera Planter and M and Muñoz
             Piña, C},
   Title = {Voluntary environmental regulation in developing countries:
             Mexico's Clean Industry Program},
   Journal = {Journal of Environmental Economics and Management},
   Volume = {60},
   Number = {3},
   Pages = {182-192},
   Publisher = {Elsevier BV},
   Year = {2010},
   Month = {November},
   ISSN = {0095-0696},
   url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jeem.2010.05.006},
   Abstract = {Because conventional command-and-control environmental
             regulation often performs poorly in developing countries,
             policymakers are increasingly experimenting with
             alternatives, including voluntary regulatory programs.
             Research in industrialized countries suggests that such
             programs are sometimes ineffective, because they mainly
             attract relatively clean participants free-riding on
             unrelated pollution control investments. We use plant-level
             data on more than 100,000 facilities to analyze the Clean
             Industry Program, Mexico's flagship voluntary regulatory
             initiative. We seek to identify the drivers of participation
             and to determine whether the program improves participants'
             environmental performance. Using data from the program's
             first decade, we find that plants recently fined by
             environmental regulators were more likely to participate,
             but that after graduating from the program, participants
             were not fined at a substantially lower rate than
             nonparticipants. These results suggest that although the
             Clean Industry Program attracted dirty plants under pressure
             from regulators, it did not have a large, lasting impact on
             their environmental performance. © 2010 Elsevier
             Inc.},
   Doi = {10.1016/j.jeem.2010.05.006},
   Key = {fds267385}
}

@article{fds304221,
   Author = {Pizer, W and Sanchirico, JN and Batz, M},
   Title = {Regional patterns of U.S. household carbon
             emissions},
   Journal = {Climatic Change},
   Volume = {99},
   Number = {1},
   Pages = {47-63},
   Publisher = {Springer Nature},
   Year = {2010},
   Month = {February},
   ISSN = {0165-0009},
   url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10584-009-9637-8},
   Abstract = {Market-based policies to address fossil fuel-related
             externalities including climate change typically operate by
             raising the price of those fuels. Increases in energy prices
             have important consequences for a typical U. S. household
             that spent almost $4,000 per year on electricity, fuel oil,
             natural gas, and gasoline in 2005. A key question for
             policymakers is how these consequences vary over different
             regions and subpopulations across the country-especially as
             adjustment and compensation programs are designed to protect
             more vulnerable regions. To answer this question, we use
             non-publicly available data from the U. S. Consumer
             Expenditure Survey over the period 1984-2000 to estimate
             long-run geographic variation in household use of
             electricity, fuel oil, natural gas, and gasoline, as well as
             the associated incidence of a $10 per ton tax on carbon
             dioxide (ignoring behavioral response). We find substantial
             variation: incidence from the tax range from $97 dollars per
             year per household in New York County, New York to $235 per
             year per household in Tensas Parish, Louisiana. This
             variation can be explained by differences in energy use,
             carbon intensity of electricity generation, and electricity
             regulation. © Springer Science + Business Media B.V.
             2009.},
   Doi = {10.1007/s10584-009-9637-8},
   Key = {fds304221}
}

@article{fds311238,
   Author = {Aldy, JE and Krupnick, A and Newell, RG and Parry, IWH and Pizer,
             WA},
   Title = {Designing Climate Mitigation Policy},
   Year = {2009},
   Month = {June},
   url = {http://www.rff.org/Aldy.cfm},
   Abstract = {This paper provides an exhaustive review of critical issues
             in the design of climate mitigation policy by pulling
             together key findings and controversies from diverse
             literatures on mitigation costs, damage valuation, policy
             instrument choice, technological innovation, and
             international climate policy. We begin with the broadest
             issue of how high assessments suggest the near and medium
             term price on greenhouse gases would need to be, both under
             cost-effective stabilization of global climate and under net
             benefit maximization or Pigouvian emissions pricing. The
             remainder of the paper focuses on the appropriate scope of
             regulation, issues in policy instrument choice,
             complementary technology policy, and international policy
             architectures.},
   Key = {fds311238}
}

@article{fds267390,
   Author = {Pizer, WA and Sanchirico, JN and Batz, MB},
   Title = {Regional Patterns of U.S. Household Carbon
             Emissions},
   Volume = {99},
   Number = {1-2},
   Pages = {47-63},
   Year = {2009},
   Month = {March},
   ISSN = {0165-0009},
   url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10584-009-9637-8},
   Keywords = {Carbon},
   Abstract = {Market-based policies to address fossil fuel-related
             externalities including climate change typically operate by
             raising the price of those fuels. Increases in energy prices
             have important consequences for a typical U. S. household
             that spent almost $4,000 per year on electricity, fuel oil,
             natural gas, and gasoline in 2005. A key question for
             policymakers is how these consequences vary over different
             regions and subpopulations across the country-especially as
             adjustment and compensation programs are designed to protect
             more vulnerable regions. To answer this question, we use
             non-publicly available data from the U. S. Consumer
             Expenditure Survey over the period 1984-2000 to estimate
             long-run geographic variation in household use of
             electricity, fuel oil, natural gas, and gasoline, as well as
             the associated incidence of a $10 per ton tax on carbon
             dioxide (ignoring behavioral response). We find substantial
             variation: incidence from the tax range from $97 dollars per
             year per household in New York County, New York to $235 per
             year per household in Tensas Parish, Louisiana. This
             variation can be explained by differences in energy use,
             carbon intensity of electricity generation, and electricity
             regulation. © Springer Science + Business Media B.V.
             2009.},
   Doi = {10.1007/s10584-009-9637-8},
   Key = {fds267390}
}

@article{fds267365,
   Author = {Murray, BC and Newell, RG and Pizer, WA},
   Title = {Balancing cost and emissions certainty: An allowance reserve
             for cap-and-trade},
   Journal = {Review of Environmental Economics and Policy},
   Volume = {3},
   Number = {1},
   Pages = {84-103},
   Publisher = {Oxford University Press (OUP)},
   Year = {2009},
   Month = {February},
   ISSN = {1750-6816},
   url = {http://hdl.handle.net/10161/6750 Duke open
             access},
   Abstract = {On efficiency grounds, the economics community has to date
             tended to emphasize price-based policies to address climate
             change -- such as taxes or a “safety-valve” price
             ceiling for cap-and-trade -— while environmental advocates
             have sought a more clear quantitative limit on emissions.
             This paper presents a simple modification to the idea of a
             safety valve -- a quantitative limit that we call the
             allowance reserve. Importantly, this idea may bridge the gap
             between competing interests and potentially improve
             efficiency relative to tax or other price-based policies.
             The last point highlights the deficiencies in several
             previous studies of price and quantity controls for climate
             change that do not adequately capture the dynamic
             opportunities within a cap-and-trade system for allowance
             banking, borrowing, and intertemporal arbitrage in response
             to unfolding information.},
   Doi = {10.1093/reep/ren016},
   Key = {fds267365}
}

@article{fds267323,
   Author = {Hall, DS and Levi, MA and Pizer, WA and Ueno, T},
   Title = {Policies for developing country engagement},
   Pages = {649-681},
   Booktitle = {Post-Kyoto International Climate Policy: Implementing
             Architectures for Agreement},
   Publisher = {Cambridge University Press},
   Address = {Cambridge},
   Editor = {Joseph Aldy and Robert Stavins},
   Year = {2009},
   Month = {January},
   url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511813207.022},
   Abstract = {© Cambridge University Press 2010. Introduction: Much of
             the debate surrounding global climate policy focuses on the
             appropriate role for developing countries in mitigating
             global emissions—and on how industrialized countries can
             best support and encourage that role. Climate change is a
             global problem that requires all major emitting countries to
             undertake mitigation efforts; moreover, developing countries
             account for most of the emissions growth projected over the
             next century. If current developing countries are going to
             make significant progress towards greater prosperity while
             the world simultaneously seeks to stabilize atmospheric
             greenhouse gas (GHG) concentrations at somewhere between 450
             and 750 parts per million carbon dioxide-equivalent (ppm
             CO2e), developing countries are going to have to develop in
             a less GHG-intensive fashion than the already-industrialized
             economies did (Clarke et al. 2007). Yet developing countries
             face considerable obstacles: they lack resources and place
             greater priority on economic development relative to
             environmental protection. At the same time, industrialized
             countries like the United States are well aware that their
             own efforts to reduce emissions can be thwarted if, through
             trade in goods and services, their emitting activities shift
             to non-participants in a climate agreement, or if their GHG
             cuts are simply overwhelmed by growth elsewhere. The focus
             of this chapter is on the intersection of interests between
             developing and developed countries. How can developed
             countries—with more resources and, for the most part, a
             greater sense of urgency— engage developing countries in a
             cooperative effort to mitigate climate change? Part of the
             answer is an increasing awareness among developing countries
             that they themselves are vulnerable to the impacts of
             climate change, which will tend to make them more willing to
             seek cooperative solutions.},
   Doi = {10.1017/CBO9780511813207.022},
   Key = {fds267323}
}

@article{fds267366,
   Author = {Aldy, JE and Pizer, WA},
   Title = {Issues in designing U.S. climate change policy},
   Journal = {The Energy Journal},
   Volume = {30},
   Number = {3},
   Pages = {179-210},
   Publisher = {International Association for Energy Economics
             (IAEE)},
   Year = {2009},
   Month = {January},
   ISSN = {0195-6574},
   url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.5547/ISSN0195-6574-EJ-Vol30-No3-9},
   Abstract = {Over the coming decades, the cost of U.S. climate change
             policy likely will be comparable to the total cost of all
             existing environmental regulation-perhaps 1-2 percent of
             national income. In order to avoid higher costs, policy
             efforts should create incentives for firms and individuals
             to pursue the cheapest climate change mitigation options
             over time, among all sectors, across national borders, and
             in the face of significant uncertainty. Well-designed
             national greenhouse gas mitigation policies can serve as the
             foundation for global efforts and as an example for emerging
             and developing countries. We present six key policy design
             issues that will determine the costs, cost-effectiveness,
             and distributional impacts of domestic climate policy:
             program scope, cost containment, offsets, revenues and
             allowance allocation, competitiveness, and R&D policy. We
             synthesize the literature on these design features, review
             the implications for the ongoing policy debate, and identify
             outstanding research questions that can inform policy
             development. Copyright © 2009 by the IAEE.},
   Doi = {10.5547/ISSN0195-6574-EJ-Vol30-No3-9},
   Key = {fds267366}
}

@article{fds317874,
   Author = {Pizer, JEAAWA},
   Title = {Issues in Designing U.S. Climate Change Policy},
   Volume = {Volume 30},
   Number = {Number 3},
   Year = {2009},
   Key = {fds317874}
}

@article{fds267389,
   Author = {Newell, RG and Pizer, WA},
   Title = {Carbon mitigation costs for the commercial building sector:
             Discrete-continuous choice analysis of multifuel energy
             demand},
   Journal = {Resource and Energy Economics},
   Volume = {30},
   Number = {4},
   Pages = {527-539},
   Publisher = {Elsevier BV},
   Year = {2008},
   Month = {December},
   ISSN = {0928-7655},
   url = {http://hdl.handle.net/10161/7456 Duke open
             access},
   Abstract = {We estimate a carbon mitigation cost curve for the U.S.
             commercial sector based on econometric estimation of the
             responsiveness of fuel demand and equipment choices to
             energy price changes. The model econometrically estimates
             fuel demand conditional on fuel choice, which is
             characterized by a multinomial logit model. Separate
             estimation of end uses (e.g., heating, cooking) using the
             U.S. Commercial Buildings Energy Consumption Survey allows
             for exceptionally detailed estimation of price
             responsiveness disaggregated by end use and fuel type. We
             then construct aggregate long-run elasticities, by fuel
             type, through a series of simulations; own-price
             elasticities range from -0.9 for district heat services to
             -2.9 for fuel oil. The simulations form the basis of a
             marginal cost curve for carbon mitigation, which suggests
             that a price of $20 per ton of carbon would result in an 8%
             reduction in commercial carbon emissions, and a price of
             $100 per ton would result in a 28% reduction. © 2008
             Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.},
   Doi = {10.1016/j.reseneeco.2008.09.004},
   Key = {fds267389}
}

@article{fds267386,
   Author = {Pizer, WA and Popp, D},
   Title = {Endogenizing technological change: Matching empirical
             evidence to modeling needs},
   Journal = {Energy Economics},
   Volume = {30},
   Number = {6},
   Pages = {2754-2770},
   Publisher = {Elsevier BV},
   Year = {2008},
   Month = {November},
   ISSN = {0140-9883},
   url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2008.02.006},
   Abstract = {Given that technologies to significantly reduce fossil fuel
             emissions are currently unavailable or only available at
             high cost, technological change will be a key component of
             any long-term strategy to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
             In light of this, the amount of research on the pace,
             direction, and benefits of environmentally-friendly
             technological change has grown dramatically in recent years.
             This research includes empirical work estimating the
             magnitude of these effects, and modeling exercises designed
             to simulate the importance of endogenous technological
             change in response to climate policy. Unfortunately, few
             attempts have been made to connect these two streams of
             research. This paper attempts to bridge that gap. We review
             both the empirical and modeling literature on technological
             change. Our focus includes the research and development
             process, learning by doing, the role of public versus
             private research, and technology diffusion. Our goal is to
             provide an agenda for how both empirical and modeling
             research in these areas can move forward in a complementary
             fashion. In doing so, we discuss both how models used for
             policy evaluation can better capture empirical phenomena,
             and how empirical research can better address the needs of
             models used for policy evaluation. © 2008.},
   Doi = {10.1016/j.eneco.2008.02.006},
   Key = {fds267386}
}

@article{fds267387,
   Author = {Gillingham, K and Newell, RG and Pizer, WA},
   Title = {Modeling endogenous technological change for climate policy
             analysis},
   Journal = {Energy Economics},
   Volume = {30},
   Number = {6},
   Pages = {2734-2753},
   Publisher = {Elsevier BV},
   Year = {2008},
   Month = {November},
   ISSN = {0140-9883},
   url = {http://hdl.handle.net/10161/6628 Duke open
             access},
   Abstract = {The approach used to model technological change in a climate
             policy model is a critical determinant of its results in
             terms of the time path of CO 2 prices and costs required to
             achieve various emission reduction goals. We provide an
             overview of the different approaches used in the literature,
             with an emphasis on recent developments regarding endogenous
             technological change, research and development, and
             learning. Detailed examination sheds light on the salient
             features of each approach, including strengths, limitations,
             and policy implications. Key issues include proper
             accounting for the opportunity costs of climate-related
             knowledge generation, treatment of knowledge spillovers and
             appropriability, and the empirical basis for parameterizing
             technological relationships. No single approach appears to
             dominate on all these dimensions, and different approaches
             may be preferred depending on the purpose of the analysis,
             be it positive or normative. © 2008 Elsevier B.V. All
             rights reserved.},
   Doi = {10.1016/j.eneco.2008.03.001},
   Key = {fds267387}
}

@article{fds267388,
   Author = {Newell, RG and Pizer, WA},
   Title = {Indexed regulation},
   Journal = {Journal of Environmental Economics and Management},
   Volume = {56},
   Number = {3},
   Pages = {221-233},
   Publisher = {Elsevier BV},
   Year = {2008},
   Month = {November},
   ISSN = {0095-0696},
   url = {http://hdl.handle.net/10161/6755 Duke open
             access},
   Abstract = {Seminal work by Weitzman [Prices vs. quantities, Rev. Econ.
             Stud. 41 (1974) 477-491] revealed prices are preferred to
             quantities when marginal benefits are relatively flat
             compared to marginal costs. We extend this comparison to
             indexed policies, where quantities are proportional to an
             index, such as output. We find that policy preferences hinge
             on additional parameters describing the first and second
             moments of the index and the ex post optimal quantity level.
             When the ratio of these variables' coefficients of variation
             divided by their correlation is less than approximately two,
             indexed quantities are preferred to fixed quantities. A
             slightly more complex condition determines when indexed
             quantities are preferred to prices. Applied to climate
             change policy, we find that the range of variation and
             correlation in country-level carbon dioxide emissions and
             GDP suggests the ranking of an emissions intensity cap
             (indexed to GDP) compared to a fixed emission cap is not
             uniform across countries; neither policy clearly dominates
             the other. © 2008 Elsevier Inc. All rights
             reserved.},
   Doi = {10.1016/j.jeem.2008.07.001},
   Key = {fds267388}
}

@article{fds267353,
   Author = {Tatsutani, M and Pizer, WA},
   Title = {Managing Costs in a U.S. Greenhouse Gas Trading Program: A
             Workshop Summary},
   Year = {2008},
   Month = {July},
   Abstract = {Cost containment has emerged as a major point of contention
             in the current congressional debate about designing a
             cap-and-trade program to limit future U.S. greenhouse gas
             (GHG) emissions. This paper reviews basic concepts and
             policy options for cost management, drawing on a March 2008
             workshop sponsored by Resources for the Future (RFF), the
             National Commission on Energy Policy, and Duke
             University’s Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy
             Solutions. The different sources and temporal dimensions of
             cost uncertainty are explored, along with possible
             mechanisms for addressing short- and long-term cost
             concerns, including banking and borrowing, emissions
             offsets, a price cap (or safety valve), quantity-limited
             allowance reserve, and the concept of an oversight entity
             for GHG allowance markets modeled on the Federal Reserve.
             Recognizing that the inherent trade-off between
             environmental certainty and cost certainty has no perfect
             solution, the paper nonetheless concludes that numerous
             options exist for striking a reasonable and politically
             viable balance between these two objectives. In the effort
             to forge consensus around a particular set of options, it
             will be important for policymakers to strive to fit the
             remedy to the problem they are trying to solve and to
             preserve the underlying integrity of the overall program in
             terms of its long-term ability to sustain meaningful market
             incentives for low-carbon technologies.},
   Key = {fds267353}
}

@article{fds267346,
   Author = {Pizer, WA},
   Title = {A U.S. Perspective on Future Climate Regimes},
   Year = {2007},
   Month = {February},
   Abstract = {Momentum may be building for federal climate change policy
             in the United States. Assuming this leads to mandatory
             greenhouse gas regulations, the door will be open for the
             United States to constructively re-engage other countries
             concerning an international climate regime. Such a regime
             will need to recognize that binding international limits are
             unlikely to attract U.S. participation and, therefore, will
             require a different approach than the Kyoto Protocol. In
             particular, a future regime will need to accommodate and
             encourage, rather than force or constrain, domestic actions
             to focus more narrowly on major economies and emitting
             nations, to balance mitigation and technology objectives,
             and to engage developing countries on as many levels as
             possible. In place of a heavy emphasis on negotiating
             commitments in advance, there likely will need to be greater
             emphasis on evaluating actions in retrospect. Such an
             approach not only matches recent trends in the United States
             but arguably follows from broader experience over the decade
             since the negotiation of the Kyoto Protocol.},
   Key = {fds267346}
}

@article{fds267322,
   Author = {Morgenstern, RD and Pizer, WA},
   Title = {Concluding observations: What can we learnfrom the case
             studies?},
   Pages = {166-185},
   Publisher = {Routledge},
   Year = {2007},
   Month = {January},
   url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.4324/9781936331123},
   Doi = {10.4324/9781936331123},
   Key = {fds267322}
}

@article{fds267318,
   Author = {Pizer, WA},
   Title = {Practical global climate policy},
   Pages = {280-340},
   Publisher = {Cambridge University Press},
   Year = {2007},
   Month = {January},
   url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511802027.008},
   Abstract = {© Cambridge University Press 2007. A meaningful discussion
             of international climate policy agreement needs to begin by
             asking the question, what is the goal of the international
             agreement? What defines success? One way to answer this
             question is to view the problem through the eyes of a
             stylized grouping of experts and stakeholders engaged in the
             issue: economists, environmental advocates, and
             technologists. Economists would likely describe the goal as
             maximizing welfare; that is, setting a global policy that
             balances expected costs and benefits of mitigation.
             Environmental advocates, and indeed the United Nations
             Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), describe a
             goal of preventing dangerous interference with the climate
             system. Like the Clean Air Act in the United States, it
             suggests first consulting the science to establish a safe
             standard, then following up with a cost-effective (i.e.,
             least-cost strategy) to achieve it. Alternatively, the goal
             might be described by technologists as the need to develop
             and deploy climate friendly technology at a global level,
             without a heavy emphasis on near-term emission
             reductions.Such stylized views typically lead to straw-man
             conclusions about the design of an agreement – agreements
             that are easily knocked down by practical critiques. Yet
             considering these straw men can help point us to an
             alternate, more practical goal. That is, the goal might be
             to encourage some balance of domestic mitigation and
             technology development across individual countries in the
             near term – embracing a fairly wide range of efforts
             driven by domestic capacity in each nation – while laying
             the groundwork for a more coordinated international
             mitigation effort in the future.},
   Doi = {10.1017/CBO9780511802027.008},
   Key = {fds267318}
}

@article{fds267325,
   Author = {Pizer, W},
   Title = {Climate policy design under uncertainty},
   Volume = {9780521866033},
   Pages = {305-313},
   Booktitle = {Human-Induced Climate Change},
   Publisher = {Cambridge University Press},
   Address = {Cambridge},
   Editor = {Michael Schlesinger et al.},
   Year = {2007},
   Month = {January},
   url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511619472.030},
   Abstract = {© Cambridge University Press 2007, Cambridge University
             Press, 2010. The uncertainty surrounding the costs and
             benefits associated with global climate change mitigation
             creates enormous obstacles for scientists, stakeholders, and
             especially policymakers seeking a practical policy solution.
             Scientists find it difficult to accurately quantify and
             communicate uncertainty; business stakeholders find it
             difficult to plan for the future; and policymakers are
             challenged to balance competing interests that frequently
             talk past each other. Most emissions trading programs to
             date have focused on absolute caps that either remain fixed
             or decline over time. Examples include the US SO2 trading
             program and NOx Budget Program, the EU Emissions Trading
             Scheme (EU ETS), Southern California’s NO RECLAIM program,
             and a host of other regional pollutant trading schemes in
             the United States. Even the Kyoto Protocol, by most
             accounts, is viewed as a first step in capping emissions
             that must then lead to even lower levels in subsequent
             periods. Yet the uncertainty surrounding climate change
             suggests that such an approach to regulating greenhouse gas
             emissions is problematic. On the one hand, we are unsure
             about what atmospheric concentrations need to be in the long
             run to prevent dangerous interference with the climate
             system. And regardless of the stabilization target,
             considerations of the global economic system and its
             dependence on fossil fuels suggests that optimal global
             emissions trajectories will continue to grow for some time
             (Wigley et al., 1996; Manne and Richels,
             1999).},
   Doi = {10.1017/CBO9780511619472.030},
   Key = {fds267325}
}

@article{fds267317,
   Author = {Morgenstern, RD and Pizer, WA},
   Title = {Reality check: The nature and performance of voluntary
             environmental programs in the United States, Europe, and
             Japan},
   Journal = {Reality Check: the Nature and Performance of Voluntary
             Environmental Programs in the United States, Europe, and
             Japan},
   Pages = {1-189},
   Year = {2007},
   url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.4324/9781936331123},
   Abstract = {Since the early 1990s, voluntary programs have played an
             increasingly prominent role in environmental management in
             the U.S. and other industrialized countries. Programs have
             attempted to address problems ranging from climate change
             and energy efficiency, to more localized air and water
             pollution problems. But do they work? Despite a growing
             theoretical literature, there is limited empirical evidence
             on their success or the situations most conducive to the
             approaches. Even less is known about their
             cost-effectiveness. Getting credible answers is important.
             Research to date has been largely limited to individual
             programs. This innovative book seeks to clarify what is
             known by looking at a range of program types, including
             different approaches adopted in different nations. The focus
             is on assessing actual performance via seven case studies,
             including the U.S. Climate Wise program, the U.S. EPA's
             33/50 program on toxic chemicals, the U.K. Climate Change
             Agreements, and the Keidanren Voluntary Action Plan in
             Japan. The central goals of Reality Check are understanding
             outcomes and, more specifically, the relationship between
             outcomes and design. By including in-depth analyses by
             experts from the U.S., Europe, and Japan, the book advances
             scholarship and provides practical information for the
             future design of voluntary programs to stakeholders and
             policymakers on all sides of the Atlantic and Pacific. ©
             2007 by Resources for the Future. All rights
             reserved.},
   Doi = {10.4324/9781936331123},
   Key = {fds267317}
}

@article{fds267319,
   Author = {Morgenstern, RD and Pizer, WA},
   Title = {Preface},
   Journal = {Reality Check: the Nature and Performance of Voluntary
             Environmental Programs in the United States, Europe, and
             Japan},
   Pages = {vii-viii},
   Year = {2007},
   url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.4324/9781936331123},
   Doi = {10.4324/9781936331123},
   Key = {fds267319}
}

@article{fds267320,
   Author = {Morgenstern, RD and Pizer, WA},
   Title = {Introduction: The challenge of evaluating voluntary
             programs},
   Journal = {Reality Check: the Nature and Performance of Voluntary
             Environmental Programs in the United States, Europe, and
             Japan},
   Pages = {1-14},
   Year = {2007},
   url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.4324/9781936331123},
   Doi = {10.4324/9781936331123},
   Key = {fds267320}
}

@article{fds267321,
   Author = {Morgenstern, RD and Pizer, WA and Shih, J-S},
   Title = {Evaluating voluntary U.S. climate programs: The case of
             climate wise},
   Journal = {Reality Check: the Nature and Performance of Voluntary
             Environmental Programs in the United States, Europe, and
             Japan},
   Pages = {118-137},
   Year = {2007},
   url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.4324/9781936331123},
   Doi = {10.4324/9781936331123},
   Key = {fds267321}
}

@article{fds267383,
   Author = {Pizer, WA and Kruger, J and Oates, W},
   Title = {Decentralized in the EU ETS and Lessons for Global
             Policy},
   Journal = {Review of Environmental Econimics and Policy},
   Volume = {1},
   Number = {1},
   Pages = {112-133},
   Year = {2007},
   Key = {fds267383}
}

@article{fds317875,
   Author = {Parry, IWH and Pizer, WA},
   Title = {Combating Global Warming},
   Journal = {Regulation},
   Volume = {30},
   Number = {3},
   Pages = {18-22},
   Year = {2007},
   Month = {Fall},
   Abstract = {The favored federal policy to address climate change is a
             domestic cap-and-trade system. However, a vocal minority of
             political leaders have begun arguing in favor of a carbon
             tax. Carbon taxes seem particularly attractive both for
             fiscal reasons and because they provide certainty over the
             price of emissions. But permit systems can be designed to
             capture the potential advantages of carbon
             taxes.},
   Key = {fds317875}
}

@article{fds304220,
   Author = {Shih, JS and Harrington, W and Pizer, WA and Gillingham,
             K},
   Title = {Economies of scale in community water systems},
   Journal = {Journal / American Water Works Association},
   Volume = {98},
   Number = {9},
   Pages = {100-108},
   Year = {2006},
   Month = {September},
   ISSN = {0003-150X},
   Abstract = {Data sets from the US Environmental Protection Agency's 1995
             and 2000 Community Water Systems surveys were used to
             examine the production costs of water supply systems. The
             authors estimate water supply economies of scale by
             estimating the elasticities of both the total unit cost and
             the individual component costs. For total unit cost, they
             found that a 1 % production increase reduced unit costs by a
             statistically significant 0.16%. For individual component
             costs, higher economies of scale in capital, materials,
             outside services, and other costs and lower, but still
             positive, economies of scale in labor and energy costs were
             found. These economies of scale may reflect production
             economies or suggest that larger systems are better than
             smaller systems at bargaining and receiving services and
             materials at a lower unit cost. Importantly, bargaining
             gains and some production economies do not necessarily
             depend on water systems becoming physically interconnected.
             - RSH.},
   Key = {fds304220}
}

@article{fds267345,
   Author = {Pizer, WA},
   Title = {Economics versus Climate Change},
   Pages = {201-216},
   Year = {2006},
   Month = {June},
   ISBN = {978-0-262-07302-8},
   url = {http://gateway.webofknowledge.com/gateway/Gateway.cgi?GWVersion=2&SrcApp=PARTNER_APP&SrcAuth=LinksAMR&KeyUT=WOS:000284039600010&DestLinkType=FullRecord&DestApp=ALL_WOS&UsrCustomerID=47d3190e77e5a3a53558812f597b0b92},
   Abstract = {This paper argues against the common-sense conclusion that
             climate change demands a global market-based solution, such
             as international emissions trading. First, current
             experience suggests global cooperation is not necessary for
             initial mandatory actions. Second, when domestic targets
             vary across nations, there are a variety of reasons why
             international emissions trading, even though it creates
             aggregate economic gains for all nations, may not be
             desirable. These reasons include concerns over legitimizing
             target variations for future negotiations, real and
             perceived consequences of capital flows across nations, and
             distributional impacts within nations. Finally, the
             underlying need for global technology solutions suggests
             domestic mitigation policies that balance clear emissions
             price signals, incentives for technology development and
             deployment, and mechanisms to finance deployment to
             developing countries. International efforts, in turn, might
             focus on encouraging these domestic actions, facilitating
             the developing country investment mechanisms, and providing
             credible reviews of national action.},
   Key = {fds267345}
}

@article{fds267380,
   Author = {Pizer, WA},
   Title = {The Evolution of a Global Climate Change
             Agreement},
   Journal = {American Economic Review},
   Volume = {96},
   Number = {2},
   Pages = {26-30},
   Publisher = {American Economic Association},
   Year = {2006},
   Month = {May},
   ISSN = {0002-8282},
   url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1257/000282806777211793},
   Doi = {10.1257/000282806777211793},
   Key = {fds267380}
}

@article{fds267348,
   Author = {Goulder, LH and Pizer, WA},
   Title = {The Economics of Climate Change},
   Year = {2006},
   Month = {January},
   Abstract = {Global climate change poses a threat to the well-being of
             humans and other living things through impacts on ecosystem
             functioning, biodiversity, capital productivity, and human
             health. Climate change economics attends to this issue by
             offering theoretical insights and empirical findings
             relevant to the design of policies to reduce, avoid, or
             adapt to climate change. This economic analysis has yielded
             new estimates of mitigation benefits, improved understanding
             of costs in the presence of various market distortions or
             imperfections, better tools for making policy choices under
             uncertainty, and alternate mechanisms for allowing
             flexibility in policy responses. These contributions have
             influenced the formulation and implementation of a range of
             climate change policies at the domestic and international
             levels.},
   Key = {fds267348}
}

@article{fds267381,
   Author = {Pizer, W and Burtraw, D and Harrington, W and Newell, R and Sanchirico,
             J},
   Title = {Modeling economy-wide vs sectoral climate policies using
             combined aggregate-sectoral models},
   Journal = {The Energy Journal},
   Volume = {27},
   Number = {3},
   Pages = {135-168},
   Publisher = {International Association for Energy Economics
             (IAEE)},
   Year = {2006},
   Month = {January},
   ISSN = {0195-6574},
   url = {http://hdl.handle.net/10161/10266 Duke open
             access},
   Abstract = {Economic analyses of climate change policies frequently
             focus on reductions of energy-related carbon dioxide
             emissions via market-based, economy-wide policies. The
             current course of environment and energy policy debate in
             the United States, however, suggests an alternative outcome:
             sector-based and/or inefficiently designed policies. This
             paper uses a collection of specialized, sector-based models
             in conjunction with a computable general equilibrium model
             of the economy to examine and compare these policies at an
             aggregate level. We examine the relative cost of different
             policies designed to achieve the same quantity of emission
             reductions. We find that excluding a limited number of
             sectors from an economy-wide policy does not significantly
             raise costs. Focusing policy solely on the electricity and
             transportation sectors doubles costs, however, and using
             non-market policies can raise cost by a factor of ten. These
             results are driven in part by, and are sensitive to, our
             modeling of pre-existing tax distortions. Copyright © 2006
             by the IAEE. All rights reserved.},
   Doi = {10.5547/ISSN0195-6574-EJ-Vol27-No3-8},
   Key = {fds267381}
}

@article{fds267315,
   Author = {Pizer, WA},
   Title = {Setting energy policy in the modern era: Tough challenges
             lie ahead},
   Journal = {The Rff Reader in Environmental and Resource Policy: Second
             Edition},
   Volume = {156},
   Pages = {171-174},
   Year = {2006},
   url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.4324/9781936331642},
   Doi = {10.4324/9781936331642},
   Key = {fds267315}
}

@article{fds267316,
   Author = {Pizer, WA},
   Title = {Choosing price or quantity controls for greenhouse
             gases},
   Journal = {The Rff Reader in Environmental and Resource Policy: Second
             Edition},
   Pages = {225-234},
   Year = {2006},
   url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.4324/9781936331642},
   Doi = {10.4324/9781936331642},
   Key = {fds267316}
}

@article{fds267358,
   Author = {Pizer, WA and Kopp, R},
   Title = {Chapter 25 Calculating the Costs of Environmental
             Regulation},
   Journal = {Handbook of Environmental Economics},
   Volume = {3},
   Pages = {1307-1351},
   Publisher = {Elsevier},
   Year = {2005},
   Month = {December},
   ISSN = {1574-0099},
   url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1574-0099(05)03025-1},
   Abstract = {Decisions concerning environmental protection hinge on
             estimates of economic burden. Over the past 30 years,
             economists have developed and applied various tools to
             measure this burden. In this chapter, we present a taxonomy
             of costs along with methods for measuring those costs. At
             the broadest level, we distinguish between partial and
             general equilibrium costs. Partial equilibrium costs
             represent the burden directly borne by the regulated entity
             (firms, households, government), including both pecuniary
             and nonpecuniary expenses, when prices are held constant.
             General equilibrium costs reflect the net burden once all
             good and factor markets have equilibrated. In addition to
             partial equilibrium costs, these general equilibrium costs
             include welfare losses or gains in markets with preexisting
             distortions, welfare losses or gains from rebalancing the
             government's budget constraint, and welfare gains from the
             added flexibility of meeting pollution constraints through
             reductions in the use of higher-priced, pollution-intensive
             products. In addition to both partial and general
             equilibrium costs, we also consider the distribution of
             costs across households, countries, sectors, subnational
             regions, and generations. Despite improvements in our
             understanding of cost measurement, we find considerable
             opportunity for further work and, especially, better
             application of existing methods. © 2005 Elsevier B.V. All
             rights reserved.},
   Doi = {10.1016/S1574-0099(05)03025-1},
   Key = {fds267358}
}

@article{fds336245,
   Author = {Pizer, W and Newell, R},
   Title = {Carbon Mitigation Costs for the Commercial Sector:
             Discrete-Continuous Choice Analysis of Multifuel Energy
             Demand},
   Year = {2005},
   Month = {June},
   Abstract = {We estimate a carbon mitigation cost curve for the U.S.
             commercial sector based on econometric estimation of the
             responsiveness of fuel demand and equipment choices to
             energy price changes. The model econometrically estimates
             fuel demand conditional on fuel choice, which is
             characterized by a multinomial logit model. Separate
             estimation of end uses (e.g., heating, cooking) using the
             1995 Commercial Buildings Energy Consumption Survey allows
             for exceptionally detailed estimation of price
             responsiveness disaggregated by end use and fuel type. We
             then construct aggregate long-run elasticities, by fuel
             type, through a series of simulations; own-price
             elasticities range from ?0.9 for district heat services to
             ?2.9 for fuel oil. The simulations form the basis of a
             marginal cost curve for carbon mitigation, which suggests
             that a price of $20 per ton of carbon would result in an 8%
             reduction in commercial carbon emissions, and a price of
             $100 per ton would result in a 28% reduction.},
   Key = {fds336245}
}

@article{fds304222,
   Author = {Newell, R and Pizer, W and Zhang, J},
   Title = {Managing permit markets to stabilize prices},
   Journal = {Environmental and Resource Economics},
   Volume = {31},
   Number = {2},
   Pages = {133-157},
   Publisher = {Springer Nature},
   Year = {2005},
   Month = {June},
   url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10640-005-1761-y},
   Abstract = {The political economy of environmental policy favors the use
             of quantity-based instruments over price-based instruments
             (e.g., tradable permits over green taxes), at least in the
             United States. With cost uncertainty, however, there are
             clear efficiency advantages to prices in cases where the
             marginal damages of emissions are relatively flat, such as
             with greenhouse gases. The question arises, therefore, of
             whether one can design flexible quantity policies that mimic
             the behavior of price policies, namely stable permit prices
             and abatement costs. We explore a number of "quantity- plus"
             policies that replicate the behavior of a price policy
             through rules that adjust the effective permit cap for
             unexpectedly low or high costs. They do so without
             necessitating any monetary exchanges between the government
             and the regulated firms, which can be a significant
             political barrier to the use of price instruments. ©
             Springer 2005.},
   Doi = {10.1007/s10640-005-1761-y},
   Key = {fds304222}
}

@article{fds267379,
   Author = {Pizer, WA},
   Title = {The case for intensity targets},
   Journal = {Climate Policy},
   Volume = {5},
   Number = {4},
   Pages = {455-462},
   Publisher = {Informa UK Limited},
   Year = {2005},
   Month = {January},
   ISSN = {1469-3062},
   url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2005.9685570},
   Abstract = {While most of the world has pursued absolute emission limits
             for greenhouse gases, the Bush administration has proposed
             an alternative policy formulation based, among other things,
             on reducing emissions intensity—that is, emissions per
             dollar of real gross domestic product (GDP). Critics of this
             formulation have denounced the general idea of an
             intensity-based emission target, along with its voluntary
             nature and modest targets. This raises the question of
             whether intensity-based emission limits, distinct from the
             other features of the Bush initiative, offer a useful
             alternative to absolute emission limits. This essay makes
             the case that they do, based on how emission targets are
             framed. The argument draws on four key observations:
             greenhouse gas emissions will continue to rise over the near
             term; absolute targets emphasize zero or declining emissions
             growth while intensity targets do not; developing countries'
             economic development is integrally tied to emissions growth
             for the foreseeable future; and intensity targets need not
             be any more complicated to administer than absolute targets.
             © 2005 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC.},
   Doi = {10.1080/14693062.2005.9685570},
   Key = {fds267379}
}

@article{fds267357,
   Author = {Kruger, JA and Pizer, WA},
   Title = {Greenhouse gas trading in Europe: The new grand policy
             experiment},
   Journal = {Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable
             Development},
   Volume = {46},
   Number = {8},
   Pages = {8-23},
   Publisher = {Informa UK Limited},
   Year = {2004},
   Month = {October},
   ISSN = {0013-9157},
   url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00139150409604401},
   Abstract = {The European Union is head and shoulders ahead of the rest
             of the world as it embarks on its new emissions trading
             system early next year, but there are still a number of
             large uncertainties to work out.},
   Doi = {10.1080/00139150409604401},
   Key = {fds267357}
}

@article{fds267361,
   Author = {Newell, RG and Pizer, WA},
   Title = {Uncertain discount rates in climate policy
             analysis},
   Journal = {Energy Policy},
   Volume = {32},
   Number = {4},
   Pages = {519-529},
   Publisher = {Elsevier BV},
   Year = {2004},
   Month = {January},
   url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0301-4215(03)00153-8},
   Abstract = {Consequences in the distant future-such as those from
             climate change-have little value today when discounted using
             conventional rates. This result contradicts our "gut
             feeling" about such problems and often leads to ad hoc
             application of lower rates for valuations over longer
             horizons-a step facilitated by confusion and disagreement
             over the correct rate even over short horizons. We review
             the theory and intuition behind the choice of discount rates
             now and, importantly, the impact of likely variation in
             rates in the future. Correlated changes in future rates
             imply that the distant future should be discounted at much
             lower rates than suggested by the current rate, thereby
             raising the value of future consequences-regardless of
             opinions concerning the current rate. Using historic data to
             quantity the likely changes and correlation in changes in
             future rates, we find that future valuations rise by a
             factor of many thousands at horizons of 300 years or more,
             almost doubling the expected present value of climate
             mitigation benefits relative to constant 4% discounting.
             Ironically, uncertainty about future rates reduces the ratio
             of valuations based on alternate choices of the current
             rate. © 2003 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.},
   Doi = {10.1016/S0301-4215(03)00153-8},
   Key = {fds267361}
}

@article{fds267378,
   Author = {Pizer, WA and Newell, R and Zhang, J},
   Title = {Managing Permit Markets to Stabilize Prices.},
   Journal = {Environment and Resource Economics},
   Volume = {32},
   Number = {2},
   Pages = {133-157},
   Year = {2004},
   url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10640-005-1761-y},
   Abstract = {The political economy of environmental policy favors the use
             of quantity-based instruments over price-based instruments
             (e.g., tradable permits over green taxes), at least in the
             United States. With cost uncertainty, however, there are
             clear efficiency advantages to prices in cases where the
             marginal damages of emissions are relatively flat, such as
             with greenhouse gases. The question arises, therefore, of
             whether one can design flexible quantity policies that mimic
             the behavior of price policies, namely stable permit prices
             and abatement costs. We explore a number of "quantity- plus"
             policies that replicate the behavior of a price policy
             through rules that adjust the effective permit cap for
             unexpectedly low or high costs. They do so without
             necessitating any monetary exchanges between the government
             and the regulated firms, which can be a significant
             political barrier to the use of price instruments. ©
             Springer 2005.},
   Doi = {10.1007/s10640-005-1761-y},
   Key = {fds267378}
}

@article{fds267373,
   Author = {Fischer, C and Parry, IWH and Pizer, WA},
   Title = {Instrument choice for environmental protection when
             technological innovation is endogenous},
   Journal = {Journal of Environmental Economics and Management},
   Volume = {45},
   Number = {3},
   Pages = {523-545},
   Publisher = {Elsevier BV},
   Year = {2003},
   Month = {January},
   url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0095-0696(03)00002-0},
   Abstract = {This paper compares, qualitatively and quantitatively, the
             welfare effects of emissions taxes, auctioned emissions
             permits, and free (grandfathered) permits, when
             technological innovation is endogenous. We find that there
             is no unambiguous case for preferring any of these policy
             instruments. The relative welfare ranking of instruments
             depends on the costs of innovation, the extent to which
             innovations can be imitated, the slope and level of the
             marginal environmental benefit function, and the number of
             polluting firms. We illustrate the types of situations when
             there can be significant welfare discrepancies between the
             policies and when there are not. © 2003 Published by
             Elsevier Science (USA).},
   Doi = {10.1016/S0095-0696(03)00002-0},
   Key = {fds267373}
}

@article{fds267374,
   Author = {Newell, RG and Pizer, WA},
   Title = {Regulating stock externalities under uncertainty},
   Journal = {Journal of Environmental Economics and Management},
   Volume = {45},
   Number = {2 SUPPL.},
   Pages = {416-432},
   Publisher = {Elsevier BV},
   Year = {2003},
   Month = {January},
   url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0095-0696(02)00016-5},
   Abstract = {Using a simple analytical model incorporating benefits of a
             stock, costs of adjusting the stock, and uncertainty in
             costs, we uncover several important principles governing the
             choice of price-based policies (e.g., taxes) relative to
             quantity-based policies (e.g., tradable permits) for
             controlling stock externalities. As in Weitzman (Rev.
             Econom. Stud. 41(4) (1974) 477), the relative slopes of the
             marginal benefits and costs of controlling the externality
             continue to be critical determinants of the efficiency of
             prices relative to quantities, with flatter marginal
             benefits and steeper marginal costs favoring prices. But
             some important adjustments for dynamic effects are
             necessary, including correlation of cost shocks across time,
             discounting, stock decay, and the rate of benefits growth.
             Applied to the problem of greenhouse gases and climate
             change, we find that a price-based instrument generates
             several times the expected net benefits of a quantity
             instrument. © 2003 Elsevier Science (USA). All rights
             reserved.},
   Doi = {10.1016/S0095-0696(02)00016-5},
   Key = {fds267374}
}

@article{fds267375,
   Author = {Newell, RG and Pizer, WA},
   Title = {Discounting the distant future: How much do uncertain rates
             increase valuations?},
   Journal = {Journal of Environmental Economics and Management},
   Volume = {46},
   Number = {1},
   Pages = {52-71},
   Publisher = {Elsevier BV},
   Year = {2003},
   Month = {January},
   url = {http://hdl.handle.net/10161/9133 Duke open
             access},
   Abstract = {We demonstrate that when the future path of the discount
             rate is uncertain and highly correlated, the distant future
             should be discounted at significantly lower rates than
             suggested by the current rate. We then use two centuries of
             US interest rate data to quantify this effect. Using both
             random walk and mean-reverting models, we compute the
             "certainty-equivalent rate" that summarizes the effect of
             uncertainty and measures the appropriate forward rate of
             discount in the future. Under the random walk model we find
             that the certainty-equivalent rate falls continuously from
             4% to 2% after 100 years, 1% after 200 years, and 0.5% after
             300 years. At horizons of 400 years, the discounted value
             increases by a factor of over 40,000 relative to
             conventional discounting. Applied to climate change
             mitigation, we find that incorporating discount rate
             uncertainty almost doubles the expected present value of
             mitigation benefits. © 2003 Elsevier Science (USA). All
             rights reserved.},
   Doi = {10.1016/S0095-0696(02)00031-1},
   Key = {fds267375}
}

@article{fds267372,
   Author = {Parry, IWH and Pizer, WA and Fischer, C},
   Title = {How Large are the Welfare Gains from Technological
             Innovation Induced by Environmental Policies?},
   Journal = {Journal of Regulatory Economics},
   Volume = {23},
   Number = {3},
   Pages = {237-255},
   Year = {2003},
   url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1023321309988},
   Abstract = {This paper examines whether the welfare gains from
             technological innovation that reduces future abatement costs
             are larger or smaller than the "Pigouvian" welfare gains
             from optimal pollution control. The relative welfare gains
             from innovation depend on three key factors-the initially
             optimal level of abatement, the speed at which innovation
             reduces future abatement costs, and the discount rate. We
             calculate the welfare gains from innovation under a variety
             of different scenarios. Mostly they are less than the
             Pigouvian welfare gains. To be greater, innovation must
             reduce abatement costs substantially and quickly and the
             initially optimal abatement level must be fairly
             modest.},
   Doi = {10.1023/A:1023321309988},
   Key = {fds267372}
}

@article{fds267376,
   Author = {Pizer, WA and Newell, R},
   Title = {Uncertain Discount Rates and Climate Policy
             Analysis.},
   Journal = {Energy Policy},
   Volume = {32},
   Number = {()},
   Pages = {519-529},
   Year = {2003},
   Key = {fds267376}
}

@article{fds267377,
   Author = {Pizer, WA and Marcu, A},
   Title = {Defining and Trading Emission Targets.},
   Journal = {Climate Policy},
   Volume = {3},
   Number = {S2},
   Pages = {S3-S6},
   Publisher = {Elsevier BV},
   Year = {2003},
   url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.clipol.2003.10.009},
   Doi = {10.1016/j.clipol.2003.10.009},
   Key = {fds267377}
}

@article{fds267340,
   Author = {Newell, R and Pizer, W},
   Title = {Discounting the Benefits of Climate Change Policies Using
             Uncertain Rates},
   Journal = {Resources},
   Number = {146},
   Pages = {15-20},
   Publisher = {Washington, D.C. Resources for the Future,
             Inc.},
   Year = {2002},
   Month = {January},
   ISSN = {0048-7376},
   url = {http://hdl.handle.net/10161/7075 Duke open
             access},
   Abstract = {Evaluating environmental policies, such as the mitigation of
             greenhouse gases, frequently requires balancing near-term
             mitigation costs against long-term environmental benefits.
             Conventional approaches to valuing such investments hold
             interest rates constant, but the authors contend that there
             is a real degree of uncertainty in future interest rates.
             This leads to a higher valuation of future benefits relative
             to conventional methods that ignore interest rate
             uncertainty.},
   Key = {fds267340}
}

@article{fds304219,
   Author = {Morgenstern, RD and Pizer, WA and Shih, JS},
   Title = {Jobs versus the environment: An industry-level
             perspective},
   Journal = {Journal of Environmental Economics and Management},
   Volume = {43},
   Number = {3},
   Pages = {412-436},
   Publisher = {Elsevier BV},
   Year = {2002},
   Month = {January},
   ISSN = {0095-0696},
   url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/jeem.2001.1191},
   Abstract = {The possibility that workers could be adversely affected by
             increasingly stringent environmental policies has led to
             claims of a "jobs versus the environment" trade-off by both
             business and labor leaders. The present research examines
             this claim at the industry level for four heavily polluting
             industries: pulp and paper mills, plastic manufacturers,
             petroleum refiners, and iron and steel mills. Combining a
             unique plant-level data set with industry-level demand
             information, we find that increased environmental spending
             generally does not cause a significant change in employment.
             Our average across all four industries is a net gain of 1.5
             jobs per $1 million in additional environmental spending,
             with a standard error of 2.2 jobs - an economically and
             statistically insignificant effect. There are statistically
             significant and positive effects in two industries, but
             total number of affected jobs remains quite small. These
             small positive effects can be linked to labor-using factor
             shifts and relatively inelastic estimated demand. © 2001
             Elsevier Science (USA).},
   Doi = {10.1006/jeem.2001.1191},
   Key = {fds304219}
}

@article{fds267370,
   Author = {Pizer, WA and Morgenstern, R and Shih, J-S},
   Title = {Jobs versus the Environment: Is There a Trade-Off?},
   Journal = {Journal of Environmental Economics and Management},
   Volume = {43},
   Number = {3},
   Pages = {412-436},
   Year = {2002},
   ISSN = {0095-0696},
   url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/jeem.2001.1191},
   Abstract = {The possibility that workers could be adversely affected by
             increasingly stringent environmental policies has led to
             claims of a "jobs versus the environment" trade-off by both
             business and labor leaders. The present research examines
             this claim at the industry level for four heavily polluting
             industries: pulp and paper mills, plastic manufacturers,
             petroleum refiners, and iron and steel mills. Combining a
             unique plant-level data set with industry-level demand
             information, we find that increased environmental spending
             generally does not cause a significant change in employment.
             Our average across all four industries is a net gain of 1.5
             jobs per $1 million in additional environmental spending,
             with a standard error of 2.2 jobs - an economically and
             statistically insignificant effect. There are statistically
             significant and positive effects in two industries, but
             total number of affected jobs remains quite small. These
             small positive effects can be linked to labor-using factor
             shifts and relatively inelastic estimated demand. © 2001
             Elsevier Science (USA).},
   Doi = {10.1006/jeem.2001.1191},
   Key = {fds267370}
}

@article{fds267371,
   Author = {Pizer, WA},
   Title = {Combining price and quantity controls to mitigate global
             climate change},
   Journal = {Journal of Public Economics},
   Volume = {85},
   Number = {3},
   Pages = {409-434},
   Publisher = {Elsevier BV},
   Year = {2002},
   ISSN = {0047-2727},
   url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0047-2727(01)00118-9},
   Abstract = {Uncertainty about compliance costs causes otherwise
             equivalent price and quantity controls to behave differently
             and leads to divergent welfare consequences. Although most
             of the debate on global climate change policy has focused on
             quantity controls due to their political appeal, this paper
             argues that price controls are more efficient. Simulations
             based on a stochastic computable general equilibrium model
             indicate that the expected welfare gain from the optimal
             price policy is five times higher than the expected gain
             from the optimal quantity policy. An alternative hybrid
             policy combines both the political appeal of quantity
             controls with the efficiency of prices, using an initial
             distribution of tradeable permits to set a quantitative
             target, but allowing additional permits to be purchased at a
             fixed "trigger" price. Even sub-optimal hybrid policies
             offer dramatic efficiency improvements over otherwise
             standard quantity controls. For example, a $50 trigger price
             per ton of carbon converts the $3 trillion expected loss
             associated with a simple 1990 emission target to a $150
             billion gain. These results suggest that a hybrid policy is
             an attractive alternative to either a pure price or quantity
             system. © 2002 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights
             reserved.},
   Doi = {10.1016/S0047-2727(01)00118-9},
   Key = {fds267371}
}

@article{fds267363,
   Author = {Clark, JS and Carpenter, SR and Barber, M and Collins, S and Dobson, A and Foley, JA and Lodge, DM and Pascual, M and Pielke, R and Pizer, W and Pringle, C and Reid, WV and Rose, KA and Sala, O and Schlesinger, WH and Wall, DH and Wear, D},
   Title = {Ecological forecasts: an emerging imperative.},
   Journal = {Science (New York, N.Y.)},
   Volume = {293},
   Number = {5530},
   Pages = {657-660},
   Year = {2001},
   Month = {July},
   ISSN = {0036-8075},
   url = {http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11474103},
   Abstract = {Planning and decision-making can be improved by access to
             reliable forecasts of ecosystem state, ecosystem services,
             and natural capital. Availability of new data sets, together
             with progress in computation and statistics, will increase
             our ability to forecast ecosystem change. An agenda that
             would lead toward a capacity to produce, evaluate, and
             communicate forecasts of critical ecosystem services
             requires a process that engages scientists and
             decision-makers. Interdisciplinary linkages are necessary
             because of the climate and societal controls on ecosystems,
             the feedbacks involving social change, and the
             decision-making relevance of forecasts.},
   Doi = {10.1126/science.293.5530.657},
   Key = {fds267363}
}

@article{fds317876,
   Author = {Newell, RG and Pizer, WA},
   Title = {Discounting the Distant Future: How Much Do Uncertain Rates
             Increase Valuations?},
   Year = {2001},
   Month = {May},
   Abstract = {Costs and benefits in the distant future, such as those
             associated with global warming, long-lived infrastructure,
             hazardous and radioactive waste, and biodiversity often have
             little value today when measured with conventional discount
             rates. We demonstrate that when the future path of this
             conventional rate is uncertain and persistent (i.e., highly
             correlated over time), the distant future should be
             discounted at lower rates than suggested by the current
             rate. We then use two centuries of data on U.S. interest
             rates to quantify this effect. Using both random walk and
             mean-reverting models, we compute the certainty-equivalent
             rate that is, the single discount rate that summarizes the
             effect of uncertainty and measures the appropriate forward
             rate of discount in the future. Using the random walk model,
             which we consider more compelling, we find that the
             certainty-equivalent rate falls from 4%, to 2% after 100
             years, 1% after 200 years, and 0.5% after 300 years. If we
             use these rates to value consequences at horizons of 400
             years, the discounted value increases by a factor of over
             40,000 relative to conventional discounting. Applying the
             random walk model to the consequences of climate change, we
             find that inclusion of discount rate uncertainty almost
             doubles the expected present value of mitigation
             benefits.},
   Key = {fds317876}
}

@article{fds267369,
   Author = {Morgenstern, RD and Pizer, WA and Shih, JS},
   Title = {The cost of environmental protection},
   Journal = {Review of Economics and Statistics},
   Volume = {83},
   Number = {4},
   Pages = {732-738},
   Publisher = {MIT Press - Journals},
   Year = {2001},
   url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1162/003465301753237812},
   Abstract = {Reported expenditures for environmental protection are often
             cited as an assessment of the burden of current regulatory
             efforts. However, the potential for both incidental savings
             and uncounted costs means that the actual burden could be
             either higher or lower than these reported values. Using a
             production cost model that considers the possible
             interaction between environmental and non-environmental
             expenditures, we directly estimate the dollar-for-dollar
             incidental savings/uncounted costs arising from a one-dollar
             increase in reported environmental expenditures. Although
             recent literature supports the idea that reported
             expenditures probably understate the actual burden, we find
             no such evidence in the manufacturing sector based on a
             large panel of plant-level data. In one industry, we find
             statistically significant overstatement. In three others, we
             find no significant deviation in either direction. We
             conclude that, although cost estimates are not overstated on
             average, variation and uncertainty exist at the industry
             level, with some plants experiencing savings and others
             possibly facing uncounted burdens.},
   Doi = {10.1162/003465301753237812},
   Key = {fds267369}
}

@article{fds311239,
   Author = {Pizer, WA},
   Title = {The optimal choice of climate change policy in the presence
             of uncertainty},
   Journal = {Resource and Energy Economics},
   Volume = {21},
   Number = {4},
   Pages = {255-287},
   Year = {1999},
   Month = {August},
   ISSN = {0928-7655},
   url = {http://gateway.webofknowledge.com/gateway/Gateway.cgi?GWVersion=2&SrcApp=PARTNER_APP&SrcAuth=LinksAMR&KeyUT=WOS:000081101200003&DestLinkType=FullRecord&DestApp=ALL_WOS&UsrCustomerID=47d3190e77e5a3a53558812f597b0b92},
   Abstract = {Considerable uncertainty surrounds both the consequences of
             climate change and their valuation over horizons of decades
             or centuries. Yet, there have been few attempts to factor
             such uncertainty into current policy decisions concerning
             stringency and instrument choice. This paper presents a
             framework for determining optimal climate change policy
             under uncertainty and compares the resulting prescriptions
             to those derived from a more typical analysis with
             best-guess parameter values. Uncertainty raises the optimal
             level of emission reductions and leads to a preference for
             taxes over rate controls. This suggests that analyses which
             ignore uncertainty can lead to inefficient policy
             recommendations. © 1999 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights
             reserved.},
   Doi = {10.1016/S0928-7655(99)00005-6},
   Key = {fds311239}
}

@article{fds267354,
   Author = {PIZER, W},
   Title = {The optimal choice of climate change policy in the presence
             of uncertainty},
   Journal = {Res Energy Econ},
   Volume = {21},
   Number = {3-4},
   Pages = {255-287},
   Publisher = {Elsevier BV},
   Year = {1999},
   ISSN = {0928-7655},
   url = {http://gateway.webofknowledge.com/gateway/Gateway.cgi?GWVersion=2&SrcApp=PARTNER_APP&SrcAuth=LinksAMR&KeyUT=WOS:000081101200003&DestLinkType=FullRecord&DestApp=ALL_WOS&UsrCustomerID=47d3190e77e5a3a53558812f597b0b92},
   Abstract = {Considerable uncertainty surrounds both the consequences of
             climate change and their valuation over horizons of decades
             or centuries. Yet, there have been few attempts to factor
             such uncertainty into current policy decisions concerning
             stringency and instrument choice. This paper presents a
             framework for determining optimal climate change policy
             under uncertainty and compares the resulting prescriptions
             to those derived from a more typical analysis with
             best-guess parameter values. Uncertainty raises the optimal
             level of emission reductions and leads to a preference for
             taxes over rate controls. This suggests that analyses which
             ignore uncertainty can lead to inefficient policy
             recommendations. © 1999 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights
             reserved.},
   Doi = {10.1016/S0928-7655(99)00005-6},
   Key = {fds267354}
}

@article{fds267368,
   Author = {Pizer, WA},
   Title = {Optimal Choice of Policy Instrument and Stringency under
             Uncertainty: The Case of Climate Change},
   Journal = {Resource and Energy Economics},
   Volume = {21},
   Number = {(3-4)},
   Pages = {255-287},
   Year = {1999},
   Key = {fds267368}
}

@article{fds343564,
   Author = {Pizer, W and Sefton, M},
   Title = {Solutions: Derivation of the OLS Estimator Without Using
             Calculus},
   Journal = {Econometric Theory},
   Volume = {12},
   Number = {2},
   Pages = {395-396},
   Year = {1996},
   Month = {January},
   url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0266466600006708},
   Doi = {10.1017/S0266466600006708},
   Key = {fds343564}
}


%% Chapters in Books   
@misc{fds336241,
   Author = {Pizer, WA and Zhang, X},
   Title = {China's New National Carbon Market},
   Journal = {Aea Papers and Proceedings},
   Volume = {108},
   Pages = {463-67},
   Publisher = {American Economic Association},
   Year = {2018},
   url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1257/pandp.20181029},
   Abstract = {<jats:p>On December 19, 2017, China announced the official
             start of its national emissions trading system (ETS)
             construction program. When fully implemented, this program
             will more than double the volume of worldwide carbon dioxide
             emissions covered by either tax or tradable permit policy.
             Many of program's design features reflect those of China's
             pilot programs but differ from those of most emissions
             trading programs in the United States and Europe. This paper
             explains the context and design of China's new carbon
             market, discusses implications and possible modifications,
             and suggests topics for further research.</jats:p>},
   Doi = {10.1257/pandp.20181029},
   Key = {fds336241}
}

@misc{fds267326,
   Author = {Aldy, JE and Pizer, WA},
   Title = {Comparing countries' climate mitigation efforts in a
             post-Kyoto world},
   Pages = {233-252},
   Booktitle = {Implementing a US Carbon Tax: Challenges and
             Debates},
   Year = {2015},
   Month = {February},
   ISBN = {9781138814158},
   Key = {fds267326}
}

@misc{fds200749,
   Author = {William A. Pizer and Lee Branstetter},
   Title = {Facing the Climate Change Challenge in a Global
             Economy},
   Booktitle = {Globalization in an Age of Crisis},
   Publisher = {Chicago: University of Chicago Press},
   Editor = {Robert Feenstra and Alan Taylor},
   Year = {2014},
   Key = {fds200749}
}

@misc{fds218833,
   Author = {William A. Pizer and Adam M. Finkel and Christopher Carrigan and eds. , With Joseph Aldy},
   Title = {The Employment and Competitiveness Impacts of Power-Sector
             Regulations. In Cary Coglianese},
   Booktitle = {Does Regulation Kill Jobs?},
   Publisher = {University of Pennsylvania Press},
   Year = {2013},
   Key = {fds218833}
}

@misc{fds218834,
   Author = {William A. Pizer and With Joseph Aldy and I. Parry and A. Morris and R. Williams},
   Title = {Comparing Countries' Climate Mitigation Efforts in a
             Post-Kyoto World},
   Journal = {Carbon Taxes and Fiscal Reforms: Key Issues Facing US Policy
             Makers},
   Publisher = {International Monetary Fund},
   Address = {Washington},
   Year = {2013},
   Key = {fds218834}
}

@misc{fds218835,
   Author = {Williams A. Pizer and In Roger Guesnerie and Henry Tulkens},
   Title = {Economics versus Climate Change},
   Journal = {The Design of Climate Policy},
   Publisher = {Cambridge: MIT Press},
   Year = {2009},
   Key = {fds218835}
}

@misc{fds194737,
   Author = {William A. Pizer},
   Title = {Economics versus Climate Change},
   Booktitle = {The Design of Climate Policy},
   Publisher = {MIT Press},
   Address = {Cambridge, Mass.},
   Editor = {Roger Guesnerie and Henry Tulkens},
   Year = {2009},
   Key = {fds194737}
}

@misc{fds321874,
   Author = {Pizer, WA},
   Title = {Setting energy policy in the modern era: Tough challenges
             lie ahead},
   Pages = {171-174},
   Booktitle = {The RFF Reader in Environmental and Resource Policy: Second
             Edition},
   Publisher = {Routledge},
   Year = {2006},
   Month = {January},
   ISBN = {1933115165},
   url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.4324/9781936331642},
   Doi = {10.4324/9781936331642},
   Key = {fds321874}
}

@misc{fds195246,
   Author = {William A. Pizer},
   Title = {A U.S. perspective on future climate regimes. 2005
             Sustainability Review},
   Publisher = {PARIS: Agence Francaise de. Developpement (AFD) & Institut
             du developpement durable et des relations internationals
             (IDDRI)},
   Year = {2006},
   Key = {fds195246}
}

@misc{fds195247,
   Author = {William A. Pizer},
   Title = {Practical Climate Policy. Joseph Aldy and Robert Stavins,
             eds., Architectures for Agreement},
   Journal = {Cambridge University Press.},
   Publisher = {Cambridge University Press},
   Year = {2006},
   Key = {fds195247}
}

@misc{fds195248,
   Author = {William A. Pizer and Larry Goulder},
   Title = {Economics of Climate Change. Larry Blume and Steven Durlauf,
             eds., The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics},
   Journal = {2nd Edition. Palgrave MacMillan},
   Year = {2005},
   Key = {fds195248}
}

@misc{fds195249,
   Author = {William A. Pizer and Raymond Kopp and Richard Morgenstern and Richard Newell},
   Title = {Domestic Climate and Technology Policy. In New Approaches on
             Energy and the Environment: Policy Advice for the
             President.},
   Journal = {Washington: RFF Press.},
   Year = {2004},
   Key = {fds195249}
}

@misc{fds195250,
   Author = {William A. Pizer},
   Title = {A Tale of Two Policies: Clear Skies and Climate Change. In
             Randall Lutter and Jason Shogren eds, Painting the White
             House Green.},
   Publisher = {Washington: RFF Press},
   Year = {2004},
   Key = {fds195250}
}

@misc{fds267314,
   Author = {Wiener, J},
   Title = {Making Markets for Global Forests Conservation},
   Pages = {119-140},
   Booktitle = {Painting the White House Green: Environmental Economics in
             the White House},
   Year = {2004},
   Key = {fds267314}
}

@misc{fds195251,
   Author = {William A. Pizer and Raymond Kopp},
   Title = {Calculating the Costs of Environmental Regulation.
             Forthcoming in K.G.-Maler and Jeffrey Vincent eds, Handbook
             of Environmental Economics.},
   Journal = {Amsterdam: Elsevier.},
   Year = {2002},
   Key = {fds195251}
}

@misc{fds195255,
   Author = {William A. Pizer and Raymond Kopp and Frederic Ghersi and Richard
             Morgenstern},
   Title = {Limiting Costs and Assuring Domestic Effort under the Kyoto
             Protocol. Forthcoming in Ching-Cheng Chang, Robert
             Mendelsohn, and Daigee Shaw, eds.,},
   Booktitle = {Global Warming in Asian-Pacific, Northhampton: Edward Elgar.
             With Raymond Kopp},
   Year = {2002},
   Key = {fds195255}
}

@misc{fds195259,
   Author = {William A. Pizer},
   Title = {Designing Climate Policy to Address Uncertainty. In
             Designing Climate Policy:},
   Booktitle = {The Challenge of the Kyoto Protocol, edited by H. Abele, T.
             C. Heller and S. P. Schleicher, Vienna: Service
             Fachverlag.},
   Year = {2001},
   Key = {fds195259}
}

@misc{fds195261,
   Author = {William A. Pizer},
   Title = {Choosing Price or Quantity Controls for Greenhouse Gases,
             Climate Change Economics and Policy},
   Booktitle = {Resources for the Future},
   Address = {Washington, DC},
   Year = {2001},
   Key = {fds195261}
}


%% NBER Working Papers   
@article{fds218845,
   Author = {William A. Pizer and Kenneth Arrow and Maureen L. Cropper and Christian Gollier and Ben Groom and Geoffrey M. Heal and Richard G.
             Newell and Robert S. Pindyck and Paul R. Portney and Thomas Sterner and Richard S. J. Tol and Martin L. Weitzman},
   Title = {How Should Benefits and Costs Be Discounted in an
             Intergenerational Context?},
   Journal = {Submitted to Review of Environmental Economics and
             Policy},
   Year = {2013},
   Key = {fds218845}
}

@article{fds218846,
   Author = {William A. Pizer and Working Paper and Andrew
             Yates},
   Title = {Linking and delinking pollution permit markets},
   Year = {2013},
   Key = {fds218846}
}

@article{fds218847,
   Author = {William A. Pizer and Mark Buntaine},
   Title = {Leaders or Followers? Donor Financing of Clean Energy
             Projects in Developing Countries},
   Year = {2012},
   Key = {fds218847}
}

@article{fds218848,
   Author = {William A Pizer and Joseph Addy},
   Title = {How Will Climate Change Policies Affect Domestic
             Manufactuing?},
   Year = {2012},
   Key = {fds218848}
}


%% Other Working Papers   
@article{fds195290,
   Author = {William A. Pizer and Joseph Aldy},
   Title = {The Competitiveness Impacts of Climate Change Mitigation
             Policies},
   Year = {2009},
   Key = {fds195290}
}


%% Other   
@misc{fds218838,
   Author = {William A. Pizer},
   Title = {How Governments can best use public funds for
             CDM},
   Journal = {Guest Commentary, Carbon Markets Europe},
   Volume = {12},
   Number = {2},
   Pages = {8},
   Year = {2013},
   Key = {fds218838}
}

@misc{fds218839,
   Author = {William A. Pizer and Scott Morris},
   Title = {Thinking Through When the World Bank Should Fund Coal
             Projects},
   Year = {2013},
   url = {http://www.cgdev.org/publication/thnking-through-when-world-bank-should-fund-coal-projects},
   Key = {fds218839}
}

@misc{fds218842,
   Author = {William A. Pizer},
   Title = {Seeding the market: auctioned put options for certified
             emissions reductions},
   Journal = {Nicholas Institute Policy Brief 11-06},
   Year = {2011},
   Key = {fds218842}
}

@misc{fds195274,
   Author = {William A. Pizer and Joseph Aldy},
   Title = {The Competitiveness Impacts of Climate Change Mitigation
             Policies.},
   Journal = {Report by the Pew Center on Global Climate
             Change.},
   Year = {2009},
   Key = {fds195274}
}

@misc{fds195276,
   Author = {William A. Pizer},
   Title = {Climate Change Policy in the United States},
   Journal = {Bridges},
   Year = {2006},
   Key = {fds195276}
}

@misc{fds195277,
   Author = {William A. Pizer and Madeleine Baker},
   Title = {Understanding Proposed CAFE Reforms for Light
             Trucks.},
   Year = {2005},
   url = {http://www.rff.org/rff/News/Features/Understanding-Proposed-CAFE-Reforms-for-Light-Trucks.cfm.},
   Key = {fds195277}
}

@misc{fds195278,
   Author = {William A. Pizer},
   Title = {What Kyoto Means for Oil and Gas.},
   Journal = {Horizon 2},
   Pages = {52},
   Year = {2005},
   Key = {fds195278}
}

@misc{fds195279,
   Author = {William A. Pizer},
   Title = {What is the United States Doing about Climate Change?
             Everyone Else is Coping with Kyoto},
   Journal = {Resources},
   Volume = {157},
   Pages = {20},
   Year = {2005},
   Key = {fds195279}
}

@misc{fds195281,
   Author = {William A. Pizer and Joe Kruger},
   Title = {Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative: Prelude to a National
             Program.},
   Journal = {Resources},
   Volume = {156},
   Pages = {4},
   Year = {2005},
   Key = {fds195281}
}

@misc{fds195282,
   Author = {William A. Pizer},
   Title = {Mercury Rising: Understanding Global Warming
             Economics.},
   Journal = {Imagine},
   Volume = {12},
   Number = {3},
   Pages = {21},
   Year = {2005},
   Key = {fds195282}
}

@misc{fds195283,
   Author = {William A. Pizer and Joe Kruger},
   Title = {The EU Emissions Trading Directive: The New Grand Policy
             Experiment.},
   Journal = {Environment},
   Volume = {46},
   Number = {8},
   Year = {2004},
   Key = {fds195283}
}

@misc{fds195284,
   Author = {William A. Pizer and Ray Kopp},
   Title = {Summary and Analysis of McCain-Lieberman-"Climate
             Stewardship Act of 2003, S. 139".},
   Year = {2003},
   url = {http://www.rff.org/McCain_Lieberman_Summary.pdf},
   Key = {fds195284}
}

@misc{fds195285,
   Author = {William A. Pizer and Dallas Burtraw},
   Title = {A Comparison of Two Senate Approaches to Controlling Power
             Plant Pollution.},
   Year = {2002},
   url = {http://www.rff.org/multipollutant/},
   Key = {fds195285}
}

@misc{fds195286,
   Author = {William A. Pizer and Dallas Burtraw and David
             Lankton.},
   Title = {Legislative Comparison of Multipollutant Proposals S. 366,
             S. 485, and S. 843.},
   Year = {2002},
   url = {http://www.rff.org/multipollutant/},
   Key = {fds195286}
}

@misc{fds195287,
   Author = {William A. Pizer and Richard Newell},
   Title = {Discounting the Benefits of Future Climate Change
             Mitigation: How Much Do Uncertain Rates Increase
             Valuations?},
   Journal = {Report by the Pew Center on Global Climate
             Change.},
   Year = {2001},
   Key = {fds195287}
}

@misc{fds195288,
   Author = {William A. Pizer and Raymond Kopp and Richard Morgenstern and Michael Toman},
   Title = {A Proposal for Credible Early Action in U.S. Climate
             Policy.},
   Journal = {Weathervane},
   Year = {1999},
   Key = {fds195288}
}

Billy Pizer