by Kirk Philipich University of Michigan - Dearborn

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Mercury Monitoring by States Robert Vollaro U.S. EPA Clean Air Markets Division (May 2009)
Advertisements

EPA’s Clean Power Plan Proposed Rules for Reducing GHG Emissions from Power Plants Presentation to ACPAC June 16,
The Massachusetts Approach to Power Plant Clean-up Policy Making and Standards Setting to Reach Clean Air Sonia Hamel Massachusetts Executive Office of.
SIZE-RELATED ANOMALIES AND STOCK RETURN SEASONALITY Further Empirical Evidence by Donald B. KEIM Received June 1981, final version received June 1982 Stacey.
Beyond Federal Standards Nevada Mercury Air Emission Control Program Leo M. Drozdoff, P.E. Administrator Nevada Division of Environmental Protection December.
M&A size effect on wealth effect: A panel analysis for China security market Liyan Han, Xiaomeng Wang School of Economics and Management, Beihang University,
Texas Lignite Industry. Texas Lignite  Because >95% of lignite mining operations in Texas are in support of electric generation…..whatever impacts the.
Robert L. Burns, Jr., Esq. Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney PC August 1, 2013 Impact of Environmental Regulation on Coal Combustion for Electrical.
Laura Boothe Attainment Planning Branch Supervisor January 11, 2012.
1 The Black-Scholes-Merton Model MGT 821/ECON 873 The Black-Scholes-Merton Model.
Particulate Matter Monitoring Required by the Utility MATS Eric Swisher| | ext. 17 August 22, 2012 Presented to ARIPPA.
Clean Water Act 319(g) Petition Kathy G. Beckett Midwest Ozone Group January 22-23, 2009.
Since May 2013 Select Clean Air Act Cases. U.S. v. Homer City U.S. v. Midwest Generation, LLC U.S. v. United States Steel CAA Enforcement Cases.
Regulating Greenhouse Gases from Coal Power Plants Under the Clean Air Act Dallas Burtraw (RFF) Joshua Linn (RFF) Erin Mastrangelo (Maryland) USAEE/IAEE.
1 Potential Impacts of a National SO 2 Program WRAP Forum June 3, 2004.
Possible Timeline for Environmental Regulatory Requirements for the Utility Industry Pending EPA air and water pollution regulations for coal plants have.
Industrial Sources of Mercury in the Atmosphere Jim Orgeron Staff Environmental Scientist, Environmental Planning Division.
1. Carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) – Naturally occurring and man- made. 5,505.2 mmts emitted in 2009, GWP = 1 Methane (CH 4 ) - Naturally occurring and man-made.
Massachusetts Multi-pollutant Power Plant Regulations Sharon Weber Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection EPA Utility MACT Working Group.
M Thomas Is the IPO Pricing Process Efficient? Michelle Lowry G William Schwert (Latest Draft February 2003)
June 26, Background of Federal GHG Regulation Supreme Court determines greenhouse gases (GHGs) are “air pollutants” under the Clean Air Act U.S.
Navajo Nation Interest’s In EPA Rulemakings Affecting EGU’s National Tribal Forum May 22-24, 2012 Tulsa, Oklahoma Anoop Sukumaran, Navajo Nation Environmental.
ALGORITHMICTRADIN G 07/02/12. S&P 500 Futures Daily chart.
By: Brian Kaufman.  the total set of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions caused by an organization, event, product or person.  Greenhouse gases can be emitted.
Exceptional Events and Fire Policy Presented by Don Hodge, U.S. EPA Region 9 Interagency Air and Smoke Council meeting May 2, 2012 Disclaimer: Positions.
Impacts of Environmental Regulations in the ERCOT Region Dana Lazarus Planning Analyst, ERCOT January 26, 2016.
Do Demand Curves For Stocks Slope Down?: Evidence From a Regulation Induced Supply Shock Discussant: Pawan Jain.
Building on Our Core Values Building on Our Core Values © 2003 by the AICPA The Sarbanes-Oxley Act.
Behavioral Finance Fama French March 24 Behavioral Finance Economics 437.
Department of Economics Climate Change Legislation & Agriculture 2010 Iowa Turkey Federation Meetings.
Pablo T. Spiller University of California, Berkeley Compass Lexecon
Clean Power Plan Update July 2016 Dale Niezwaag
Regulatory Roadmap: Power sector environmental rules
IAEE 2017 Conference , Singapore 20th June 2017
Xiaoli Zhao, Ye Fan, Ming Fang
Integrated Resource Plan 2016
CURRENT STATUS AND ISSUES OF THE KOREAN EMISSION TRADING SCHEME
Coal Larenz Devaren.
Clean Air Act Litigation Update State Air Director Meeting May 2015
FIGURE 12.1 Walgreens and Microsoft Stock Prices,
Clean Water Act Regulations affecting Electric Utilities
Pharmaceutical Co. Shareholders Perceive that Benefits of Clinical Trials Reporting Exceed Costs Dr. Mina Pizzini, Ph.D. Department of Accounting, McCoy.
Clean Air Act Glossary.
NSPS Rulemakings for Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Asbestos and Environmental Reserves Increases and Shareholder Wealth
IMPLICATIONS AND STRATEGIES
U. S. CLIMATE CHANGE LEGISLATION
The Sarbanes-Oxley Act
C h a p t e r 3 EXTERNALITIES AND GOVERNMENT POLICY
The Cost of Excessive Regulation in the Coal Industry
CHAPTER NINE MARKET EFFICIENCY © 2001 South-Western College Publishing.
Pablo T. Spiller University of California, Berkeley Compass Lexecon
16.4 Control of Air Pollution
Event Studies.
Behavioral Finance Economics 437.
Key Findings and Resource Strategy
Earnings Surprises and Signal Analysis
Clean Energy Virginia Initiative
Why did the Clean Power Plan fail?
Exceptional Events Rulemaking Proposal
Even-Tov O Journal of Accounting & Economics, 2017, 64(1).
NACAA Response to EGU MACT Vacatur
Behavioral Finance Economics 437.
Copyright © 2014 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Behavioral Finance Economics 437.
Discussion of Wagner-Wenk: Agency versus Hold-up: On the Impact of Binding Say-on-Pay on Shareholder Value London, June 2013 Moqi Xu, LSE.
SIA in US Legislative Update Shanghai, China
Types of Financing for business operations
Killed more than 12,000 and hospitalized 150,000
Lecture 10 Efficient Markets
Presentation transcript:

by Kirk Philipich University of Michigan - Dearborn The Impact of EPA Regulation and U.S. Supreme Court Oversight on the Shareholders of U.S. Utilities Utilizing Coal by Kirk Philipich University of Michigan - Dearborn

Historical Background (Five Events of Interest) Regulatory Actions Potentially Affecting Coal-burning Utilities: (1) EPA applied Clean Air Act regulations to utilities (2012), and (2) EPA’s Clean Power Plan (2014 and 2015)

Historical Background (Five Events of Interest) U.S. Supreme Court Actions Affecting Coal-burning Utilities: (1) Ruled that the Clean Air Act applied to the greenhouse gases emitted by utilities (2014), (2) Struck down the 2012 EPA regulations regarding mercury emissions by coal-fired power plants (2015), and (3) Delayed the implementation of the Clean Power Plan (2016)

Historical Background => Prior Coal Company Results Philipich, Bublitz, and Ramanan (2017) found: (1) Significant (-3%) market reaction to the release of the final Clean Power Plan regulations, (2) Significant (-2%) market reaction to the release of the Department of the Interior’s plan to prevent coal mining on public land, and (3) Significant (+5%) market reaction (but only for the most financially weak coal companies) to the U.S. Supreme Court ruling striking down the EPA’s attempt to regulate mercury emissions

Research Method Event study using daily stock returns (January 2014 through March 2016) Analyze an equally-weighted portfolio of 42 U.S. utility stocks all of which employ coal Basic Model: Utility Portfolio Return (RP) = a + bM(Market Return (RM)) + bNG(%DNatural Gas Spot Price) + bO(%DOil Spot Price)

Research Method Expanded Model: Basic Model + Dummy variables for the announcement date and the following day for: EPA’s Clean Power Plan: (1) Initial plan, and (2) Final plan U.S. Supreme Court Rulings: (1) Ruled that the Clean Air Act applied to utilities, (2) Struck down the 2012 EPA regulations regarding mercury, and (3) Delayed the Clean Power Plan implementation

Basic Results Negative market reaction (-1.85%) the day following the release of the final version of the Clean Power Plan (a = .05 level) Positive market reaction (+1.72%) the day the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the EPA regulations limiting mercury emissions by utilities (a = .05 level)

Basic Results Formed a value-weighted portfolio with the 42 utility firms: Negative market reaction (-0.04%) the day following the release of the final version of the Clean Power Plan (a = .05 level)

Results => Sensitivity Formed two equally-weighted portfolios: (1) smallest 21 U.S. utilities and (2) largest 21 U.S. utilities Negative market reaction the day following the release of the final version of the Clean Power Plan for both portfolios (a = .05 level) Positive market reaction the day the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the EPA regulations limiting mercury emissions only for the small firm portfolio (a = .01 level)

Results => Sensitivity Formed two equally-weighted portfolios: (1) most thinly traded 21 U.S. utilities and (2) least thinly traded 21 U.S. utilities Negative market reaction for both portfolios the day following the release of the final version of the Clean Power Plan (a = .05 level) Positive market reaction the day the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the EPA regulations limiting mercury emissions by utilities only for the most thinly traded portfolio (a = .01 level)

Results => Sensitivity Formed an equally-weighted portfolio of the 12 firms that are both small and thinly traded Negative market reaction (a = .05 level) the day following the release of the final version of the Clean Power Plan that is approximately the same size as found for the size and thin traded portfolios (-1.86% versus -1.76%, -1.95, -2.07%, and -1.65%) Positive market reaction (a = .01 level) the day the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the EPA regulations limiting mercury emissions by utilities that is almost twice the size of that found for the small firms and the thinly traded firms (+5.18% versus +3.13% and +2.93%)

Conclusions (1) Immediate, negative market reaction to the release of the final version of the Clean Power Plan (2) Immediate, positive market reaction, for the smallest and/or most thinly traded firms, to the U.S. Supreme Court ruling striking down the EPA’s regulations on mercury emissions by utilities (3) An apparent interaction effect to the U.S. Supreme Court ruling striking down the EPA’s regulations on mercury emissions by utilities