Skip to main content Accesibility Help
×
×
Home

Electric utilities and American climate policy: lobbying by expected winners and losers

  • Sung Eun Kim (a1), Johannes Urpelainen (a2) and Joonseok Yang (a3)
Abstract

When and why do individual companies lobby on environmental policies? Given the structural strength of business interests, the answer to this question is important for explaining policy. However, evidence on the strategic lobbying behaviour of individual companies remains scarce. We use data from lobbying disclosure reports on all major climate bills introduced during the 111th Congress (2009–2010). We then link the lobbying disclosure reports to detailed data on the fuel choices of all electric utilities in the United States along with socioeconomic, institutional and political data from the states where the utilities operate. The expected winners (renewable energy, natural gas users) from climate policy are much more likely to lobby individually on federal legislation than the expected losers (coal users). We find that expected winners lobby for specific provisions and rents as a private good, whereas expected losers concentrate their efforts on collective action through trade associations and committees to prevent climate legislation. The results suggest that the supporters of climate policy believed the probability of federal climate legislation to be nontrivial.

Copyright
References
Hide All
Akaike, H. (1998) Information Theory and an Extension of the Maximum Likelihood Principle. In Parzen, E., Tanabe, K. and Kitagawa, G. (eds.), Selected Papers of Hirotugu Akaike. New York, NY: Springer, 199213.
Austen-Smith, D. and Wright, J. R. (1992) Competitive Lobbying for a Legislator’s Vote. Social Choice and Welfare 9(3): 229257.
Baumgartner, F. R., Berry, J. M., Hojnacki, M., Leech, B. L. and Kimball, D. C. (2009) Lobbying and Policy Change: Who Wins, Who Loses, and Why. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Baumgartner, F. R. and Leech, B. L. (1998) Basic Interests: The Importance of Groups in Politics and in Political Science. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Bendor, J. and Mookherjee, D. (1987) Institutional Structure and the Logic of Ongoing Collective Action. American Political Science Review 81(1): 129154.
Bernhagen, P. (2008) Business and International Environmental Agreements: Domestic Sources of Participation and Compliance by Advanced Industrialized Democracies. Global Environmental Politics 8(1): 78110.
Boehmke, F. J., Gailmard, S. and Patty, J. W. (2013) Business as Usual: Interest Group Access and Representation Across Policy-Making Venues. Journal of Public Policy 33(1): 333.
Bombardini, M. (2008) Firm Heterogeneity and Lobby Participation. Journal of International Economics 75(2): 329348.
Bombardini, M. and Trebbi, F. (2012) Competition and Political Organization: Together or Alone in Lobbying for Trade Policy? Journal of International Economics 87(1): 1826.
Bunea, A. (2013) Issues, Preferences and Ties: Determinants of Interest Groups’ Preference Attainment in the EU Environmental Policy. Journal of European Public Policy 20(4): 552570.
Cheon, A. and Urpelainen, J. (2013) How do Competing Interest Groups Influence Environmental Policy? The Case of Renewable Electricity in Industrialized Democracies, 1989–2007. Political Studies 61(4): 874897.
Culpepper, P. D. (2010) Quiet Politics and Business Power: Corporate Control in Europe and Japan. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
de Figueiredo, J. M. and Richter, B. K. (2014) Advancing the Empirical Research on Lobbying. Annual Review of Political Science 17: 163185.
de Figueiredo, J. M. and Tiller, E. H. (2001) The Structure and Conduct of Corporate Lobbying: How Firms Lobby the Federal Communications Commission. Journal of Economics and Management Strategy 10(1): 91122.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). (2009) Preliminary Analysis of the Waxman-Markey Discussion Draft: The American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 in the 111th Congress, EPA, http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/Downloads/EPAactivities/WM-Analysis.pdf
Exelon (2009) Exelon CEO Urges Action on Sensible Climate Legislation this Year Despite Current Economic Uncertainty, press release, 15 May, http://www.exeloncorp.com/newsroom/pr 20090515.aspx (accessed 30 November 2014).
Ferejohn, J. A. (1974) Pork Barrel Politics: Rivers and Harbors Legislation, 1947–1968. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Galanter, M. (1974) Why the “Haves” Come Out Ahead: Speculations on the Limits of Legal Change. Law and Society Review 9(1): 95169.
Gilligan, M. J. (1997) Lobbying as a Private Good with Intra-Industry Trade. International Studies Quarterly 41(3): 455474.
Grossman, G. M. and Helpman, E. (1994) Protection for Sale. American Economic Review 84(4): 833850.
Gullberg, A. T. (2008) Lobbying Friends and Foes in Climate Policy: The Case of Business and Environmental Interest Groups in the European Union. Energy Policy 36(8): 29642972.
Hansen, W. L., Mitchell, N. J. and Drope, J. M. (2005) The Logic of Private and Collective Action. American Journal of Political Science 49(1): 150167.
Hart, D. M. (2004) “Business” is Not an Interest Group: On the Study of Companies in American National Politics. Annual Review of Political Science 7: 4769.
Hirsh, R. F. (1999) Power Loss: The Origins of Deregulation and Restructuring in the American Electric Utility System. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Hojnacki, M., Kimball, D. C., Baumgartner, F. R., Berry, J. M. and Leech, B. L. (2012) Studying Organizational Advocacy and Influence: Reexamining Interest Group Research. Annual Review of Political Science 15: 379399.
Izzo, R. (2009) Testimony of Ralph Izzo, House Committee on Energy and Commerce, Sub-Committee on Energy and Environment, 26 February, Washington, DC.
Keohane, N. O., Revesz, R. L. and Stavins, R. N. (1998) The Choice of Regulatory Instruments in Environmental Policy. Harvard Environmental Law Review 22(2): 313367.
Magee, C. (2002) Endogenous Trade Policy and Lobby Formation: An Application to the Free-Rider Problem. Journal of International Economics 57(2): 449471.
Mahoney, C. (2007) Networking vs. Allying: The Decision of Interest Groups to Join Coalitions in the US and the EU. Journal of European Public Policy 14(3): 366383.
Mahoney, C. (2008) Brussels Versus the Beltway: Advocacy in the United States and the European Union. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
Martin, C. J. (1989) Business Influence and State Power: The Case of U.S. Corporate Tax Policy. Politics and Society 17(2): 189223.
McFarland, A. S. (1984) Energy Lobbies. Annual Review of Energy 9: 501527.
Michaelowa, A. (2005) The German Wind Energy Lobby: How to Promote Costly Technological Change Successfully. European Environment 15(3): 192199.
Milner, H. V. (1988) Resisting Protectionism: Global Industries and the Politics of International Trade. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Olson, M. (1965) The Logic of Collective Action: Public Goods and the Theory of Groups. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Point Carbon. (2009) Carbon Exposure: Winners and Losers in a US Carbon Market, Point Carbon Research, Carbon Market Analyst North America, Washington, DC.
Progress Energy. (2009) Progress Energy CEO Provides a Statement on Evolving Climate and Energy Bill, press release, 18 May, http://www.markey.senate.gov/GlobalWarming/files/LTTR/ACES/Exelon.pdf (accessed 30 November 2014).
Russo, M. V. (2001) Institutions, Exchange Relations, and the Emergence of New Fields: Regulatory Policies and Independent Power Production in America, 1978–1992. Administrative Science Quarterly 46(1): 5786.
Sandler, T. and Tschirhart, J. T. (1980) The Economic Theory of Clubs: An Evaluative Survey. Journal of Economic Literature 18(4): 14811521.
Sine, W. D., Haveman, H. A. and Tolbert, P. S. (2005) Risky Business? Entrepreneurship in the New Independent-Power Sector. Administrative Science Quarterly 50(2): 200232.
Tomz, M., Wittenberg, J. and King, G. (2003) CLARIFY: Software for Interpreting and Presenting Statistical Results. Journal of Statistical Software 8(1): 1–30.
Vogel, D. (1996) Kindred Strangers: The Uneasy Relationship Between Politics and Business in America. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

Journal of Public Policy
  • ISSN: 0143-814X
  • EISSN: 1469-7815
  • URL: /core/journals/journal-of-public-policy
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *
×

Keywords

Type Description Title
PDF
Supplementary materials

Kim supplementary material
Kim supplementary material 1

 PDF (127 KB)
127 KB

Metrics

Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed