Lee Friedman

This paper analyzes the effectiveness of a public agency’s managerial decision intended to promote biodiversity on the lands that it owns. The agency is the East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD) that provides water to most of the eastern San Francisco Bay Area. In the 1940s, it planted non-native Monterey Pines on a 366 acre parcel by the San Pablo Reservoir referred to as the horse-logging area. Late in that century, it decided that the nonnative Monterey Pines were not consistent with its goal of promoting biodiversity on the lands that it stewards, and that these lands should be allowed to return gradually and naturally to their native oak woodland. By the turn of the century, many of the Monterey Pines were weak and dying. Starting in 2002, EBMUD allowed these lands to be regularly surveyed to assess the breeding bird population in them. This paper analyzes the survey data from 2002-2018 to consider how the bird population has changed and if the change is one that promotes biodiversity. The paper finds that biodiversity has increased significantly by multiple measures. The paper rejects two alternative hypotheses to explain the biodiversity increase: (1) that it could be part of a broader regional trend of avian biodiversity increase, and (2) that it could be an artifact of the survey methodology. EBMUD’s decision to allow these lands to return gradually to their native vegetation was effective; it has resulted in a significant increase in avian biodiversity. This increase includes the presence in 2010-2018 of important species that were not present in 2002-2009, including migratory species like the Olive-sided Flycatcher, Ash-throated Flycatcher, and Black-headed Grosbeak. More generally, the evidence in this study supports the idea that native vegetation promotes biodiversity.

This paper emphasizes the importance of bringing off-peak rates down to their
marginal costs so that the current mispricing of electricity does not act as a substantial
deterrent to the reduction of greenhouse gases, as through vehicle electrification. It
considers whether there are feasible, efficient and equitable time-varying electricity rate
structures that will be attractive to large numbers of residential customers with smart
meters. One family of rate structures called Household On and Off Peak (HOOP) plans meets
the efficiency criterion and is promising for meeting the distributional ones. HOOP plans
utilize marginal-cost time-based rates except for fixed infrastructure charges that vary by
customer group and cover nonmarginal expenses. Two alternative equity principles to guide
the assignment of the fixed infrastructure charges to different groups are considered. A
representative sample of California residences with usage data for each 15 minute interval
for a one year period enablessome preliminary tests ofthese HOOP designs. Simple
statewide versions of these designs replicate reasonably closely the actual bill distribution
that results from the independent and far more complex rate structures in use by the three
separate utilities that service these residences, suggesting that each utility could use HOOP
designs to meet the necessary criteria.

We began this research with two overlapping objectives. The first, and of most general
academic interest, is to gain insight about the following puzzle: why has there been
essentially nil implementation of any of the institutional ideas in the economics literature
for improving the efficiency of public goods decisions? These ideas have been proposed
and refined in literally hundreds of academic articles over the past 30 years, many of
them have undergone extensive laboratory testing, and we have an extensive network of
public policy practitioners and academics that might be expected to help bring them into
practice. The second objective is more specific and of immediate policy relevance: to
understand if there are opportunities to increase the effectiveness of the federal Legal
Services Corporation (LSC) by improving its decisions about its own internal public
goods, largely the provision of information to attorneys that directly service the eligible
low-income population. Providing these public goods requires locating, customizing,
synthesizing, and creating documents and templates, doing research, leading training, and
answering questions. We hope that our joint consideration of these two objectives might
be beneficial to each: identifying practical implications of the public goods literature may
benefit the LSC, and a case-study of LSC may identify general challenges that public
goods mechanism literature should address.

There is and always has been virtual consensus among economists that many agricultural
crop support programs cause inefficiency. Equally true, economists also know that whenever
there is inefficiency, there is "room for a deal" that mitigates it. However, the standard
political explanations for the persistence of these inefficient programs rely on the strength of
the farm lobby relative to the diffuse and difficult-to-organize consumers that pay for them.
This is unsatisfactory because, by the logic of economics, there is an opportunity for a deal
that would benefit the farm lobby in exchange for shedding the inefficient programs. If the
farm lobby could itself benefit, then we have no explanation for the persistence of the
inefficient programs. I examine this puzzle, and conclude that increased political
sophistication on the part of agricultural economists could have a high social payoff in terms
of reduced program inefficiencies over time.

How well can democratic decision making incorporate the knowledge and expertise generated by public policy analysts? This book examines the historical development of policy analysis, as well as its use in legislative and regulatory bodies and in the federal executive branch. The essays show that policy-analytic expertise effectively improves governmental services only when it complements democratic decision making. When successful, policy analysis fosters valuable new ideas, better use of evidence, and greater transparency in decision processes.

We investigate through a survey-based choice experiment US and Japanese consumer preferences for two alternative fuels, nuclear and renewable sources, as energy sources that have potential to reduce GHG emissions. The results for the US are similar across the four states sampled concerning consumers’ WTP for the reduction of air emissions: people are willing to pay approximately $0.30 per month for a 1% decrease in GHG emissions. Second, the average consumer expresses a negative preference for increases in nuclear power in the fuel mix in both countries. Japanese consumers have a stronger aversion to nuclear energy than US consumers. Third, US and Japanese consumers will pay more for emissions reduction with the use of renewable sources. Finally, we have shown that results like those found in this study can be useful in helping to set parameters for renewable energy policies like FIT rates and RPS stringency.

This paper conducts a comparative discrete choice analysis to estimate consumers' willingness to pay (WTP) for electric vehicles (EVs) and plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs) on the basis of the same stated preference survey carried out in the US and Japan in 2012. We also carry out a comparative analysis across four US states. We find that on average US consumers are more sensitive to fuel cost reductions and alternative fuel station availability than are Japanese consumers. With regard to the comparative analysis across the four US states, consumers’ WTP for a fuel cost reduction in California is considerably greater than in the other three states. We use the estimates obtained in the discrete choice analysis to examine the EV/PHEV market shares under several scenarios. In a base case scenario with relatively realistic attribute levels, conventional gasoline vehicles still dominate both in the US and Japan. However, in an innovation scenario with a significant purchase price reduction, we observe a high penetration of alternative fuel vehicles both in the US and Japan. We illustrate the potential use of a discrete choice analysis for forward-looking policy analysis, with the future opportunity to compare its predictions against actual revealed choices. In this case, increased purchase price subsidies are likely to have a significant impact on the market shares of alternative fuel vehicles.

To reach its 2050 greenhouse gas reduction goal, California electricity must become cleaner and some activities that are now fossil-­‐fueled must run partially or fully on the cleaner electricity—a process termed electrification.  This paper recommends pricing policy reforms that will help to make decarbonization and electrification decisions effectively and efficiently. Its emphasis is on better alignment of prices with social costs. But participation of many other jurisdictions besides California is also necessary for mitigating climate change efficiently.  Therefore California policymakers should look favorably upon linkage of its cap-­‐and-­‐trade program with jurisdictions like Quebec that adopt comparable goals and rules.  Policymakers should also act soon to clarify state efforts to reduce GHG emissions beyond the 2020 mandate of AB 32—otherwise, the uncertainty lowers expected future allowance prices and deters investments and research and development efforts for cleaner generation, factories, buildings, and other infrastructure. Substantial  reform  is also needed  with the retail  pricing  of electricity. Restrictions  held over from  the  state’s  2001  electricity  crisis  are  preventing  10  million California  residences  from receiving any carbon price signal at all, despite the fact that they would be compensated for this price increase with dividends. California also needs to transition its electricity customers on to time-­‐varying  rates that reflect the large social cost differences of providing service at different times of the day. The prevailing time-­‐invariant system is an inefficient impediment to vehicle electrification—while it only costs about $.05 per kWh to provide offpeak electricity when recharging is convenient, many customers face rates that are more than 6 times this cost. The same  misalignment  of  rates  with  costs  is  also hindering  the  development  of  grid  storage important to manage increased use of intermittent renewable generation. It is hindering participation  in demand  response  programs  that  avoid inefficient,  high-­‐emission peak generation,  facilitate increased renewable generation,  and can be used to provide better and cleaner ancillary  services.  Time-­‐varying  prices commensurate with costs of service would not only fix these  issues,  but they would  encourage  the development of enabling  technology  to further  improve  all  of these  GHG-­‐reducing  actions.  Important fairness  concerns  about  time-­‐ varying rates can be addressed by several rate design methods, including HOOP (Household On and  Off  Peak)  pricing  that  combines  time-­‐varying 
marginal-­‐cost  based  volumetric  rates  with  a system of non-­‐distorting graduated fees.

The efficient reduction of GHG emissions requires appropriate retail pricing of off-peak
electricity. However, off-peak electricity for residential consumers is priced at 331% above its marginal cost
in the United States as a whole (June 2009). Even for the 1% of residences that are on some form of
time-of- use (TOU) rate schedule, the off-peak rate is almost three times higher than the marginal
cost. A barrier to marginal-cost based TOU rates is that less than 9% of U.S. households have the
“smart” meters in place that can measure and record the time of consumption. Policies should be put
in place to achieve full deployment. Another important barrier is consumer concern about TOU rate
design. Two TOU rate designs (baseline and two-part tariff) are described that utilize marginal-cost based rates, ensure appropriate cost recovery, and minimize bill changes from current rate structures. A final barrier is to get residences on to these rates. Should a marginal-cost based TOU rate design remain an alternative for which residences could “opt-in,” or become the default choice, or become mandatory?
Time-invariant rates are a historical anachronism that subsidize very costly peak-period consumption and penalize off-
peak usage to our environmental detriment. They should be phased out.