Political economy of low sulfurization and air pollution control policy in Japan : SOx emission reduction by fuel conversion

In the early stages of the development of Japan’s environmental policy, sulfur oxide (SOx) emissions, which seriously damage health, was the most important air pollution problem. In the second half of the 1960s and the first half of the 1970s, the measures against SOx emissions progressed quickly, and these emissions were reduced drastically. The most important factor of the reduction was the conversion to a low-sulfur fuel for large-scale fuel users, such as the electric power industry. However, industries started conversion to low-sulfur fuel not due to environmental concerns, but simply to reduce costs. Furthermore, the interaction among the various interests of the electric power industry, oil refineries, the central government, local governments, and citizens over the energy and environmental policies led to the measures against SOx emissions by fuel conversion.

Should energy efficiency be traded off for other product attributes? : an analysis of air-conditioner regulation in Japan

This paper examines the functioning of energy efficiency standards and labeling policies for air conditioners in Japan. The results of our empirical analysis suggest that consumers respond more to label information, which benchmarks the energy efficiency performance of each product to a pre-specified target, than to direct performance measures. This finding provides justification for the setting, and regular updating, of target standards as well as their use in calculating relative performance measures. We also find, through graphical analysis, that air conditioner manufacturers face a tradeoff between energy efficiency and product compactness when they develop their products. This tradeoff, combined with the semi-regular upward revision of minimum energy efficiency standards, has led to the growth in indoor unit size of air conditioners in recent years. In the face of this phenomenon, regulatory rules were revised so that manufacturers could adhere to less stringent standards if the indoor unit size of their product remains below a certain size. Our demand estimates provide no evidence that larger indoor unit size causes disutility to consumers. It is therefore possible that the regulatory change was not warranted from a consumer welfare point of view.