Dr. Goldstein will also continue in his capacity as Professor of Finance at Babson College, where he holds the Donald P. Babson Chair in Applied Investments. He specializes in examining the structure of equity and bond markets and does work in climate change, dividend policy, asset pricing, real estate, and privatization.

We wish Dr. Goldstein all the best in this new role.

The post Brattle Congratulates Academic Advisor Dr. Michael Goldstein on Appointment as Secretary/Treasurer of the Financial Management Association appeared first on Brattle.

The post Brattle Group Report Demonstrates that Available Evidence Does Not Support Polystyrene Ban in California appeared first on Brattle.

The post The Stated Preference Method: Is It Reliable for Determining Natural Resources Damages? What are the Alternatives? appeared first on Brattle.

The risks of global climate change are likely to lead to the de-carbonization of the electricity sector worldwide, bringing with it significant investments in infrastructure with new and emerging technologies in renewable energy. In their article, “Hurry or Wait – The Pros and Cons of Going Fast or Slow on Climate Change,” Dr. Weiss and Professor Eleanor Denny explain that there are both benefits and costs to mitigating climate change rapidly. Because technological progress will likely lower the future cost of renewable energy, there are benefits for utilities in waiting to invest until these costs fall. On the other hand, delaying mitigation results in higher cumulative greenhouse gas emissions (GHG), which in turn have two associated costs. First, higher cumulative GHG emissions lead to higher expected damages. Using a range of estimates for the social cost of carbon, the authors conclude that this first cost is of the same order of magnitude as potential savings from delaying deployment of renewable energy.

A second cost, however, results to the significant uncertainty concerning the relationship of cumulative emissions and resulting climate change. The authors argue that given a ten percent chance of carbon emissions on the current trajectory leading to a global temperature increase of seven degrees Centigrade or more, the insurance value of mitigating fast is likely significant and should tip the balance in favor of moving fast.

For more information, please visit The Economists’ Voice website.

The post Article by Jürgen Weiss Examines the Benefits and Costs for Utilities of Moving Fast or Slow on Climate Change Mitigation appeared first on Brattle.

The authors point out that many environmental regulatory and legal proceedings rely heavily on monetizing natural resource and recreational impacts. In the regulatory realm, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is required to assess all social benefits and costs for any regulatory changes that would impact the U.S. economy by$100 million or more. In the legal realm, natural resource damages (NRD), such as those resulting from oil spills and other contamination, also require monetization. Economists have developed several methods to estimate social costs and damages including travel cost models, hedonic pricing models, and contingent valuation.

These methods, however, are expensive to implement and require time consuming statistical analysis. Secondary methods have been developed to avoid these implementation costs, including a method referred to as the benefits transfer approach. This approach relies on borrowing a value, say for a lost fishing day from one study at one site and applying it to another similarly situated site. This approach has become widely used, applied in almost 50% of oil spill cases over the past 30 years. The application of benefits transfer in these cases frequently use one of the most straightforward applications of the method, namely a simple average of estimates across comparable studies, that lags behind the more technical benefits transfer approaches now common in the academic literature.

The authors posit that despite the average value benefits transfer approach’s widespread use, it remains a second best approach. They analyze how well it performs using statistical analysis and demonstrate that its viability depends heavily on how similar the selected sites are. The authors provide evidence of the importance of care and judgement in the implementation of benefits transfer in order to improve viability.

The post Brattle Group Consultants Publish Article on Accuracy of Benefits Transfer for Environmental Valuation appeared first on Brattle.

Although recent cases, such as Deepwater Horizon, still rely on stated preference methods, especially the Contingent Valuation (CV) method, to measure non-use damages that result from major environmental accidents, experts continue to debate its reliability.

The webinar will discuss economic and legal perspectives on the complexities of this method, address a new academic paper’s proposal to replace the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s guidance on the method, pose guiding questions that should be addressed when applying this method in natural resource damages cases, and review the alternative tools available to economists to provide damage valuations.

Speakers include:

• Mark Berkman, Principal, The Brattle Group
• David Sunding, Principal, The Brattle Group, and Professor, University of California, Berkeley
• Daniel McFadden, Principal, The Brattle Group, and Professor, University of Southern California and University of California, Berkeley
• Vic Adamowicz, Professor and Vice Dean, University of Alberta
• Loren Dunn, Principal, Beveridge & Diamond
• James Bruen, Partner, Farella, Braun & Martel

The webinar has been approved for 1 CLE California credit. To register, please visit here. For questions, please contact events@brattle.com.

To listen to the on-demand recording of this webinar, please visit here.

The post Brattle to Host Webinar on Methods for Determining Natural Resource Damages appeared first on Brattle.

Attorney General Lori Swanson noted she was pleased with the settlement, and that the money would be used to help affected communities, to improve drinking water quality and sustainability, and to fund natural resource projects. Brattle economists provided evidence on liability and assessed damages on behalf of the State of Minnesota.

The long and contentious case began in 2010 as a lawsuit over fish and waterways in Minnesota, and developed into a dispute regarding contamination of some of the state’s drinking water supplies. The state posited that perfluorinated chemicals (PFCs), which were previously used in 3M products, had entered some of the state’s water resources and was contributing to health and environmental issues in the area.

A Brattle team led by Principal David Sunding and managed by Associate Gina Waterfield used statistical methods to demonstrate that the affected communities faced elevated rates of certain adverse health outcomes associated with PFCs. They also evaluated the effects of the contamination on local property values and on the welfare of recreational visitors to contaminated lakes and rivers. Dr. Sunding testified on his analyses in depositions, and his report was released publicly in support of the State’s request for punitive damages.

The post Brattle Team Contributes to $850 Million Settlement in Minnesota v. 3M appeared first on Brattle.

In the article, “Dynamic Pricing and Low-Income Customers,” Dr. Faruqui and Dr. Wood discuss the two types of dynamic pricing that have garnered the most attention within the power industry, critical peak pricing (CPP) and peak-time rebate (PTR), and the studies that have been conducted to test the effects of each. They conclude that low-income customers do respond to dynamic rates, and many experienced benefits even without shifting their load in response to price signals.

The post Brattle Principal Ahmad Faruqui Co-Authors Article on Dynamic Pricing and Low-Income Customers for Public Utilities Fortnightly appeared first on Brattle.

More specifically, the study analyzes the impact of market concentration and the expansion of private levels on final prices, quality, and innovation. The study provides empirical evidence that suggests the existence of dominant positions at the retail level of Mercadona in the regions of Comunidad Valenciana and Andalucía, and Eroski in the Basque Country. It concludes that the increased concentration of retailers, the tendency toward vertical integration, and the rise in the market share of private labels are already having a negative effect on price (and quality) competition and on the incentives of manufacturers to invest in new products and innovate. It further highlights that the discriminatory management of manufacturer and retailer brands adopted by dominant retailers may have exclusionary effects for the manufacturer brands that may ultimately reduce the consumer welfare. The authors propose a list of guidelines to promote competition in the Spanish food supply market, including prohibitions to privileged information exchanges between manufactures and retailers related to strategic variables (such as prices, costs structures, promotions and sales) and the imposition of FRAND (Fair, Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory) conditions on the commercial relations between manufacturers and retailers. Drs. García and Delgado recently discussed the findings of their study during a presentation before the Spanish Ministry. Their report and meeting were featured in Expansión, an economic newspaper based in Madrid, Spain.

The Brattle study, as well as a summary presentation of the report, can be downloaded using the links below.

Report

Summary Presentation

The post Brattle Consultants Author Competitive Assessment of the Spanish Food Supply Chain appeared first on Brattle.