Nonmarket strategy includes all of the interesting and creative activities a stakeholder may perform in an effort to create a nonmarket environment that best serves its interest. A firm may challenge a law that makes it expensive or difficult to do business or compete with others, for example. An individual may organize a boycott of products or services that violate the individual's interests or principles--hey, don't buy from them, they donate to cause/candidate that we disagree with! Protesters may march in the streets or write letters to elected officials. A firm may commission a study, with likely positive outcomes in a field related to its business, for distribution to the public and policy makers. These are all attempts to use forces outside of the market to influence what happens in the market--where the money changes hands!
In this lesson, we will look at strategies that apply to nonmarket action that takes place in government arenas. This is called public politics. In the following lesson, we will consider strategies for nonmarket action that takes place outside of public arenas, called private politics.
By the end of this lesson, you should be able to...
The table below provides an overview of the requirements for Lesson 2. For details, please see individual assignments.
Please refer to the Calendar in Canvas for specific time frames and due dates.
REQUIREMENT | SUBMITTING YOUR WORK |
---|---|
Read Lesson 2 content and any additional assigned material | Not submitted. |
Weekly Activity 2 | Yes—Complete Activity located in the Modules Tab in Canvas. |
In the last lesson, we introduced a framework for the analysis of nonmarket issues.
In part 1 of the RPS case study, we accomplished steps 1 and 2. At the end of this lesson, the case study will continue through steps 3, 4, and 5. We will illustrate how the framework is used to present a summary of an issue and the positions of stakeholders. This information (the outcome of nonmarket analysis) is used as the basis for forming a nonmarket strategy.
An effective business strategy is an integrated strategy that guides a firm’s actions in both market and nonmarket environments.
“When a firm chooses a market strategy, that strategy competes with the strategies of other participants in the market. Similarly, when a firm chooses a nonmarket strategy, that strategy competes with the strategies of others, including other firms, interest groups, and activists. That competition shapes the nonmarket environment and often the market environment as well. The nonmarket environment thus should be thought of as competitive, as is the market environment. Nonmarket competition focuses on specific issues, such as a bill to increase fuel economy standards, as well as on broader issues, such as open access to the Internet” (Baron, 2010, p. 36).
Market strategies position a firm to be competitive in the marketplace; to take advantage of market opportunities. Nonmarket strategies, on the other hand, work to shape the market environment in which a firm does business (the marketplace). For example, nonmarket strategies may affect regulation and public opinion.
In a market, firms compete with other firms. In the nonmarket environment, however, there are many other players. Motivated by self-interest or broader concerns, these other players may include individuals, activists, unions, advocacy groups, and non-government organizations (NGOs). We’ll refer to these nonmarket players collectively as interest groups.
Both firms and interests groups have nonmarket strategies. A nonmarket strategy addresses the issues on the agenda of a firm or interest group. The strategy has objectives and a plan of action that takes into account the strategies of all stakeholders engaged on an issue. This includes the strategies of those aligned with and opposed to the objectives of the firm or interest group developing the strategy.
So, the nonmarket environment includes both firms and interest groups competing for advantage on issues. When this competition takes place in the context of the institution of government, it is called public politics. When the competition between firms and other stakeholders takes place outside of the context of the institution of government, it is called private politics.
This lesson and the next lesson are about nonmarket strategy. In this lesson, we focus on public politics. The next lesson will address private politics.
The objectives of a nonmarket strategy accomplish two things: they focus attention on the issue, and they help clarify alignment between stakeholders (those who are on the same side, who have the same or similar objectives). It is often helpful to specify a primary objective (stop this bill from getting passed!) but also a contingency objective (if it does pass, attempt to get, or avoid, some key wording). "For example, the domestic auto industry abandoned its primary objective of preventing higher fuel economy standards and adopted its contingent objective of obtaining flexibility in meeting the standards and measures to protect U.S. jobs" (Baron, 2010, p. 191).
Government arenas exist at many levels, including local, state, federal, and international, and they may take many different forms, from legislative to judicial and all the oversight agencies in between. Often, stakeholders may have some say in the arena where the issue will be addressed. Determining the desired arena can be a significant step in the development of a nonmarket strategy for resolving an issue.
Usually, nonmarket issues are initiated by interest groups. For example, in the case of electric vehicles that are too quiet, the issue was raised by consumer complaints. And typically, the stakeholder(s) that initiate an issue are the ones that determine where the issue will be addressed. But this is not always the case. Sometimes other stakeholders, including firms, may have an opportunity to drive the selection of an institutional arena.
Carbon border taxes are an emerging issue in climate change policy. As more countries enact emissions limits, they may begin taxing certain imports to maintain fair competition. Please read the following article for some insight into this issue:
During the Trump Presidency, tariffs had become a major topic of discussion. Former President Trump repeatedly threatened tariffs on countries that manufacture goods outside of U.S. borders since early in his presidency, and enacted a number of controversial tariffs [8] on a variety of goods. This is a very contentious issue, and is a prominent example of public politics.
There are three general approaches to nonmarket strategy in institutional (government) arenas: Representation, Majority Building, and Information Provision. Each type of strategy involves its own set of tactics, or activities, to execute the strategy.
Please keep in mind that these are general approaches, not specific strategies. Strategies are explained on the next page.
When a stakeholder seeks to influence the vote of an elected official, it is called “lobbying.” The people who do it are called lobbyists or just “the lobby,” (e.g., “the coal lobby”). Lobbying is a major tool for both representation and informational strategies. In fact, the Center for Responsive Politics [14] reports that firms, labor unions, and other organizations spent over $4 billion (with a "b!") in 2022 to lobby Congress and federal agencies. As of the summer of 2023, there are over 12,000 registered federal lobbyists (down from a high of nearly 15,000 in 2007). Every year since 2007 has had spending levels been above $3.2 billion in inflation-adjusted dollars!
Effective lobbying involves access to lawmakers or administrative officials, and, once you get there, strategic information. Two types of information are involved: technical and political. Technical information is about the issue—data and predictions. Political information pertains to the effects of the alternatives on constituents (voters) of the office holder. (If you pass this bill, prices will rise/fall, jobs will be gained/lost, the environment will be helped/damaged, and your constituents will be thrilled/enraged/helped/hurt/etc.).
Either way, to be effective, the information needs to be credible. To establish credibility, the officeholder may seek to verify the information with a third party (ideally by an opposing interest) or seek information from a source that is widely trusted by constituents. When data is backed by studies or verifiable data, it is generally more effective. It is clear that we are living in a somewhat "post-fact" political environment (particularly in the U.S.), but all else being equal, information provided to politicians is more effective if it is backed by legitimate data.
Of course, it is “both allowed and commonplace” for stakeholders to use information in a way that advocates their side of an issue! However, there are times when it would be immoral and possibly illegal to withhold information or make false claims. Responsible stakeholders remain highly mindful of this line.
Electoral support activities focus on providing resources that help candidates during elections. For example, endorsements, volunteer workers, help with get-out-the-vote campaigns, campaign contributions, and funding for political advertisements (for and against candidates) are all electoral support activities. Activities of this nature are widely used by unions and many interest groups, but less so by firms, which tend to spend more on lobbying.
A major Supreme Court ruling in 2010 has worked to change this, however, at least for Federal Elections. As reported by the Center for Responsive Politics [15]:
In a 5-4 ruling in the case of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the court overturned a ban on corporate and union involvement in federal elections that had been in effect since the early 1900s. The ruling allows corporations, unions and other organizations to spend unlimited sums from their own treasuries to fund political advertisements advocating the election (or defeat) of specific federal candidates.
The money can only be used for independent expenditures -- not direct contributions to the candidates' campaigns. And whatever ads are produced can't be coordinated with the candidates -- though policing that is not an easy thing to do.
Months before the election, numerous groups on the left and right announced intentions to raise millions of dollars to run independent campaigns to help elect their preferred candidates. Some formed new "super PACs" whose donors were fully disclosed, but many corporations and wealthy individuals funneled the money through non-profit front groups that kept the identity of donors secret. Attempts by Democrats in Congress to require disclosure of those hidden donations were defeated, so the sources of that money may never be known.
By election day, outside groups reported raising and spending nearly $300 million -- more than 40 percent of which came from undisclosed sources. That unprecedented surge of outside money -- which favored conservative candidates by a 2:1 margin -- helped to topple Democratic incumbents all across the country and bring about the biggest GOP sweep on Capitol Hill since 1948.
If you are interested, see OpenSecrets.org [16] for more detail about PACs and current data related to PAC campaign contributions, broken down by sector, industry, and unique PAC.
Grassroot campaigns are based on the connection between constituents and their elected officials and may be used as part of an informational or representation strategy. Grassroots activities are intended to garner support of constituents and/or supporters of an issue. Examples of grassroots activities include letter writing campaigns (e-mail, post cards, letters, social media), phone calling, and grassroots lobbying (where individual stakeholders participate in lobbying efforts). Note that this strategy can, and often does, overlap with other strategies, especially electoral support.
The effectiveness of grassroots activities depends largely on the supply-side of our analysis framework—numbers, coverage, resources and cost of organizing. The advent of low-cost, widely distributed mobile technology, however, has changed this equation dramatically. With no paper or postage, mass e-mail communications and social media campaigns are fast and without significant cost. With online blogs and surveys, information collection and dissemination is rapid and cheap. With social media, widespread organizing and information sharing is instantaneous and free.
Barack Obama’s 2008 campaign is widely viewed as revolutionizing presidential digital organization in the U.S., and he utilized social media with great success in 2012 as well. The success of Donald Trump's 2016 campaign was made possible by social media, particularly through Twitter and Facebook communications. Grassroots organization on social media played a major role in the surprising success of the "Brexit" campaign in 2016 that resulted in Britain's decision to exit the European Union. Researchers from Oxford University determined that [17]:
"...the campaign to leave had routinely out muscled its rival, with more vocal and active supporters across almost all social media platforms. This has led to the activation of a greater number of Leave supporters at grassroots level and enabled them to fully dominate platforms like Facebook, Twitter and Instagram, influencing swathes (sic) of undecided voters..."
Social media famously played a starring role [18] in fomenting and publicizing the "Arab Spring" that began in 2010 and sent shockwaves through many Middle-Eastern countries.
From Obama's and Trump's top-down approach to the (mostly) bottom-up organizing of the “Arab Spring” and Brexit, technology has unleashed nonmarket forces as never seen before!
This component of a nonmarket strategy involves forging a coalition with other stakeholders. Sometimes these coalitions may be longstanding and formalized, like trade associations or a Chamber of Commerce. Other times they may be ad hoc, joining together for a particular issue. Even with a coalition, however, the alignment of the stakeholders may not be ideal and may require negotiation. A well planned coalition can increase the effectiveness of the individual stakeholders on an issue by combining their numbers and resources.
Coalitions are often formed with a specific issue or set of isssues in mind. The American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity [19] (ACCCE), for example, is a coaltion of 17 members that rely heavily on the coal industry in their market activities. According to their website, the ACCCE is "a coal-industry trade association working to increase the longevity of the coal industry." See their website [19] if you are interested in learning about some of the nonmarket issues they have taken action on. On the other side of the proverbial coin is the Powering Past Coal Alliance [20], which is a coaltion of 135 members [21] that "is a coalition of national and sub-national governments, businesses and organisations working to advance the transition from unabated coal power generation to clean energy." They are very active in various nonmarket arenas. See their website for more details.
Stakeholders may testify before regulatory agencies, congressional committees, administrative agencies, and courts. This testimony is “important not only because the information presented can affect regulatory decisions, but also because it creates a record that may serve as a basis for judicial review” (Baron, 2010, p. 236).
In the public processes of regulatory agencies, stakeholders are given an opportunity to comment or otherwise contribute information to the process. The Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission (PUC) for example routinely “asks for comments” on policy. In The PUC Rate Making Process and the Role of Consumers [23], the PUC explains the many ways interested parties are invited to provide input into the rate making process:
"Individual ratepayers may become formal parties by filling out a formal complaint form. Ratepayers may speak for themselves, or an attorney may represent individual ratepayers or groups of ratepayers. Consumers also can have their say informally by writing or calling the PUC or completing the objection/comment form. Consumers also may testify at public input hearings. By providing testimony, consumers place their views in the official record on the case. Public input hearings are conducted by the ALJ [Administrative Law Judge] in the utility’s service territory. Consumer testimony becomes part of the record on which the PUC will base its decision."
The right to comment on public sector action is fundamental to rulemaking at local, state, and federal levels, and allows all citizens to engage in public politics. For example, all regulations issued by federal agencies must be made available for public comment [24] for at least 30 days (except under extenuating circumstances), and all substantive comments are to reviewed before the the final reguation is published. Every U.S. citizen and company can file a comment, you and I included (as long as you are a U.S. citizen). (This should ring a bell! Remember from the last lesson that the NHTSA allowed public comment prior to submitting the its final ruling on how to implement the Pedestrian Safety Enhancement Act of 2010. All of these comments would be considered "testimony.") Testifying before any public body - Congress, your local state legislature, courtrooms at any level, etc. - is considered testimony as well.
Public advocacy is communication directly to the public conveying a particular position on an issue. How a message is framed can be important. For example, “cap and trade,”dubbed by opponents as “cap and tax,” may be better served by the alternative “cap and dividend.” The "Clean Coal" campaign is a strong example of a carefully framed and well-funded message targeted directly at the general public. Firms, politicians, and interest groups can and often do engage in public advocacy. Perhaps the most prevalent and common example now is the way President Trump used Twitter to reach out directly to the general public, frequently framing issues ("dangerous immigrants," "job-killing taxes," etc.). At no time in the history of the U.S. has a U.S. President engaged in so much public advocacy.
Public advocacy does involve private actors and often does influence private politics (more on that next lesson), but it is considered public politics if the issue is ultimately addressed within the institution of government.
Judicial actions are cases where a stakeholder is either a defendant or an initiator of legal action as part of a nonmarket strategy. The purpose of these cases may be to enforce or protect rights, obtain restitution for damages, or address unfair competitive practices. Lawsuits are often very costly, but the rewards can be high, too. Judicial strategies may be used in courts, governed by statutory and common law, and in regulatory and administrative agencies, which are governed by administrative law.
In a landmark ruling in June 2011, for example, the Supreme Court ruled [25] that climate change regulation is the business of the federal government (the Environmental Protection Agency, or EPA) and barred states from using public nuisance laws to try to force major utilities to cut greenhouse gas emissions from power plants. In doing so, the "high court sided with five large utilities in a suit brought by several states and three nonprofit land trusts over the facilities' emissions. The utilities--American Electric Power Co., Southern Company, Xcel Energy, Cinergy Corp., and the Tennessee Valley Authority--together release about 650 million tons of CO2 per year. That's a quarter of the CO2 emissions from the U.S. electricity-generating sector."
Ironically, though the utilities were technically victorious in this institutional arena in the abovementioned case, this ruling provided the authority for the Obama Administration's Clean Power Plan (CPP), which was a regulation propagated by the EPA that is projected to reduce the carbon pollution from U.S. power plants 32% below 2005 levels by 2030 [26]. The CPP was a nonmarket public political action that, if it were to be revived and come to fruition, would likely have a significant impact on the national power market for the foreseeable future. The CPP's implementation was blocked by a 5-to-4 margin in the U.S. Supreme Court in February 2016, and before the Trump administration (the EPA, which is a public arena but not a judicial one) decided to ignore it, it was awaiting judgment [27] in the District of Columbia Circuit of the U.S. Court of Appeals.
This authority granted by the Supreme Court has also played a prominent role in the U.S.'s negotiations in, and ultimate adoption of, the 2015 Paris Agreement [28], which will have far-reaching impacts on energy markets worldwide. In fact, the Paris Agreement (which the Trump Administration decided to pull the U.S. from but the Biden Administration re-entered) also took place in an international institutional arena (though not judicial), under the auspices of the United Nation's Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCC) [29].
Interest groups may use a firm’s annual shareholders meeting as an opportunity to question the company in a venue where the exchange will be reported to the public. (This would be considered private politics because it does not take place in a government institution.) Taking these actions an additional step, however, an interest group that is a shareholder may make a more formal filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). This would be a move to public politics and is called a shareholder resolution.
Please keep in mind that these strategies often intertwine, e.g. a grassroots campaign to provide electoral support or building a coalition that lobbies elected officials. Just as there is interaction between market and nonmarket environments, there is often interaction between different public politics (and, it should be noted, private politics) strategies.
To be effective in government arenas, firms (and other organizations) need to stay "in the know" about what's going on--trends, information, changes, priorities, people, and personalities. They must stay in close touch with the political winds around topics of concern to the organization. Baron explains how this may be done:
"Firms that expect to be involved in issues addressed in government arenas must anticipate rather than simply react to developments. Consequently, they need to organize and be prepared for action. It is essential to monitor issues, and for many firms this means full-time representation in Washington and in the capitals of key states. For other firms, associations can be a cost effective means of providing intelligence, although this may not be sufficient if the firm’s interests differ from those the association represents. Most large firms also have a government affairs department that provides expertise and monitors the development of issues. A department may include lawyers, communications experts, former government officials, lobbyists, and analysts.
Washington offices serve as the eyes and ears of firms. They provide information on developing issues and are a locus of expertise about issues, institutions, and office holders. Because nonmarket issues are often episodic in nature, many firms on occasion engage the services of political consulting firms, Washington law firms, or public relations firms. Similarly, lobbyists may be hired for a specific issue. The size of a firm’s permanent staff thus is determined relative to the cost and effectiveness of outside alternatives.
Because lobbying is the centerpiece of most firms’ interactions with government, most employ lobbyists who are either political professional or experienced managers responsible for presenting the firm’s concerns to government officials. Their responsibilities typically include maintaining relationships with members of Congress, executive branch officials, and government agencies. Access is a necessary condition for lobbying, so many firms make a practice of maintaining contact with those members of Congress in whose districts they have their operations and with the committees that regularly deal with issues on the nonmarket agendas. Firms also provide training for their managers who are involved in nonmarket issues. That training often emphasizes sensitivity to the public reaction to the firm’s activities and the development of personal skills for participating effectively in government arenas."
Source: Baron, p. 239
In addition to lobbying, many firms fund organizations to perform nonmarket actions for them. These actions can take the form of any of the strategies detailed in this lesson, including lobbying. For example, the owner of Koch Industries (the second largest privately held company in the U.S., according to Forbes [33]) provides funding and other resources [34] for a number of organizations, including the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) and the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC). Both AEI and ALEC are influential in public politics in a number of ways. Providing resources to think tanks and other non-profit organizations can be an effective way to influence the nonmarket environment.
The following Case Study is written by the course author. The framework of this Case Study reflects actual Pennsylvania policy and data. All information about stakeholders, especially assessments related to the likelihood of participation in nonmarket action and the strategy that may or may not be evoked, is the author's opinion and presented in a manner to best demonstrate the lesson content of this course. This Case Study does not necessarily represent the actual position or strategy held or planned by any named stakeholder.
In the first part of this Case Study, we identified the issue and provided background, including a full description of the principles of Renewable Portfolio Standards (RPS) policy. With this groundwork, we are now prepared to consider the issue from the viewpoint of a wide range of stakeholders. Using an orderly format and presentation, we continue our nonmarket analysis with an examination of each stakeholder, including a description of the stakeholder, initial position, and an assessment of all factors related to the demand for and supply of nonmarket action.
We will use the following scales, as suggested by Baron (2010, p. 169).
Substitutes: availability of viable substitutes
Aggregate and Per Capita benefits: small, moderate, considerable, large, substantial
Numbers: few, small, considerable, large, substantial
Coverage: little, extensive, complete
Resources: limited, small, moderate, large, huge
Cost of Organizing: very low, low, moderate, high, very high
Prediction: limited, little, moderate, large
A couple of notes before you read through this: First, when analyzing the substitutes for nonmarket action, make sure to consider potential substitutes to the position that the stakeholder takes, and whether or not they are within the stakeholder's power to impact. Substitutes can change from stakeholder to stakeholder. So if a stakeholder is opposed to the RPS, consider substitutes that would have the same or similar effect as the RPS policy not passing, and is an action they can influence. If a stakeholder supports the RPS, consider substitute actions that would have the same or similar result as the RPS passing. Effectively you ask yourself: "Does the stakeholder have any other options that could take the place of the outcome that they want and can they influence that outcome?"
Also, when analyzing the coverage of the stakeholder, there are a few important considerations. First, consider the scale of the nonmarket issue. In our example here, the RPS is a state law, so you should consider how much of the State of Pennsylvania is covered by the stakeholder. For national issues, you should scale up accordingly. Second, be careful when estimating the extent of coverage. For example, a non-profit having a single office in every U.S. state does not necessarily result in complete, or even extensive coverage of a national issue. You should think about whether or not each office oversees membership in every part of the state, whether it has offices throughout most states, whether it reach dozens or tens of thousands of members, and so forth.
When analyzing the per capita and aggregate demand, do not just focus on financial aspects of the issue. Also consider the non-financial benefits. For example, 350.org [35]'s core mission is to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, and would thus reap substantial benefits if an aggressive cap-and-trade or carbon tax policy were to be implemented even though they would be unlikely to benefit financially. With regards to the Lesson 1 example, the National Federation of the Blind (an advocacy organization for the sight-impaired) would not likely benefit much financially from electric car manufacturers adding noise to their cars, but they would realize considerable or large benefits aggregately and on a per capita basis because it would address their mission.
Finally, keep in mind that prediction of nonmarket action is not an exact science, but predictions must be justifiable. The goal is to analyze as much relevant supply and demand information as possible and make a prediction based on that information. A good analysis will take all factors into consideration and have a strong, logical justification based on the available information.
“a nonprofit organization, dedicated to informing and educating the public on renewable energy production, energy efficiency, and sustainable living through meetings, workshops, educational materials, and energy fairs.” Position: SUPPORTS
“organization of manufacturers, developers, contractors, installers, architects, engineers, consultants and other industry professionals dedicated to advancing the interests of solar energy and to developing a strong local PA industry offering high quality installation and professional services to business and residential customers in the region we serve.” Also, at the time it published a public blog for the PA division of MSEIA [38] Position: SUPPORTS
Individuals, typically homeowners, with small scale solar installations (<15 kW) in PA used to offset personal usage. Position: SUPPORT
Owners of solar electric installations in PA with capacity greater than 15 kW, typically small businesses or institutions. In PA, as of July 2011, includes facilities up to 3.5 MW. Position: SUPPORT
Individuals, typically homeowners, with small scale solar installations (<15 kW) used to offset personal usage. Located outside of PA, but still within PJM territory and currently able to sell RECs into PA market. If the AEPS is updated, they will lose their ability to sell SRECs in PA. Position: OPPOSE
Any person or business that installs solar electric systems in Pennsylvania. Position: SUPPORT
A nonprofit organization that “enforces environmental laws and advocates for the transformation of public policy, public opinion and the marketplace to restore and protect the environment and safeguard public health. PennFuture advances effective solutions for the problems of pollution, sprawl and global warming; mobilizes citizens; crafts compelling communications; and provides excellent legal services and policy analysis.” Position: SUPPORT
A “trade organization representing surface and underground coal operators that produce bituminous coal mined in the Commonwealth. In addition, PCA represents companies whose livelihood depends in whole or in part on a robust coal industry by providing essential services to the coal industry, ranging from engineering and consulting to financial, insurance and the sale of mining equipment.”
The PCA has successfully opposed similar initiatives in the past, citing rising electricity prices for consumers. Solar, of course, is a competitive energy source. At the time, coal was used to generate almost half [42] of the electricity in PA. Position: OPPOSE
Any individual or business in PA that pays for electricity. Position: OPPOSE
For ratepayers who oppose this bill, the benefits are avoiding possible small increase in electricity prices.
Any individual or business in PA that pays for electricity. Position: SUPPORT
For ratepayers who support this bill, the benefits are reduced reliance on fossil fuels and energy imports.
The “largest broad-based business association in Pennsylvania. Thousands of members throughout the Commonwealth employ greater than 50 percent of Pennsylvania’s private workforce. Headquartered in Harrisburg, the PA Chamber serves as the frontline advocate for business on Capitol Hill by influencing the legislative, regulatory, and judicial branches of state government. In 1995, the Pennsylvania Chamber of Business and Industry became one of only five state chambers in the nation to be accredited by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce for meeting the highest standards of performance and effectiveness.”
The PCA has successfully opposed similar (broader) initiatives in the past [45], stating “the legislation would destroy Pennsylvania’s historic energy strengths, including coal, nuclear (a CO2-free energy), and one of the Commonwealth’s most promising developing industries – natural gas“ and “consumers would be forced into paying for more costly energy sources.” Position: OPPOSE
As a final step to our Nonmarket Analysis, we build a table, as shown below, to present a summary of our findings. This table is the Nonmarket Analysis Summary Framework.
Demand Side | Supply Side | Prediction | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Stakeholders - SUPPORTING | Benefits from Supporting HB 1580 | Ability to Generate Nonmarket Action | Amount of Nonmarket Action | |||||
Substitutes | Aggregate | Per Capita | Effectiveness | Cost of Organizing | ||||
Numbers | Coverage | Resources | ||||||
MAREA | none | large | small | considerable (~8,000) | extensive | limited | low | moderate |
PA-SEIA | none | substantial | substantial | small (~75) | extensive | small | moderate | moderate |
Small System Owners (in PA) | TOU elec prices, sell RECs elsewhere | large | large | large (4,000) | extensive | moderate | high | little |
"Larger" System Owners (in PA) | sell RECs elsewhere | substantial | substantial | small (530) | extensive | moderate | high | little |
Solar installers | none | substantial | substantial | small (629) | complete | moderate | moderate | high |
PennFuture | other environmental issues (gas) | moderate | moderate | large | complete | large | low | high |
Ratepayers (supporting) | buy green generation | small | small | substantial | complete | huge | very high | limited |
Stakeholders - OPPOSING | Benefits from Opposing HB 1580 | Ability to Generate Nonmarket Action | Amount of Nonmarket Action | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Substitutes | Aggregate | Per Capita | Effectiveness | Cost of Organizing | ||||
Numbers | Coverage | Resources | ||||||
Pennsylvania Coal Association | other renewable energy issues | moderate | small | few (150) | extensive | huge | very low | large |
Ratepayers (opposing) | none | small | moderate | substantial | complete | huge | very high | limited |
PA Chamber of Business and Industry | other regulation issues | moderate | moderate | large | complete | huge | very low | large |
Small System Owners (not in PA) | sell RECs elsewhere | small | small | considerable (~1,300) | little | moderate | very high | limited |
Complete "Weekly Activity 2," located in the "Weekly Activities" folder under the Modules tab in Canvas. The activity may include a variety of question types, such as multiple choice, multiple select, ordering, matching, and true/false (in some cases these require independent research and may be quantitative). Be sure to read each question carefully.
Unless specifically instructed otherwise, the answers to all questions come from the material presented in the course lesson. Do NOT go "googling around" to find an answer. To complete the Activity successfully, you will need to read the lesson, and all assigned readings, fully and carefully.
Each week, a few questions may involve research beyond the material presented in the course lesson. This "research" requirement will be made clear in the question instructions. Be sure to allow yourself time for this! You will be graded on the correctness and quality of your answers. Make your answers as orderly and clear as possible.
This Activity is to be done individually and is to represent YOUR OWN WORK. (See Academic Integrity and Research Ethics [47] for a full description of the College's policy related to Academic Integrity and penalties for violation.)
The Activity is not timed, but does close at 11:59 pm EST on the due date, as shown in Canvas.
If you have questions about the assignment, please post them to the "Questions about EME 444?" Discussion Forum. I am happy to provide clarification and guidance to help you understand the material and questions (really!). Of course, it is best to ask early.
In this lesson, you learned about general types of nonmarket strategy and specific strategies for activities in institutional (government) arenas. The cast study, continued from the previous lesson, demonstrated the final steps of a nonmarket issue analysis. The findings of the analysis were presented in a tabular Nonmarket Analysis Summary Framework. The continuation of the Case Study information collection process provided additional in-depth experience with the structure and mechanics of renewable portfolio standards (RPS) programs.
You learned:
You have reached the end of Lesson 2! Double-check the list of requirements on the first page of this lesson to make sure you have completed all of the activities listed there.
Links
[1] https://tagul.com/
[2] https://www.lmcuk.com/
[3] http://www.flickr.com/photos/jstephenconn/2803464442/in/photostream/
[4] http://www.flickr.com/photos/jstephenconn/
[5] http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.0/
[6] https://www.nytimes.com/2021/07/14/climate/carbon-border-tax.html
[7] https://www.e-education.psu.edu/eme444/sites/www.e-education.psu.edu.eme444/files/Europe%20Is%20Proposing%20a%20Border%20Carbon%20Tax.%20What%20Is%20It%20and%20How%20Will%20It%20Work_%20-%20The%20New%20York%20Times%20-%202021.pdf
[8] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-06-29/shots-fired-everything-you-need-to-know-about-the-trade-war
[9] https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/03/opinion/is-trumps-tariff-plan-constitutional.html
[10] https://www.e-education.psu.edu/eme444/sites/www.e-education.psu.edu.eme444/files/Is%20Trump%E2%80%99s%20Tariff%20Plan%20Constitutional_%20-%20The%20New%20York%20Times%20-%20Jan%202017.pdf
[11] https://money.cnn.com/2018/03/09/news/economy/trump-tariffs-wto-legal/index.html
[12] https://www.reuters.com/article/us-plains-all-amer-cactusii/u-s-shale-shippers-will-pay-surcharge-for-trump-steel-tariffs-idUSKCN1US200
[13] https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/16/us/politics/trump-tariffs-lobbying.html
[14] https://www.opensecrets.org/federal-lobbying
[15] https://www.opensecrets.org/news/reports/a-decade-under-citizens-united
[16] https://www.opensecrets.org/political-action-committees-pacs/2020
[17] http://www.referendumanalysis.eu/eu-referendum-analysis-2016/section-7-social-media/impact-of-social-media-on-the-outcome-of-the-eu-referendum/
[18] http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2011/09/so-was-facebook-responsible-for-the-arab-spring-after-all/244314/
[19] https://americaspower.org/
[20] https://poweringpastcoal.org/
[21] https://poweringpastcoal.org/members
[22] http://pakistanhindupost.blogspot.com/2010/05/policy-forum-demands-legislation-for.html
[23] http://www.puc.state.pa.us/general/consumer_ed/pdf/Ratemaking_Complaints.pdf
[24] https://www.federalregister.gov/uploads/2011/01/the_rulemaking_process.pdf
[25] https://pubs.acs.org/cen/news/89/i26/8926news1.html
[26] https://19january2017snapshot.epa.gov/cleanpowerplan/fact-sheet-overview-clean-power-plan_.html
[27] https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/environmental-groups-ask-supreme-court-to-revisit-clean-power-plan-stay/
[28] https://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2015/cop21/eng/l09r01.pdf
[29] http://newsroom.unfccc.int/
[30] https://web.archive.org/web/20130901075412/https://www.ussif.org/content.asp?contentid=67
[31] https://www.investopedia.com/terms/p/proxystatement.asp
[32] https://www.shareholdereducation.com/se/proxy-vote-101
[33] https://www.forbes.com/largest-private-companies/list/
[34] https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/American_Enterprise_Institute#DonorsTrust_Funding
[35] https://350.org/
[36] http://www.themarea.org/
[37] https://mssia.org/mssia/pennsylvania/
[38] http://paseia.blogspot.com/
[39] http://files.dep.state.pa.us/Energy/Office%20of%20Energy%20and%20Technology/OETDPortalFiles/GrantsLoansTaxCredits/Solar/approved_pv_installer_list%20112513.pdf
[40] http://www.pennfuture.org/
[41] http://www.betterwithcoal.com/
[42] http://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/states/pennsylvania/
[43] https://web.archive.org/web/20111216184948/http://extranet.papowerswitch.com/stats/PAPowerSwitch-Stats.pdf?/download/PAPowerSwitch-Stats.pdf
[44] http://www.pachamber.org/
[45] https://www.e-education.psu.edu/eme444/sites/www.e-education.psu.edu.eme444/files/images/lesson1/PA%20Chamber%20of%20Commerce%20-%20HB%2080.pdf
[46] https://web.archive.org/web/20111216120500/http://www.pachamber.org/www/about.php
[47] https://www.ems.psu.edu/undergraduate/academic-integrity/academic-integrity-undergraduates