从环境规制工具对节能减排效率影响这一基本问题出发,基于非期望产出的SBM-DDF模型测算出30个省2001-2012年节能减排效率,并分析其动态变化特征,以此为基础利用系统GMM考察环境规制工具差异引致的节能减排异质效应。实证结果表明,命令控制型和公众参与型环境规制对节能减排效率的影响呈现倒U型结构;而市场激励型表现类似于正U型结构,证实了波特关于合理环境规制强度的假说。本文进一步分阶段检验环境规制工具节能减排效果的差异,命令控制型环境规制在第一阶段发挥主要作用,而在第二阶段却成为阻碍节能减排效率提升的因素;市场激励型和公众参与型环境规制并未在第一阶段表现出促进节能减排效率的效果,但其作用在第二阶段开始呈现,并成为这一阶段节能减排效率改善的关键因素,从而区分环境规制工具在不同时期的适用性。 Based on the basic problem of environmental regulation tools on the impact of energy saving and emission reduction efficiency, the SBM-DDF model of non-expected output was used to calculate the energy-saving and emission reduction efficiency of 30 provinces from 2001 to 2012 and analyze its dynamic change characteristics as Based on GMM, the paper examines the heterogeneity of energy conservation and emission reduction caused by the difference of environmental regulation tools. The empirical results show that the effect of command-controlled and public-participation-based environmental regulation on energy-saving and emission-reduction efficiency presents an inverted U-shaped structure; and the market-driven performance is similar to the positive U-shaped structure, confirming Porter’s hypothesis about the intensity of reasonable environmental regulation. In this paper, we further test the difference of the effect of energy conservation and emission reduction of environmental regulation tools in stages, order the control environmental regulation to play a major role in the first phase, and in the second phase it becomes a factor hindering the improvement of energy conservation and emission reduction efficiency. The market incentive and public participation Type environmental regulation did not show the effect of promoting energy-saving and emission-reducing efficiency in the first stage, but its role began in the second stage and became the key factor to improve the energy-saving and emission-reduction efficiency in this stage so as to differentiate the environmental regulation tools from being different The applicability of the period