DOE PAGES title logo U.S. Department of Energy
Office of Scientific and Technical Information

Title: Repeal of the Clean Power Plan: Social Cost and Distributional Implications

Abstract

The Clean Power Plan (CPP) was repealed due to concerns about the “unnecessary, costly burdens” it may impose on electric utilities, thereby delaying efforts to reduce carbon dioxide emissions (CO2) from the electricity sector. This paper examines the greenhouse gas and welfare implications of this repeal while incorporating the presence of the state renewable portfolio standards (RPS) in the US as the status quo. We assess the carbon abatement and welfare costs with the CPP relative to two alternative baselines: a no–policy baseline and a pre–existing policy baseline with the RPS. The CPP is implemented as a regional mass–based standard, a regional rate–based standard, or as a national mass–based standard with trading of emissions across regions over the 2022–2030 period. We find that the incremental discounted welfare costs per metric ton of CO2 that would have been abated by the CPP relative to the RPS would be substantially lower than the global social cost of CO2. However, the overall costs of carbon abatement with the CPP added to the RPS would have become higher than the social cost of carbon when estimated relative to a no–policy baseline, except with a national mass–based CPP. Across all policy combinations and choice ofmore » baselines, the aggregate welfare costs were lowest under a national mass–based standard and highest under the regional rate–based standard. Here, we also find that the CPP would have imposed large welfare costs on consumers and fossil fuel producers while benefiting the renewable fuel producers.« less

Authors:
 [1];  [2];  [1];  [3]
  1. Univ. of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, IL (United States)
  2. Southwestern Univ. of Finance and Economics, Chengdu (China)
  3. California Air Resources Board, Sacramento, CA (United States); Univ. of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, IL (United States)
Publication Date:
Research Org.:
Center for Advanced Bioenergy and Bioproducts Innovation (CABBI), Urbana, IL (United States)
Sponsoring Org.:
USDOE Office of Science (SC), Biological and Environmental Research (BER)
OSTI Identifier:
1764018
Grant/Contract Number:  
SC0018420
Resource Type:
Accepted Manuscript
Journal Name:
American Journal of Agricultural Economics
Additional Journal Information:
Journal Volume: 104; Journal Issue: 1; Journal ID: ISSN 0002-9092
Country of Publication:
United States
Language:
English
Subject:
29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY; carbon abatement; electricity sector; partial equilibrium model; welfare cos; , Q42; Q48; Q54

Citation Formats

Khanna, Madhu, Chen, Xiaoguang, Wang, Weiwei, and Oliver, Anthony. Repeal of the Clean Power Plan: Social Cost and Distributional Implications. United States: N. p., 2021. Web. doi:10.1111/ajae.12189.
Khanna, Madhu, Chen, Xiaoguang, Wang, Weiwei, & Oliver, Anthony. Repeal of the Clean Power Plan: Social Cost and Distributional Implications. United States. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajae.12189
Khanna, Madhu, Chen, Xiaoguang, Wang, Weiwei, and Oliver, Anthony. Wed . "Repeal of the Clean Power Plan: Social Cost and Distributional Implications". United States. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajae.12189. https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/1764018.
@article{osti_1764018,
title = {Repeal of the Clean Power Plan: Social Cost and Distributional Implications},
author = {Khanna, Madhu and Chen, Xiaoguang and Wang, Weiwei and Oliver, Anthony},
abstractNote = {The Clean Power Plan (CPP) was repealed due to concerns about the “unnecessary, costly burdens” it may impose on electric utilities, thereby delaying efforts to reduce carbon dioxide emissions (CO2) from the electricity sector. This paper examines the greenhouse gas and welfare implications of this repeal while incorporating the presence of the state renewable portfolio standards (RPS) in the US as the status quo. We assess the carbon abatement and welfare costs with the CPP relative to two alternative baselines: a no–policy baseline and a pre–existing policy baseline with the RPS. The CPP is implemented as a regional mass–based standard, a regional rate–based standard, or as a national mass–based standard with trading of emissions across regions over the 2022–2030 period. We find that the incremental discounted welfare costs per metric ton of CO2 that would have been abated by the CPP relative to the RPS would be substantially lower than the global social cost of CO2. However, the overall costs of carbon abatement with the CPP added to the RPS would have become higher than the social cost of carbon when estimated relative to a no–policy baseline, except with a national mass–based CPP. Across all policy combinations and choice of baselines, the aggregate welfare costs were lowest under a national mass–based standard and highest under the regional rate–based standard. Here, we also find that the CPP would have imposed large welfare costs on consumers and fossil fuel producers while benefiting the renewable fuel producers.},
doi = {10.1111/ajae.12189},
journal = {American Journal of Agricultural Economics},
number = 1,
volume = 104,
place = {United States},
year = {Wed Jan 13 00:00:00 EST 2021},
month = {Wed Jan 13 00:00:00 EST 2021}
}

Works referenced in this record:

Impacts of a renewable portfolio generation standard on US energy markets
journal, February 2007


Emissions taxes versus intensity standards: Second-best environmental policies with incomplete regulation
journal, May 2012


Downstream regulation of CO2 emissions in California's electricity sector
journal, January 2014


What Is the Cost of a Renewable Energy–Based Approach to Greenhouse Gas Mitigation?
journal, July 2017


Alternative transportation fuel standards: Welfare effects and climate benefits
journal, May 2014

  • Chen, Xiaoguang; Huang, Haixiao; Khanna, Madhu
  • Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Vol. 67, Issue 3
  • DOI: 10.1016/j.jeem.2013.09.006

Strategic Policy Choice in State-Level Regulation: The EPA's Clean Power Plan
journal, May 2017

  • Bushnell, James B.; Holland, Stephen P.; Hughes, Jonathan E.
  • American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, Vol. 9, Issue 2
  • DOI: 10.1257/pol.20150237

Evaluating renewable portfolio standards and carbon cap scenarios in the U.S. electric sector
journal, May 2011


Using and improving the social cost of carbon
journal, December 2014


Measuring Market Inefficiencies in California's Restructured Wholesale Electricity Market
journal, November 2002

  • Borenstein, Severin; Bushnell, James B.; Wolak, Frank A.
  • American Economic Review, Vol. 92, Issue 5
  • DOI: 10.1257/000282802762024557

Cost-effectiveness of renewable electricity policies
journal, November 2005


Renewable Portfolio Standards: When Do They Lower Energy Prices?
journal, January 2010


Greenhouse Gas Reductions under Low Carbon Fuel Standards?
journal, January 2009

  • Holland, Stephen P.; Hughes, Jonathan E.; Knittel, Christopher R.
  • American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, Vol. 1, Issue 1
  • DOI: 10.1257/pol.1.1.106

An economic perspective on the EPA's Clean Power Plan
journal, November 2014


Some Inconvenient Truths about Climate Change Policy: The Distributional Impacts of Transportation Policies
journal, December 2015

  • Holland, Stephen P.; Hughes, Jonathan E.; Knittel, Christopher R.
  • Review of Economics and Statistics, Vol. 97, Issue 5
  • DOI: 10.1162/REST_a_00452

The social inefficiency of regulating indirect land use change due to biofuels
journal, June 2017

  • Khanna, Madhu; Wang, Weiwei; Hudiburg, Tara W.
  • Nature Communications, Vol. 8, Issue 1
  • DOI: 10.1038/ncomms15513

Demand for biomass to meet renewable energy targets in the United States: implications for land use
journal, April 2017