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The Clean Power Plan (CPP) was repealed due to concerns about the “unnecessary, costly burdens” it may impose on electric utilities, thereby delaying efforts to reduce carbon dioxide emissions (CO2)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 »
- Authors:
-
- Univ. of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, IL (United States)
- Southwestern Univ. of Finance and Economics, Chengdu (China)
- 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
- Kydes, Andy S.
- Energy Policy, Vol. 35, Issue 2
Emissions taxes versus intensity standards: Second-best environmental policies with incomplete regulation
journal, May 2012
- Holland, Stephen P.
- Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Vol. 63, Issue 3
Downstream regulation of CO2 emissions in California's electricity sector
journal, January 2014
- Bushnell, James; Chen, Yihsu; Zaragoza-Watkins, Matthew
- Energy Policy, Vol. 64
What Is the Cost of a Renewable Energy–Based Approach to Greenhouse Gas Mitigation?
journal, July 2017
- Oliver, Anthony; Khanna, Madhu
- Land Economics, Vol. 93, Issue 3
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
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
Evaluating renewable portfolio standards and carbon cap scenarios in the U.S. electric sector
journal, May 2011
- Bird, Lori; Chapman, Caroline; Logan, Jeff
- Energy Policy, Vol. 39, Issue 5
Using and improving the social cost of carbon
journal, December 2014
- Pizer, William; Adler, Matthew; Aldy, Joseph
- Science, Vol. 346, Issue 6214
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
Cost-effectiveness of renewable electricity policies
journal, November 2005
- Palmer, Karen; Burtraw, Dallas
- Energy Economics, Vol. 27, Issue 6
Renewable Portfolio Standards: When Do They Lower Energy Prices?
journal, January 2010
- Fischer, Carolyn
- The Energy Journal, Vol. 31, Issue 1
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
An economic perspective on the EPA's Clean Power Plan
journal, November 2014
- Fowlie, M.; Goulder, L.; Kotchen, M.
- Science, Vol. 346, Issue 6211
General equilibrium, electricity generation technologies and the cost of carbon abatement: A structural sensitivity analysis
journal, September 2011
- Lanz, Bruno; Rausch, Sebastian
- Energy Economics, Vol. 33, Issue 5
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
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
Demand for biomass to meet renewable energy targets in the United States: implications for land use
journal, April 2017
- Oliver, Anthony; Khanna, Madhu
- GCB Bioenergy, Vol. 9, Issue 9