IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/ajagec/v104y2022i1p33-51.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

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

Author

Listed:
  • Madhu Khanna
  • Xiaoguang Chen
  • Weiwei Wang
  • Anthony Oliver

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The Clean Power Plan (CPP) was repealed due to concerns about the “unnecessary, costly burdens” it may impose on electric utilities, thereby delaying efforts to reduce carbon dioxide emissions (CO2)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 of baselines, the aggregate welfare costs were lowest under a national mass‐based standard and highest under the regional rate‐based standard. We also find that the CPP would have imposed large welfare costs on consumers and fossil fuel producers while benefiting the renewable fuel producers.

Suggested Citation

  • Madhu Khanna & Xiaoguang Chen & Weiwei Wang & Anthony Oliver, 2022. "Repeal of the Clean Power Plan: Social Cost and Distributional Implications," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 104(1), pages 33-51, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:wly:ajagec:v:104:y:2022:i:1:p:33-51
    DOI: 10.1111/ajae.12189
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/ajae.12189
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/ajae.12189?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Borenstein, Severin & Bushnell, James & Wolak, Frank, 2002. "Measuring Market Inefficiencies in California's Deregulated Electricity Industry," Staff General Research Papers Archive 13136, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
    2. Stephen P. Holland & Jonathan E. Hughes & Christopher R. Knittel & Nathan C. Parker, 2015. "Some Inconvenient Truths about Climate Change Policy: The Distributional Impacts of Transportation Policies," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 97(5), pages 1052-1069, December.
    3. Stephen P. Holland & Jonathan E. Hughes & Christopher R. Knittel, 2009. "Greenhouse Gas Reductions under Low Carbon Fuel Standards?," American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, American Economic Association, vol. 1(1), pages 106-146, February.
    4. Madhu Khanna & Weiwei Wang & Tara W. Hudiburg & Evan H. DeLucia, 2017. "The social inefficiency of regulating indirect land use change due to biofuels," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 8(1), pages 1-9, August.
    5. Chen, Xiaoguang & Huang, Haixiao & Khanna, Madhu & Önal, Hayri, 2014. "Alternative transportation fuel standards: Welfare effects and climate benefits," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 67(3), pages 241-257.
    6. Holland, Stephen P., 2012. "Emissions taxes versus intensity standards: Second-best environmental policies with incomplete regulation," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 63(3), pages 375-387.
    7. Anthony Oliver & Madhu Khanna, 2017. "What Is the Cost of a Renewable Energy–Based Approach to Greenhouse Gas Mitigation?," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 93(3), pages 437-458.
    8. Carolyn Fischer, 2010. "Renewable Portfolio Standards: When Do They Lower Energy Prices?," The Energy Journal, International Association for Energy Economics, vol. 0(Number 1), pages 101-120.
    9. Kydes, Andy S., 2007. "Impacts of a renewable portfolio generation standard on US energy markets," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(2), pages 809-814, February.
    10. Lanz, Bruno & Rausch, Sebastian, 2011. "General equilibrium, electricity generation technologies and the cost of carbon abatement: A structural sensitivity analysis," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(5), pages 1035-1047, September.
    11. Severin Borenstein & James B. Bushnell & Frank A. Wolak, 2002. "Measuring Market Inefficiencies in California's Restructured Wholesale Electricity Market," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 92(5), pages 1376-1405, December.
    12. Bushnell, James & Chen, Yihsu & Zaragoza-Watkins, Matthew, 2014. "Downstream regulation of CO2 emissions in California's electricity sector," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 64(C), pages 313-323.
    13. Bird, Lori & Chapman, Caroline & Logan, Jeff & Sumner, Jenny & Short, Walter, 2011. "Evaluating renewable portfolio standards and carbon cap scenarios in the U.S. electric sector," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(5), pages 2573-2585, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Anthony Oliver & Madhu Khanna, 2018. "The spatial distribution of welfare costs of Renewable Portfolio Standards in the United States electricity sector," Letters in Spatial and Resource Sciences, Springer, vol. 11(3), pages 269-287, October.
    2. Gabriel E. Lade & C.-Y. Cynthia Lin Lawell, 2021. "The Design of Renewable Fuel Mandates and Cost Containment Mechanisms," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 79(2), pages 213-247, June.
    3. Lade, Gabriel E & Lawell, C-Y Cynthia Lin, 2015. "Mandating green: On the Design of Renewable Fuel Policies and Cost Containment Mechanisms," Institute of Transportation Studies, Working Paper Series qt5zj382t4, Institute of Transportation Studies, UC Davis.
    4. Lu, Yunguo & Zhang, Lin, 2022. "National mitigation policy and the competitiveness of Chinese firms," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 109(C).
    5. Huseynov, Samir & Palma, Marco A., 2018. "Does California’s LCFS Reduce CO2 Emissions?," 2018 Annual Meeting, August 5-7, Washington, D.C. 274200, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    6. Lade, Gabriel E. & Lin Lawell, C.-Y. Cynthia, 2015. "The design and economics of low carbon fuel standards," Research in Transportation Economics, Elsevier, vol. 52(C), pages 91-99.
    7. Becker, Jonathon M., 2023. "Tradable performance standards in a dynamic context," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 73(C).
    8. Yeh, Sonia & Burtraw, Dallas & Sterner, Thomas & Greene, David, 2021. "Tradable performance standards in the transportation sector," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 102(C).
    9. James B. Bushnell & Stephen P. Holland & Jonathan E. Hughes & Christopher R. Knittel, 2017. "Strategic Policy Choice in State-Level Regulation: The EPA's Clean Power Plan," American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, American Economic Association, vol. 9(2), pages 57-90, May.
    10. Derek Lemoine, 2017. "Escape from Third-Best: Rating Emissions for Intensity Standards," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 67(4), pages 789-821, August.
    11. Zhang, Duan & Chen, Yihsu & Tanaka, Makoto, 2018. "On the effectiveness of tradable performance-based standards," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 456-469.
    12. Yeh, Sonia & Witcover, Julie & Lade, Gabriel E. & Sperling, Daniel, 2016. "A review of low carbon fuel policies: Principles, program status and future directions," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 97(C), pages 220-234.
    13. Bento, Antonio M. & Garg, Teevrat & Kaffine, Daniel, 2018. "Emissions reductions or green booms? General equilibrium effects of a renewable portfolio standard," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 90(C), pages 78-100.
    14. Lade, Gabriel E. & Lin, C.-Y. Cynthia & Smith, Aaron, 2015. "Ex Post Costs and Renewable Identification Number (RIN) Prices under the Renewable Fuel Standard," RFF Working Paper Series dp-15-22, Resources for the Future.
    15. Linn, Joshua & Shih, Jhih-Shyang, 2019. "Do lower electricity storage costs reduce greenhouse gas emissions?," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 96(C), pages 130-158.
    16. Beaudoin, Justin & Chen, Yuan & Heres, David R. & Kheiravar, Khaled H. & Lade, Gabriel E. & Yi, Fujin & Zhang, Wei & Lin Lawell, C.-Y. Cynthia, 2018. "Environmental Policies in the Transportation Sector: Taxes, Subsidies, Mandates, Restrictions, and Investment," ISU General Staff Papers 201808150700001050, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
    17. Moore, J. & Woo, C.K. & Horii, B. & Price, S. & Olson, A., 2010. "Estimating the option value of a non-firm electricity tariff," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 35(4), pages 1609-1614.
    18. Böhringer, Christoph & Garcia-Muros, Xaquin & Gonzalez-Eguino, Mikel & Rey, Luis, 2017. "US climate policy: A critical assessment of intensity standards," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(S1), pages 125-135.
    19. Newbery, David M. & Greve, Thomas, 2017. "The strategic robustness of oligopoly electricity market models," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 124-132.
    20. Bhardwaj, Chandan & Axsen, Jonn & Kern, Florian & McCollum, David, 2020. "Why have multiple climate policies for light-duty vehicles? Policy mix rationales, interactions and research gaps," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 135(C), pages 309-326.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:ajagec:v:104:y:2022:i:1:p:33-51. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1467-8276 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.