IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jeners/v13y2020i19p5233-d425018.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Tax Reform for the Energy Transition in Korea’s Power Generation Sector

Author

Listed:
  • Sung-Jin Cho

    (Electriticy Policy Research Team, Korea Energy Economics Institute, Ulsan 44543, Korea)

  • Yoon Kyung Kim

    (Department of Economics, Faculty of College of Social Science, Ewha Womans University, Seoul 03760, Korea)

Abstract

The tax structure capable of achieving an energy transition in the power sector was analyzed by applying the Pigouvian tax on generation fuels. Under the 2018 Tax Act Amendment, the tax rate criteria for the excise tax on power generation fuels changed from the calorific value to environmental externalities of the fuel. However, to reverse the merit order of bituminous coal generation with liquefied natural gas (LNG) generation, reflecting only some external costs of the environment as a tax is not enough. In this paper, we established four tax reform scenarios for bituminous coal and LNG considering environmental externalities, and we analyzed the reversal of dispatch priority using the electricity system unit commitment and M-Core economic dispatch model. According to the analysis results, the share of bituminous coal generation will be reduced to 10–20% depending on the scenario, reflecting the relative tax rate equalizing the fuel costs of bituminous coal and LNG power. To achieve an energy transition by reversing the merit order of bituminous coal and LNG generation, the tax rate of bituminous coal must be more than twice that of LNG. Moreover, to achieve an eco-friendly generation mix through tax reform, the external costs of the environment by fuel source should be accurately estimated and efficient taxation that can adequately reflect these external costs of the environment while considering tax fairness, neutrality and simplicity should be established.

Suggested Citation

  • Sung-Jin Cho & Yoon Kyung Kim, 2020. "Tax Reform for the Energy Transition in Korea’s Power Generation Sector," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(19), pages 1-15, October.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jeners:v:13:y:2020:i:19:p:5233-:d:425018
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/13/19/5233/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/13/19/5233/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Freire-González, Jaume & Puig-Ventosa, Ignasi, 2019. "Reformulating taxes for an energy transition," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 312-323.
    2. Baumol,William J. & Oates,Wallace E., 1988. "The Theory of Environmental Policy," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521322249.
    3. Lawrence H. Goulder & Ian W. H. Parry, 2008. "Instrument Choice in Environmental Policy," Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 2(2), pages 152-174, Summer.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Ji-Whan Kim & Yoon-Kyung Kim, 2021. "Induced Effects of Environmentally Friendly Generations in Korea," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(8), pages 1-16, April.

    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. Grafström, Jonas & Poudineh, Rahmat, 2023. "No evidence of counteracting policy effects on European solar power invention and diffusion," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 172(C).
    2. Weber, Thomas A. & Neuhoff, Karsten, 2010. "Carbon markets and technological innovation," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 60(2), pages 115-132, September.
    3. Raux, Charles & Chevalier, Amandine & Bougna, Emmanuel & Hilton, Denis, 2021. "Mobility choices and climate change: Assessing the effects of social norms, emissions information and economic incentives," Research in Transportation Economics, Elsevier, vol. 90(C).
    4. Cécile Bazart & Dimitri Dubois & Kate Farrow & Lisette Ibanez & Alain Marciano & Nathalie Moureau & Rustam Romaniuc & Julie Rosaz & Sébastien Roussel, 2017. "NORMES : NORmes sociales, Motivations Externes et internes, et politiques publiqueS," Working Papers hal-02938187, HAL.
    5. Puja Singhal, 2018. "Environmental Regulations: Lessons from the Command-and-Control Approach," DIW Roundup: Politik im Fokus 124, DIW Berlin, German Institute for Economic Research.
    6. James Shortle & Richard D. Horan, 2017. "Nutrient Pollution: A Wicked Challenge for Economic Instruments," Water Economics and Policy (WEP), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 3(02), pages 1-39, April.
    7. Rausch, Sebastian & Yonezawa, Hidemichi, 2023. "Green technology policies versus carbon pricing: An intergenerational perspective," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 154(C).
    8. Ellen M. Bruno & Nick Hagerty & Arthur R. Wardle, 2022. "The Political Economy of Groundwater Management: Descriptive Evidence from California," NBER Chapters, in: American Agriculture, Water Resources, and Climate Change, pages 343-365, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    9. Pelin Demirel & Effie Kesidou, 2013. "The impact of environmental regulation frameworks and firm-level factors on eco-innovations: evidence from DEFRA survey of UK manufacturing firms," Chapters, in: Mehmet Ugur (ed.), Governance, Regulation and Innovation, chapter 6, pages 149-181, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    10. Bergquist, Ann-Kristin & Söderholm, Kristina & Kinneryd, Hanna & Lindmark, Magnus & Söderholm, Patrik, 2013. "Command-and-control revisited: Environmental compliance and technological change in Swedish industry 1970–1990," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 85(C), pages 6-19.
    11. Renström, Thomas I. & Spataro, Luca & Marsiliani, Laura, 2021. "Can subsidies rather than pollution taxes break the trade-off between economic output and environmental protection?," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 95(C).
    12. Valeria Costantini & Francesco Crespi & Elena Paglialunga, 2019. "Capital–energy substitutability in manufacturing sectors: methodological and policy implications," Eurasian Business Review, Springer;Eurasia Business and Economics Society, vol. 9(2), pages 157-182, June.
    13. Timo Goeschl & Grischa Perino, 2012. "Instrument Choice and Motivation: Evidence from a Climate Change Experiment," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 52(2), pages 195-212, June.
    14. Bruno, Ellen M. & Jessoe, Katrina, 2021. "Missing markets: Evidence on agricultural groundwater demand from volumetric pricing," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 196(C).
    15. Milt, Austin W. & Armsworth, Paul R., 2017. "Performance of a cap and trade system for managing environmental impacts of shale gas surface infrastructure," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 131(C), pages 399-406.
    16. Jacob LaRiviere & David Kling & James N Sanchirico & Charles Sims & Michael Springborn, 2018. "The Treatment of Uncertainty and Learning in the Economics of Natural Resource and Environmental Management," Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 12(1), pages 92-112.
    17. Heimvik, Arild & Amundsen, Eirik S., 2021. "Prices vs. percentages: Use of tradable green certificates as an instrument of greenhouse gas mitigation," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 99(C).
    18. Nicholas Z. Muller & Yan N. Oak, 2009. "Characterizing Uncertainty in Air Pollution Damage Estimates," Middlebury College Working Paper Series 0918, Middlebury College, Department of Economics.
    19. Kathleen Segerson, 2013. "Voluntary Approaches to Environmental Protection and Resource Management," Annual Review of Resource Economics, Annual Reviews, vol. 5(1), pages 161-180, June.
    20. Marie Briguglio, 2016. "Household Cooperation In Waste Management: Initial Conditions And Intervention," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 30(3), pages 497-525, July.

    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:gam:jeners:v:13:y:2020:i:19:p:5233-:d:425018. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.