IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pclm00/0000073.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A carbon tax by any other name: Public benefit funds in the American states

Author

Listed:
  • Monica Prasad

Abstract

Although there is substantial opposition to carbon taxation in the United States, a form of carbon tax is already in place in many jurisdictions. Twenty-two American states plus Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia have implemented a policy called the “public benefit fund,” in which utility companies add a charge per kilowatt-hour of energy consumed to the electricity bills of individuals and firms. Public benefit funds are monetary charges for energy usage, and are in several respects similar to carbon taxes. This paper gives an overview of the introduction of public benefit funds in the American states and their current extent, considers their similarities to and differences from carbon taxes, discusses several studies showing that they do have an impact on reduction of carbon emissions, and suggests that expansion or intensification of public benefit funds could be a path to lower emissions for the country.

Suggested Citation

  • Monica Prasad, 2023. "A carbon tax by any other name: Public benefit funds in the American states," PLOS Climate, Public Library of Science, vol. 2(2), pages 1-12, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pclm00:0000073
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pclm.0000073
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/climate/article?id=10.1371/journal.pclm.0000073
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/climate/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pclm.0000073&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pclm.0000073?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. Malcolm Fairbrother, 2022. "Public opinion about climate policies: A review and call for more studies of what people want," PLOS Climate, Public Library of Science, vol. 1(5), pages 1-14, May.
    2. Nadel, Steven & Kushler, Marty, 2000. "Public Benefit Funds: A Key Strategy for Advancing Energy Efficiency," The Electricity Journal, Elsevier, vol. 13(8), pages 74-84, October.
    3. Barry G. Rabe & Christopher P. Borick, 2012. "Carbon Taxation and Policy Labeling: Experience from American States and Canadian Provinces," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 29(3), pages 358-382, May.
    4. A. Greening, Lorna & Greene, David L. & Difiglio, Carmen, 2000. "Energy efficiency and consumption -- the rebound effect -- a survey," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 28(6-7), pages 389-401, June.
    5. Erick Lachapelle & Christopher P. Borick & Barry Rabe, 2012. "Public Attitudes toward Climate Science and Climate Policy in Federal Systems: Canada and the United States Compared," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 29(3), pages 334-357, May.
    6. Sanya Carley, 2011. "The Era of State Energy Policy Innovation: A Review of Policy Instruments," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 28(3), pages 265-294, 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. Ruth Winecoff & Michelle Graff, 2020. "Innovation in Financing Energy‐Efficient and Renewable Energy Upgrades: An Evaluation of Property Assessed Clean Energy for California Residences," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 101(7), pages 2555-2573, December.
    2. Taedong Lee & Chris Koski, 2015. "Multilevel governance and urban climate change mitigation," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 33(6), pages 1501-1517, December.
    3. Kayla M. Young & Kayla Gurganus & Leigh Raymond, 2022. "Framing market‐based versus regulatory climate policies: A comparative analysis," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 39(6), pages 798-819, November.
    4. David J. Gordon, 2015. "An Uneasy Equilibrium: The Coordination of Climate Governance in Federated Systems," Global Environmental Politics, MIT Press, vol. 15(2), pages 121-141, May.
    5. Karasoy, Alper, 2022. "Is innovative technology a solution to Japan's long-run energy insecurity? Dynamic evidence from the linear and nonlinear methods," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 70(C).
    6. Janel Jett & Leigh Raymond, 2021. "Issue Framing and U.S. State Energy and Climate Policy Choice," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 38(3), pages 278-299, May.
    7. Shigemi Kagawa & Yuriko Goto & Sangwon Suh & Keisuke Nansai & Yuki Kudoh, 2012. "Accounting for Changes in Automobile Gasoline Consumption in Japan: 2000–2007," Journal of Economic Structures, Springer;Pan-Pacific Association of Input-Output Studies (PAPAIOS), vol. 1(1), pages 1-27, December.
    8. Hache, Emmanuel & Leboullenger, Déborah & Mignon, Valérie, 2017. "Beyond average energy consumption in the French residential housing market: A household classification approach," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 107(C), pages 82-95.
    9. Kaika, Dimitra & Zervas, Efthimios, 2013. "The environmental Kuznets curve (EKC) theory. Part B: Critical issues," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 62(C), pages 1403-1411.
    10. Todd D. Gerarden & Richard G. Newell & Robert N. Stavins, 2017. "Assessing the Energy-Efficiency Gap," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 55(4), pages 1486-1525, December.
    11. Suresh Malodia & Alka Singh Bhatt, 2019. "Why Should I Switch Off: Understanding the Barriers to Sustainable Consumption?," Vision, , vol. 23(2), pages 134-143, June.
    12. Jonathan M. Lee, 2015. "The Impact of Heterogeneous NOx Regulations on Distributed Electricity Generation in U.S. Manufacturing," Working Papers 15-12, Center for Economic Studies, U.S. Census Bureau.
    13. Faber, Fenn (Ed.) & Jay, Marion (Ed.) & Reinecke, Sabine (Ed.) & Westermayer, Till (Ed.), 2011. "Entscheidungen mit Umweltfolgen zwischen Freiheit und Zwang: Tagungsband der 7. Tagung der Nachwuchsgruppe Umweltsoziologie (NGU)," Working Papers 55-2011, University of Freiburg, Chair of Forestry Economics and Planning.
    14. De Borger, Bruno & Mulalic, Ismir & Rouwendal, Jan, 2016. "Measuring the rebound effect with micro data: A first difference approach," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 79(C), pages 1-17.
    15. Kelly, Scott & Shipworth, Michelle & Shipworth, David & Gentry, Michael & Wright, Andrew & Pollitt, Michael & Crawford-Brown, Doug & Lomas, Kevin, 2013. "Predicting the diversity of internal temperatures from the English residential sector using panel methods," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 102(C), pages 601-621.
    16. Katris, Antonios & Turner, Karen, 2021. "Can different approaches to funding household energy efficiency deliver on economic and social policy objectives? ECO and alternatives in the UK," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 155(C).
    17. Yoo, Sunbin & Koh, Kyung Woong & Yoshida, Yoshikuni & Wakamori, Naoki, 2019. "Revisiting Jevons's paradox of energy rebound: Policy implications and empirical evidence in consumer-oriented financial incentives from the Japanese automobile market, 2006–2016," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 133(C).
    18. Gilbert E. Metcalf, 2006. "Energy Conservation in the United States: Understanding its Role in Climate Policy," NBER Working Papers 12272, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    19. P.W.J. de Bijl & Helanya Fourie, 2019. "The energy transition: Does ownership matter for realizing public interest objectives?," Working Papers 19-24, Utrecht School of Economics.
    20. Kurt Kratena & Ina Meyer & Mark Sommer, 2013. "Energy Scenarios 2030. Model Projections of Energy Demand as a Basis to Quantify Austria's Greenhouse Gas Emissions," WIFO Studies, WIFO, number 46702, March.

    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:plo:pclm00:0000073. 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: climate (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/climate .

    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.