IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/rff/dpaper/dp-07-12.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Too Good to Be True? Three Economic Assessments of California Climate Change Policy

Author

Listed:
  • Stavins, Robert N.
  • Jaffe, Judson
  • Schatzki, Todd

Abstract

California’s Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 limits California’s greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in 2020 to their 1990 level. Global climate change is a pressing environmental problem, and the best possible public policies will be required to address it. Therefore, analyses of prospective policies must themselves be of high quality, so that policymakers can reasonably rely on them when making the critical decisions they inevitably will face. In 2006, three studies were released indicating that California can meet its 2020 target at no net economic cost — raising questions about whether opportunities truly exist to substantially reduce emissions at no cost, or whether studies reaching such conclusions may simply severely underestimate costs. This paper provides an evaluation of these three California studies. We find that although opportunities may exist for some no-cost emission reductions, these California studies substantially underestimate the cost of meeting California’s 2020 target. The studies underestimate costs by omitting important components of the costs of emission reduction efforts, and by overestimating offsetting savings that some of those efforts yield through improved energy efficiency. In some cases, the studies focus on the costs of particular actions to reduce emissions, but fail to consider the effectiveness and costs of policies that would be necessary to bring about such actions. While quantifying the full extent of the resulting cost underestimation is beyond the scope of our study, the underestimation is clearly economically significant. A few of the identified flaws individually lead to underestimation of annual costs on the order of billions of dollars. Hence, these studies do not offer reliable estimates of the cost of meeting California’s 2020 target. Better analyses are needed to inform policymakers. While the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 sets a 2020 emissions target, critical policy design decisions remain to be made that will fundamentally affect the cost of California’s climate policy. For example, policymakers must determine emission targets for the years before and after 2020, the emission sources that will be regulated to meet those targets, and the policy instruments that will be employed. The California studies do not directly address the cost implications of these and other policy design decisions, and their overly optimistic findings may leave policymakers with an inadequate appreciation of the stakes associated with decisions that lie ahead. As such, California would benefit from studies that specifically assess the cost implications of alternative policy designs.Nonetheless, a careful evaluation of the California studies highlights some important policy design lessons that apply regardless of the extent to which no-cost emission reduction opportunities actually exist. In particular, policies should be designed to account for uncertainty regarding emission reduction costs, much of which will not be resolved before policies must be enacted. Also, consideration of the different market failures that lead to excessive GHG emissions makes clear that to reduce emissions cost-effectively, policymakers should adopt a market-based policy (such as a cap-and-trade system) as the core policy instrument. The presence of specific market failures that may lead to some no-cost emission reduction opportunities suggests the potential value of additional policies that act as complements, rather than alternatives, to a market-based policy. However, to develop complementary policies that efficiently target such no-cost opportunities, policymakers need better information than currently exists regarding the specific market failures that bring about those opportunities.

Suggested Citation

  • Stavins, Robert N. & Jaffe, Judson & Schatzki, Todd, 2007. "Too Good to Be True? Three Economic Assessments of California Climate Change Policy," RFF Working Paper Series dp-07-12, Resources for the Future.
  • Handle: RePEc:rff:dpaper:dp-07-12
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.rff.org/RFF/documents/RFF-DP-07-12.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Brown, Marilyn A., 2001. "Market failures and barriers as a basis for clean energy policies," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 29(14), pages 1197-1207, November.
    2. Lubowski, Ruben N. & Plantinga, Andrew J. & Stavins, Robert N., 2006. "Land-use change and carbon sinks: Econometric estimation of the carbon sequestration supply function," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 51(2), pages 135-152, March.
    3. Anderson, Soren T. & Newell, Richard G., 2004. "Information programs for technology adoption: the case of energy-efficiency audits," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 26(1), pages 27-50, March.
    4. Jaffe, Adam B. & Newell, Richard G. & Stavins, Robert N., 2003. "Chapter 11 Technological change and the environment," Handbook of Environmental Economics, in: K. G. Mäler & J. R. Vincent (ed.), Handbook of Environmental Economics, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 11, pages 461-516, Elsevier.
    5. Kenneth Gillingham & Richard G. Newell & Karen Palmer, 2009. "Energy Efficiency Economics and Policy," Annual Review of Resource Economics, Annual Reviews, vol. 1(1), pages 597-620, September.
    6. Gilbert E. Metcalf & Kevin A. Hassett, 1999. "Measuring The Energy Savings From Home Improvement Investments: Evidence From Monthly Billing Data," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 81(3), pages 516-528, August.
    7. Stavins, Robert & Jaffe, Adam & Newell, Richard, 2000. "Technological Change and the Environment," Working Paper Series rwp00-002, Harvard University, John F. Kennedy School of Government.
    8. Paul L. Joskow, 2001. "California's Electricity Crisis," Oxford Review of Economic Policy, Oxford University Press and Oxford Review of Economic Policy Limited, vol. 17(3), pages 365-388.
    9. Sanstad, Alan H & Blumstein, Carl & Stoft, Steven E, 1995. "How high are option values in energy-efficiency investments?," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 23(9), pages 739-743, September.
    10. David S. Loughran and Jonathan Kulick, 2004. "Demand-Side Management and Energy Efficiency in the United States," The Energy Journal, International Association for Energy Economics, vol. 0(Number 1), pages 19-44.
    11. repec:reg:rpubli:137 is not listed on IDEAS
    12. Jaffe, Adam B. & Newell, Richard G. & Stavins, Robert N., 2005. "A tale of two market failures: Technology and environmental policy," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 54(2-3), pages 164-174, August.
    13. Kevin A. Hassett & Gilbert E. Metcalf, 1992. "Energy Tax Credits and Residential Conservation Investment," NBER Working Papers 4020, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    14. Jerry A. Hausman, 1979. "Individual Discount Rates and the Purchase and Utilization of Energy-Using Durables," Bell Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 10(1), pages 33-54, Spring.
    15. Ronald J. Sutherland, 2000. ""No Cost" Efforts to Reduce Carbon Emissions in the U.S.: An Economic Perspective," The Energy Journal, International Association for Energy Economics, vol. 0(Number 3), pages 89-112.
    16. Hassett, Kevin A. & Metcalf, Gilbert E., 1995. "Energy tax credits and residential conservation investment: Evidence from panel data," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 57(2), pages 201-217, June.
    17. Jaffe, Adam B. & Stavins, Robert N., 1994. "The energy-efficiency gap What does it mean?," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 22(10), pages 804-810, October.
    18. E. Roy Weintraub, 1994. "Editor's Introduction," History of Political Economy, Duke University Press, vol. 26(1), pages 97-98, Spring.
    19. Huntington, Hillard & Schipper, Lee & Sanstad, Alan H., 1994. "Editors' introduction," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 22(10), pages 795-797, October.
    20. Gilbert E. Metcalf & Donald Rosenthal, 1995. "The “new” view of investment decisions and public policy analysis: An application to green lights and cold refrigerators," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 14(4), pages 517-531.
    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. Mathy, Sandrine & Guivarch, Céline, 2010. "Climate policies in a second-best world--A case study on India," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(3), pages 1519-1528, March.
    2. Adam Rose & Dan Wei & Jeffrey Wennberg & Thomas Peterson, 2009. "Climate Change Policy Formation in Michigan," International Regional Science Review, , vol. 32(4), pages 445-465, October.
    3. Torben K. Mideksa, 2021. "Leadership and Climate Policy," CESifo Working Paper Series 9054, CESifo.
    4. Neil Strachan & Will Usher, 2012. "Failure to achieve stringent carbon reduction targets in a second-best policy world," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 113(2), pages 121-139, July.

    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. Stavins, Robert & Jaffe, Judson & Schatski, Todd, 2007. "Too Good to Be True? An Examination of Three Economic Assessments of California Climate Change Policy," Working Paper Series rwp07-016, Harvard University, John F. Kennedy School of Government.
    2. Popp, David & Newell, Richard G. & Jaffe, Adam B., 2010. "Energy, the Environment, and Technological Change," Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, in: Bronwyn H. Hall & Nathan Rosenberg (ed.), Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, edition 1, volume 2, chapter 0, pages 873-937, Elsevier.
    3. Giraudet, Louis-Gaëtan, 2020. "Energy efficiency as a credence good: A review of informational barriers to energy savings in the building sector," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 87(C).
    4. Louis-Gaëtan Giraudet, 2018. "Energy efficiency as a credence good: A review of informational barriers to building energy savings," Working Papers 2018.07, FAERE - French Association of Environmental and Resource Economists.
    5. Uz, Dilek, 2018. "Energy efficiency investments in small and medium sized manufacturing firms: The case of California energy crisis," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 421-428.
    6. Kenneth Gillingham & Karen Palmer, 2014. "Bridging the Energy Efficiency Gap: Policy Insights from Economic Theory and Empirical Evidence," Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 8(1), pages 18-38, January.
    7. Heather Klemick & Elizabeth Kopits & Keith Sargent & Ann Wolverton, 2014. "Heavy-Duty Trucks and the Energy Efficiency Paradox," NCEE Working Paper Series 201402, National Center for Environmental Economics, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, revised Jan 2014.
    8. Samdruk Dharshing & Stefanie Lena Hille, 2017. "The Energy Paradox Revisited: Analyzing the Role of Individual Differences and Framing Effects in Information Perception," Journal of Consumer Policy, Springer, vol. 40(4), pages 485-508, December.
    9. Felix Groba & Barbara Breitschopf, 2013. "Impact of Renewable Energy Policy and Use on Innovation: A Literature Review," Discussion Papers of DIW Berlin 1318, DIW Berlin, German Institute for Economic Research.
    10. Stavins, Robert & Jaffe, Adam & Newell, Richard, 2000. "Technological Change and the Environment," Working Paper Series rwp00-002, Harvard University, John F. Kennedy School of Government.
    11. F. Knobloch & J. -F. Mercure, 2016. "The behavioural aspect of green technology investments: a general positive model in the context of heterogeneous agents," Papers 1603.06888, arXiv.org.
    12. Dorothée Charlier & Alejandro Mosino & Aude Pommeret, 2011. "Energy-saving Technology Adoption under Uncertainty in the Residential Sector," Annals of Economics and Statistics, GENES, issue 103-104, pages 43-70.
    13. Anderson, Soren T. & Newell, Richard G., 2004. "Information programs for technology adoption: the case of energy-efficiency audits," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 26(1), pages 27-50, March.
    14. Li, Jia & Just, Richard E., 2018. "Modeling household energy consumption and adoption of energy efficient technology," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 72(C), pages 404-415.
    15. Giraudet, Louis-Gaëtan & Guivarch, Céline & Quirion, Philippe, 2012. "Exploring the potential for energy conservation in French households through hybrid modeling," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 34(2), pages 426-445.
    16. Hammar, Henrik & Löfgren, Åsa, 2007. "Explaining adoption of end of pipe solutions and clean technologies," Working Papers 102, National Institute of Economic Research.
    17. Klemick, Heather & Kopits, Elizabeth & Wolverton, Ann & Sargent, Keith, 2015. "Heavy-duty trucking and the energy efficiency paradox: Evidence from focus groups and interviews," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 77(C), pages 154-166.
    18. Théophile T. Azomahou & Raouf Boucekkine & Phu Nguyen-Vanc, "undated". "Promoting Clean Technologies: The Energy Market Structure Crucially Matters," Working Papers 2008_13, Business School - Economics, University of Glasgow.
    19. Häckel, Björn & Pfosser, Stefan & Tränkler, Timm, 2017. "Explaining the energy efficiency gap - Expected Utility Theory versus Cumulative Prospect Theory," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 111(C), pages 414-426.
    20. Girod, Bastien & Stucki, Tobias & Woerter, Martin, 2017. "How do policies for efficient energy use in the household sector induce energy-efficiency innovation? An evaluation of European countries," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 103(C), pages 223-237.

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:rff:dpaper:dp-07-12. 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: Resources for the Future (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/rffffus.html .

    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.