World Scientific
Skip main navigation

Cookies Notification

We use cookies on this site to enhance your user experience. By continuing to browse the site, you consent to the use of our cookies. Learn More
×
Our website is made possible by displaying certain online content using javascript.
In order to view the full content, please disable your ad blocker or whitelist our website www.worldscientific.com.

System Upgrade on Feb 12th

During this period, E-commerce and registration of new users may not be available for up to 12 hours.
For online purchase, please visit us again. Contact us at [email protected] for any enquiries.
Special Issue on EMF 32 Study on U.S. Carbon Tax Scenarios; Guest Editors: A. A. Fawcett, J. McFarland, A. C. Morris and J. P. WeyantOpen Access

EXPLORING THE IMPACTS OF A NATIONAL U.S. CO2 TAX AND REVENUE RECYCLING OPTIONS WITH A COUPLED ELECTRICITY-ECONOMY MODEL

    This paper provides a comprehensive exploration of the impacts of economy-wide CO2 taxes in the U.S. simulated using a detailed electric sector model [the National Renewable Energy Laboratory’s Regional Energy Deployment System (ReEDS)] linked with a computable general equilibrium model of the U.S. economy [the Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s U.S. Regional Energy Policy (USREP) model]. We implement various tax trajectories and options for using the revenue collected by the tax and describe their impact on household welfare and its distribution across income levels. Overall, we find that our top-down/bottom-up models affects estimates of the distribution and cost of emission reductions as well as the amount of revenue collected, but that these are mostly insensitive to the way the revenue is recycled. We find that substantial abatement opportunities through fuel switching and renewable penetration in the electricity sector allow the economy to accommodate extensive emissions reductions at relatively low cost. While welfare impacts are largely determined by the choice of revenue recycling scheme, all tax levels and schemes provide net benefits when accounting for the avoided global climate change benefits of emission reductions. Recycling revenue through capital income tax rebates is more efficient than labor income tax rebates or uniform transfers to households. While capital tax rebates substantially reduce the overall costs of emission abatement, they profit high income households the most and are regressive. We more generally identify a clear trade-off between equity and efficiency across the various recycling options. However, we show through a set of hybrid recycling schemes that it is possible to limit inequalities in impacts, particularly those on the lowest income households, at relatively little incremental cost.

    References

    • Carbone, JC, RD Morgenstern, RC Williams III and D Burtraw (2013). Deficit Reduction and Carbon Taxes: Budgetary, Economic, and Distributional Impacts. Resources for the Future policy report, Available at http://www.rff.org/files/sharepoint/WorkImages/Download/RFF-Rpt-Carbone.etal.CarbonTaxes.pdf Google Scholar
    • Caron, J, S Rausch and N Winchester [2015] Leakage from sub-national climate policy: The case of California’s cap-and-trade program. The Energy Journal, 36 (2). CrossrefGoogle Scholar
    • Cole, W, T Mai, J Logan, D Steinberg, J McCall, J Richards, B Sigrin and G Porro (2016). 2016 Standard Scenarios Report: A U.S. Electricity Sector Outlook No. NREL/TP-6A20-66939 National Renewable Energy Laboratory. Google Scholar
    • Cronin, J-A, D Fullerton and S Sexton (2017). Vertical and Horizontal Redistributions from a Carbon Tax and Rebate, CESifo Working Paper No. 6373. Google Scholar
    • EIA (2016). Annual Energy Outlook 2016 No. DOE/EIA-0383(2016) U.S. DOE Energy Information Administration. Google Scholar
    • Eurek, K, W Cole, DA Bielen, N Blair, S Cohen, B Frew, J Ho, V Krishnan, T Mai and D Steinberg (2016). Regional Energy Deployment System (ReEDS) Model Documentation: Version 2016 No. NREL/TP-6A20-67067, National Renewable Energy Laboratory. Google Scholar
    • Fawcett, AA, J McFarland, A Morris and J Weyant (2018). Introduction to the EMF 32 study on U.S. carbon tax strategies, Climate Change Economics, 9(1), 1840001. Google Scholar
    • Goulder, LH [1995] Effects of carbon taxes in an economy with prior tax distortions: An intertemporal general equilibrium analysis. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 29 (3), 271–297. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
    • Goulder, LH and MAC Hafstead (2013). Tax Reform and Environmental Policy: Options for Recycling Revenue from a Tax on Carbon Dioxide Considering a Carbon Tax: A Publication Series from RFF’s Center for Climate and Electricity Policy No. RFF DP 13-31 Resources for the Future. Google Scholar
    • Goulder, LH, IWH Parry, RC Williams III and D Burtraw [1999] The cost-effectiveness of alternative instruments for environmental protection in a second-best setting. Journal of Public Economics, 72 (3), 329–360. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
    • Jorgenson, DW, RJ Goettle, MS Ho and PJ Wilcoxen [2013] Double Dividend: Environmental Taxes and Fiscal Reform in the United States. MIT Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
    • Kerr, RA [2010] Natural gas from shale bursts onto the scene. Science, 328 (5986), 1624–1626. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
    • Marron, DB and AC Morris [2016] How to Use Carbon Tax Revenues Tax Policy Center. Urban Institute & Brookings Institution. Google Scholar
    • Mathur, A and AC Morris [2014] Distributional effects of a carbon tax in broader U.S. fiscal reform. Energy Policy, 66 (Supplement C), 326–334. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
    • Parry, I (1997). Revenue Recycling and the Costs of Reducing Carbon Emissions. Climate Issues Brief No. 2 Resources for the Future. Google Scholar
    • Parry, IWH [1995] Pollution taxes and revenue recycling. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 29 (3), S64–S77. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
    • Rausch, S, GE Metcalf, JM Reilly and S Paltsev (2010). Distributional Implications of Alternative U.S. Greenhouse Gas Control Measures, Working Paper No. 16053 National Bureau of Economic Research. Google Scholar
    • Rausch, S and J Reilly [2015] Carbon taxes, deficits, and energy policy interactions. National Tax Journal, 68 (1), 157–178. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
    • Sancho, Ferran [2010] Double dividend effectiveness of energy tax policies and the elasticity of substitution: A CGE appraisal, Energy Policy, 38 (6), 2927–2933. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
    • US EPA, O (2015). Sources of Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Available at https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emissions. Accessed October 16, 2017. Google Scholar
    • Weyant, J (n.d.) (2017). EMF 32: US GHG and Revenue Recycling Scenarios | Energy Modeling Forum. Available at https://emf.stanford.edu/projects/emf-32-us-ghg-and-revenue-recycling-scenarios. Accessed October 16. Google Scholar
    • Williams III, RC, H Gordon, D Burtraw, JC Carbone and RD Morgenstern (2014). The Initial Incidence of a Carbon Tax Across Income Groups Considering a Carbon Tax: A Publication Series from RFF’s. Center for Climate and Electricity Policy No. RFF DP 14-24 Resources for the Future. Google Scholar
    Published: 20 March 2018

    Remember to check out the Most Cited Articles in CCE!

    Check out our new titles in Energy, Resource & Environmental Economics and be inspired!

    Featuring authors from Princeton, Columbia University, Imperial College Business School and many more!