Journal Article - Energy and Climate Change
Policy Spillovers, Technological Lock-In, and Efficiency Gains from Regional Pollution Taxes in the U.S.
We used the US-TIMES energy-system model in conjunction with integrated assessment models for air pollution (AP3, EASIUR, InMAP) to estimate the consequences of local air pollutant (LAP) and carbon dioxide (CO2) policy on technology-choice, energy-system costs, emissions, and pollution damages in the United States. We report substantial policy spillover: Both LAP and CO2 taxes cause similar levels of decarbonization. Under LAP taxes, decarbonization was a result of an increase in natural gas generation and a near-complete phaseout of coal generation in the electric sector. Under a CO2 tax, the majority of simulated decarbonization was a result of increased electric generation from wind and solar. We also found that the timing of the CO2 and LAP taxes was important. When we simulated a LAP tax beginning in 2015 and waited until 2025 to introduce a CO2 tax, the electric sector was locked into higher levels of natural gas generation and cumulative 2010–2035 energy system CO2 emissions were 8.8 billion tons higher than when the taxes were implemented simultaneously. A scenario taxing CO2 and LAPs simultaneously beginning in 2015 produced the highest net benefits, as opposed to scenarios that target either CO2 or LAPs, or scenarios that delayed either LAP or CO2 taxes until 2025. Lastly, we found that net benefits compared to business as usual are higher under a regional versus a national LAP-tax regime, but that efficiency gains under the regional tax are not substantially higher than those under the national LAP-tax policy.
Want to Read More?
The full text of this publication is available via the original publication source.
For more information on this publication:
Belfer Communications Office
For Academic Citation:
Roth, Michael Buchdahl, Peter J Adams, Paulina Jaramillo, and Nicholas Z Muller. "Policy spillovers, technological lock-in, and efficiency gains from regional pollution taxes in the U.S." Energy and Climate Change, vol. 3 (2022): 2666-2787, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egycc.2022.100077.
- Recommended
- In the Spotlight
- Most Viewed
Recommended
Audio
- Harvard Environmental Economics Program
The Power of Youth Climate Activism: A Conversation with Michael Greenstone
Analysis & Opinions
- Harvard Kennedy School Magazine
Perspectives on China: Can We Balance Climate Goals and Energy Security?
Policy Brief
- Harvard Project on Climate Agreements
Increasing the Emissions-Reduction Efficiency of Carbon Trading Schemes in China Under the “30.60” Target: Reflection on the Carbon Markets of Guangdong Province, China
In the Spotlight
Most Viewed
Analysis & Opinions
- Project Syndicate
What Caused the Ukraine War?
Journal Article
- Research Policy
The Relationship Between Science and Technology
Analysis & Opinions
- New Straits Times
Gorbachev and the End of the Cold War
We used the US-TIMES energy-system model in conjunction with integrated assessment models for air pollution (AP3, EASIUR, InMAP) to estimate the consequences of local air pollutant (LAP) and carbon dioxide (CO2) policy on technology-choice, energy-system costs, emissions, and pollution damages in the United States. We report substantial policy spillover: Both LAP and CO2 taxes cause similar levels of decarbonization. Under LAP taxes, decarbonization was a result of an increase in natural gas generation and a near-complete phaseout of coal generation in the electric sector. Under a CO2 tax, the majority of simulated decarbonization was a result of increased electric generation from wind and solar. We also found that the timing of the CO2 and LAP taxes was important. When we simulated a LAP tax beginning in 2015 and waited until 2025 to introduce a CO2 tax, the electric sector was locked into higher levels of natural gas generation and cumulative 2010–2035 energy system CO2 emissions were 8.8 billion tons higher than when the taxes were implemented simultaneously. A scenario taxing CO2 and LAPs simultaneously beginning in 2015 produced the highest net benefits, as opposed to scenarios that target either CO2 or LAPs, or scenarios that delayed either LAP or CO2 taxes until 2025. Lastly, we found that net benefits compared to business as usual are higher under a regional versus a national LAP-tax regime, but that efficiency gains under the regional tax are not substantially higher than those under the national LAP-tax policy.
Want to Read More?
The full text of this publication is available via the original publication source.Roth, Michael Buchdahl, Peter J Adams, Paulina Jaramillo, and Nicholas Z Muller. "Policy spillovers, technological lock-in, and efficiency gains from regional pollution taxes in the U.S." Energy and Climate Change, vol. 3 (2022): 2666-2787, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egycc.2022.100077.
- Recommended
- In the Spotlight
- Most Viewed
Recommended
Audio - Harvard Environmental Economics Program
The Power of Youth Climate Activism: A Conversation with Michael Greenstone
Analysis & Opinions - Harvard Kennedy School Magazine
Perspectives on China: Can We Balance Climate Goals and Energy Security?
Policy Brief - Harvard Project on Climate Agreements
Increasing the Emissions-Reduction Efficiency of Carbon Trading Schemes in China Under the “30.60” Target: Reflection on the Carbon Markets of Guangdong Province, China
In the Spotlight
Most Viewed
Analysis & Opinions - Project Syndicate
What Caused the Ukraine War?
Journal Article - Research Policy
The Relationship Between Science and Technology
Analysis & Opinions - New Straits Times
Gorbachev and the End of the Cold War