330 Wirtschaft
Refine
Year of publication
- 2022 (11) (remove)
Document Type
- Working Paper (6)
- Article (5)
Is part of the Bibliography
- yes (11)
Keywords
- E-DSGE (1)
- Economic growth (1)
- Electricity sector (1)
- Energiewende (1)
- Energy and development (1)
- Externalitäten (1)
- Nachhaltige Steuerreform (1)
- Pigou-Steuern (1)
- Public infrastructure (1)
- Public investments (1)
Institute
We examine the relationship between different types of power investments and regional economic dynamics. We construct a novel panel dataset combining data on regional GDP and power capacity additions for different technologies between 1960 and 2015, which covers 65% of the global power capacity that has been installed in this period. We use an event study design to identify the effect of power capacity addition on GDP per capita, exploiting the fact that the exact amount of power capacity coming online each year is determined by random construction delays. We find evidence that GDP per capita increases by 0.2% in the 6 years around the coming online of 100 MW coal-fired power capacity. We find similar effects for hydropower capacity, but not for any other type of power capacity. The positive effects are regionally bounded and stronger for projects on new sites (green-field). The magnitude of this effect might not be comparable to the total external costs of building new coal-fired power capacity, yet our results help to explain why policymakers favor coal investments for spurring regional growth.
We develop a model of optimal taxation and redistribution under an ambitious climate target. We take into account vertical income differences, but also explicitly capture horizontal equity concerns by considering heterogeneous energy efficiencies. By deriving first- and second-best rules for policy instruments including carbon and labor taxes, transfers and energy subsidies, we investigate analytically how vertical and horizontal inequality is considered in the welfare maximizing tax structure. We calibrate the model to German household data and a 30 percent emission reduction goal and show that redistribution of carbon tax revenues via household-specific transfers is the first-best policy. Under plausible assumptions on inequality aversion, transfers to energy-intensive households should be about five times higher than transfers to energy-efficient households. Equal per-capita transfers do not require to observe households’ efficiency type, but increase equity-weighted mitigation costs by around 5 percent compared to the first-best. Mitigation costs increase by less, if the government can implement a uniform clean energy subsidy or household-specific tax-subsidy schemes on energy consumption and labor income that target heterogeneous energy efficiencies. Horizontal equity concerns may therefore constitute a new second-best rationale for clean energy policies or differentiated energy taxes.
Carbon dioxide removal (CDR) moves atmospheric carbon to geological or land-based sinks. In a first-best setting, the optimal use of CDR is achieved by a removal subsidy that equals the optimal carbon tax and marginal damages. We derive second-best subsidies for CDR when no global carbon price exists but a national government implements a unilateral climate policy. We find that the optimal carbon tax differs from an optimal CDR subsidy because of carbon leakage, terms-of-trade and fossil resource rent dynamics. First, the optimal removal subsidy tends to be larger than the carbon tax because of lower supply-side leakage on fossil resource markets. Second, terms-of-trade effects exacerbate this wedge for net resource exporters, implying even larger removal subsidies. Third, the optimal removal subsidy may fall below the carbon tax for resource-poor countries when marginal environmental damages are small.
Sollte Klimapolitik auf Energiepreisanstiege reagieren und kurzfristig CO2-Preise anpassen, um Haushalte zu entlasten? Alkis Blanz, Ulrich Eydam, Maik Heinemann und Matthias Kalkuhl, Mercator Research Institute on Global Commons and Climate Change (MCC) und Universität Potsdam, zeigen, dass die Verwendung der Einnahmen aus der CO2-Bepreisung von entscheidender Bedeutung ist. Werden diese weitestgehend durch Steuersenkungen oder Transfers an Haushalte rückverteilt, sollten CO2-Preise nicht an kurzfristige Energiepreisschwankungen angepasst werden. Haushalte profitieren stärker von einer direkten Stabilisierung ihres Einkommens als von der Stabilisierung der Energiepreise. Werden Einnahmen aus der CO2-Bepreisung nicht rückerstattet, sind dagegen antizyklische CO2-Preise wohlfahrtserhöhend.
Optimal carbon pricing with fluctuating energy prices — emission targeting vs. price targeting
(2022)
Prices of primary energy commodities display marked fluctuations over time. Market-based climate policy instruments (e.g., emissions pricing) create incentives to reduce energy consumption by increasing the user cost of fossil energy. This raises the question of whether climate policy should respond to fluctuations in fossil energy prices? We study this question within an environmental dynamic stochastic general equilibrium (E-DSGE) model calibrated on the German economy. Our results indicate that the welfare implications of dynamic emissions pricing crucially depend on how the revenues are used. When revenues are fully absorbed, a reduction in emissions prices stabilizes the economy in response to energy price shocks. However, when revenues are at least partially recycled, a stable emissions price improves overall welfare. This result is robust to different modeling assumptions.