Marginal Abatement Costs and Marginal Welfare Costs for Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reductions: Results from the EPPA Model

Abstract and PDF report are also available on the MIT Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change website (http://globalchange.mit.edu/).Marginal abatement cost (MAC) curves, relationships between tons of emissions abated and the CO2 (or GHG) price, have been widely used as pedagogic devices to illustrate simple economic concepts such as the benefits of emissions trading. They have also been used to produce reduced form models to examine situations where solving the more complex model underlying the MAC is difficult. Some important issues arise in such applications: (1) are MAC relationships independent of what happens in other regions? (2) are MACs stable through time regardless of what policies have been implemented in the past?, and (3) can one approximate welfare costs from them? This paper explores the basic characteristics of MAC and marginal welfare cost (MWC) curves, deriving them using the MIT Emissions Prediction and Policy Analysis (EPPA) model. We find that, depending on the method used to construct them, MACs are affected by policies abroad. They are also dependent on policies in place in the past and depend on whether they are CO2-only or include all GHGs. Further, we find that MACs are, in general, not closely related to MWCs and therefore should not be used to derive estimates of welfare change. It would be a great convenience if a reduced-form response of a more complex model could be used to reliably conduct empirical analysis of climate change policy, but it appears that, at least as commonly constructed, MACs may be unreliable in replicating results of the parent model when used to simulate GHG policies. This is especially true if the policy simulations differ from the conditions under which the MACs were simulated. Care is needed to derive MACs under conditions closely related to the policy under consideration. In such a circumstance they may provide approximate estimates of CO2 or GHG prices for a given policy constraint. They remain a convenient way to visualize responses to a range of abatement levels.Development of the EPPA model used here is in part supported by the U.S. Department of Energy, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. National Science Foundation, U.S. National Aeronautics and Space Administration, U.S. National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration and the Industry and Foundation Sponsors of the MIT Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change

Prospects for Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicles in the United States and Japan: A General Equilibrium Analysis

Abstract and PDF report are also available on the MIT Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change website (http://globalchange.mit.edu/)The plug-in hybrid electric vehicle (PHEV) may offer a potential near term, low carbon alternative to today's gasoline- and diesel-powered vehicles. A representative vehicle technology that runs on electricity in addition to conventional fuels was introduced into the MIT Emissions Prediction and Policy Analysis (EPPA) model as a perfect substitute for internal combustion engine (ICE-only) vehicles in two likely early-adopting markets, the United States and Japan. We investigate the effect of relative vehicle cost and all-electric range on the timing of PHEV market entry in the presence and absence of an advanced cellulosic biofuels technology and a strong (450ppm) economy-wide carbon constraint. Vehicle cost could be a significant barrier to PHEV entry unless fairly aggressive goals for reducing battery costs are met. If a low cost vehicle is available we find that the PHEV has the potential to reduce CO2 emissions, refined oil demand, and under a carbon policy the required CO2 price in both the United States and Japan. The emissions reduction potential of PHEV adoption depends on the carbon intensity of electric power generation and the size of the vehicle fleet. Thus, the technology is much more effective in reducing CO2 emissions if adoption occurs under an economy-wide cap and trade system that also encourages low-carbon electricity generation.BP Conversion Research Project and the MIT Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change through a consortium of industrial sponsors and Federal grants

Directed Technical Change and Climate Policy

This paper studies the cost effectiveness of climate policy if there are technology externalities. For this purpose, we develop a forward-looking CGE model that captures empirical links between CO2 emissions associated with energy use, directed technical change and the economy. We find the cost-effective climate policy to include a combination of R&D subsidies and CO2 emission constraints, although R&D subsidies raise the shadow value of the CO2 constraint (i.e. CO2 price) because of a strong rebound effect from stimulating innovation. Furthermore, we find that CO2 constraints differentiated toward CO2-intensive sectors are more cost effective than constraints that generate uniform CO2 prices among sectors. Differentiated CO2 prices, through technical change and concomitant technology externalities, encourage growth in the non-CO2 intensive sectors and discourage growth in CO2-intensive sectors. Thus, it is cost effective to let the latter bear relatively more of the abatement burden. This result is robust to whether emission constraints, R&D subsidies or combinations of both are used to reduce CO2 emissions.Directed Technical Change, Climate Policy, Computable General Equilibrium Model, R&D

Biofuels, Climate Policy and the European Vehicle Fleet

Abstract and PDF report are also available on the MIT Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change website (http://globalchange.mit.edu/).We examine the effect of biofuels mandates and climate policy on the European vehicle fleet, considering the prospects for diesel and gasoline vehicles. We use the MIT Emissions Prediction and Policy Analysis (EPPA) model, which is a general equilibrium model of the world economy. We expand this model by explicitly introducing current generation biofuels, by accounting for stock turnover of the vehicle fleets and by disaggregating gasoline and diesel cars. We find that biofuels mandates alone do not substantially change the share of diesel cars in the total fleet given the current structure of fuel taxes and tariffs in Europe that favors diesel vehicles. Jointly implemented changes in fiscal policy, however, can reverse the trend toward more diesel vehicles. We find that harmonizing fuel taxes reduces the welfare cost associated with renewable fuel policy and lowers the share of diesel vehicles in the total fleet to 21% by 2030 compared to 25% in 2010. We also find that eliminating tariffs on biofuel imports, which under the existing regime favor biodiesel and impede sugar ethanol imports, is welfare-enhancing and brings about further substantial reductions in CO2 emissions.This study received support from the MIT Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change, which is funded by a consortium of government, industry and foundation sponsors

Distributional Impacts of a U.S. Greenhouse Gas Policy: A General Equilibrium Analysis of Carbon Pricing

Abstract and PDF report are also available on the MIT Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change website (http://globalchange.mit.edu/).We develop a new model of the U.S., the U.S. Regional Energy Policy (USREP) model that is resolved for large states and regions of the U.S. and by income class and apply the model to investigate a $15 per ton CO2 equivalent price on greenhouse gas emissions. Previous estimates of distributional impacts of carbon pricing have been done outside of the model simulation and have been based on energy expenditure patterns of households in different regions and of different income levels. By estimating distributional effects within the economic model, we include the effects of changes in capital returns and wages on distribution and find that the effects are significant and work against the expenditure effects. We find the following: First, while results based only on energy expenditure have shown carbon pricing to be regressive we find the full distributional effect to be neutral or slightly progressive. This demonstrates the importance of tracing through all economic impacts and not just focusing on spending side impacts. Second, the ultimate impact of such a policy on households depends on how allowances, or the revenue raised from auctioning them, is used. Free distribution to firms would be highly regressive, benefiting higher income households and forcing lower income households to bear the full cost of the policy and what amounts to a transfer of wealth to higher income households. Lump sum distribution through equal-sized household rebates would make lower income households absolutely better off while shifting the costs to higher income households. Schemes that would cut taxes are generally slightly regressive but improve somewhat the overall efficiency of the program. Third, proposed legislation would distribute allowances to local distribution companies (electricity and natural gas distributors) and public utility commissions would then determine how the value of those allowances was used. A significant risk in such a plan is that distribution to households might be perceived as lowering utility rates That reduced the efficiency of the policy we examined by 40 percent. Finally, the states on the coasts bear little cost or can benefit because of the distribution of allowance revenue while mid-America and southern states bear the highest costs. This regional pattern reflects energy consumption and energy production difference among states. Use of allowance revenue to cut taxes generally exacerbates these regional differences because coastal states are also generally higher income states, and those with higher incomes benefit more from tax cuts.MIT Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change through a combination of government, industry, and foundation funding, the MIT Energy Initiative, and additional support for this work from a coalition of industrial sponsors

ECONOMIC IMPLICATIONS OF GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE FOR WORLD AGRICULTURE

This paper challenges the hypothesis that negative yield effects in key temperate grain producing regions of the world resulting from global climate change would have a serious impact on world food production. Model results demonstrate that even with concurrent productivity losses in the major grain producing regions of the world, global warming will not seriously disrupt world agricultural markets. Country/regional crop yield changes induce interregional adjustments in production and consumption that serve to buffer the severity of climate change impacts on world agriculture and result in relatively modest impacts on world agricultural prices and domestic economies.Environmental Economics and Policy,

Measuring Welfare Loss Caused by Air Pollution in Europe: A CGE Analysis

Abstract and PDF report are also available on the MIT Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change website (http://globalchange.mit.edu/).To evaluate the socio-economic impacts of air pollution, we develop an integrated approach based on computable general equilibrium (CGE). Applying our approach to Europe shows that even there, where air quality is relatively high compared with other parts of the world, health-related damages caused by air pollution are substantial. We estimate that in 2005, air pollution in Europe caused a consumption loss of around 220 billion Euro (year 2000 prices, around 3 percent of consumption level) and a social welfare loss of around 370 billion Euro, measured as the sum of lost consumption and leisure (around 2 percent of welfare level). In addition, we estimated that a set of 2020-targeting air quality improvement policy scenarios, which are proposed in the 2005 CAFE program, would bring 18 European countries as a whole a welfare gain of 37 to 49 billion Euro (year 2000 prices) in year 2020 alone.This study received support from the MIT Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change, which is funded by a consortium of government, industry and foundation sponsors

Energy Scenarios for East Asia: 2005-2025

Abstract in HTML and technical report in PDF available on the Massachusetts Institute of Technology Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change website (http://mit.edu/globalchange/www/).We describe several scenarios for economic development and energy use in East Asia based on the MIT Emissions Prediction and Policy Analysis (EPPA) model, a computable general equilibrium model of the world economy. Historic indicators for Asian economic growth, energy use, and energy intensity are discussed. In the Baseline scenario, energy use in East Asia is projected to increase from around 120 EJ in 2005 to around 220 EJ in 2025. Alternative scenarios were developed to consider: (1) How fast might energy demand grow in East Asia and how does it depend on key uncertainties? (2) Do rising prices for energy affect growth in the region? (3) Would growth in East Asia have a substantial effect on world energy markets? (4) Would development of regional gas markets have substantial effects on energy use in the region and on gas markets in other regions? Briefly, we find that with more rapid economic growth, demand in East Asia could reach 430 EJ by 2025, almost twice the level in the Baseline; rising energy prices place a drag on growth of countries in the region of 0.2 to 0.6% per year; world crude oil markets could be substantially affected by demand growth in the region, with the price effect being as much as $25 per barrel in 2025; and development of regional gas markets could expand gas use in East Asia while leading to higher gas prices in Europe.This study received support from the MIT Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change, which is funded by a consortium of government, industry and foundation sponsors

A Forward Looking Version of the MIT Emissions Prediction and Policy Analysis (EPPA) Model

Abstract and PDF report are also available on the MIT Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change website (http://globalchange.mit.edu/).This paper documents a forward looking multi-regional general equilibrium model developed from the latest version of the recursive-dynamic MIT Emissions Prediction and Policy Analysis (EPPA) model. The model represents full inter-temporal optimization (perfect foresight), which makes it possible to better address economic and policy issues such as borrowing and banking of GHG allowances, efficiency implications of environmental tax recycling, endogenous depletion of fossil resources, international capital flows, and optimal emissions abatement paths among others. It was designed with the flexibility to represent different aggregations of countries and regions, different horizon lengths, as well as the ability to accommodate different assumptions about the economy, in terms of economic growth, foreign trade closure, labor leisure choice, taxes on primary factors, vintaging of capital and data calibration. The forward-looking dynamic model provides a complementary tool for policy analyses, to assess the robustness of results from the recursive EPPA model, and to illustrate important differences in results that are driven by the perfect foresight behavior. We present some applications of the model that include the reference case and its comparison with the recursive EPPA version, as well as some greenhouse gas mitigation cases where we explore economic impacts with and without inter-temporal trade of permits.This research was supported by the U.S Department of Energy, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. National Science Foundation, U.S. National Aeronautics and Space Administration, U.S. National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration; and the Industry and Foundation Sponsors of the MIT Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change: Alstom Power (USA), American Electric Power (USA), A.P. Møller-Maersk (Denmark), Cargill (USA), Chevron Corporation (USA), CONCAWE & EUROPIA (EU), DaimlerChrysler AG (USA), Duke Energy (USA), Electric Power Research Institute (USA), Electricité de France, Enel (Italy), Eni (Italy), Exelon Power (USA), ExxonMobil Corporation (USA), Ford Motor Company (USA), General Motors (USA), Iberdrola Generacion (Spain), J-Power (Japan), Merril Lynch (USA), Murphy Oil Corporation (USA), Norway Ministry of Petroleum and Energy, Oglethorpe Power Corporation (USA), RWE Power (Germany), Schlumberger (USA),Shell Petroleum (Netherlands/UK), Southern Company (USA), StatoilHydro (Norway), Tennessee Valley Authority (USA), Tokyo Electric Power Company (Japan), Total (France), G. Unger Vetlesen Foundation (USA)