IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/eneeco/v60y2016icp469-475.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Implications of a US electricity standard for final energy demand

Author

Listed:
  • Healey, Stephen
  • Jaccard, Mark

Abstract

This paper analyzes the emissions impact of an emissions intensity standard (metric tons of CO2 per MWh of electricity) for the US power sector on US final energy demand — i.e. the manufacturing, residential, commercial, and transportation sectors. An emissions intensity standard, although geared towards the power sector, will have implications for these other sectors of the economy through its effect on economy-wide energy prices. Using a hybrid energy-economy simulation model (CIMS), we find the effect on aggregate emissions from final demand to mostly be small. However, after disaggregating final demand, we find significant changes in CO2e emissions for several of sub-sectors. Given that emissions reductions in final energy demand are needed alongside power sector reductions for the US to achieve deep emissions cuts, our findings provide needed insight as to whether these eventual reductions will be helped or hindered by a US electricity standard.

Suggested Citation

  • Healey, Stephen & Jaccard, Mark, 2016. "Implications of a US electricity standard for final energy demand," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(C), pages 469-475.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:eneeco:v:60:y:2016:i:c:p:469-475
    DOI: 10.1016/j.eneco.2016.08.020
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0140988316302328
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.eneco.2016.08.020?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Rose Murphy and Mark Jaccard, 2011. "Modeling Efficiency Standards and a Carbon Tax: Simulations for the U.S. using a Hybrid Approach," The Energy Journal, International Association for Energy Economics, vol. 0(Special I).
    2. Dallas Burtraw & Josh Linn & Karen Palmer & Anthony Paul, 2014. "The Costs and Consequences of Clean Air Act Regulation of CO2 from Power Plants," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 104(5), pages 557-562, May.
    3. Rivers, Nic & Jaccard, Mark, 2006. "Useful models for simulating policies to induce technological change," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(15), pages 2038-2047, October.
    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. Ying Sun & Fengqin Liu & Huaping Sun, 2022. "Does Standardization Improve Carbon Emission Efficiency as Soft Infrastructure? Evidence from China," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(6), pages 1-17, March.

    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. Fox, Jacob & Axsen, Jonn & Jaccard, Mark, 2017. "Picking Winners: Modelling the Costs of Technology-specific Climate Policy in the U.S. Passenger Vehicle Sector," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 137(C), pages 133-147.
    2. Palmer, Karen & Paul, Anthony, 2015. "A Primer on Comprehensive Policy Options for States to Comply with the Clean Power Plan," RFF Working Paper Series dp-15-15, Resources for the Future.
    3. Dai, Hancheng & Mischke, Peggy & Xie, Xuxuan & Xie, Yang & Masui, Toshihiko, 2016. "Closing the gap? Top-down versus bottom-up projections of China’s regional energy use and CO2 emissions," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 162(C), pages 1355-1373.
    4. David M. Newbery & David M. Reiner & Robert A. Ritz, 2018. "When is a carbon price floor desirable?," Working Papers EPRG 1816, Energy Policy Research Group, Cambridge Judge Business School, University of Cambridge.
    5. Hoyle, Aaron & Peters, Jotham & Jaccard, Mark & Rhodes, Ekaterina, 2024. "Additional or accidental? Simulating interactions between a low-carbon fuel standard and other climate policy instruments in Canada," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 185(C).
    6. Healey, Stephen & Jaccard, Mark, 2016. "Abundant low-cost natural gas and deep GHG emissions reductions for the United States," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 98(C), pages 241-253.
    7. Tol, Richard S.J., 2017. "The structure of the climate debate," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 104(C), pages 431-438.
    8. Palmer, Karen & Burtraw, Dallas & Paul, Anthony & Yin, Hang, 2017. "Using Production Incentives to Avoid Emissions Leakage," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(S1), pages 45-56.
    9. Christian von Hirschhausen, 2014. "The German Energiewend - An Introduction," Economics of Energy & Environmental Policy, International Association for Energy Economics, vol. 0(Number 2).
    10. Chris Bataille & Henri Waisman & Michel Colombier & Laura Segafredo & Jim Williams & Frank Jotzo, 2016. "The need for national deep decarbonization pathways for effective climate policy," Climate Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 16(sup1), pages 7-26, June.
    11. Becker, Jonathon M., 2023. "Tradable performance standards in a dynamic context," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 73(C).
    12. Chandler, Jess, 2009. "Trendy solutions: Why do states adopt Sustainable Energy Portfolio Standards?," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(8), pages 3274-3281, August.
    13. Fleiter, Tobias & Worrell, Ernst & Eichhammer, Wolfgang, 2011. "Barriers to energy efficiency in industrial bottom-up energy demand models--A review," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 15(6), pages 3099-3111, August.
    14. Mercure, J.-F. & Pollitt, H. & Chewpreecha, U. & Salas, P. & Foley, A.M. & Holden, P.B. & Edwards, N.R., 2014. "The dynamics of technology diffusion and the impacts of climate policy instruments in the decarbonisation of the global electricity sector," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 686-700.
    15. Knobloch, Florian & Pollitt, Hector & Chewpreecha, Unnada & Lewney, Richard & Huijbregts, Mark A.J. & Mercure, Jean-Francois, 2021. "FTT:Heat — A simulation model for technological change in the European residential heating sector," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 153(C).
    16. Paul, Anthony & Palmer, Karen & Woerman, Matt, 2014. "Designing by Degrees: Flexibility and Cost-Effectiveness in Climate PolicyAbstract: Substantially reducing carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from electricity production will require a transformation of t," RFF Working Paper Series dp-14-05, Resources for the Future.
    17. Ekaterina Rhodes & Kira Craig & Aaron Hoyle & Madeleine McPherson, 2021. "How Do Energy-Economy Models Compare? A Survey of Model Developers and Users in Canada," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(11), pages 1-39, May.
    18. Nicholas Z. Muller, 2014. "Air Pollution Damages from Offshore Energy Production," The Energy Journal, International Association for Energy Economics, vol. 0(Number 4).
    19. Hammond, William & Axsen, Jonn & Kjeang, Erik, 2020. "How to slash greenhouse gas emissions in the freight sector: Policy insights from a technology-adoption model of Canada," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 137(C).

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Intensity standard; Final energy demand; Carbon emissions;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • Q41 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Energy - - - Demand and Supply; Prices
    • Q42 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Energy - - - Alternative Energy Sources
    • Q43 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Energy - - - Energy and the Macroeconomy
    • Q47 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Energy - - - Energy Forecasting
    • Q48 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Energy - - - Government Policy
    • Q54 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Climate; Natural Disasters and their Management; Global Warming

    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:eee:eneeco:v:60:y:2016:i:c:p:469-475. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/eneco .

    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.