IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v15y2023i23p16175-d1284847.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Social and Economic Impact Assessment of Coal Power Phase-Down at the Provincial Level: An Entropy-Based TOPSIS Approach

Author

Listed:
  • Changhong Zhao

    (School of Economics and Management, North China Electric Power University, Beijing 102206, China)

  • Jiaxuan Chen

    (School of Economics and Management, North China Electric Power University, Beijing 102206, China)

  • Xiaowen Yang

    (School of Economics and Management, North China Electric Power University, Beijing 102206, China)

  • Jiahai Yuan

    (School of Economics and Management, North China Electric Power University, Beijing 102206, China
    Beijing Key Laboratory of New Energy and Low-Carbon Development, North China Electric Power University, Beijing 102206, China)

Abstract

With the rollout of the carbon peak and neutrality targets, conventional coal-fired power plants will gradually be phased down in China’s power system in an orderly manner. The economic and social impact of the energy transition is a vital topic that requires scientific measurements and evaluation. In this paper, we establish a comprehensive approach to assess the impact of provincial coal power phase-down with 11 indicators covering dimensions of economy, society, and industry. An entropy-based Technique for Order of Preference by Similarity to the Ideal Solution (TOPSIS) approach is adopted to calculate entropy weight, relative closeness, and other evaluation benchmark data. Then, the influence degree in 30 provinces is ranked based on the assessment. The results show that there is a significant regional imbalance in the process of coal power phase-down, among which Shanxi, Inner Mongolia, and other coal base provinces are the most vulnerable regions bound by their huge raw coal production and coal industry employment. Although the coal power industry is less affected than the coal industry, it will face pressure from the optimization of coal power units, followed by the dual impact of taxation and employment issues. Finally, the potential impacts of coal power phase-down and policy implications are proposed.

Suggested Citation

  • Changhong Zhao & Jiaxuan Chen & Xiaowen Yang & Jiahai Yuan, 2023. "Social and Economic Impact Assessment of Coal Power Phase-Down at the Provincial Level: An Entropy-Based TOPSIS Approach," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(23), pages 1-13, November.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:15:y:2023:i:23:p:16175-:d:1284847
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/15/23/16175/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/15/23/16175/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Oei, Pao-Yu & Hermann, Hauke & Herpich, Philipp & Holtemöller, Oliver & Lünenbürger, Benjamin & Schult, Christoph, 2020. "Coal phase-out in Germany – Implications and policies for affected regions," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 196(C).
    2. Paul J. Burke & Rohan Best & Frank Jotzo, 2019. "Closures of coal‐fired power stations in Australia: local unemployment effects," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 63(1), pages 142-165, January.
    3. Heinrichs, Heidi Ursula & Markewitz, Peter, 2017. "Long-term impacts of a coal phase-out in Germany as part of a greenhouse gas mitigation strategy," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 192(C), pages 234-246.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Martin Kittel & Leonard Goeke & Claudia Kemfert & Pao-Yu Oei & Christian von Hirschhausen, 2020. "Scenarios for Coal-Exit in Germany—A Model-Based Analysis and Implications in the European Context," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(8), pages 1-19, April.
    2. Osorio, Sebastian & Pietzcker, Robert C. & Pahle, Michael & Edenhofer, Ottmar, 2020. "How to deal with the risks of phasing out coal in Germany," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 87(C).
    3. Anke, Carl-Philipp & Hobbie, Hannes & Schreiber, Steffi & Möst, Dominik, 2020. "Coal phase-outs and carbon prices: Interactions between EU emission trading and national carbon mitigation policies," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 144(C).
    4. Mwampashi, Muthe Mathias & Nikitopoulos, Christina Sklibosios & Konstandatos, Otto & Rai, Alan, 2021. "Wind generation and the dynamics of electricity prices in Australia," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 103(C).
    5. Csereklyei, Zsuzsanna & Anantharama, Nandini & Kallies, Anne, 2021. "Electricity market transitions in Australia: Evidence using model-based clustering," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 103(C).
    6. Paul J. Burke, 2023. "On the way out: Government revenues from fossil fuels in Australia," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 67(1), pages 1-17, January.
    7. Rivera, Nathaly M. & Loveridge, Scott, 2022. "Coal-to-gas fuel switching and its effects on housing prices," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 106(C).
    8. Fortes, Patrícia & Simoes, Sofia G. & Gouveia, João Pedro & Seixas, Júlia, 2019. "Electricity, the silver bullet for the deep decarbonisation of the energy system? Cost-effectiveness analysis for Portugal," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 237(C), pages 292-303.
    9. Klöckner, Kai & Letmathe, Peter, 2020. "Is the coherence of coal phase-out and electrolytic hydrogen production the golden path to effective decarbonisation?," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 279(C).
    10. Jan-Philipp Sasse & Evelina Trutnevyte, 2023. "A low-carbon electricity sector in Europe risks sustaining regional inequalities in benefits and vulnerabilities," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 14(1), pages 1-15, December.
    11. David A. Fleming‐Muñoz & Lavinia Poruschi & Thomas Measham & Jacqui Meyers & Magnus Moglia, 2020. "Economic vulnerability and regional implications of a low carbon emissions future," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 64(3), pages 575-604, July.
    12. Best, Rohan & Trück, Stefan, 2020. "Capital and policy impacts on Australian small-scale solar installations," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 136(C).
    13. Hauser, Philipp & Heinrichs, Heidi U. & Gillessen, Bastian & Müller, Theresa, 2018. "Implications of diversification strategies in the European natural gas market for the German energy system," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 151(C), pages 442-454.
    14. Ju, Yiyi & Sugiyama, Masahiro & Kato, Etsushi & Oshiro, Ken & Wang, Jiayang, 2022. "Job creation in response to Japan’s energy transition towards deep mitigation: An extension of partial equilibrium integrated assessment models," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 318(C).
    15. Marina Blohm, 2021. "An Enabling Framework to Support the Sustainable Energy Transition at the National Level," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(7), pages 1-20, March.
    16. Gillessen, B. & Heinrichs, H. & Hake, J.-F. & Allelein, H.-J., 2019. "Natural gas as a bridge to sustainability: Infrastructure expansion regarding energy security and system transition," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 251(C), pages 1-1.
    17. Vona, Francesco, 2023. "Managing the distributional effects of climate policies: A narrow path to a just transition," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 205(C).
    18. Tan, Hao & Thurbon, Elizabeth & Kim, Sung-Young & Mathews, John A., 2021. "Overcoming incumbent resistance to the clean energy shift: How local governments act as change agents in coal power station closures in China," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 149(C).
    19. Liu, Yanyan & Huang, Guohe & Chen, Jiapei & Zhang, Xiaoyue & Zheng, Xiaogui & Zhai, Mengyu, 2022. "Development of an optimization-aided small modular reactor siting model – A case study of Saskatchewan, Canada," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 305(C).
    20. Gillich, Annika & Hufendiek, Kai & Klempp, Nikolai, 2020. "Extended policy mix in the power sector: How a coal phase-out redistributes costs and profits among power plants," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 147(C).

    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:gam:jsusta:v:15:y:2023:i:23:p:16175-:d:1284847. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.