Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- Conference Participants
- 1 Introduction
- 2 Distributional Impacts of Carbon Pricing Policies in the Electricity Sector
- 3 Distributional Impacts of a U.S. Greenhouse Gas Policy
- 4 Instrument Choice Is Instrument Design
- 5 Taxes, Permits, and Climate Change
- 6 Border Adjustments for Carbon Taxes and the Cost of Emissions Permits
- 7 Taxes and Caps as Climate Policy Instruments with Domestic and Imported Fuels
- 8 How Much Should Highway Fuels Be Taxed?
- 9 State Tax Policy and Oil Production
- 10 The Social Costs and Benefits of U.S. Biofuel Policies with Preexisting Distortions
- Index
- References
3 - Distributional Impacts of a U.S. Greenhouse Gas Policy
A General Equilibrium Analysis of Carbon Pricing
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 01 June 2011
Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- Conference Participants
- 1 Introduction
- 2 Distributional Impacts of Carbon Pricing Policies in the Electricity Sector
- 3 Distributional Impacts of a U.S. Greenhouse Gas Policy
- 4 Instrument Choice Is Instrument Design
- 5 Taxes, Permits, and Climate Change
- 6 Border Adjustments for Carbon Taxes and the Cost of Emissions Permits
- 7 Taxes and Caps as Climate Policy Instruments with Domestic and Imported Fuels
- 8 How Much Should Highway Fuels Be Taxed?
- 9 State Tax Policy and Oil Production
- 10 The Social Costs and Benefits of U.S. Biofuel Policies with Preexisting Distortions
- Index
- References
Summary
Introduction
The United States is moving closer to enacting comprehensive climate change policy. President Obama campaigned in 2008 in part on a platform of re-engaging in the international negotiations on climate policy and supported a U.S. cap-and-trade policy with 100 percent auctioning of permits. Congress moved rapidly in 2009, with the House of Representatives voting favorably on the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 (H.R. 2454) in late June of that year. What will happen in the Senate is still unresolved as this is written.
H.R. 2454 establishes a cap-and-trade system to reduce greenhouse gas emissions 17 percent below 2005 levels by 2020 and 83 percent by 2050. Among other provisions, it contains new energy efficiency standards for various appliances and a renewable electricity standard that requires retail suppliers to meet 20 percent of their electricity demand through renewable sources and energy efficiency by 2020 (see Holt and Whitney [2009] for a detailed description of the bill).
Cap-and-trade legislation acts like a tax in raising the price of carbon-based fuels and other covered inputs that release greenhouse gases. The monies involved in a cap-and-trade program are significant. The Congressional Budget Office estimated in June 2009 that H.R. 2454 would increase federal revenues by nearly $850 billion between 2010 and 2019. Because the bulk of permits are freely allocated in the early years of the program, spending would also increase over that period by roughly $820 billion.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- US Energy Tax Policy , pp. 52 - 107Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2010
References
1969. A theory of demand for products distinguished by place of production. International Monetary Fund Staff Papers 16: 159–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, , , et al. 2001. The MIT Emissions Prediction and Policy Analysis (EPPA) Model: Revisions, Sensitivities, and Comparison of Results. MIT Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change, Report 71, Cambridge, MA, http://globalchange.mit.edu/files/document/MITJPSPGC_Rpt73.pdf.Google Scholar
, , and . 2003. Tax distortions and global climate policy. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 46: 269–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, , and . 2004. Is emissions trading always beneficial? Energy Journal 25 (2): 33–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, , , et al. 2009. Distributional and efficiency impacts of increased US gasoline taxes. American Economic Review 99 (3): 667–699.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, and . 2001. Neutralizing the adverse industry impacts of CO2 abatement policies: What does it cost? In Distributional and Behavioral Effects of Environmental Policy, and (eds.), pp. 45–85. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
, , and . 2005. Efficiency costs of meeting industry-distributional constraints under environmental permits and taxes. RAND Journal of Economics 36 (4): 951–971.Google Scholar
, , and . 1994. Who pays broad-based energy taxes? Computing lifetime and regional incidence. Energy Journal 15 (3): 145–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, , and . 2009. The incidence of U.S. climate policy: Alternative uses of revenue from a cap and trade auction. Washington, D.C.: Resources for the Future.Google Scholar
, , and . 2009. Distributional Impacts of Carbon Pricing Policies in the Electricity Sector. Washington, D.C.: American Tax Policy Institute.Google Scholar
, , and . 2004. That elusive elasticity: A long-panel approach to estimating the capital-labor substitution elasticity. CESifo Working Paper, Ifo Institute for Economic Research, Munich, Germany.
. 2009a. Assessment of Potential Budgetary Impacts from the Introduction of Carbon Dioxide Cap-and-Trade Policies. Washington, D.C.: Congressional Budget Office.Google Scholar
. 2009b. H.R. 2454 American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 Cost Estimate. Washington, D.C.: Congressional Budget Office.Google Scholar
2004. Uncertainty analysis of the cost of climate policies. Technology and Policy Program. Cambridge: Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
, , and . 1984. Some calculations of lifetime tax incidence. American Economic Review 74 (4): 633–649.Google Scholar
, and . 2002. Distributional effects of carbon allowance trading: How government decisions determine winners and losers. National Tax Journal 55 (2): 199–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, and . 1993. The PATH solver: A non-monotone stabilization scheme for mixed complementarity problems. Technical Report, Computer Sciences Department, University of Wisconsin-Madison.
. 2009. State Energy Data System. Energy Information Administration. Available at http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/states/_seds.html. Accessed August 2009.
, and . 2007. The general equilibrium incidence of environmental taxes. Journal of Public Economics 91 (3–4): 571–591.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, and . 1993. Who Bears the Lifetime Tax Burden?Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution.Google Scholar
, and . 2009. Who pays a price on carbon? NBER Working Paper No. 15239, Cambridge, MA.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, 1962. The incidence of the corporation income tax. Journal of Political Economy 70: 215–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, , and . 2009. The incidence of a U.S. carbon tax: A lifetime and regional analysis. The Energy Journal 30 (2): 157–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, and . 2009. Greenhouse gas legislation: Summary and analysis of H.R. 2454 as passed by the House of Representatives. Washington, D.C.: Congressional Research Service.Google Scholar
2001. A More Cost-Effective Strategy for Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Modeling the Impact of Methane Abatement Opportunities. Technology and Policy Program. Cambridge: Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
, , , et al. 2003. Modeling non-CO2 greenhouse gas abatement. Environmental Modeling and Assessment 8 (3): 175–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, and . 1995. Consumption taxes in a life-cycle framework: Are sin taxes regressive? Review of Economics and Statistics 77 (3): 389–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
1985. Computation of economic equilibria by a sequence of linear complementarity problems. Mathematical Programming Study 23: 144–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
1999. A distributional analysis of green tax reforms. National Tax Journal 52 (4): 655–681.Google Scholar
2007. A proposal for a U.S. carbon tax swap: An equitable tax reform to address global climate change. In Hamilton Project Discussion Paper. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution.Google Scholar
2009. Designing a carbon tax to reduce U.S. greenhouse gas emissions. Review of Environmental Economics and Policy 3 (1): 63–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, , , et al. 2008. Analysis of U.S. greenhouse gas proposals. MIT Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change, Report 160, Cambridge, MA, http://globalchang e.mit.edu/files/document/MITJPSPGC_Rpt160.pdf.
. 2008. State-Level U.S. Data for 2006. Minnesota IMPLAN Group Inc.
, , , et al. 2005. The MIT Emissions Prediction and Policy Analysis (EPPA) Model: Version 4. MIT Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change, Report 125, Cambridge, MA, http://globalchange.mit.edu/files/document/MITJPSPGC_Rpt125.pdf/
2004. Are emissions permits regressive? Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 47: 364–387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
1989. Lifetime incidence and the distributional burden of excise taxes. American Economic Review 79 (2): 325–330.Google Scholar
, , , et al. In press. Distributional implications of alternative U.S. greenhouse gas control measures. The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy.
, and . 2009. Tools for Building National Economic Models Using State-Level IMPLAN Social Accounts. Mimeograph. Cambridge: Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
2008. Documentation of the Applied Dynamic Analysis of the Global Economy (ADAGE). Working Paper 08–01, Research Triangle Institute.
1995a. CES Preferences and Technology: A Practical Introduction. Mimeograph.University of Colorado.
1995b. Extensions of GAMS for complementarity problems arising in applied economic analysis. Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control 19 (8): 1299–1324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
1999. Applied general equilibrium modeling with MPSGE as a GAMS subsystem: An overview of the modeling framework and syntax. Computational Economics 14: 1–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, M. , et al. In press. A top-down bottom-up modeling approach to climate change policy analysis. Energy Economics.
. 2009. Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990–2007. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency, EPA 430-R-09–004.Google Scholar
. 2006. American Household Community Survey 2006: Household Income in the Past 12 Months. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Census Bureau.Google Scholar
. 2009. Testimony of Dallas Burtraw. Hearing on Climate Change Legislation: Allowance and Revenue Distribution. Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
, , et al. 2002. Uncertainty in emissions projections for climate models. Atmospheric Environment 36 (22): 3659–3670.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2009. Instrument Choice Is Instrument Design. Washington, D.C.: American Tax Policy Institute.Google Scholar
- 14
- Cited by