| PUBLICATIONS | | Filtered by Energy | | | | | Sort by: Title | Date | Results per page: |
| | The New CAFE Standards: Are They Enough on Their Own? | | Virginia D. McConnell | | RFF Discussion Paper 13-14 | May 2013 | | Abstract: New Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards were recently passed in the United States with the twin goals of reducing greenhouse gas emissions and oil use. The new standards represent a dramatic change from recent policy. This paper examines the key features of the new rules, and compares them to previous CAFE standards in terms of flexibility and structure. The importance of consumer preferences and market forces on CAFE outcomes are identified. In the second part of the paper, the perspective of the consumer is explored. Consumer assessments of fuel economy savings with more fuel-efficient vehicles may be biased or incomplete, leading many to argue that there is an “energy efficiency gap” in consumer demand for vehicles. Reasons for such a gap, such as market failures, behavioral responses, and market barriers, are summarized. The implications for policy are discussed, including the role of combining CAFE with other policies. | | | | Comparative Life Cycle Assessments: Carbon Neutrality and Wood Biomass Energy | | Roger A. Sedjo | | RFF Discussion Paper 13-11 | April 2013 | | Abstract: Biomass energy is expected to play a major role in the substitution of renewable energy sources for fossil fuels over the next several decades. The US Energy Information Administration (EIA 2012) forecasts increases in the share of biomass in US energy production from 8 percent in 2009 to 15 percent by 2035. The general view has been that carbon emitted into the atmosphere from biological materials is carbon neutral—part of a closed loop whereby plant regrowth simply recaptures the carbon emissions associated with the energy produced. Recently this view has been challenged, and the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is considering regulations to be applied to biomass energy carbon emissions. A basic approach for analyses of environmental impacts has been the use of life cycle assessment (LCA), a methodology for assessing and measuring the environmental impact of a product over its lifetime—from raw material extraction through materials processing, manufacture, distribution, use, repair and maintenance, and disposal or recycling. However, LCA approaches vary, and the results of alternative methodologies often differ (Helin et al. 2012). This study investigates and compares the implications of these alternative approaches for emissions from wood biomass energy, the carbon footprint, and also highlights the differences in LCA environmental impacts. | | | | Renewable Electricity Policy, Intermittency, and Cost-Effectiveness | | Harrison Fell and Joshua Linn | | Journal of Environmental Economics and Management | forthcoming | Related Discussion Paper 12-54 | | | | | | Fuel Prices and New Vehicle Fuel Economy—Comparing the United States and Western Europe | | Thomas Klier and Joshua Linn | | Journal of Environmental Economics and Management | forthcoming | Related Discussion Paper 11-37 | | | | | | A Retrospective Review of Shale Gas Development in the United States: What Led to the Boom? | | Zhongmin Wang, Alan J. Krupnick | | RFF Discussion Paper 13-12 | April 2013 | | Abstract: This is the first academic paper that reviews the economic, policy, and technology history of shale gas development in the United States. The primary objective of the paper is to answer the question of what led to the shale gas boom in the United States to help inform stakeholders in those countries that are attempting to develop their own shale gas resources. This paper is also a case study of the incentive, process, and impact of technology innovations and the role of government in promoting technology innovations in the energy industry. Our review finds that government policy, private entrepreneurship, technology innovations, private land and mineral rights ownership, high natural gas prices in the 2000s, and a number of other factors all made important contributions to the shale gas boom. | | | | Mercury and Air Toxics Standards Analysis Deconstructed: Changing Assumptions, Changing Results | | Blair Beasley, Matthew Woerman, Anthony Paul, Dallas Burtraw, Karen L. Palmer | | RFF Discussion Paper 13-10 | April 2013 | | Abstract: Several recent studies have used simulation models to quantify the potential effects of recent environmental regulations on power plants, including the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS), one of the US Environmental Protection Agency’s most expensive regulations. These studies have produced inconsistent results about the effects on the industry, making general conclusions difficult. We attempt to reconcile these differences by representing the variety of assumptions in these studies within a common modeling platform. We find that the assumptions, and their differences from the way MATS will be implemented, make a substantial impact on projected retirement of coal-fired capacity and generation, investments that are required, and emissions reductions. Almost uniformly, the actual regulation, when examined in its final form and in isolation, provides more flexibility than is represented in most models. We find this leads to a smaller impact on the composition of the electricity generating fleet than most studies have predicted. | | | | Forest Carbon Economics: What We Know, What We Do Not, and Whether it Matters | | Molly K Macauley and Nathan Richardson | | Climate Change Economics | December 2012 | Vol. 3, No.4 | | | | | | Shale gas development impacts on surface water quality in Pennsylvania | | Sheila M. Olmstead, Lucija A. Muehlenbachs, Jhih-Shyang Shih, Ziyan Chu, and Alan J. Krupnick | | Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences | March 2013 | Vol. 110, No. 13 | pp. 4962-4967 | | | | | | What Changes Energy Consumption, and for How Long? New Evidence from the 2001 Brazilian Electricity Crisis | | Francois Gerard | | RFF Discussion Paper 13-06 | March 2013 | | Abstract: There is little evidence from impact evaluation studies of ambitious residential energy conservation programs, especially in developing countries. In this paper, I investigate the short- and long-term impacts of the most ambitious electricity conservation program to date. This was an innovative program of private incentives and conservation appeals implemented by the Brazilian government in 2001-2002 in response to supply shortages of over 20%. I nd that the program reduced average electricity consumption per customer by 25% over a nine-month period in affected areas. Importantly, the program reduced consumption by 12% in the long run. Such persistent effects, which arose mostly from behavioral adjustments, may substantially improve the cost-effectiveness of ambitious conservation programs. Finally, I show that a price elasticity estimated out-of-crisis would have to be increased fivefold to rationalize conservation efforts by the private incentives alone. Appeals to social preferences likely amplify consumers' responsiveness in times of crisis. | | | | Shale Gas Development and the Costs of Groundwater Contamination Risk | | Lucija Anna Muehlenbachs, Elisheba Beia Spiller, Chris Timmins | | RFF Discussion Paper 12-40-REV | March 2013 | | Abstract: While shale gas development can result in rapid local economic development, negative externalities associated with the process may adversely affect the prices of nearby homes. We utilize a difference-in-differences estimator with additional controls for house fixed effects and the boundary of the public water service area in Washington County, Pennsylvania to identify the capitalization of groundwater contamination risk in property values, differentiating it from other externalities, lease payments to homeowners, and local economic development. We find that proximity to wells increases property values. However, groundwater contamination concerns fully offset those gains by reducing property values up to 26 percent. | | | | The Controversy over US Coal and Natural Gas Exports | | Joel Darmstadter | | Issue Brief 13-01 | March 2013 | | | | | | Cost-effectiveness and Economic Incidence of a Clean Energy Standard | | Bryan K. Mignone, Thomas Alfstad, Aaron Bergman, Kenneth Dubin, Richard Duke, Paul Friley, Andrew Martinez, Matthew Mowers, Karen Palmer, Anthony Paul, Sharon Showalter, Daniel Steinberg, Matt Woerman, Frances Wood | | Economics of Energy and Environmental Policy | September 2012 | Vol. 1, No. 3 | pp. 59-86 | | | | | | Regulating Greenhouse Gases from Coal Power Plants under the Clean Air Act | | Joshua Linn, Erin Mastrangelo, Dallas Burtraw | | RFF Discussion Paper 13-05 | February 2013 | | Abstract: The Clean Air Act has assumed the central role in US climate policy, directing the development of regulations governing greenhouse gas emissions from existing coal-fired power plants. This paper examines the operation of coal-fired generating units over 25 years to estimate the marginal costs and potential magnitude of emissions reductions from improving their efficiency. We find that a 10 percent increase in coal prices causes a 0.2 to 0.5 percent heat rate reduction, broadly consistent with engineering assessments. We also find that coal prices have a significant effect on utilization. The results are used to compare cost-effectiveness of alternative policies. | | | | What the Experts Say about the Environmental Risks of Shale Gas Development | | Alan J. Krupnick, Hal Gordon, Sheila M. Olmstead | | RFF Report | February 2013 | | | | | | Bridging the Energy Efficiency Gap: Insights for Policy from Economic Theory and Empirical Analysis | | Kenneth T. Gillingham, Karen L. Palmer | | RFF Discussion Paper 13-02 | January 2013 | | Abstract: The failure of consumers to make seemingly cost-effective investments in energy efficiency is commonly referred to as the energy efficiency gap. We review the most recent literature relevant to the energy efficiency gap and in particular discuss what the latest insights from behavioral economics might mean for the gap. We find that engineering studies may overestimate the size of the gap by failing to account for all costs and neglecting particular types of economic behavior. Nonetheless, empirical evidence suggests that market failures such as asymmetric information and agency problems affect efficiency decisions and contribute to the gap. Behavioral anomalies have been shown to affect economic decisionmaking in a variety of other contexts and are being increasingly cited as an explanation for the gap. The relative contributions of the various explanations for the gap differ across energy users and energy uses. This heterogeneity poses challenges for policymakers, but also could help elucidate when different policy interventions will most likely be cost-effective. If behavioral anomalies can be more cleanly linked to energy efficiency investments, then policymakers will face new challenges in performing welfare analysis of energy efficiency policies. | | | | Assessing the energy-efficiency information gap: results from a survey of home energy auditors | | Karen Palmer, Margaret Walls, Hal Gordon, and Todd Gerarden | | Energy Efficiency | December 2012 (online) | Related Discussion Paper 11-42 | | | | | | Policies to Encourage Home Energy Efficiency Improvements: Comparing Loans, Subsidies, and Standards | | Margaret A. Walls | | RFF Discussion Paper 12-47 | December 2012 | | Abstract: Residential buildings are responsible for approximately 20 percent of U.S. energy consumption, and single-family homes alone account for about 16 percent. Older homes are less energy efficient than newer ones, and although many experts have identified upgrades and improvements that can yield significant energy savings at relatively low, or even negative, cost, it has proved difficult to spur most homeowners to make these investments. In this study, I analyze the energy and carbon dioxide (CO2) impacts from three policies aimed at improving home energy efficiency: a subsidy for the purchase of efficient space heating, cooling, and water heating equipment; a loan for the same purchases; and efficiency standards for such equipment. I use a version of the U.S. Energy Information Administration’s National Energy Modeling System, NEMS-RFF, to compute the energy and CO2 effects and standard formulas in economics to calculate the welfare costs of the policies. I find that the loan is quite cost-effective but provides only a very small reduction in emissions and energy use. The subsidy and the standard are both more costly but generate emissions reductions seven times larger than the loan. The subsidy promotes consumer adoption of very high-efficiency equipment, whereas the standard leads to purchases of equipment that just reach the standard. The discount rate used to discount energy savings from the policies has a large effect on the welfare cost estimates. | | | | Managing the Risks of Shale Gas: The Latest Results from RFF's Initiative | | Kristin Hayes | | Resources | 2012 (181) | | | | | | US Energy Policy: A Changing Landscape | | Phil Sharp | | Resources | 2012 (181) | | | | | | Will Natural Gas Vehicles Be in Our Future? | | Alan J. Krupnick | | Resources | 2012 (181) | | | | | |
|
|
|
|
|
| FILTER PUBLICATIONS | | By Topic | | | By Type | | | By Author | | | | Display All Publications |
|
|
|
|
|