The Experts below are selected from a list of 94563 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Inseok Seo - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Sustainability of a Policy Instrument: Rethinking the Renewable Portfolio Standard in South Korea
Sustainability, 2019Co-Authors: Youhyun Lee, Inseok SeoAbstract:The constant effectiveness of a Policy Instrument was a major lacuna in energy Policy for a long time. However, selecting and mixing appropriate Policy Instruments has become crucial in the era of climate change. The aim of this paper is to investigate the renewable portfolio standard (RPS) system as a sustainable Policy Instrument for promoting new and renewable energy. To answer the research question, we utilized the latent growth model by applying the data on 27 types of new and renewable energy production from 2014, 2015, and 2016. Our empirical analysis concluded that the effectiveness of the RPS as a Policy Instrument decreased linearly each year, and its effectiveness is expected to decrease in the long term from 2017 to 2023. Profound debates and evidence from other RPS-adopting countries should be additionally conducted to bolster this theme of sustainable energy Policy Instruments
Youhyun Lee - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Sustainability of a Policy Instrument: Rethinking the Renewable Portfolio Standard in South Korea
Sustainability, 2019Co-Authors: Youhyun Lee, Inseok SeoAbstract:The constant effectiveness of a Policy Instrument was a major lacuna in energy Policy for a long time. However, selecting and mixing appropriate Policy Instruments has become crucial in the era of climate change. The aim of this paper is to investigate the renewable portfolio standard (RPS) system as a sustainable Policy Instrument for promoting new and renewable energy. To answer the research question, we utilized the latent growth model by applying the data on 27 types of new and renewable energy production from 2014, 2015, and 2016. Our empirical analysis concluded that the effectiveness of the RPS as a Policy Instrument decreased linearly each year, and its effectiveness is expected to decrease in the long term from 2017 to 2023. Profound debates and evidence from other RPS-adopting countries should be additionally conducted to bolster this theme of sustainable energy Policy Instruments
Robert N Stavins - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
the future of u s carbon pricing Policy normative assessment and positive prognosis
2019Co-Authors: Robert N StavinsAbstract:There is widespread agreement among economists--and a diverse set of other Policy analysts--that at least in the long run, an economy-wide carbon pricing system will be an essential element of any national Policy that can achieve meaningful reductions of CO2 emissions cost-effectively in the United States. There is less agreement, however, among economists and others in the Policy community regarding the choice of specific carbon-pricing Policy Instrument, with some supporting carbon taxes and others favoring cap-and-trade mechanisms. This prompts two important questions. How do the two major approaches to carbon pricing compare on relevant dimensions, including but not limited to efficiency, cost-effectiveness, and distributional equity? And which of the two approaches is more likely to be adopted in the future in the United States? This paper addresses these questions by drawing on both normative and positive theories of Policy Instrument choice as they apply to U.S. climate change Policy, and draws extensively on relevant empirical evidence. The paper concludes with a look at the path ahead, including an assessment of how the two carbon-pricing Instruments can be made more politically acceptable.
-
The Future of U.S. Carbon-Pricing Policy
2019Co-Authors: Robert N StavinsAbstract:There is widespread agreement among economists – and a diverse set of other Policy analysts – that at least in the long run, an economy-wide carbon pricing system will be an essential element of any national Policy that can achieve meaningful reductions of CO2 emissions cost-effectively in the United States. There is less agreement, however, among economists and others in the Policy community regarding the choice of specific carbon-pricing Policy Instrument, with some supporting carbon taxes and others favoring cap and trade mechanisms. This prompts two important questions. How do the two major approaches to carbon pricing compare on relevant dimensions, including but not limited to efficiency, cost-effectiveness, and distributional equity? And which of the two approaches is more likely to be adopted in the future in the United States? This paper addresses these questions by drawing on both normative and positive theories of Policy Instrument choice as they apply to U.S. climate change Policy, and draws extensively on relevant empirical evidence. The paper concludes with a look at the path ahead, including an assessment of how the two carbon-pricing Instruments can be made more politically acceptable.
-
correlated uncertainty and Policy Instrument choice
Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 1996Co-Authors: Robert N StavinsAbstract:Abstract For two decades, environmental economists have generally maintained that benefit uncertainty is irrelevant for choosing between price and quantity Instruments, but that cost uncertainty matters, with the identity of the efficient Instrument depending upon the relative slopes of the marginal benefit and cost functions. But, in the presence of simultaneous, correlated uncertainty, such Policy Instrument recommendations may be inappropriate. With plausible values of relevant parameters, the conventional identification of a price Instrument will be reversed, to favor instead a quantity Instrument. The opposite reversal—from the choice of a quantity Instrument to a price Instrument—seems less likely to occur.
Quan Cheng - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
complementarity and substitutability a review of state level renewable energy Policy Instrument interactions
Renewable & Sustainable Energy Reviews, 2017Co-Authors: Quan ChengAbstract:This paper provides an extensive review of two streams of literature: the first part of the review focuses on Policy tools and their interrelationships and the second part focuses on the literature on the state renewable energy Policy tools. Based on the reviews, this paper investigates how Policymakers choose a set of interrelated renewable energy Policy Instruments and identify under what conditions Policy Instruments complement or substitute. We extend the political market framework by examining the influences of: (1) administrative agencies on the supply side; (2) interest groups on the demand side; and (3) the Policy-induced problem situation changes on the adoption of state renewable energy Policy tools, building upon reviews of both Policy tools and Policy diffusion theories. A set of hypotheses are advanced for state renewable energy Policy interactions among public benefit fund (PBF), renewable portfolio standards (RPS) and corporate tax incentive (CTI). The hypotheses are tested by three Event History models, in which RPS, PBF and CTI serve as dependent variables separately. The complementary effects between previous use of RPS and adoption of PBF, between previous use of PBF and adoption of RPS, and between previous use of CTI and adoption of RPS are confirmed. We also find support for the Policy substitutability between previous use of CTI and adoption of PBF.
Matthew J Kotchen - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
willingness to pay and Policy Instrument choice for climate change Policy in the united states
Energy Policy, 2013Co-Authors: Matthew J Kotchen, Kevin J Boyle, Anthony LeiserowitzAbstract:This paper provides the first willingness-to-pay (WTP) estimates in support of a national climate-change Policy that are comparable with the costs of actual legislative efforts in the U.S. Congress. Based on a survey of 2034 American adults, we find that households are, on average, willing to pay between $79 and $89 per year in support of reducing domestic greenhouse-gas (GHG) emissions 17% by 2020. Even very conservative estimates yield an average WTP at or above $60 per year. Taking advantage of randomized treatments within the survey valuation question, we find that mean WTP does not vary substantially among the Policy Instruments of a cap-and-trade program, a carbon tax, or a GHG regulation. But there are differences in the sociodemographic characteristics of those willing to pay across Policy Instruments. Greater education always increases WTP. Older individuals have a lower WTP for a carbon tax and a GHG regulation, while greater household income increases WTP for these same two Policy Instruments. Republicans, along with those indicating no political party affiliation, have a significantly lower WTP regardless of the Policy Instrument. But many of these differences are no longer evident after controlling for respondent opinions about whether global warming is actually happening.
