EXPLORING THE IMPACTS OF A NATIONAL U.S. CO₂ TAX AND REVENUE RECYCLING OPTIONS WITH A COUPLED ELECTRICITY-ECONOMY MODEL

Abstract

This paper provides a comprehensive exploration of the impacts of economy-wide CO 2 taxes in the U.S. simulated using a detailed electric sector model [the National Renewable Energy Laboratory's Regional Energy Deployment System (ReEDS)] linked with a computable general equilibrium model of the U.S. economy [the Massachusetts Institute of Technology's U.S. Regional Energy Policy (USREP) model]. We implement various tax trajectories and options for using the revenue collected by the tax and describe their impact on household welfare and its distribution across income levels. Overall, we find that our top-down/bottom-up models affects estimates of the distribution and cost of emission reductions as well as the amount of revenue collected, but that these are mostly insensitive to the way the revenue is recycled. We find that substantial abatement opportunities through fuel switching and renewable penetration in the electricity sector allow the economy to accommodate extensive emissions reductions at relatively low cost. While welfare impacts are largely determined by the choice of revenue recycling scheme, all tax levels and schemes provide net benefits when accounting for the avoided global climate change benefits of emission reductions. Recycling revenue through capital income tax rebates is more efficient than labor income tax rebates or uniform transfers to households. While capital tax rebates substantially reduce the overall costs of emission abatement, they profit high income households the most and are regressive. We more generally identify a clear trade-off between equity and efficiency across the various recycling options. However, we show through §

DISTRIBUTIONAL IMPLICATIONS OF A NATIONAL CO2TAX IN THE U.S. ACROSS INCOME CLASSES AND REGIONS: A MULTI-MODEL OVERVIEW

“…Of the models participating in the EMF 32 modeling exercise, four allow for the consideration of effects across income groups. These are DIEM (Ross, 2014a,b, 2018), USREP-ReEDS (Rausch and Mowers, 2014; Caron et al , 2018), ADAGE (ADAGE-US) (Ross, 2009; Woollacott, 2018), and IGEM (Jorgenson et al , 2012, 2013, 2018). These and a fifth model, NewERA (Tuladhar et al , 2012), are able to consider the effects across U.S. regions.…”

How can computable general equilibrium models serve low-carbon policy? A systematic review

“…As for the carbon tax, most studies focus on the CO 2 tax on fossil fuel combustion, while only a few consider tax on non-CO 2 GHGs (Pena-Levano et al 2019) and land-based carbon fluxes (Golub et al 2009). The revenue distribution is the focus of much attention, which can increase fiscal revenue (Allan et al 2014); reduce tax distortions on capital (Caron et al 2018), labor (Jorgenson et al 2018), consumption (Fraser and Waschik 2013), or income (Chen and Hafstead 2019); subsidize the households (Lu et al 2010); and support energy efficiency improvements (Mahmood and Marpaung 2014) and lowcarbon technologies (Corradini et al 2018). A proper design of the revenue distribution mechanism can achieve double dividends (Rivera et al 2016) and even triple dividends (Maxim and Zander 2020), namely, it can attain mutual benefits on the environment, economy, and employment.…”

Meeting U.S. greenhouse gas emissions goals with the international air pollution provision of the clean air act

“…While the price increases resulting from requiring emitters to hold allowances have the potential to be regressive because low income households spend a larger share of their income on energy, the allowance revenue provides a means to offset these regressive effects 13 . Per-capita rebates generally have the effect of making carbon pricing policies progressive, with net improvements in welfare to the lowest income households relative to baseline projections (Caron et al 2018a, Metcalf 2019a. This is in strong contrast to cap and trade systems that freely allocate the allowances to producers.…”