通过检查:重叠的气候政策如何改变加州的成本分配

IF 7.4 2区 经济学 Q1 ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES
William A. Scott
{"title":"通过检查:重叠的气候政策如何改变加州的成本分配","authors":"William A. Scott","doi":"10.1016/j.erss.2025.104119","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Energy and transportation services represent a significant portion of household budgets, particularly for low-income households. Climate policies that increase the cost of energy and transportation services can lead to disparate impacts across income and demographic groups. When multiple overlapping climate policies are in place, they may interact to compound or shift the distribution of costs. This study employs household expenditure microdata from the Consumer Expenditure Survey to examine the distributional costs of two overlapping policies in California: the cap-and-trade program (CAT) and the low carbon fuel standard (LCFS). Findings indicate that the LCFS is regressive and that the CAT, while highly regressive at initial incidence, is similar in net incidence to the LCFS after returning some revenue to households through utility rebates. Yet the CAT program leads to greater differences in impacts on households within income groups, even exceeding differences between groups. Interactions between the two policies lead to higher costs for households across income deciles compared to achieving the same level of emissions reduction with the CAT alone. This suggests there is no equity-efficiency tradeoff in choosing between these policy instruments.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":48384,"journal":{"name":"Energy Research & Social Science","volume":"125 ","pages":"Article 104119"},"PeriodicalIF":7.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Passing the check: How overlapping climate policies shift the distribution of costs in California\",\"authors\":\"William A. Scott\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.erss.2025.104119\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><div>Energy and transportation services represent a significant portion of household budgets, particularly for low-income households. Climate policies that increase the cost of energy and transportation services can lead to disparate impacts across income and demographic groups. When multiple overlapping climate policies are in place, they may interact to compound or shift the distribution of costs. This study employs household expenditure microdata from the Consumer Expenditure Survey to examine the distributional costs of two overlapping policies in California: the cap-and-trade program (CAT) and the low carbon fuel standard (LCFS). Findings indicate that the LCFS is regressive and that the CAT, while highly regressive at initial incidence, is similar in net incidence to the LCFS after returning some revenue to households through utility rebates. Yet the CAT program leads to greater differences in impacts on households within income groups, even exceeding differences between groups. Interactions between the two policies lead to higher costs for households across income deciles compared to achieving the same level of emissions reduction with the CAT alone. This suggests there is no equity-efficiency tradeoff in choosing between these policy instruments.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48384,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Energy Research & Social Science\",\"volume\":\"125 \",\"pages\":\"Article 104119\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":7.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-05-08\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Energy Research & Social Science\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"96\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214629625002002\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"经济学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Energy Research & Social Science","FirstCategoryId":"96","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214629625002002","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

能源和运输服务占家庭预算的很大一部分,对低收入家庭来说尤其如此。增加能源和运输服务成本的气候政策可能对不同收入和人口群体产生不同的影响。当多个重叠的气候政策到位时,它们可能相互作用,使成本的分配复杂化或转移。本研究采用来自消费者支出调查的家庭支出微观数据来检验加州两项重叠政策的分配成本:限额与交易计划(CAT)和低碳燃料标准(LCFS)。研究结果表明,低收入家庭补贴是递减的,而CAT虽然在初始发生率上是高度递减的,但在通过公用事业回扣向家庭返还一些收入后,其净发病率与低收入家庭补贴相似。然而,CAT项目对不同收入群体家庭的影响差异更大,甚至超过了不同收入群体之间的差异。两项政策之间的相互作用导致各收入十分位数家庭的成本高于单独通过CAT实现相同减排水平的家庭成本。这表明,在这些政策工具之间进行选择时,不存在公平与效率之间的权衡。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Passing the check: How overlapping climate policies shift the distribution of costs in California
Energy and transportation services represent a significant portion of household budgets, particularly for low-income households. Climate policies that increase the cost of energy and transportation services can lead to disparate impacts across income and demographic groups. When multiple overlapping climate policies are in place, they may interact to compound or shift the distribution of costs. This study employs household expenditure microdata from the Consumer Expenditure Survey to examine the distributional costs of two overlapping policies in California: the cap-and-trade program (CAT) and the low carbon fuel standard (LCFS). Findings indicate that the LCFS is regressive and that the CAT, while highly regressive at initial incidence, is similar in net incidence to the LCFS after returning some revenue to households through utility rebates. Yet the CAT program leads to greater differences in impacts on households within income groups, even exceeding differences between groups. Interactions between the two policies lead to higher costs for households across income deciles compared to achieving the same level of emissions reduction with the CAT alone. This suggests there is no equity-efficiency tradeoff in choosing between these policy instruments.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Energy Research & Social Science
Energy Research & Social Science ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES-
CiteScore
14.00
自引率
16.40%
发文量
441
审稿时长
55 days
期刊介绍: Energy Research & Social Science (ERSS) is a peer-reviewed international journal that publishes original research and review articles examining the relationship between energy systems and society. ERSS covers a range of topics revolving around the intersection of energy technologies, fuels, and resources on one side and social processes and influences - including communities of energy users, people affected by energy production, social institutions, customs, traditions, behaviors, and policies - on the other. Put another way, ERSS investigates the social system surrounding energy technology and hardware. ERSS is relevant for energy practitioners, researchers interested in the social aspects of energy production or use, and policymakers. Energy Research & Social Science (ERSS) provides an interdisciplinary forum to discuss how social and technical issues related to energy production and consumption interact. Energy production, distribution, and consumption all have both technical and human components, and the latter involves the human causes and consequences of energy-related activities and processes as well as social structures that shape how people interact with energy systems. Energy analysis, therefore, needs to look beyond the dimensions of technology and economics to include these social and human elements.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信