Showing posts with label Economic Impact Analysis. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Economic Impact Analysis. Show all posts

Sunday, January 3, 2021

Reaching Net Zero Emissions In Virginia Could Increase State GDP More Than $3.5 Billion Per Year

When Governor Ralph Northam signed the Virginia Clean Economy Act (VCEA) into law this April, the state joined the vanguard of U.S. states enacting ambitious policy to transition from fossil fuels to a clean energy economy. But while the VCEA would significantly decarbonize Virginia’s power sector by 2050, it will still fall short of the emissions reductions needed for a safe climate future.

New modeling using the Virginia Energy Policy Simulator (EPS), developed by Energy Innovation and Rocky Mountain Institute, estimates the VCEA will reduce power sector emissions nearly 64% and cut economy-wide emissions 26% by 2050 compared to business-as-usual. While the VCEA puts Virginia on the path to significant decarbonization, it does not cover the rest of the state’s economic sectors, and falls short of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s recommended pathway to limit warming to 1.5° Celsius for a safe climate future.
...
[The general Energy Policy Simulator available for other regions is available at https://us.energypolicy.solutions/ and more fully described  in a blog post at https://tinyurl.com/yajhwfw7 ]
Percent GDP Change in a Net Zero Scenario - U.S.
... A more ambitious policy package that implements climate policies across the transportation, buildings, industrial, land, and agricultural sectors could put Virginia on a 1.5°C pathway and generate massive economic benefits: By 2050, this scenario could achieve net-zero emissions, generate more than 12,000 job-years, and increase state GDP by more than $3.5 billion per year.

Virginia’s second-largest source of emissions is the electricity sector. Before the VCEA was enacted, the state’s power sector emissions were projected to grow from roughly 30 million metric tons of carbon dioxide-equivalent (MMT CO2e) in 2019 to about 35 MMT CO2e in 2050.

The VCEA will spur significant electricity sector emissions reductions by requiring the state’s investor-owned utilities to decarbonize, including requiring Dominion to achieve 100 percent carbon-free electricity by 2045 and Appalachian Power to achieve 100 percent carbon-free electricity by 2050. It also requires closing nearly all coal-fired power plants by 2024 and most natural gas, biomass, and petroleum-fired power plants by 2045.

The VCEA would also [increase] Virginia’s renewable energy industry with targets for 5,200 megawatts (MW) of offshore wind by 2034, 3,100 MW of energy storage capacity by 2035, and significant energy efficiency growth....Virginia currently has 2,300 MW of installed renewable energy capacity....
...
Transportation is the largest current source of statewide emissions, followed by industry and buildings as the third- and fourth-largest greenhouse gas contributors....

Modeling of the VCEA and 1.5°C pathway was conducted using the open-source and peer reviewed Virginia EPS computer model, which allows users to estimate climate and energy policy impacts on emissions, the economy, and public health.... 

This policy package would reduce economywide emissions 63% below 2005 levels by 2030 and achieve net-zero emissions before 2050.... In addition to the economic benefits, the scenario would reduce harmful air pollution, creating health benefits for Virginians.

... The Virginia EPS ... [requires] all new passenger cars sold to be electric by 2035, and all new trucks to be electric by 2045. This standard aligns with California’s transportation sector policies and the multi-state Memorandum of Understanding on moving to zero emissions medium and heavy duty vehicles that 17 states follow. The scenario also includes investing in alternatives to passenger car travel, with supportive land use and transportation policies that empower people to use public transit or walk and bike, resulting in a 20% passenger car travel reduction by 2050.

In the buildings sector, a sales standard requiring all newly sold building equipment to be electric by 2030 would shift gas space and water heating systems to all-electric heat pumps, which are already commercially available and common in many parts of the U.S. Strong efficiency standards (potentially state standards on new equipment sales, a utility rebate program, or a statewide energy efficiency resource standard) further improve the efficiency of newly sold building equipment.

The Virginia EPS 1.5°C pathway ...covers the entire electricity sector (including municipal and cooperative utilities) and targets 100% clean power [earlier], by 2035. The VCEA’s offshore wind, energy storage, and power plant closure requirements are also included along with additional policies to expand the transmission system, spur demand response, and add even more storage for valuable grid flexibility.

Virginia’s industry sector emissions come from [leaks].... To reduce energy-related emissions, the scenario requires industrial facilities electrify all end-uses where possible, to switch to a zero-carbon fuel (in this case hydrogen) for all others by 2050, and for the hydrogen to be produced through the zero-carbon process known as electrolysis. Policies promoting more efficient use of industrial materials and improved industrial energy efficiency achieve additional reductions.
...
By 2050, this scenario would generate more than 12,000 job-years and increase Virginia’s GDP by more than $3.5 billion per year.

Moving away from fossil fuels also improves air quality by reducing particulate matter emissions and other pollutants that harm human health – [avoiding] more than 16,000 asthma attacks per year by 2050.
...
by Silvio Marcacci, Communications Director at Energy Innovation a nonpartisan climate policy think tank helping policymakers make informed energy policy choices and accelerate clean energy by supporting the policies that most effectively reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
FOR FULL STORY GO TO:
December 9, 2020
Also see Greentech Media's coverage at https://tinyurl.com/y7zvgj8y

Friday, June 23, 2017

State Level Electric Energy Efficiency Potential Estimates

Abstract

This report reflects work performed under contract with the U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. The research focused on applying the result of EPRI’s 2014 US Energy Efficiency Potential Study which was conducted at the Census division level and developing a method to apply the division level results to the state level by customer class and by end-use. The state allocation shows that every state has a large amount of electric energy efficiency potential that can be utilized as a cost-effective energy resource. This cost-effective electric potential grows over time as equipment reaches the end of its useful life and is replaced by a cost-effective efficient replacement. In total gigawatt-hours (GWh), this energy efficiency economic potential in 2035 ranges from 901 GWh in Vermont to 87,336 GWh in Texas, reflective of the both electric loads and the types electric services in each state. Finally, to understand the potential to bring additional technologies to market and the impact that added incentives can have on energy efficiency potential, the national model and state allocations were re-run with differing levels of incentives. These results, which vary by state, show both the direct impact of incentives as well as potential opportunities to increase energy efficiency through cost reductions.

Overview

The EPRI's 2014 study found 790,639 GWh of cost-effective electric energy efficiency available from 2012 to 2035, which represents 17.5% of baseline retail sales in 2035. Immediately following the study, stakeholder's expressed interest in state level energy efficiency potential analysis to aid in more localized energy planning. Updated analysis shows an estimate of 740,985 GWh of cost effective electric-energy efficiency economic potential from 2016 to 2036 with significant savings across residential, commercial, and industrial sectors.
Image result for renewable energy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Alternative_Energies.jpg
The report concludes that every state has a large amount of electric energy efficiency potential that can be utilized as a cost-effective energy resource. As equipment reaches the end of its useful life and is replaced by cost-effective energy efficient replacements, the cost-effective electric potential grows over time. The study estimates that state-level energy efficiency potential ranges from 12% in Missouri to 21% in Florida relative to adjusted baseline sales, with twenty six states showing more than 15% savings available cost-effectively between 2016 and 2035. Another important conclusion of the study is that there are numerous states that do not completely achieve their energy efficient economic potential (EP). Only twenty two states have developed programs that would be on track to achieve 100% of the model's cost savings by 2035. This is to say that there is still significant underinvestment in energy efficiency; in fact, 18 states would have captured less than 50% of the energy efficiency potential estimated by the EPRI model if they were to continue on the same historical trajectory. The role of incentives in energy efficiency potential was also analyzed. With $20/MWh, the EE economic potential increases by 102,848 GWh, which is a 13% increase over the case with no incentives involved.

The full report can be found here:
Project Manager: C. Holmes  and S. Mullen-Trento

Thursday, June 22, 2017

As Interior pivots to fossil fuel extraction, reports shows it costs taxpayers bigly - Taxpayers lose $7 billion a year due to U.S. subsidies for fossil fuels. The Trump administration might increase that.


In the months since he took office, President Donald Trump has taken steps to uphold some of his campaign promises, namely by deregulating oil, gas, and oil extraction. The Trump administration's newly proposed budget includes new steps in the process of deregulation, specifically by removing significant mechanisms of polluter oversight and boosting the production of fossil fuels on public lands. Despite claims of fossil fuel leasing having a net-negative impact, the Department of the Interior is expecting to find ways to increase government revenue from fossil fuel leases. A new study from Oil Change International reported that current subsidization for fossil fuel production on public lands costs taxpayers more than $7 billion. Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke said that the newly proposed budget is intended to bring in more money for the public.

Democrats in Congress have vowed to oppose the increase in fossil fuel extraction on public lands. “Once again, the Trump Administration has turned its back on Teddy Roosevelt-style conservatism and is instead trying to allow special interests to pillage our natural resources so a wealthy few can make themselves even wealthier,” Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee ranking member Maria Cantwell (D-WA) said in a statement. “We won’t let him.” The Trump administration is taking other steps to forming a better partnership with industry. The Department of Interior, which is able to issue permits for pipeline right of ways through public lands, has been given a $16 million increase to its oil and gas programs as part of the proposed budget. The budget document, which relies on opening up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, also states that "onshore energy mineral leasing" will bring in $330 million more in 2018 than 2017 and that offshore mineral leasing will bring in $450 million. 
Image result for oil well wikipedia
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/ce/Oil_well.jpg
However, it is unclear as to how the Trump administration will be able to reach these goals, and Zinke has stated that testing still needed to be done. The increased revenues was another example of “crazy math in the budget,” said David Turnbull, a spokesperson for Oil Change International. “Those sorts of increases in the royalties received are definitely not attributed to raising the royalty rate, but rather… a totally unrealistic expectation of opening up new oil and gas drilling that will wreck the climate.” The Oil Change International report, which concludes in the $7 billion cost only looks at direct costs to taxpayers. Then, health and climate impacts would merely add on to the existing costs. According to the report, fossil fuel companies are ripping off taxpayer in several ways, including undervaluing leases.“For example,” the report says, “the BLM set rates for ‘renting’ federal lands for oil and gas leases in 1987 to $1.50 per acre, or a fraction thereof, for the first five years of the lease term and $2 per acre, or fraction thereof, for any subsequent year. This rate has not been raised in 30 years — not even to reflect inflation.” In 2011, around 20 percent of offshore leases for oil and gas development completely avoided royalty payments, the report found. The government's decision to support the industry greatly impacts the climate as well -- the report found that “cutting off subsidies to Big Coal in Wyoming would save the same carbon emissions over 20 years as shutting down 32 coal-fired power plants.”


FOR FULL STORY GO TO


by Samantha Page, Climate Reporter at ThinkProgress www.thinkprogress.org

June 25, 2017

Wednesday, January 25, 2017

1st Comprehensive Cost/Benefit Study of Climate Policies in San Joaquin Valley Finds Over $13 Billion in Economic Benefits, Mostly in Renewable Energy

Amid concerns about the economic and employment impacts of California’s ambitious climate policies, the first comprehensive, academic study of their effects in the San Joaquin Valley has found a total economic benefit of $13.4 billion. The study, The Economic Impacts of California’s Major Climate Programs on the San Joaquin Valley, addresses compliance and investment costs as well as the benefits across the region, and finds a net boost to the Valley’s economy from the state’s major climate programs, including the creation of tens of thousands of jobs.  The Valley is especially vulnerable to air quality problems that climate policies tend to alleviate. But it also faces more socioeconomic challenges than other parts of the state and is less equipped to take chances with its economy.
“This report shows that even in one of the poorest and most disadvantaged regions of the state and nation, California’s existing climate policies can provide net economic benefits,” said Ethan Elkind, who coordinated the report for the Center for Law, Energy and the Environment (CLEE) at the UC Berkeley School of Law. Researchers looked at three key California climate and clean energy policies: 1) cap-and-trade, which established a market designed to reduce carbon emissions from major polluters; 2) the Renewables Portfolio Standard (RPS), which calls for California to get 33 percent of its energy from renewable sources by 2020, growing to 50 percent by 2030; and 3) energy efficiency programs run by investor-owned utilities and overseen by the Public Utilities Commission....
Cap-and-Trade
After accounting for compliance and other costs, the UC researchers estimate the cap-and-trade program had a direct economic benefit of $119 million to the San Joaquin Valley, and boosted the economy by $200 million when you include indirect and induced economic benefits. If you include spending that has been allocated but not yet disbursed, those numbers rise to $1 billion in direct economic benefits and $1.5 billion when including indirect economic benefits.
orange groves and other agriculture
Proceeds from carbon auctions disbursed in the region so far have largely gone towards initial work on the state’s high-speed rail project, affordable housing, irrigation modernization and electric vehicle incentives. The study found that industries benefiting from the investment of cap-and-trade revenue, such as construction, generate more economic activity in the region than those industries bearing the costs of cap-and-trade compliance.
Researchers calculated a potential negative impact on 400 jobs due to compliance, but found that on a net basis, more than 700 jobs were created directly, and more than 1,600 supporting service and industry jobs were created indirectly, from 2013 through 2015. In the same period, state and local tax revenues received a $4.7 million boost.
Renewables Portfolio Standard
A lot of attention is paid to the state’s carbon cap-and-trade program, but in terms of the San Joaquin Valley’s economy, the state’s Renewables Portfolio Standard (RPS) has had a bigger impact so far. Construction on renewable energy projects has resulted in $11.6 billion in total economic activity in the Valley.
The San Joaquin Valley is home to 24 percent of the state’s solar generation and 54 percent of the state’s wind generation, providing significant employment opportunities in the region.
“Building and operating renewable energy facilities means jobs,” Jones said. From 2002 to 2015, renewable programs created about 31,000 direct jobs in the San Joaquin Valley – for people building and operating renewable energy facilities, for example – and created another 57,000 indirect and induced jobs for suppliers, supporting businesses and the like, for a total of 88,000 jobs. “Most of these direct jobs are the well-paid, local, career-track jobs the Valley really needs,” concluded Jones.
Energy Efficiency Programs
The report found energy efficiency programs overseen by the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) are cost-efficient vehicles for families, businesses and institutions to save energy and money year after year. By cutting demand, efficiency efforts also reduce the need for costly new power-generating infrastructure.
Energy efficiency programs in the San Joaquin Valley are the most cost-effective in the state, according to the report authors’ analysis of data reported by the CPUC. The report’s researchers found these programs in the Valley have provided net economic benefits of $248 million since 2010.
“Energy efficiency programs are job creators,” Jones said. “From 2006 to 2015, utility energy efficiency programs created 6,700 direct jobs, two-thirds of them in the construction industry and 10,700 indirect and induced jobs in the Valley, for a total of 17,400 jobs.“

Thursday, January 19, 2017

The Local Economic and Welfare Consequences of Hydraulic Fracturing

Exploiting geological variation within shale deposits and timing in the initiation of hydraulic fracturing, this paper finds that allowing fracking leads to sharp increases in oil and gas recovery and improvements in a wide set of economic indicators. At the same time, estimated willingness-to-pay (WTP) for the decrease in local amenities (e.g., crime and noise) is roughly equal to -$1,000 to -$1,600 per household annually (-1.9% to -3.1% of mean household in-come). Overall, we estimate that WTP for allowing fracking equals about $1,300 to $1,900 per household annually (2.5% to 3.7%), although there is substantial heterogeneity across shale regions.
...
Conclusions
Using a new identification strategy based on geological variation in shale deposits within shale plays, we estimate the effects of fracking on local communities. There are four primary findings. First, counties with high fracking potential produce roughly an additional $400 million of oil and natural gas annually three years after the discovery of successful fracking techniques, relative to other counties in the same shale play. Second, these counties experience marked increases in economic activity with gains in total income (4.4 - 6.9 percent), employment (3.6 - 5.4 percent), and salaries (7.6 - 13.0 percent). Further, local governments see substantial increases in revenues (15.5 percent) that are larger than the average increases in expenditures (12.9 percent) though the increased expenditures seem largely aimed at supporting the new economic activity, with little effect, for example, on per pupil expenditures in public schools. Third, there is evidence of deterioration in the quality of life or total amenities, perhaps most notably marginally significant estimates of higher violent crime rates, despite a 20 percent increase in public safety expenditures....
Image result for Hydrofracking epa
by Alexander W. Bartik, Janet Currie, Michael Greenstone and Christoper R. Knittel
The University of Chicago Becker Friedman Institute for Research in Economics
Working Paper 2016-29; December 21, 2016
Keywords: Public Policy, Environment, fracking, economic impact, economic growth

Sunday, January 8, 2017

Fracking, Drilling, and Asset Pricing: Estimating the Economic Benefits of the Shale Revolution

We quantify the effect of a significant technological innovation, shale oil development, on asset prices. Using stock returns on major news announcement days allows us to link aggregate stock price fluctuations to shale technology innovations. We exploit cross-sectional variation in industry portfolio returns on days of major shale oil-related news announcements to construct a shale mimicking portfolio. This portfolio can explain a significant amount of variation in aggregate stock market returns, but only during the time period of shale oil development, which begins in 2012. Our estimates imply that $3.5 trillion of the increase in aggregate U.S. equity market capitalization since 2012 can be explained by this mimicking portfolio. Similar portfolios based on major monetary policy announcements do not explain the positive market returns over this period. We also show that exposure to shale oil technology has significant explanatory power for the cross-section of employment growth rates of U.S. industries over this period.
gas well ohio
http://midwestenergynews.com/2015/10/26/analysis-shows-utica-shale-falling-short-of-projections/
by Erik Gilje, Robert Ready and Nikolai Roussanov
National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) www.NBER.org
NBER Working Paper No. 22914; Issued in December 2016

Friday, June 17, 2016

Macroeconomic Analysis of Federal Carbon Taxes

Summary
An economy-wide federal carbon tax can significantly reduce US carbon dioxide emissions but will also impact the US economy. A modeling exercise examines these macroeconomic impacts and demonstrates the effects of the tax on consumer prices and welfare. 

Key Findings
  • A carbon tax can substantially reduce carbon emissions at a relatively low cost.
  • How the carbon tax revenue is used matters. Using the revenues to reduce existing taxes, such as the corporate income tax, significantly reduces the cost of the policy compared to lump-sum rebating of the revenues to households.
  • The welfare cost per ton of carbon dioxide reduced is significantly below central estimates of the social cost of carbon when the carbon tax revenues are used to reduce corporate income taxes.
  • Based on our estimates, using carbon tax revenues to reduce corporate income taxes would pass a cost–benefit test by a significant margin. 
...
The purpose of this policy brief is to report some results from a modeling exercise of an economy-wide tax on CO2 emissions where the tax level is designed to be in line with recently revised estimates of the social cost of carbon. The exercise was performed using the E3 computable general equilibrium (CGE) model of the United States with international trade. The E3 model, developed by Lawrence Goulder of Stanford University and Marc Hafstead of RFF, divides US production into 35 industries, with a particular emphasis on energy-related industries such as crude oil extraction, natural gas extraction, coal mining, electric power (represented by four industries), petroleum refining, and natural gas distribution. The model provides a detailed tax treatment, allowing for interactions of environmental policy and preexisting taxes on capital and labor.
...
The overall welfare cost of emissions reductions in the lump-sum rebate scenario is about $46 per ton, whereas the welfare cost in the case with a corporate income tax cut is about $31 per ton. This cost equates to 0.81 percent or 0.53 percent of total discounted household spending between 2016 and 2030. ... As shown in a separate analysis, a similar tax would cause 2030 CO2 emissions to fall more than 40 percent below 2005 levels while causing a loss of consumption of less than 0.18 percent. 
post1 
 
Find more analysis by RFF experts on the impacts of a US carbon tax: www.rff.org/carbontax
Resources For the Future (RFF) www.RFF.org
Policy Brief 16-06 | June 13, 2016 | 5 pages