Name:
eare_ratings_lcfs_2016-01-07.pdf
Size:
1.528Mb
Format:
PDF
Description:
Final Accepted Manuscript
Author
Lemoine, DerekAffiliation
Univ Arizona, Dept Econ, Eller Coll ManagementIssue Date
2017-08
Metadata
Show full item recordPublisher
SPRINGERCitation
Lemoine, D. Environ Resource Econ (2017) 67: 789. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10640-016-0006-6Rights
© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016.Collection Information
This item from the UA Faculty Publications collection is made available by the University of Arizona with support from the University of Arizona Libraries. If you have questions, please contact us at repository@u.library.arizona.edu.Abstract
An increasingly common type of environmental policy instrument regulates the carbon intensity of transportation and electricity markets. In order to extend the policy's scope beyond point-of-use emissions, regulators assign each potential fuel an emission intensity rating for use in calculating compliance. I show that welfare-maximizing ratings do not generally coincide with the best estimates of actual emissions. In fact, the regulator can achieve a higher level of welfare by properly selecting the emission ratings than possible by selecting only the level of the standard. Moreover, a fuel's optimal rating can actually decrease when its estimated emission intensity increases. Numerical simulations of the California Low-Carbon Fuel Standard suggest that when recent scientific information increased the estimated emissions from conventional ethanol, regulators should have lowered ethanol's rating (making it appear less emission-intensive) so that the fuel market would clear with a lower quantity.Note
12 month embargo; published online: 24 February 2016ISSN
0924-64601573-1502
Version
Final accepted manuscriptAdditional Links
http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10640-016-0006-6ae974a485f413a2113503eed53cd6c53
10.1007/s10640-016-0006-6