|
|
|
Sort Order |
|
|
|
Items / Page
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Srl | Item |
| 1 |
ID:
180185
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
In 2021, Germany launched a national emissions trading system (ETS) in its road transport and housing sectors that increases the cost burden of consumers of fossil fuels, the major source of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions. A promising approach to secure public acceptance for such a carbon pricing would be to entirely reallocate the resulting “carbon” revenues to consumers. This article discusses three alternatives that were discussed in the political arena prior to the introduction of the national carbon pricing: a) a per-capita reallocation to private households, b) the reduction of electricity prices by, e.g., decreasing the electricity tax, as well as c) targeted financial aid for vulnerable consumers, such as increasing housing benefits. To estimate both the revenues originating from carbon pricing and the resulting emission savings, we employ a partial equilibrium approach that is based on price elasticity estimates on individual fossil fuel consumption from the empirical literature. Most effective with respect to alleviating the burden of poor households would be increasing housing benefits. While this measure would not require large monetary resources, we argue that the remaining revenues should be preferably employed to reduce Germany's electricity tax, which becomes more and more obsolete given the steadily increasing amount of electricity generated by renewable energy technologies.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 2 |
ID:
097218
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2010.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
The allure of an environmentally benign, abundant, and cost-effective energy source has led an increasing number of industrialized countries to back public financing of renewable energies. Germany's experience with renewable energy promotion is often cited as a model to be replicated elsewhere, being based on a combination of far-reaching energy and environmental laws that stretch back nearly two decades. This paper critically reviews the centerpiece of this effort, the Renewable Energy Sources Act (EEG), focusing on its costs and the associated implications for job creation and climate protection. We argue that German renewable energy policy, and in particular the adopted feed-in tariff scheme, has failed to harness the market incentives needed to ensure a viable and cost-effective introduction of renewable energies into the country's energy portfolio. To the contrary, the government's support mechanisms have in many respects subverted these incentives, resulting in massive expenditures that show little long-term promise for stimulating the economy, protecting the environment, or increasing energy security.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 3 |
ID:
105738
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2011.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Since September 2009, Regulation 244/2009 of the European Commission enforces the gradual phase-out of incandescent light bulbs. As of September 2012, only energy-efficient lighting sources will be allowed for sale. Among these are halogen light bulbs, light-emitting diodes (LED), or compact fluorescent light bulbs-often referred to as energy-saving light bulbs. The Commission's justification for the phase-out of conventional light bulbs maintains that a reduction in the electricity consumed will not only lead to lower energy cost for private households and industrial consumers, but at the same time lead to a decrease in greenhouse gas emissions. This article discusses possible reasons for the slow market diffusion of energy-saving light bulbs and shows that the investment in energy-efficient light bulbs does not necessarily lead to significant cost reductions. Drawing on some illustrative examples, we demonstrate that the use of cheaper incandescent bulbs instead of energy-saving light bulbs can be economically rational in cases of rather low usage times, in which the higher initial purchasing price might only pay off after very long time spans. Furthermore, due to the coexistence with the European Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS), this regulation attains no additional emission reductions beyond those achieved by the ETS alone. We thus conclude that the general ban of incandescent light bulbs is inappropriate and should be abolished by the Commission.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 4 |
ID:
166701
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
In the absence of sufficient coverage of metering data on the electricity consumption of individual devices, this paper estimates the contribution of individual appliances to overall household electricity consumption, drawing on the most recent wave of the German Residential Energy Consumption Survey (GRECS). Moving beyond the standard focus of estimating mean effects, we combine the conditional demand approach with quantile regression methods to capture the heterogeneity in electricity consumption rates of individual appliances. Our results indicate substantial differences in these rates, as well as the end-use shares across households originating from the opposite tails of the electricity consumption distribution. This outcome highlights the added value of applying quantile regression methods in estimating consumption rates of electric appliances and indicates some scope for realizing conservation potentials.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 5 |
ID:
107632
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2011.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Estimating the degree of substitution between energy and non-energy inputs is the key for any evaluation of environmental and energy policies. Yet, given the variety of substitution elasticities, the central question arises as to which measure would be most appropriate. Apparently, Allen's elasticities of substitution have been the most-used measures in applied production analysis. In line with Frondel (2004), this paper argues that cross-price elasticities are preferable for many practical purposes. This conclusion is based on a survey of classical substitution measures, such as those from Allen, Morishima, and McFadden. The survey highlights the fact that cross-price elasticities are their essential ingredients.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|