Corrective regulations on renewable energy certificates trading: Pursuing an equity-efficiency trade-off

被引:22
|
作者
Wang, Ge [1 ,2 ]
Zhang, Qi [1 ,2 ]
Li, Yan [1 ,2 ]
Mclellan, Benjamin C. [3 ]
Pan, Xunzhang [1 ,2 ]
机构
[1] China Univ Petr, Acad Chinese Energy Strategy, Beijing 102249, Peoples R China
[2] China Univ Petr, Sch Econ & Management, Beijing 102249, Peoples R China
[3] Kyoto Univ, Grad Sch Energy Sci, Kyoto, Japan
基金
中国国家自然科学基金;
关键词
Renewable portfolio standards; Renewable electricity credits trade; China; Equity; Corrective regulations; PORTFOLIO STANDARDS; MARKET POWER; CHINA; BENEFITS; ALLOCATION; IMPACTS; PERMITS; DESIGN; POLICY; COSTS;
D O I
10.1016/j.eneco.2019.03.008
中图分类号
F [经济];
学科分类号
02 ;
摘要
As a common policy tool for reducing the cost of achieving the Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) targets, Renewable Energy Certificate (REC) trade can also exacerbate distributional inequity in provincial renewable electricity consumption. In this study, two types of corrective regulations-taxation and quotas on REC importing were proposed to pursue the equity-efficient trade-off. The energy, economic, and equity impacts of these corrective regulations were analyzed by applying a multi-region multi-market equilibrium model to China as a case study. The results verified that a free trade REC market can increase distributional inequity, while both import taxation and import quotas can reduce inequity. Compared to the electricity price premium for renewable energy and voluntary green certificate prices, the social cost of implementing these corrective regulations are within the public's willingness-to-pay. Moreover, the cost curve of increasing equity using the two corrective regulations on REC trade were obtained. Import taxation is found to be more cost-efficient, and therefore it should be the prior policy choice for China's central government comparing with import quotas in designing REC trade mechanisms. (C) 2019 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页码:970 / 982
页数:13
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] The equity-efficiency trade-off reconsidered
    Georg Tillmann
    [J]. Social Choice and Welfare, 2005, 24 : 63 - 81
  • [2] QALYS AND THE EQUITY-EFFICIENCY TRADE-OFF
    WAGSTAFF, A
    [J]. JOURNAL OF HEALTH ECONOMICS, 1991, 10 (01) : 21 - 41
  • [3] The equity-efficiency trade-off reconsidered
    Tillmann, G
    [J]. SOCIAL CHOICE AND WELFARE, 2005, 24 (01) : 63 - 81
  • [4] THE EQUITY-EFFICIENCY TRADE-OFF - BREIT RECONSIDERED
    LAMBERT, PJ
    [J]. OXFORD ECONOMIC PAPERS-NEW SERIES, 1990, 42 (01): : 91 - 104
  • [5] FISCAL ASPECTS OF THE EQUITY-EFFICIENCY TRADE-OFF
    Dalamagas, Basil
    Leventides, John
    Tantos, Stefanos
    [J]. GLOBAL ECONOMY JOURNAL, 2023, 23 (01N04)
  • [6] Equity-efficiency trade-off in China's energy capping policy
    Guo, Jin
    Du, Limin
    Wei, Chu
    [J]. ENERGY POLICY, 2019, 126 : 57 - 65
  • [7] Public pension policy and the equity-efficiency trade-off*
    Gustafsson, Johan
    [J]. SCANDINAVIAN JOURNAL OF ECONOMICS, 2023, 125 (03): : 717 - 752
  • [8] A note on the estimation of the equity-efficiency trade-off for QALYs
    Johannesson, M
    Gerdtham, UG
    [J]. JOURNAL OF HEALTH ECONOMICS, 1996, 15 (03) : 359 - 368
  • [9] Natural disaster insurance and the equity-efficiency trade-off
    Picard, Pierre
    [J]. JOURNAL OF RISK AND INSURANCE, 2008, 75 (01) : 17 - 38
  • [10] Labour market programmes and the equity-efficiency trade-off
    Filges, Trine
    Kennes, John
    Larsen, Birthe
    Tranaes, Torben
    [J]. JOURNAL OF MACROECONOMICS, 2011, 33 (04) : 738 - 753