The UK’s draft Integrated National Energy and Climate Plan has been heavily criticised by its independent panel set up to advise on climate change, the Committee on Climate Change (CCC). The CCC found that the UK was not prepared for the likely temperature increases, that policies were not sufficient to meet the targets for the period up to 2032 and that policies for sectors other than electricity needed to be strengthened. The European Commission had some criticisms but in view of the UK’s plans to leave the European Union, they are likely to have little impact.
{"title":"The UK National Energy and Climate Plan","authors":"Steve Thomas","doi":"10.3280/efe2019-001011","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3280/efe2019-001011","url":null,"abstract":"The UK’s draft Integrated National Energy and Climate Plan has been heavily criticised by its independent panel set up to advise on climate change, the Committee on Climate Change (CCC). The CCC found that the UK was not prepared for the likely temperature increases, that policies were not sufficient to meet the targets for the period up to 2032 and that policies for sectors other than electricity needed to be strengthened. The European Commission had some criticisms but in view of the UK’s plans to leave the European Union, they are likely to have little impact.","PeriodicalId":38445,"journal":{"name":"Economics and Policy of Energy and the Environment","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48421135","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The Austrian National Energy and Climate Plan is based on five so-called target dimensions which are: (i) decarbonization, (ii) energy efficiency, (iii) supply security, (iv) market integration and (v) Research and development. In this article the major measures and policies in these target dimensions of the NECP are described. These are considered by the Austrian government to be necessary to achieve the objectives of the Energy Union. These measures are all planned to be taken between now and 2030. Similar measures already implemented in many areas of action, which need to be adapted or further strengthened. Other action lines include entirely new measures, particularly in those areas where the use of new technologies and solutions requires adapted instruments. However, in the public, the EU and Austrian NGOs the draft of the NECP has been heavily criticized and more ambitious actions have been requested.
{"title":"On the draft of the Austrian National Energy and Climate Plan","authors":"R. Haas","doi":"10.3280/efe2019-001003","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3280/efe2019-001003","url":null,"abstract":"The Austrian National Energy and Climate Plan is based on five so-called target dimensions which are: (i) decarbonization, (ii) energy efficiency, (iii) supply security, (iv) market integration and (v) Research and development. In this article the major measures and policies in these target dimensions of the NECP are described. These are considered by the Austrian government to be necessary to achieve the objectives of the Energy Union. These measures are all planned to be taken between now and 2030. Similar measures already implemented in many areas of action, which need to be adapted or further strengthened. Other action lines include entirely new measures, particularly in those areas where the use of new technologies and solutions requires adapted instruments. However, in the public, the EU and Austrian NGOs the draft of the NECP has been heavily criticized and more ambitious actions have been requested.","PeriodicalId":38445,"journal":{"name":"Economics and Policy of Energy and the Environment","volume":"1 1","pages":"43-55"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46875836","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The Italian draft National Energy-Climate Plan (NECP), in accordance with the requirements of the Regulation on the Governance of the EU Energy Union, deals with the five dimensions of the Energy Union. However, energy security, the internal energy market and research, innovation and competitiveness are not examined in this paper. The present assessment of the Italian energy-climate plan proposal is limited to three dominant objectives: decarbonization, energy efficiency (or better: energy savings) and the deployment of renewables. This paper reviews the contents of the 2030 objectives and the tools proposed to achieve them and expresses an overall assessment of the NECP proposal presented by the Italian Government. Globally, the targets presented by Italy for 2030 are slightly higher than those assigned by the EU: 34.6% instead of 33% for emission reduction compared to 2005, a 30% instead of 29% share of energy from renewables in gross final consumption and an approximate 40% reduction of the energy demand instead of 32.5% (compared to the baseline scenario for 2030 of PRIMES 2007, which remains the reference of the European EED). The proposed objectives are ambitious and demonstrate Italy’s full adherence to the long-term vision of the EU Commission, which judged them positively in its assessment. The proposed interventions are very numerous and concern all economic sectors. Their implementation requires a capacity of the public administration which is not always available in Italy, which is also due to an institutional system that requires a high level of coordination between the various stakeholders. The intervention tools indicated are not novel with respect to those developed and used in the past. Furthermore, in some cases they are generic and in other cases, the concrete measures only cover a limited period and therefore only partially guarantee the achievement of the set objectives. This way of proceeding, although criticized by the Commission in its assessment of the Italian NECP, preserves comprehensible and indeed desirable degrees of flexibility due to the impossibility of predicting the evolution of variables such as technology, international prices or the response of private subjects to public interventions over a long period of time. However, if the results were not in line with expectations, action should be taken promptly, which is problematic given the time required for public decisions in Italy.
{"title":"The Italian draft National Energy-Climate Plan","authors":"L. D. Paoli","doi":"10.3280/efe2019-001007","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3280/efe2019-001007","url":null,"abstract":"The Italian draft National Energy-Climate Plan (NECP), in accordance with the requirements of the Regulation on the Governance of the EU Energy Union, deals with the five dimensions of the Energy Union. However, energy security, the internal energy market and research, innovation and competitiveness are not examined in this paper. The present assessment of the Italian energy-climate plan proposal is limited to three dominant objectives: decarbonization, energy efficiency (or better: energy savings) and the deployment of renewables. This paper reviews the contents of the 2030 objectives and the tools proposed to achieve them and expresses an overall assessment of the NECP proposal presented by the Italian Government. Globally, the targets presented by Italy for 2030 are slightly higher than those assigned by the EU: 34.6% instead of 33% for emission reduction compared to 2005, a 30% instead of 29% share of energy from renewables in gross final consumption and an approximate 40% reduction of the energy demand instead of 32.5% (compared to the baseline scenario for 2030 of PRIMES 2007, which remains the reference of the European EED). The proposed objectives are ambitious and demonstrate Italy’s full adherence to the long-term vision of the EU Commission, which judged them positively in its assessment. The proposed interventions are very numerous and concern all economic sectors. Their implementation requires a capacity of the public administration which is not always available in Italy, which is also due to an institutional system that requires a high level of coordination between the various stakeholders. The intervention tools indicated are not novel with respect to those developed and used in the past. Furthermore, in some cases they are generic and in other cases, the concrete measures only cover a limited period and therefore only partially guarantee the achievement of the set objectives. This way of proceeding, although criticized by the Commission in its assessment of the Italian NECP, preserves comprehensible and indeed desirable degrees of flexibility due to the impossibility of predicting the evolution of variables such as technology, international prices or the response of private subjects to public interventions over a long period of time. However, if the results were not in line with expectations, action should be taken promptly, which is problematic given the time required for public decisions in Italy.","PeriodicalId":38445,"journal":{"name":"Economics and Policy of Energy and the Environment","volume":"1 1","pages":"97-118"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46687846","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This paper is an introduction to the EPEE’s special issue, which examines nine draft National Energy and Climate Plans (NECPs). Firstly, we will briefly review the EU’s energy-climate goals for 2020 and 2030 and we will look at its long-term "climate neutral" vision for 2050. We will then assess how successful or not individual member states were in achieving the EU’s 2020 targets and how they can best achieve 2030 goals. In the third section, we will look at the overall achievement objectives for 2030 based on draft NECPs assessed by the European Commission in June 2019. However, we will express some criticism of the planning process required by the Regulation on the Governance of the Energy Union. Finally, we will present the findings of expert contributors from nine EU countries - Austria, Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland, Spain and the United Kingdom - who have assessed their respective countries’ energy-climate plans
{"title":"Introduction. A critical overview of the European National Energy and Climate Plans","authors":"L. D. Paoli, P. Geoffron","doi":"10.3280/efe2019-001002","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3280/efe2019-001002","url":null,"abstract":"This paper is an introduction to the EPEE’s special issue, which examines nine draft National Energy and Climate Plans (NECPs). Firstly, we will briefly review the EU’s energy-climate goals for 2020 and 2030 and we will look at its long-term \"climate neutral\" vision for 2050. We will then assess how successful or not individual member states were in achieving the EU’s 2020 targets and how they can best achieve 2030 goals. In the third section, we will look at the overall achievement objectives for 2030 based on draft NECPs assessed by the European Commission in June 2019. However, we will express some criticism of the planning process required by the Regulation on the Governance of the Energy Union. Finally, we will present the findings of expert contributors from nine EU countries - Austria, Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland, Spain and the United Kingdom - who have assessed their respective countries’ energy-climate plans","PeriodicalId":38445,"journal":{"name":"Economics and Policy of Energy and the Environment","volume":"42 1","pages":"31-41"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"70118027","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Germany is struggling to meet its 2020 greenhouse gas (GHG) emission and climate goals. Against this background, we analyze the current draft National Energy and Climate Plan (NECP) that sets out how Germany aims to achieve its national and European climate goals by 2030. We introduce the current stage of the country’s climate policy and, by looking at the different emission reduction measures under discussion, examine why Germany will probably miss its CO2 emissions reduction goals. We conclude that, based on the climate package announced in September 2019, Germany will get closer to the achievement of its 2030 targets than was anticipated in the NECP draft; nevertheless, the new climate package leaves a significant gap between the new measures and the 2030 climate goals.
{"title":"Assessment of the drafted German integrated National Energy and Climate Plan","authors":"Marius Buchmann, Julia Kusznir, G. Brunekreeft","doi":"10.3280/efe2019-001006","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3280/efe2019-001006","url":null,"abstract":"Germany is struggling to meet its 2020 greenhouse gas (GHG) emission and climate goals. Against this background, we analyze the current draft National Energy and Climate Plan (NECP) that sets out how Germany aims to achieve its national and European climate goals by 2030. We introduce the current stage of the country’s climate policy and, by looking at the different emission reduction measures under discussion, examine why Germany will probably miss its CO2 emissions reduction goals. We conclude that, based on the climate package announced in September 2019, Germany will get closer to the achievement of its 2030 targets than was anticipated in the NECP draft; nevertheless, the new climate package leaves a significant gap between the new measures and the 2030 climate goals.","PeriodicalId":38445,"journal":{"name":"Economics and Policy of Energy and the Environment","volume":"1 1","pages":"85-96"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46244883","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
In some cost benefit analysis (CBA) applications, such as those used for the valuation of climate change damage, distributional weights are used to account for diminishing utility of marginal consumption. This is usually done by means of intra-temporal distributional weights, which are combined with discounting to account for inter-temporal equity and efficiency. Sometimes region-specific discount rates have used to account for differences in projected growth across geographical areas. Here I show that if intra-temporal distributional weights are used in combination with endogenous and region-specific discount rates, then this will lead to a double counting of per capita economic growth. This problem has been known for some years now - in the tight circle of top climate economist - but the peer-reviewed literature has been rather implicit about the matter. The contribution of this paper is therefore to make the problem explicit by handle it formally, and to expand its generality somewhat. It is demonstrated - using the PAGE2002 model - that correct the way of combining distributional weights and discounting yield about 20-30% higher estimates than the incorrect method. .
{"title":"Combining discounting and distributional weights. Lessons from climate change economic assessments","authors":"Disa Asplund","doi":"10.3280/efe2019-001012","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3280/efe2019-001012","url":null,"abstract":"In some cost benefit analysis (CBA) applications, such as those used for the valuation of climate change damage, distributional weights are used to account for diminishing utility of marginal consumption. This is usually done by means of intra-temporal distributional weights, which are combined with discounting to account for inter-temporal equity and efficiency. Sometimes region-specific discount rates have used to account for differences in projected growth across geographical areas. Here I show that if intra-temporal distributional weights are used in combination with endogenous and region-specific discount rates, then this will lead to a double counting of per capita economic growth. This problem has been known for some years now - in the tight circle of top climate economist - but the peer-reviewed literature has been rather implicit about the matter. The contribution of this paper is therefore to make the problem explicit by handle it formally, and to expand its generality somewhat. It is demonstrated - using the PAGE2002 model - that correct the way of combining distributional weights and discounting yield about 20-30% higher estimates than the incorrect method. .","PeriodicalId":38445,"journal":{"name":"Economics and Policy of Energy and the Environment","volume":"1 1","pages":"181-201"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42848998","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Since the French NECP is "embedded" in a now long period of energy transformations, the credibility of this plan must be confronted with the recurring difficulties observed in the implementation of the French energy transition strategy. On one side, this whole process is very ambitious, in line with the French commitment during the COP 21, and accelerates the implementation of the commitment under the Paris Agreement (OECD, 2016). But on the other side, much uncertainty persists. Those uncertainties include: the way and time horizon for reduction of nuclear power; the development of potential substitutes for fossil fuels; the effectiveness of demand side measures. All things considered, while the French commitment to an energy transition is credible, the implementation of a coherent governance system remains challenging in France.
{"title":"The French Energy & Climate draft Plan","authors":"M. Cruciani, P. Geoffron","doi":"10.3280/efe2019-001005","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3280/efe2019-001005","url":null,"abstract":"Since the French NECP is \"embedded\" in a now long period of energy transformations, the credibility of this plan must be confronted with the recurring difficulties observed in the implementation of the French energy transition strategy. On one side, this whole process is very ambitious, in line with the French commitment during the COP 21, and accelerates the implementation of the commitment under the Paris Agreement (OECD, 2016). But on the other side, much uncertainty persists. Those uncertainties include: the way and time horizon for reduction of nuclear power; the development of potential substitutes for fossil fuels; the effectiveness of demand side measures. All things considered, while the French commitment to an energy transition is credible, the implementation of a coherent governance system remains challenging in France.","PeriodicalId":38445,"journal":{"name":"Economics and Policy of Energy and the Environment","volume":"1 1","pages":"73-84"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47660466","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The Netherlands has formulated ambitious energy and climate targets for 2030: 49% CO2 emission reduction by 2030 and 80 to 95% by 2050 in comparison to 1990. This target has been laid down in a Climate Act and pathways to meet this target have been negotiated and agreed upon in a public-private Climate Agreement, which will be signed in 2019. This way, the Netherlands has its ‘greenest government’ ever and by means of the dual approach - Climate Act in accordance with a Climate Agreement, the Netherlands is set out to become a sustainability leader. Yet, the Netherlands lags behind on meeting the European Union targets for 2020: 20% energy efficiency, 20% share of renewable energy, translated to 14% for the Netherlands and 20% CO2 emission reduction. In other words, catching up and becoming a leader will present a challenge. The objective of the present paper is to introduce and discuss the Dutch climate and energy policy, looking back at the decade 2000-2020 first, and then addressing the vision for the next decade (2020-2030). By doing so, an analysis is provided of the instruments introduced to support the pathways to meet the targets, exposing some issues and even some contradictions in Dutch policy. This paper is timely, as the minister of Economic Affairs and Climate Policy has introduced a legislative agenda in September 2019, of Acts to be updated or introduced in order to execute and realize the Climate Act and Climate Agreement successfully. This paper will contribute to the consistency of the policy and instruments to be introduced.
{"title":"Dutch climate and energy policy: Targets and progress for 2020 and 2030","authors":"E. Fumagalli, S. Akerboom","doi":"10.3280/efe2019-001008","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3280/efe2019-001008","url":null,"abstract":"The Netherlands has formulated ambitious energy and climate targets for 2030: 49% CO2 emission reduction by 2030 and 80 to 95% by 2050 in comparison to 1990. This target has been laid down in a Climate Act and pathways to meet this target have been negotiated and agreed upon in a public-private Climate Agreement, which will be signed in 2019. This way, the Netherlands has its ‘greenest government’ ever and by means of the dual approach - Climate Act in accordance with a Climate Agreement, the Netherlands is set out to become a sustainability leader. Yet, the Netherlands lags behind on meeting the European Union targets for 2020: 20% energy efficiency, 20% share of renewable energy, translated to 14% for the Netherlands and 20% CO2 emission reduction. In other words, catching up and becoming a leader will present a challenge. The objective of the present paper is to introduce and discuss the Dutch climate and energy policy, looking back at the decade 2000-2020 first, and then addressing the vision for the next decade (2020-2030). By doing so, an analysis is provided of the instruments introduced to support the pathways to meet the targets, exposing some issues and even some contradictions in Dutch policy. This paper is timely, as the minister of Economic Affairs and Climate Policy has introduced a legislative agenda in September 2019, of Acts to be updated or introduced in order to execute and realize the Climate Act and Climate Agreement successfully. This paper will contribute to the consistency of the policy and instruments to be introduced.","PeriodicalId":38445,"journal":{"name":"Economics and Policy of Energy and the Environment","volume":"1 1","pages":"119-147"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44120728","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This article is aimed at checking the degree of contestability of the tenders to allocate the right to deliver the natural gas distribution service in Italy. This check is based on the analysis of the general rules provided by the D.M. 12 novembre 2011, n. 226 and subsequent modification. The degree of contestability is evaluated by estimating the presumable number of ‘noncaptive’ points (out of 100) related to the different criteria. For this purpose, two representative scenarios of the possible calls for tenders are simulated. The paper concludes that this number is relatively limited. Around 15% only (or just above) of the total score would be really "non-captive".
{"title":"The design of the tenders for natural gas distribution in Italy: How much are territorial districts really contestable?","authors":"Francesco Gullí","doi":"10.3280/efe2019-001001","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3280/efe2019-001001","url":null,"abstract":"This article is aimed at checking the degree of contestability of the tenders to allocate the right to deliver the natural gas distribution service in Italy. This check is based on the analysis of the general rules provided by the D.M. 12 novembre 2011, n. 226 and subsequent modification. The degree of contestability is evaluated by estimating the presumable number of ‘noncaptive’ points (out of 100) related to the different criteria. For this purpose, two representative scenarios of the possible calls for tenders are simulated. The paper concludes that this number is relatively limited. Around 15% only (or just above) of the total score would be really \"non-captive\".","PeriodicalId":38445,"journal":{"name":"Economics and Policy of Energy and the Environment","volume":"1 1","pages":"5-29"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49647242","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The paper provides an analysis of Italian environmental taxes on electricity production and consumption in order to verify their consistency with the Polluters Pays Principle (PPP). The environmental external costs of air emissions generated by Italian thermal power plants are compared to environmental taxes paid by the same plants (fuel excise duties, SO2/NOx tax, ETS and levy on energy producers). As a basis for the comparison, the paper applies the methods for environmental external costs assessment recommended by the National Guidelines for the Evaluation of Investment Projects (2017). The PPP comparison highlights that the external costs related to thermal power plants emissions amount to about € 9,400 million (53.8 euro per MWh produced) whereas only € 350 million are actually paid through the above-mentioned environmental taxes (3.8% of the external costs generated). Indeed, the environmental taxes directly paid by all electricity customers in their bills (excise duty on electricity, system charges for subsidising renewable energy sources) are of the same order of magnitude of the external costs of power plants. However, seen from the PPP point of view, these two taxes have the drawback of environmental tax payment being made also by "green" customers, i.e. whose electricity is bought with the guarantee of being "produced from renewable energy sources". The authors argue that environmental taxes directly falling on electricity producers are consistent with the PPP and provide in principle a better price signal to electricity markets, rather than environmental taxes directly paid by customers. Shifting current environmental taxes from electricity consumption to production would support the implementation of two of the main targets of the National Energy Strategy (2017), such as the progressive phase-out of coal at 2025 and the 55% RES electric target at 2030, while increasing the coherence and fairness of taxes paid on electricity.
{"title":"Polluter Pays Principle in power production to gradually phase-out fossil fuels in Italy","authors":"Andrea Molocchi, Emanuela Recchini, A. Tudini","doi":"10.3280/efe2019-001013","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3280/efe2019-001013","url":null,"abstract":"The paper provides an analysis of Italian environmental taxes on electricity production and consumption in order to verify their consistency with the Polluters Pays Principle (PPP). The environmental external costs of air emissions generated by Italian thermal power plants are compared to environmental taxes paid by the same plants (fuel excise duties, SO2/NOx tax, ETS and levy on energy producers). As a basis for the comparison, the paper applies the methods for environmental external costs assessment recommended by the National Guidelines for the Evaluation of Investment Projects (2017). The PPP comparison highlights that the external costs related to thermal power plants emissions amount to about € 9,400 million (53.8 euro per MWh produced) whereas only € 350 million are actually paid through the above-mentioned environmental taxes (3.8% of the external costs generated). Indeed, the environmental taxes directly paid by all electricity customers in their bills (excise duty on electricity, system charges for subsidising renewable energy sources) are of the same order of magnitude of the external costs of power plants. However, seen from the PPP point of view, these two taxes have the drawback of environmental tax payment being made also by \"green\" customers, i.e. whose electricity is bought with the guarantee of being \"produced from renewable energy sources\". The authors argue that environmental taxes directly falling on electricity producers are consistent with the PPP and provide in principle a better price signal to electricity markets, rather than environmental taxes directly paid by customers. Shifting current environmental taxes from electricity consumption to production would support the implementation of two of the main targets of the National Energy Strategy (2017), such as the progressive phase-out of coal at 2025 and the 55% RES electric target at 2030, while increasing the coherence and fairness of taxes paid on electricity.","PeriodicalId":38445,"journal":{"name":"Economics and Policy of Energy and the Environment","volume":"1 1","pages":"203-228"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46616283","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：