Search results

Arrow, Kenneth J, Maureen L Cropper, George C Eads, Robert W Hahn, Lester B Lave, Roger G Noll, Paul R Portney, et al. “Benefit-Cost Analysis in Environmental, Health, and Safety Regulation.” Washington, D.C. American Enterprise Institute, The Annapolis Center, and Resources for the Future, 1996.

benefit_cost_analysis_in_environmental.aei_.1996.pdf

F-11

Gerarden, Todd D, Richard G Newell, and Robert N Stavins. “Assessing the Energy-Efficiency Gap.” Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA: Harvard Environmental Economics Program, 2015. Publisher's VersionAbstract

sloan_energy_efficiency_monograph.pdf

Energy-efficient technologies offer considerable promise for reducing the financial costs and environmental damages associated with energy use, but these technologies appear not to be adopted by consumers and businesses to the degree that would apparently be justified, even on a purely financial basis. We present two complementary frameworks for understanding this so-called “energy paradox” or “energy-efficiency gap.” First, we build on the previous literature by dividing potential explanations for the energy-efficiency gap into three categories: market failures, behavioral anomalies, and model and measurement errors. Second, we posit that it is useful to think in terms of the fundamental elements of cost-minimizing energy-efficiency decisions. This provides a decomposition that organizes thinking around four questions. First, are product offerings and pricing economically efficient? Second, are energy operating costs inefficiently priced and/or understood? Third, are product choices cost-minimizing in present value terms? Fourth, do other costs inhibit more energy-efficient decisions? We review empirical evidence on these questions, with an emphasis on recent advances, and offer suggestions for future research.

F-36

Gerarden, Todd D, Richard G Newell, Robert N Stavins, and Robert C Stowe. “An Assessment of the Energy-Efficiency Gap and its Implications for Climate-Change Policy.” Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA: Harvard Project on Climate Agreements, 2014. Publisher's VersionAbstract

energy_efficiency_and_climate.pdf

Improving end-use energy efficiency—that is, the energy-efficiency of individuals, households, and firms as they consume energy—is often cited as an important element in efforts to reduce greenhouse-gas (GHG) emissions. Arguments for improving energy efficiency usually rely on the idea that energy-efficient technologies will save end users money over time and thereby provide low-cost or no-cost options for reducing GHG emissions. However, some research suggests that energy-efficient technologies appear not to be adopted by consumers and businesses to the degree that would seem justified, even on a purely financial basis. We review in this paper the evidence for a range of explanations for this apparent "energy-efficiency gap." We find most explanations are grounded in sound economic theory, but the strength of empirical support for these explanations varies widely. Retrospective program evaluations suggest the cost of GHG abatement varies considerably across different energy-efficiency investments and can diverge substantially from the predictions of prospective models. Findings from research on the energy-efficiency gap could help policy makers generate social and private benefits from accelerating the diffusion of energy-efficient technologies—including reduction of GHG emissions.

F-34

Litan, R, Robert W Hahn, and Robert N Stavins. “Amici Curiae Brief to U.S. Supreme Court Recommending that EPA be Allowed to Consider Costs and Consequences of Environmental Regulations.” Washington, D.C. AEI-Brookings Joint Center for Regulatory Studies, 2000.

amici_curiae.pdf

F-16

Coglianese, C, G Marchant, and Robert N Stavins. “Amici Curiae Brief to U.S. Supreme Court Arguing that Natural Science Alone Cannot Provide a Basis for Risk Management Decisions,” 2000.

science_amicus_brief.pdf

F-17

Stavins, Robert N. “A U.S. Cap-and-Trade System to Address Global Climate Change.” Washington, D.C. The Hamilton Project, 2007.

stavins_hp_discussion_paper_2007-13.pdf

F-21

Stavins, Robert N. “A Portfolio of Domestic Commitments: Implementing Common but Differentiated Responsibilities.” Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA: Harvard Project on Climate Agreements, 2009. Publisher's VersionAbstract

domesticcommitments_final.pdf

International negotiations are focused on developing a climate policy framework for the post-2012 period, when the Kyoto Protocol's first commitment period will have ended. In addition to negotiations under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), other intergovernmental outlets, including the G20 and the Major Economies Forum, are trying to reach common ground among the world's major emitters of greenhouse gases. To date, these efforts have not produced a politically, economically, and environmentally viable structure for a future climate agreement. An effective, but more flexible and politically palatable approach could be an international agreement on a "portfolio of domestic commitments." Under such an agreement, nations would agree to honor commitments to greenhouse gas emission reductions laid out in their own domestic laws and regulations. A portfolio of commitments may emerge from a global meeting such as the UNFCCC Conference of the Parties, or a smaller number of major economies could negotiate an agreement among themselves, and then invite other countries to join. Despite the obvious differences between such a system and the conventional "targets and timetables" in the Kyoto Protocol, negotiators should not dismiss this new approach out of hand. There are several ways to construct a portfolio of domestic commitments, and negotiators have numerous levers available to tailor an agreement to meet their political, economic, and environmental goals. This Viewpoint outlines some basic features of a portfolio approach, highlights a few major issues and concerns, and discusses the potential feasibility of this approach.

F-25

Pages