Jan Siegmeier

Modeling Storage and Demand Management in Electricity Distribution Grids

Storage devices and demand control may constitute beneficial tools to optimize electricity generation with a large share of intermittent resources through inter-temporal substitution of load. We quantify the related cost reductions in a simulation model of a simplified stylized medium-voltage grid (10kV) under uncertain demand and wind output. Benders Decomposition Method is applied to create a two-stage stochastic program. The model informs an optimal investment sizing decision as regards specific smart grid applications such as storage facilities and meters enabling load control. Model results indicate that central storage facilities are a more promising option for generation cost reductions as compared to demand management. Grid extensions are not appropriate in any of our scenarios. A sensitivity analysis is applied with respect to the market penetration of uncoordinated Plug-In Electric Vehicles which are found to strongly encourage investment into load control equipment for `smart` charging and slightly improve the case for central storage devices.

The fiscal benefits of stringent climate change mitigation: an overview

ABSTRACT The Paris Agreement’s very ambitious mitigation goals, notably to ‘pursue efforts’ to limit warming to 1.5°C, imply that climate policy will remain a national affair for some time. One key obstacle to very ambitious national mitigation is that some policy makers perceive this to be in competition with major goals of fiscal policy, such as public investment or debt reduction. However, climate policy may actually contribute to these other objectives. Importantly, many fiscal implications of substantial carbon prices, which are essential for stringent mitigation targets such as the 1.5°C goal, have long been neglected by economic analyses of climate change mitigation. We systematically review recent contributions on interactions between climate policy and public finance, which include many topics beyond the classic `double dividend’ of environmental tax swaps. We can thus identify new conclusions about climate policy designs that may overcome fiscal objections and research gaps. We find that national climate policy often aligns with other objectives, provided that climate policies and fiscal policies are integrated well. A first class of interactions concerns public revenue-raising: carbon pricing can replace distortionary taxes and alleviate international tax competition; climate policy also changes asset values, which impacts the base of non-climate taxes and boosts productive investment. Second, they concern public spending, which needs to be restructured as a part of climate policy, while carbon pricing revenues may be recycled for public investment. Third, distributional impacts of climate policies include changes to household expenditures, to asset values and to employment; balancing them often requires fiscal policies. Our findings underline that jointly considering climate policy and fiscal policy can help to make substantial mitigation politically feasible. Key policy insights Climate policy, even under a very ambitious 1.5°C target, may substantially contribute to fiscal objectives, interact with fiscal policies, and lower mitigation costs. Mutual effects concern taxation, aggregate investment, public budgets, infrastructure and fiscal instruments with distributional effects. Better integrating climate policies and fiscal policies increases efficiency and supports political feasibility of very ambitious mitigation. This requires a common understanding of policy makers and academics on the most relevant interactions, based on more exchange and empirical research.

A Public Finance Perspective on Climate Policy: Six Interactions that May Enhance Welfare

Climate change economics mostly neglects sizeable interactions of carbon pricing with other fiscal policy instruments. Conversely, public finance typically overlooks the effects of future decarbonization efforts when devising instruments for the major goals of fiscal policy. We argue that such a compartmentalisation is undesirable: policy design taking into account such interdependencies may enhance welfare and change the distribution of mitigation costs within and across generations. This claim is substantiated by analyzing six interactions between climate policy and public finance that are insufficiently explored in current research: (i) reduced tax competition in an open economy, (ii) portfolio effects induced through climate policy, (iii) restructuring public spending, (iv) revenue recycling for productive public investment, (v) greater intragenerational equity through appropriate revenue recycling and (vi) intergenerational Pareto-improvements through intertemporal transfers. We thereby structure the hitherto identified interactions between climate change mitigation and public finance and show that jointly considering carbon pricing and fiscal policy is legitimate and mandatory for sound policy appraisal.

Financing Public Capital When Rents Are Back: A Macroeconomic Henry George Theorem

By taxing rents, governments can avoid a trade-off between productivity-enhancing public investment and efficiency losses from raising funds. However, it is unclear whether the rents present in a growing economy are sufficient to finance the socially optimal investment. We prove that the social optimum can be attained if the income share from a fixed factor, such as land, exceeds the public investment requirement. We thus translate the Henry George Theorem from urban economics to neoclassical and endogenous growth settings: here, the socially optimal land rent tax rate is below 100 %. Our finding may address the underfunding of national infrastructure investments.