The COVID-19 pandemic has exacerbated energy insecurity and economic hardship among vulnerable populations. This paper provides robust empirical evidence of the degree to which COVID-19 mitigation measures, especially the mandates of school closure and limiting business operations, have impacted electricity consumption behavior in low-income and ethnic minority groups in the United States. We use a regression discontinuity design applied to individual-consumer-level high-frequency smart meter data in Arizona and Illinois to highlight the disparities in mitigation measure impacts. We find that the mandates of school closures and limiting business operations increase residential electricity consumption by 4-5%, but reduce commercial electricity consumption by 5-8%. Considerable heterogeneity is observed across income and race: low-income and ethnic-minority populations experience a larger electricity consumption increase, reflecting the disproportionate impact of COVID-19 on electricity insecurity in the residential sector. Policies that address energy insecurity, especially during the pandemic, become essentially important.

No abstract

Although federal regulation of vehicle fuel economy is often seen as environmental policy, over 70% of the estimated benefits of the 2017–2025 federal standards are savings in consumer expenditures on gasoline. Rational-choice economists question the counting of these benefits since studies show that the fuel efficiency of a car is reflected in its price at sale and resale. We contribute to this debate by exploring why most consumers in the United States do not purchase a proven fuel-saving innovation: the hybrid-electric vehicle (HEV). A database of 110 vehicle pairs is assembled where a consumer can choose a hybrid or gasoline version of virtually the same vehicle. Few choose the HEV. A total cost of ownership model is used to estimate payback periods for the price premiums associated with the HEV choice. In a majority of cases, a rational-choice explanation is sufficient to understand consumer disinterest in the HEV. However, in a significant minority of cases, a rational-choice explanation is not readily apparent, even when non-pecuniary attributes (e.g., performance and cargo space) are considered. Future research should examine, from a behavioral economics perspective, why consumers do not choose HEVs when pricing and payback periods appear to be favorable.

Can voluntary carbon emission reduction pledges, such as the nationally determined contributions under the Paris Agreement, result in significant emission reductions? According to prominent experts such as Nordhaus (2015), Barrett (2005), and Weitzman (2019), free-riding is unavoidable in cooperative situations based on voluntary agreements. If their assessments are correct, each country’s nationally determined contribution is unreliable. Countries will strategically promise large cuts while making only minor emission reductions.

Economic incentives are in widespread use to stimulate the development of the electric vehicle industry. However, the distributional effects of such incentives have been subject to little empirical inquiry. This study examines how California’s electric vehicle rebate program impacts different income groups financially. Two effects are considered: the income distribution of rebate beneficiaries and the income distribution of the rebate payers. The results reveal that the overall net financial impacts of the electric vehicle rebate program are regressive: the benefit distribution is highly regressive while the cost distribution is slightly progressive. Recent efforts to improve the fairness of the rebate program do not alter our findings. Policy implications are discussed.

No abstract