The potential economic and environmental impact of a Public Benefit Fund in Louisiana

Kaiser, Mark J.; Pulsipher, Allan G.; Baumann, Robert H.

doi:10.1016/s0301-4215(02)00264-1

Cited by 4 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 19 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This approach is similar to ImSET, but does not modify the Use matrix to show the impact of adopted technologies on expenditures by commercial and industrial firms (see section 2.1). Our interpretation of the Kaiser et al (2004) results suggests that a distribution of benefits and costs (30 th , 50 th , and 80 th percentiles) were estimated using multipliers from the IMPLAN model to determine output, value added, and through these output changes, employment changes to the Louisiana economy. Specific discussion of the financing of the investments is absent, suggesting that the treatment is as if the costs and benefits are on an annualized life-cycle cost basis or on a net present value basis.…”

Section: Comparisons Of Imset To Recent Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

ImSET: Impact of Sector Energy Technologies

Roop¹,

Scott²,

Schultz³

2005

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

SummaryThis version of the Impact of Sector Energy Technologies (ImSET) model represents the next generation of the previously developed Visual Basic model (ImBUILD 2.0) that was developed in 2003 to estimate the macroeconomic impacts of energy-efficient technology in buildings. More specifically, a special-purpose version of the Benchmark National Input-Output (I-O) model was designed specifically to estimate the national employment and income effects of the deployment of Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE)-developed energy-saving technologies. In comparison with the previous versions of the model, this version allows for more complete and automated analysis of the essential features of energy efficiency investments in buildings, industry, transportation, and the electric power sectors. ImSET is also easier to use than extant macroeconomic simulation models and incorporates information developed by each of the EERE offices as part of the requirements of the Government Performance and Results Act. While it does not include the ability to model certain dynamic features of markets for labor and other factors of production featured in the more complex models, for most purposes these excluded features are not critical. The analysis is credible as long as the assumption is made that relative prices in the economy would not be substantially affected by energy efficiency investments. In most cases, the expected scale of these investments is small enough that neither labor markets nor production cost relationships should seriously affect national prices as the investments are made. The exact timing of impacts on gross product, employment, and national wage income from energy efficiency investments is not well-enough understood that much special insight can be gained from the additional dynamic sophistication of a macroeconomic simulation model. Thus, we believe that this version of ImSET is a cost-effective solution to estimating the economic impacts of the development of energyefficient technologies. . iv

show abstract

Section: Comparisons Of Imset To Recent Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

ImSET: Impact of Sector Energy Technologies

Roop¹,

Scott²,

Schultz³

2005

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…State budgetary investments in energy programs are often included in public benefits funds (PBF) and passed down to utilities; local governments; and nonprofit advocacy groups for energy efficiency, renewable energy, and low-income assistance programs (CCES 2021). Although PBF funding may not equate to direct transfers to local government budgets, state support in this manner has been shown to indirectly benefit localities through increased property values, increased tax revenue, stimulated economies, reduced greenhouse gas emissions, and the advancement of public welfare (Kaiser, Pulshiper and Bauman 2004; Nadel and Kushler 2000; Quesnel and Ajami 2018). Several states have even enacted legislation that directs the use of PBFs to support collaborative sustainability actions for development, environmental protection, and low-income housing concerns (CCES 2021).…”

Section: Data and Methods Of Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

State Interventions and Interlocal Collaborations Across the Three Pillars of Sustainability

Farmer

2022

State and Local Government Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The literature on interlocal sustainability has acknowledged that the resources and authority of state governments influence the collaborative sustainability policy actions of local governments. However, there is an absence of empirical evidence that shows how this influence varies across the environmental protection, economic development, and social equity pillars of sustainability. This study uses data from a 2015 national survey of U.S. cities to shed light on the connection between state-level interventions and regional partnerships across the three primary sustainability policy dimensions. With an understanding gleaned from the concept of contested federalism, this analysis employed Bayesian techniques to examine how state fiscal support for sustainability, along with fiscal and functional decentralization in state systems, affect municipal collaborative policy efforts. The findings suggest a positive link between supportive state-level endeavors and local-level collaborations. However, state influences can have different implications across the three pillars of sustainability.

show abstract

“…Similar approaches were used, e.g. by Erdmenger et al (2009), Copenhagen Economics (2012) and for energy cost reductions (including uncertainty analysis) by Kaiser et al (2004).…”

Section: Evaluation Approachmentioning

confidence: 99%

Benefits of energy efficiency policies in Thailand: an ex-ante evaluation of the energy efficiency action plan

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The paper presents the results of an ex-ante evaluation of the economy-wide benefits that may be achieved through the implementation of the 20-year Energy Efficiency Action Plan (EEAP) in Thailand. The objective of the EEAP is to reduce energy intensity by 25 % in 2030 compared to 2010. This is to be reached by reducing the projected energy consumption by 20 % or 38 Mtoe until 2030. We have specified an analytical framework, which allows for a calculation of the overall energy cost savings, energy import cost reductions and reduced CO 2 emissions. Moreover, we calculated the induced energy efficiency investments, employment effects and impacts on governmental budget. The evaluation shows that an effective implementation of the plan may lead to a reduction in energy expenditure of 37.7 billion EUR by 2030. Moreover, the EEAP-induced energy savings will significantly reduce the greenhouse gas emissions as well as Thailand's energy import costs and generate private investment in energy efficiency of about 5 billion EUR annually in 2030, which in turn may lead to about 300,000 new jobs. The size of the net impact of the plan on Thailand's governmental budget is uncertain due to positive and negative effects on corporate and income tax revenues, expenses for unemployment benefits, governmental energy consumption, expenses for energy subsidies and energy tax income.

show abstract

The potential economic and environmental impact of a Public Benefit Fund in Louisiana

Cited by 4 publications

References 19 publications

ImSET: Impact of Sector Energy Technologies

ImSET: Impact of Sector Energy Technologies

State Interventions and Interlocal Collaborations Across the Three Pillars of Sustainability

Benefits of energy efficiency policies in Thailand: an ex-ante evaluation of the energy efficiency action plan

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About