Is There an Energy Efficiency Gap?

Journal of Economic Perspectives - Tập 26 Số 1 - Trang 3-28 - 2012
Hunt Allcott1,2, Michael Greenstone3,2
1Assistant Professor of Economics, New York University, New York City, New York; Faculty Research Fellow, National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
2National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, Massachusetts
33M Professor of Environmental Economics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts; Research Associate, National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

Tóm tắt

Many analysts of the energy industry have long believed that energy efficiency offers an enormous “win-win” opportunity: through aggressive energy conservation policies, we can both save money and reduce negative externalities associated with energy use. In 1979, Daniel Yergin and the Harvard Business School Energy Project estimated that the United States could consume 30 or 40 percent less energy without reducing welfare. The central economic question around energy efficiency is whether there are investment inefficiencies that a policy could correct. First, we examine choices made by consumers and firms, testing whether they fail to make investments in energy efficiency that would increase utility or profits. Second, we focus on specific types of investment inefficiencies, testing for evidence consistent with each. Three key conclusions arise: First, the evidence presented in the long literature on the subject frequently does not meet modern standards for credibility. Second, when one tallies up the available empirical evidence from different contexts, it is difficult to substantiate claims of a pervasive Energy Efficiency Gap. Third, it is crucial that policies be targeted. Welfare gains will be larger from a policy that preferentially affects the decisions of those consumers subject to investment inefficiencies.

Từ khóa


Tài liệu tham khảo

10.2307/1879431

10.1257/aer.101.3.98

10.1016/j.jpubeco.2011.03.003

10.1016/j.reseneeco.2003.07.001

10.5547/ISSN0195-6574-EJ-Vol29-No3-5

10.1086/497042

10.2307/2171802

10.1016/0301-4215(95)00073-R

10.1257/pol.3.1.91

Bovenberg Lans, 1996, American Economic Review, 86, 985

10.1146/annurev.energy.23.1.287

10.1257/aer.99.4.1145

10.1111/j.0741-6261.2008.00026.x

10.1111/j.1756-2171.2010.00121.x

10.1162/003465398557366

10.2307/1911493

10.2307/2555713

10.1257/aer.101.6.2350

10.5547/ISSN0195-6574-EJ-Vol28-No4-1

10.1162/qjec.2006.121.2.505

10.5547/01956574.33.2.3

10.1146/annurev.energy.31.020105.100157

10.1146/annurev.resource.102308.124234

10.1016/0301-4215(93)90294-P

10.2307/3003318

Hausman Jerry, 1982, American Economic Review, 72, 220

10.1016/0928-7655(94)90001-9

10.5547/ISSN0195-6574-EJ-VOL13-NO4-3.KHAWAJA

10.1126/science.1154983

10.5547/ISSN0195-6574-EJ-Vol25-No1-2

10.1016/S0928-7655(03)00047-2

10.1016/0360-5442(83)90094-4

10.1162/003465399558274

10.1016/0301-4215(95)00137-9

10.1162/003355399556188

10.1111/j.1465-7287.1993.tb00370.x

10.3982/ECTA7749

10.1016/j.enpol.2006.03.005

U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)., 2011, Selected Years, 1949

Thông tin
Thông tin xuất bản

Journal of Economic Perspectives

Tập 26 Số 1

3-28

Thông tin tác giả