This paper measures the technical inefficiency and the shadow price of Korean fossil-fuel generation companies (GENCOs) between 2001 and 2016 at the firm-level. To obtain robust empirical results, this study employs both commonly used deterministic and stochastic estimation methods. The empirical results are as follows: the inefficiency estimates are approximately 0.09 (deterministic) and 0.08 (stochastic); the estimates of CO2 shadow price, in KRW/tCO2, are 82,758 (deterministic) and 49,830 (stochastic), which shows high volatility in the annual average shadow price. In addition, we find that the results of the deterministic method without any random errors show a large variation in the trends of technical inefficiency and shadow price, while the stochastic method with random errors yields only moderate volatility. Our empirical results are expected to assist policymakers in determining how much potential mitigation can be achieved through improved efficiency, and the range of the CO2 shadow price will contribute to more efficient policy tools.
KEPCO. Statistics of electric power in Korea. Technical Report, Korea Electric Power Corporation, Korea, 2017.
2.
LeeCYZhouP.Directional shadow price estimation of CO2, SO2 and NOx in the United States coal power industry 1990–2010. Energ Econ2015;
51: 493–502.
3.
World Bank. DataBank microdata data catalog. Report, World Bank, Washington, DC, 2017.
4.
Greenhouse Gas Inventory and Research Center. Second biennial update report of the Republic of Korea: under the United Nations framework convention on climate change. Report, The Government of the Republic of Korea, Korea, 2017.
5.
LeeM.Potential cost savings from internal/external CO2 emissions trading in the Korean electric power industry. Energy Policy2011;
39: 6162–6167.
6.
CoaseRH.The problem of social cost. J Law Econ1960;
3: 1–44.
7.
Enerdata. Global Energy Statistical Yearbook2017. Report, Enerdata, France, 2017.
8.
MatsushitaKYamaneF.Pollution from the electric power sector in Japan and efficient pollution reduction. Energ Econ2012;
34: 1124–1130.
9.
LeeJDParkJBKimTY.Estimation of the shadow prices of pollutants with production/environment inefficiency taken into account: a nonparametric directional distance function approach. J Environ Manage2002;
64: 365–375.
10.
LeeSCOhDHLeeJD.A new approach to measuring shadow price: reconciling engineering and economic perspectives. Energy Econ2014;
46: 66–77.
11.
ZhouXFanLWZhouP.Marginal CO2 abatement costs: findings from alternative shadow price estimates for Shanghai industrial sectors. Energy Policy2015;
77: 109–117.
12.
ParkHLimJ.Valuation of marginal CO2 abatement options for electric power plants in Korea. Energy Policy2009;
37: 1834–1841.
13.
HuoTRenHCaiW, et al.
The total-factor energy productivity growth of China’s construction industry: evidence from the regional level. Nat Hazards2018;
92: 1593–1616.
14.
LuCCLuLC.Evaluating the energy efficiency of European Union countries: the dynamic data envelopment analysis. Energy Env2019;
30: 27–43.
15.
ChoiYZhangNZhouP.Efficiency and abatement costs of energy-related CO2 emissions in China: a slacks-based efficiency measure. Appl Energy2012;
98: 198–208.
16.
JiDJZhouP.Marginal abatement cost, air pollution and economic growth: evidence from Chinese cities. Energy Econ2020;
86: 104658.
17.
LeeMZhangN.Technical efficiency, shadow price of carbon dioxide emissions, and substitutability for energy in the Chinese manufacturing industries. Energy Econ2012;
34: 1492–1497.
18.
LeeM.Allocative efficiency, potential cost savings, and power supply price markdown in Korean electric power sector. Energy Env2019;
30: 617–628.
19.
ChoiHOhI.Analysis of product efficiency of hybrid vehicles and promotion policies. Energy Policy2010;
38: 2262–2271.
20.
KwonOSYunWC.Estimation of the marginal abatement costs of airborne pollutants in Korea’s power generation sector. Energ Econ1999;
21: 545–558.
21.
MurtyMNKumarSDhavalaKK.Measuring environmental efficiency of industry: a case study of thermal power generation in India. Env Resour Econ2007;
38: 31–50.
22.
RezekJPCampbellRC.Cost estimates for multiple pollutants: a maximum entropy approach. Energy Econ2007;
29: 503–519.
23.
GuptaM. Cost of reducing greenhouse gas emissions: a case study of India’s power generation sector. Report, NOTA DI LAVORO 147, Milano, 2006.
24.
FäreRGrosskopfSNohDW, et al.
Characteristics of a polluting technology: theory and practice. J Econom2005;
126: 469–492.
25.
SimarL.Detecting outliers in frontier models: a simple approach. J Prod Anal2003;
20: 391–424.
26.
AignerDJChuSF.On estimating the industry production function. Am Econ Rev1968;
58: 826–839.
27.
ChambersRGChungYFäreR.Profit, directional distance functions, and Nerlovian efficiency. J Optimiz Theory App1998;
98: 351–364.
28.
ShephardRW.Theory of cost and production functions. Princeton studies in mathematical economics.
Princeton:
Princeton University Press, 1970.
29.
CogginsJSSwintonJR.The price of pollution: a dual approach to valuing SO2 allowances. J Environ Econ Manag1996;
30: 58–72.
30.
SwintonJR.At what cost do we reduce pollution? Shadow prices of SO2 emissions. Energy J1998;
19: 63–83.
31.
OlivierJGJanssen-MaenhoutGPetersJA. Trends in global CO2 emissions. Report, Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, The Hague; European Commission, Joint Research Centre (JRC), Institute for Environment and Sustainability (IES), 2016.
32.
KumbhakarSCLovellC.Stochastic frontier analysis.
New York:
Cambridge University Press, 2000.
33.
MaradanDVassilievA.Marginal costs of carbon dioxide abatement: empirical evidence from cross-country analysis. Swiss J Econ Stat2005;
141: 377–410.
34.
HuoTLiXCaiW, et al.
Exploring the impact of urbanization on urban building carbon emissions in China: evidence from a provincial panel data model. Sustain Cities Soc2020;
56: 102068.
35.
SongJOhDKangJ.Robust estimation in stochastic frontier models. Comput Stat Data Anal2017;
105: 243–267.
