We present a novel methodology to integrate heterogeneous micro-founded preferences into a dynamic computable general equilibrium model. This integrated model is linked to a bottom-up technology-rich electricity model and a stock-flow vehicle accounting model to quantify the social costs of electric vehicles as an endogenous, demand-driven abatement technology. Emission abatement is achieved through consumer choices that are recognised as a central driver of endogenous technological change. Endogenously determined emissions from vehicle use, electricity generation, and production provide an input to quantify external costs attributable to air quality and carbon emissions. We find that carbon and vehicle registration tax policies induce a significant shift away from conventional vehicles towards electric vehicles in Austria by 2030. The shift to electric vehicles results in small overall economic costs, a substantial decline in fuel demand that exceeds the increase in electricity demand to charge vehicle batteries, and overall positive net environmental benefits.
AdamouA.CleridesS.ZachariadisT. (2014). “Welfare Implications of Car Feebates: A Simulation Analysis.” The Economic Journal124(578): F420–F443. https://doi.org/10.1111/ecoj.12094.
2.
AlberiniA.BareitM.FilippiniM.Martinez-CruzA.L. (2018). “The Impact of Emissions-Based Taxes on the Retirement of Used and Inefficient Vehicles: The Case of Switzerland.” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management88: 234—258. https://doi.org/10.1016/jJeem.2017.12.004.
3.
AlberiniA.Di CosmoV.BiganoA. (2019). “How Are Fuel Efficient Cars Priced? Evidence from Eight EU Countries.” Energy Policy134: 110978. https://doi.org/10.10167j.enpol.2019.110978.
4.
AndersenK.S.TermansenL.B.GargiuloM.GallachoircB.PO. (2019). “Bridging the Gap Using Energy Services: Demonstrating a Novel Framework for Soft Linking Top-down and Bottom-up Models.” Energy, 169: 277–293. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2018.11.153.
5.
Bahamonde-BirkeF. J.HanappiT. (2016). “The potential of electromobility in Austria: Evidence from hybrid choice models under the presence of unreported information.” Transportation Research Part A83: 30–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2015.11.002.
6.
BatailleCh.JaccardM.NyboerJ.RiversN. (2006). “Towards General Equilibrium in a Technology-Rich Model with Empirically Estimated Behavioral Parameters.” The Energy Journal27 (Special Issue 2): 93–112. https://doi.org/10.5547/ISSN0195-6574-EJ-VolSI2006-NoSI2-5.
7.
BickelP.RainerF. (2005). “Externalities of Energy. Methodology 2005 Update.” Institut fur Energiewirtschaf und Rationelle Energieanwendung—IER Universitat Stuttgart, Germany. Available at http://www.externe.info/externe_d7/sites/default/files/methup05a.pdf.
8.
BjertnæsG.H.M. (2019). “Efficient Combination of Taxes on Fuel and Vehicles.” The Energy Journal40: 387–408. https://doi.org/10.5547/01956574.40.SI1.gbje.
9.
BliemM.FriedlB.AignerM.SchmautzerE.HaberA.BitzanG. (2013). “ECONGRID: Smart Grids und volk-swirtschaftliche Effekte: Gesamtwirtschaftliche Bewertung von Smart Grids Losungen (Overall economic effects of smart grid solutions).” Final report of the project ECONGRID funded by the Austrian Climate and Energy Fund.
10.
BohringerC.LoschelA. (2006). “Promoting Renewable Energy in Europe: A Hybrid Computable General Equilibrium approach.” The Energy Journal27 (Special Issue 2): 135–150. https://doi.org/10.5547/ISSN0195-6574-EJ-VolSI2006-NoSI2-7.
11.
BohringerC.RutherfordT.F. (2008). “Combining Bottom-Up and Top-Down.” Energy Economics30(2): 574–596. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2007.03.004.
12.
BohringerC.RutherfordT.F. (2009). “Integrated Assessment of Energy Policies: Decomposing Top-Down and Bot-tom-Up.” Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control33: 1648–1661. https://doi.org/10.1016/jjedc.2008.12.007.
13.
BronsM.NijkampP.PelsE.RietveldP. (2008). “A meta analysis of the price elasticity of gasoline demand: A SUR approach.” Energy Economics30: 2105–2122. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2007.08.004.
14.
BuekersJ.Van HolderbekeM.BierkensJ.PanisL. (2014). “Health and environmental benefits related to electric vehicle introduction in EU countries.” Transportation Research Part D33: 26–38. https://doi.org/10.1016Zj.trd.2014.09.002.
15.
CREEA database (2013). “Compiling and Refining Environmental and Economic Accounts, public deliverables, project No. 265134 under the 7th Framework Programme of the EU.” http://creea.eu/.
16.
De CeusterG.others (2007). “Final report. Service contract for the further development and application of the transport and environmental TREMOVE model.” Leuven: Transport & Mobility Leuven.
17.
DEFINE (2015). “DEFINE Synthesis Report.” Concluding Project Report of the DEFINE Consortium.
18.
D’HaultfreuilleX.GivordP.BoutinX. (2014). “The Environmental Effect of Green Taxation: The Case of the French Bonus/Malus.” The Economic Journal124: F444–F480. https://doi.org/10.1111/ecoj.12089.
19.
EPA (2010). “How Consumers Value Fuel Economy: A Literature Review.” U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Technical Report.
20.
GhandiA.PaltsevS. (2019). “Representing a Deployment of Light-Duty Internal Combustion and Electric Vehicles in Economy-Wide Models.” Technical Note 17, MIT Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
21.
GhersiG. (2015). “Hybrid Bottom-up/Top-down Energy and Economy Outlooks: A Review of IMACLIM-S Experiments.” Frontiers in Environmental Sciences3: 1–74. https://doi.org/10.3389/fenvs.2015.00074.
22.
GrudenD. (2008). “Umweltschutz in der Automobilindustrie.” chapter 8, pages 289-327. Vieweg und Teubner.
23.
HamedM.M.Al-EidehB.M. (2018). “Modelling the Demand for Electric Vehicles.” European Journal of Social Sciences56(4): 364–382.
24.
HelgesenP.I. (2013). “Top-down and Bottom-up: Combining energy system models and macroeconomic general equilibrium models.” CenSES working paper 1/2013.
25.
HelgesenP.I.TomasgardA. (2018). “From linking to integration of energy system models and computational general equilibrium models—Effects on equilibria and convergence.” Energy159: 1218–1233. https://doi.org/10.1016zj.en-ergy.2018.06.146.
26.
HourcadeJ.C.JaccardM.BatailleC.GhersiF. (2006). “Hybrid Modeling: New Answers to Old Challenges.” The Energy Journal special issue Hybrid Modeling of Energy Environment Policies, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.5547/ISSN0195-6574-EJ-VolSI2006-NoSI2-1.
27.
HuetterD.StiglerH. (2012). “Kosten und Bepreisungsmodelle einer flachendeckenden Ladeinfrastruktur fur E-Mo-bilitat in Osterreich (Costs and pricing models of a comprehensive charging infrastructure for e-mobility in Austria).” 12. Symposium Energieinnovation15.-17.2.2012, Graz.
28.
HuseC.LucindaC. (2014). “The Market Impact and the Cost of Environmental Policy: Evidence from the Swedish Green Car Rebate.” The Economic Journal578: F393–F419. https://doi.org/10.1111/ecoj.12060.
29.
IbesichN.KastenP.OrtnerR.PötscherF.StixS. (2014). “Scenarios on potential user groups and market potential of electric vehicles for Austria up to 2030.” DEFINE Project Report, https://www.ihs.ac.at/projects/define/files/delivera-bles_U_DEFINE_final_w29e7im3.pdf.
30.
IEA (2020). “Global EV Outlook 2020.” International Energy Agency.
31.
IHS-Automotive (2015). “Average Age of Light Vehicles in the US Rises Slightly in 2015 to 11.5 Years, IHS Automotive Reports.” IHS-Automotive.
32.
JacobyH.D.ReillyJ.M.McFarlandJ.R.PaltsevS. (2006). “Technology and technical change in the MIT EPPA model.” Energy Economics28: 610–631. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2006.05.014.
33.
KarkatsoulisP.SiskosP.ParoussosL.CaprosP. (2011). “Technology and technical change in the MIT EPPA model.” Final report to the European Commission, 5th Framework Programme, DG RES.
34.
KarkatsoulisP.SiskosP.ParoussosL.CaprosP. (2017). “Simulating Deep CO2 Emission Reduction in Transport in a General Equilibrium Framework: The GEM-E3T Model.” Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment55: 343–358. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2016.11.026.
35.
KerkhofA.C.NonhebelS.MollH.C. (2009). “Relating the environmental impact of consumption to household expenditures: An input-output analysis.” Ecological Economics68: 1160–1170. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2008.08.004.
36.
KimS. H.EdmondsJ.LurzL.SmithS.J.WiseM. (2006). “The objECTS Framework for integrated Assessment: Hybrid Modeling of Transportation.” The Energy Journal27 (Special Issue 2): 63–92.
37.
KiuilaO.MarkandyaA.ScasnyM. (2019). “Taxing Air Pollutants and Carbon Individually or Jointly: Results from a CGE Model Enriched by an Emission Abatement Sector.” Economic System Research31(1): 21—43. https://doi.org/10.1080/09535314.2018.1508000.
38.
KiuilaO.RutherfordT.F. (2013). “The cost of reducing CO2 emissions: Integrating abatement technologies into economic modeling.” Ecological Economics87(C): 62–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2012.12.006.
39.
KleyF.WietschelM.DallingerD. (2010). “Evaluation of European Electric Vehicle Support Schemes.” Working Papers “Sustainability and Innovation” S7/2010, Fraunhofer Institute for Systems and Innovation Research (ISI).
40.
KlierT.LinnJ. (2015). “Using Taxes to Reduce Carbon Dioxide Emissions Rates of New Passenger Vehicles: Evidence from France, Germany, and Sweden.” American Economic Journal: Economic Policy7(1): 212–242. https://doi.org/10.1257/pol.20120256.
41.
KumbarogluG.MadlenerR. (2003). “Energy and Climate Policy Analysis with the Hybrid Bottom-Up Computable General Equilibrium Model SCREEN: The Case of the Swiss CO2 Act.” Annals of Operations Research121(1-4): 181–203. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1023311420542.
42.
MachR.WeinzettelJ.ScasnyM. (2018). “Environmental impact of household consumption: Hybrid input-output analysis linked to household consumption data.” Ecological Economics149: 62–73. https://doi.org/10.1016zj.ecole-con.2018.02.015.
43.
MarkandyaA.BiganoA.PorchiaR. (2011). The Social Cost of Electricity: Scenarios and Policy Implications—Private and external costs assessment, policy implication and scenarios for the EU and selected non-EU Countries. Edward Elgar Publishing. https://doi.org/10.4337/9780857937155.
44.
MayeresI.Van RegemorterD. (2008). “Modelling the Health Related Benefits of Environmental Policies and Their Feedback Effects: A CGE Analysis for the EU Countries with GEM-E3.” The Energy Journal29(1): 135–150. https://doi.org/10.5547/ISSN0195-6574-EJ-Vol29-No1-6.
45.
McFaddenD. (1981). “Econometric models of probabilistic choice.” In ManskiC.McFaddenD., Structural Analysis of Discrete Data with Econometric Applications, pages 198–272. Cambridge, MA:: MIT Press.
46.
NestorD.V.PasurkaC.A.Jr. (1995). “Alternative specifications for environmental control costs in a general equilibrium framework.” Economics Letters48: 273–280. https://doi.org/10.1016/0165-1765(94)00627-E.
47.
PernolletF.CaylaJ.-M.CrocombetteCh. (2019). “Who is willing to buy an electric vehicle in France? Electric vehicle penetration split by household segments.” Proceedings of the European Council for an Energy Efficient Economy Summer Study, 1035–1045.
48.
ReckaL.ScasnyM. (2016). “Impacts of carbon pricing, brown coal availability and gas cost on Czech energy system up to 2050.” Energy108: 19–33. https://doi.org/10.1016Zj.energy.2015.12.003.
49.
RiversN.JaccardM. (2005). “Combining top-down and bottom-up approaches to energy-economy modeling using discrete choice methods.” The Energy Journal26(1): 83–106. https://doi.org/10.5547/ISSN0195-6574-EJ-Vol26-No1-4.
50.
RutherfordT.F. (1995). “Extension of GAMS for complementarity problems arising in applied economic analysis.” Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control19(2): 1299–1324. https://doi.org/10.1016/0165-1889(94)00831-2.
51.
ScasnyM.MassettiE.MelicharJ.CarraraS. (2015). “Quantifying the ancillary benefits of the Representative Concentration Pathways on air quality in Europe.” Environmental & Resource Economics62(2): 383–415. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10640-015-9969-y.
52.
ScasnyM.ZverinovaI.CzajkowskiM. (2018). “Electric, plug-in hybrid, hybrid, or conventional? Polish consumers’ preferences for electric vehicles.” Energy Efficiency11(8): 2181–2201. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12053-018-9754-1.
53.
SchaferA.JacobyH.D. (2006). “Experiments with a hybrid CGE-MARKAL model.” The Energy Journal27(Special Issue 2): 171–177.
54.
SteckleyS.MeadeD.LennoxC.HoffmanK.ReidD.SchoenerB. (2011). “Energy demand analytics using coupled technological and economic models.” The Energy Journal32(Special Issue 1): 173–192. https://doi.org/10.5547/ISSN0195-6574-EJ-Vol33-SI1-10.
55.
Sue WingI. (2008). “The synthesis of bottom-up and top-down approaches to climate policy modeling: Electric power technology detail in a social accounting framework.” Energy Economics30(2): 547–573. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2006.06.004.
56.
Tapia-AhumadaK.OctavianoC.RauschS.Perez-ArriagaI. (2015). “Modeling intermittent renewable electricity technologies in general equilibrium models.” Economic Modelling51: 242–262. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econ-mod.2015.08.004.
57.
TotschnigG.LitzlbauerM. (2015). “Simulation of the economic and technical impacts of different electric vehicle charging strategies on the power market and the power grid.” DEFINE Project Report.
58.
TrainK. (2003). Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation. Cambridge University Press. Second edition: 2009. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511753930.
59.
TruongP.HensherD.A. (2012). “Linking discrete choice to continuous demand within the framework of a computable general equilibrium model.” Transportation Research Part B46: 1177–1201. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trb.2012.06.001.
60.
WeneC.O. (1996). “Energy-economy analysis: Linking the macroeconomic and systems engineering approaches.” Energy21(9): 809–824. https://doi.org/10.1016/0360-5442(96)00017-5.
61.
WIFO (2011). “Energy Transition 2012-2020-2050: Strategies for the Transition to Low Energy and Low Emission Structures.” Project funded by the Austrian climate and energy fund in the framework of the call Energy of the Future.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
