 Benefit–cost analysis of non-marginal climate and energy projectsSimon Dietz and Cameron Hepburn () Energy Economics, 2013, vol. 40, issue C, 61-71 Abstract: Conventional benefit–cost analysis incorporates the normally reasonable assumption that the policy or project under examination is marginal. Among the assumptions this entails is that the policy or project is small, so the underlying growth rate of the economy does not change. However, this assumption may be inappropriate in some important circumstances, including in climate-change and energy policy. One example is global targets for carbon emissions, while another is a large renewable energy project in a small economy, such as a hydropower dam. This paper develops some theory on the evaluation of non-marginal projects, with empirical applications to climate change and energy. We examine the conditions under which evaluation of a non-marginal project using marginal methods may be wrong, and in our empirical examples we show that both qualitative and large quantitative errors are plausible. Keywords: Benefit–cost analysis; Non-marginal; Project appraisal; Discount rate; Infrastructure investment; Climate change; Energy; Hydropower dam (search for similar items in EconPapers) Downloads: (external link) Related works: Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:eee:eneeco:v:40:y:2013:i:c:p:61-71 DOI: 10.1016/j.eneco.2013.05.023 Access Statistics for this article Energy Economics is currently edited by R. S. J. Tol, Beng Ang, Lance Bachmeier, Perry Sadorsky, Ugur Soytas and J. P. Weyant More articles in Energy Economics from Elsevier |
Is your work missing from RePEc? Here is how to contribute.
Questions or problems? Check the EconPapers FAQ or send mail to .
EconPapers is hosted by the
School of Business at Örebro University.