Nope! And it shouldn’t either since there is no clear environmental benefit from having such technology in the summer.
…because it misses the inframarginal beneficiaries. See 👆 paper for the theoretical argument of that. Anyway, thanks again for engaging with the paper. Happy to take any more comments you may have as you go through the paper 😊
These mvpfs are higher than a lot of stuff we spend money on to do with climate change. See our paper that looks at all credible estimates for CC policy: policyimpacts.org/wp-content/u... And you can’t use cost-effectiveness analysis for subsidies (whatever your measure of cost is)...
However, I disagree about your interpretations of the welfare result. An mvpf of 1.24 for the total subsidy is pretty good, esp with the LBD benefits included. The first £1 has an mvpf of 2.7! I don’t know what LBD misses from pump priming—which normally means going down the cost curve quicker!
Thanks for the support and for engaging with the paper. We can def include the whole lifetime CO2 emissions upfront—they are included in the welfare estimates of the subsidy, although a lot more assumptions go into that in terms of what the future will look like.
Cool new work on heat pumps! Clean, efficient, price responsive, subsidies pencil out - what's not to like? Also one of the study's authors (Andrew) was kind enough to come join a panel I hosted back in March. Was great for the students to hear what the team at Centre for Net Zero are working on.
Ah you are too kind, thanks Stephen!
Thx Anna!
Great new evidence on heat pumps !
