Climatic Change

, Volume 99, Issue 1–2, pp 47–63 | Cite as

Regional patterns of U.S. household carbon emissions

  • William Pizer
  • James N. Sanchirico
  • Michael Batz
Open Access


Market-based policies to address fossil fuel-related externalities including climate change typically operate by raising the price of those fuels. Increases in energy prices have important consequences for a typical U.S. household that spent almost $4,000 per year on electricity, fuel oil, natural gas, and gasoline in 2005. A key question for policymakers is how these consequences vary over different regions and subpopulations across the country—especially as adjustment and compensation programs are designed to protect more vulnerable regions. To answer this question, we use non-publicly available data from the U.S. Consumer Expenditure Survey over the period 1984–2000 to estimate long-run geographic variation in household use of electricity, fuel oil, natural gas, and gasoline, as well as the associated incidence of a $10 per ton tax on carbon dioxide (ignoring behavioral response). We find substantial variation: incidence from the tax range from $97 dollars per year per household in New York County, New York to $235 per year per household in Tensas Parish, Louisiana. This variation can be explained by differences in energy use, carbon intensity of electricity generation, and electricity regulation.


Carbon Emission Energy Price Electricity Price Carbon Intensity Climate Change Policy 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Supplementary material

10584_2009_9637_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (207 kb)
(PDF 207 KB)


  1. Anselin L (1988) Spatial econometrics: methods and models. Kluwer, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  2. Anselin L, Florax RJGM, Rey S (eds) (2004) Advances in spatial econometrics: methodology, tools, and applications. In: Advances in spatial science series, p 513, ISBN: 978-3-540-43729-1. SpringerGoogle Scholar
  3. Baker P, Blundell R (1991) The microeconometric approach to modeling energy demand: some results for UK households. Oxf Rev Econ Policy 7(2):54–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bernard J-T, Bolduc D, Belanger D (1996) Quebec residential electricity demand: a microeconometric approach. Can J Econ 29(1):92–113CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Borenstein, S (2007) Planet’s woes? Blame coal: Texas leads in carbon emissions overall; Wyoming is tops per capita. Associated PressGoogle Scholar
  6. Burtraw D, Palmer K (2006) “Shifting the burden and spreading the wealth: who bears the cost of climate policy in the electricity sector?” RFF discussion paper 06–52 (July). Available at
  7. California Air Resources Board (CARB) (2002) Reducing climate change emissions from motor vehicles, vol 2004. Sacramento, California Air Resources Board. Available at
  8. Dahl C (1993) A survey of energy demand elasticities in support of the development of NEMS.
  9. Dinan T (2000) Who gains and who pays under carbon-allowance trading? The distributional effects of alternative policy designs. Congressional Budget Office, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  10. Dubin JA, McFadden DL (1984) An econometric analysis of residential electric appliance holdings and consumption. Econometrica 52(2):345–362CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Fotheringham AS, Brunsdon C, Charlton ME (2002) Geographically weighted regression: the analysis of spatially varying relationships. Wiley, ChichesterGoogle Scholar
  12. May C, Brown R, Banwell P, Foery K, Offutt S, Wilson A (1996) Increasing the use of energy-efficient HVAC equipment in homes through the use of voluntary and profitable pollution prevention programs. In: Proceedings of the 1996 ACEEE summer study on energy efficiency in buildings. American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  13. Mufson S (2007) Climate change debate hinges on economics; lawmakers doubt voters would fund big carbon cuts, p A01. Washington PostGoogle Scholar
  14. Nadraya EA (1964) On estimating regression. Theory Probab Appl 15:134–137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Neumayer E (2002) Can natural factors explain any cross-country differences in carbon dioxide emissions? Energy Policy 30:7–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. O’Neill, BC, Chen BS (2002) Demographic determinants of household energy use in the United States. In: Population and development review 28, Supplement: population and environment: methods of analysis, pp 53–88Google Scholar
  17. Osborn J, Marnay C, McMahon J (1999) Modeling the effects of appliance standards through geographic analysis. 1999 ESRI user conference proceedings.
  18. Paltsev S, Reilly JM, Jacoby HD, Gurgel AC, Metcalf GE, Sokolov AP, Holak JF (2007) Assessment of U.S. cap-and-trade proposals, report #146. MIT Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  19. Raupach M, Marland G, Ciais P, Le Quéré C, Canadell JG, Klepper G, Field CB (2007) Global and regional drivers of accelerating CO2 emissions. PNAS 104(24):10288–10293CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) Staff working group (2005). In: RGGI memorandum of understanding. RGGI Staff Working Group, AlbanyGoogle Scholar
  21. Rose A, Zhang ZX (2004) Interregional burden-sharing of greenhouse gas mitigation in the United States. Mitig Adapt Strategies Glob Change 9(3):477–500CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Silverman BW (1986) Density estimation for statistics and data analysis. In: Cox D, Reid N, Rubin DB, Silverman BW (eds.) Monographs on statistics and applied probability, vol 26. Chapman and Hall, LondonGoogle Scholar
  23. Stone M (1974) Cross-validatory choice and assessment of statistical predictions (with discussion). J R Stat Soc B 36:111–147Google Scholar
  24. Watson GS (1964) Smooth regression analysis. Sankhya Ser A 26:359–372Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • William Pizer
    • 1
  • James N. Sanchirico
    • 1
    • 2
  • Michael Batz
    • 3
  1. 1.Resources for the FutureWashingtonUSA
  2. 2.Department of Environmental Science and PolicyUniversity of CaliforniaDavisUSA
  3. 3.Food Safety Program, Emerging Pathogens InstituteUniversity of FloridaGainesvilleUSA

Personalised recommendations