David Fedor

Research Team: 
Biography: 

David Fedor is a research analyst on the Hoover Institution’s Shultz-Stephenson Task Force on Energy Policy. He has worked in energy and the environment across China, Japan, and the United States. Formerly at the Asia Pacific Energy Research Center and Stanford’s Collaboratory for Research on Global Projects, Fedor has also consulted for WWF China, the Asian Development Bank, and the Korea Energy Economics Institute. He holds degrees in earth systems from Stanford University.

Filter By:

Topic

Type

Recent Commentary

Analysis and Commentary

Wasting America’s Nuclear Opportunity

by Jeremy Carl, David Fedorvia The Hill
Thursday, August 3, 2017

An effusive President Trump announced in late June that “we will begin to revive and expand our nuclear energy sector, which I’m so happy about.” Just a few months earlier, the left-leaning Environmental Defense Fund wrote, “We still need America’s nuclear power plants.”

Blank Section (Placeholder)

Keeping the Lights on at America's Nuclear Power Plants

by Jeremy Carl, David Fedorvia Books by Hoover Fellows
Thursday, August 3, 2017

Jeremy Carl and David Fedor discuss American nuclear power plant closures in light of major economic and policy challenges. They show how cheap natural gas, electricity market flaws, and a failure to capture the public imagination threaten America’s near- and long-term nuclear viability.

Analysis and Commentary

Tracking Global Carbon Revenues: A Survey Of Carbon Taxes Versus Cap-And-Trade In The Real World

by Jeremy Carl, David Fedorvia Science Direct
Monday, May 23, 2016

We investigate the current use of public revenues which are generated through both carbon taxes and cap-and-trade systems. More than $28.3 billion in government “carbon revenues” are currently collected each year in 40 countries and another 16 states or provinces around the world.

The State Clean Energy Cookbook

The State Clean Energy Cookbook: A Dozen Recipes for State Action on Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy

by George P. Shultz, Jeremy Carl, David Fedorvia Analysis
Thursday, September 11, 2014

States are increasingly becoming the locus of domestic energy policy-making. Hoover's Energy Policy Task Force collaborated with former US Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee chair Jeff Bingaman and Stanford's Steyer-Taylor Center for Energy Policy and Finance to find "what works?. The result is a dozen "recipes" for affordable, clean, and secure energy policies that have already been implemented in a variety of U.S. states with good overall results.

Green Energy

For California's AB 32: Cap-and-Trade-and-Cash Back, Not Cap-and-Trade-and-Tax

by Jeremy Carl, David Fedorvia Analysis
Friday, February 7, 2014

The desire to protect the environment is a hallmark of the state and extends across the political spectrum. And given the environmental risk posed by global climate change, efforts to reduce the state’s greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and act as a model for jurisdictions elsewhere have now become a major part of California’s energy policy agenda.

More Simplicity, Less Charisma: Improving the Effectiveness, Cost, and Fairness of California's Climate Agenda

by Jeremy Carl, David Fedorvia Analysis
Tuesday, February 4, 2014

California needs to embrace the right regulatory tools for the right environmental problems if it is to accomplish its stated goals to both cost effectively reduce its greenhouse gas emissions and act as a policy model for others.

Revenue-Neutral Carbon Taxes in the Real World: Insights from British Columbia and Australia

by Jeremy Carl, David Fedorvia Analysis
Friday, December 21, 2012

While the scientific and economic implications of climate change remain highly contested, the idea of a net revenue-neutral tax on carbon dioxide emissions has been proposed by a number of economists from across the ideological spectrum as one possible way to help level the playing field among different sources of energy by accounting for the potential externalities of carbon emissions. At the same time other economists have criticized carbon pricing, both from the right and the left, as either a Utopian scheme inappropriate to address a global problem or as a band-aid that will not fundamentally limit carbon emissions. In a revenue-neutral carbon tax regime, all revenues generated from taxes on carbon emissions would be directly returned to the taxed economy through an equivalent reduction in other existing taxes or through direct payments to taxpayers. Depending on the particular structure utilized, these may be referred to as a “revenue-neutral carbon tax” or a “carbon tax shift/swap” or a “carbon fee and dividend”. What the arguments for such a policy structure, both pro and con, have often lacked is detailed analysis of the performance and design of revenue-neutral carbon taxes in the real world. This paper attempts to address that gap. It examines the revenue-recycling carbon pricing mechanisms already enacted in British Columbia and Australia in order to assess their approach and efficacy.

Renewable and Distributed Power in California: Simplifying the regulatory maze — making the path for the future

by Jeremy Carl, David Fedor, Dian Grueneich, Cara Goldenbergvia Analysis
Wednesday, November 28, 2012

The Canadian Province of British Columbia was an early adopter of a broad-based, revenue-neutral carbon tax that directly recycles 100 percent of the revenue it generates; British Columbia now has four years of experience on implementation and revenue distribution. Australia, after years of discussion with stakeholders from across the economy, has designed and now recently implemented its own partially revenue-recycling carbon tax. Taken together, their policy choices help illustrate the spectrum of options, dynamics, and pitfalls that might be anticipated elsewhere. This essay examines these revenue-recycling carbon-pricing mechanisms to assess their approach and efficacy.