Economist: A natural resource tax on hydropower would generate revenue and improve the state of the environment

The European Union's biodiversity strategy aims to restore 25,000 river kilometers to their natural state. In Finland, this means restoring about 750 river kilometers. To achieve this goal, part of the hydropower production must be abandoned, which will cause costs. To equalize these costs, Iivo Vehviläinen, Professor of Practice at the Department of Economics, proposes a new natural resource tax that hydropower producers would pay for their use of water for production.

'The natural resource tax paid for the utilization of hydropower would improve the manoeuvring room of the state economy when decisions are made on how to distribute the costs previously directed to nature among different actors in society', says Vehviläinen.

At present, the state pays direct compensations to an electricity producer who loses its hydropower production. Consumers, on the other hand, indirectly pay compensations to all electricity producers through higher electricity prices. Therefore, higher prices - and the increased profits of electricity producers resulting from them - could reduce the acceptability of stricter environmental regulations. In the case of a necessity commodity like electricity, questions about fairness may also arise. That's why, according to Vehviläinen, it would be critical to carefully plan how to balance the costs and benefits of improving the ecological status of rivers between consumers and producers.

The natural resource tax suggested by Vehviläinen is one way to balance these costs. At the same time, it would bring additional tax revenue to the state coffers. Legal basis for the economic directing of negative impacts from the use of natural resources is provided by the EU law Polluter Pays Principle, as well as its application in the Water Framework Directive covering the environmental and natural resource costs of water use.

The flip side of environmental protection: Industry profits may increase and cost for consumers increase

Professor of Practice Iivo Vehviläinen has investigated in his recent study the effects of regulation, which improves the state of the environment but reduces the production capacity of hydropower, on Finnish electricity markets by analyzing offers made on Nordic electricity markets. He found out that Finland could achieve EU's targets without substantial effects on electricity production capacity.

'Dismantled hydropower plants can be selected in Finland so that production decreases by only a few percentages of our country's hydropower production. Therefore, we could free thousands of river kilometers in Finland without significant impacts to the production of hydropower or the realization of climate targets,' Vehviläinen says.

However, tightening environmental regulations for hydropower results in costs that are shared by consumers, electricity producers, and the state.

According to Vehviläinen, the EU's biodiversity target for hydropower could mean a financial loss of three million euros per year for the whole society when transformed into annual costs in Finland. However, the analysis did not take into account the environmental benefit brought by improving the state of nature.

Dismantling production capacity would lead to an increase in the price of electricity, and annual profits of electricity producers would grow by about 16 million euros. As a result, the costs of implementing environmental protection and the extra profits of producers would be paid by consumers.

'It's hard not to like the natural resource tax. The state of the environment can be improved faster than currently, and instead of the costs of restoration, revenues can be obtained from energy producers, if implemented correctly without harmful market effects', Vehviläinen says.

Link to the research publication: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0095069623001109

Public link

Please use the above public link if you want to share this noodl on another website.