The New York Independent System Operator (NYISO) has developed a carbon-pricing proposal to reduce carbon intensive electricity generation in anticipation of future clean energy goals in the state. The proposed measure is a so-called "carbon adder" on CO emissions from the power sector that targets the social cost of carbon amidst existing overlapping policies. The carbon adder is set as the difference between the targeted social cost of carbon and the prevailing RGGI price for CO emission allowances. We investigate the economic and environmental impacts from the imposition of a carbon adder on New York's power sector. Our analysis indicates that the carbon adder gives the 'right' price signal for New York's power generation to turn into a greener one and is shown to be more cost-effective than clean energy standards. Requirements for permit price floors in the RGGI market induces carbon permit retirements across RGGI states leading to small reductions in region- and country-wide emissions levels. The proposed border carbon adjustments on electricity trade are shown to further mitigate emission leakage.

Institutional investors, who control as much as $154 trillion globally, may play an important role in shaping the energy transition as major stakeholders in fossil fuel producing, distributing and consuming companies. Research on investors and fossil fuels has focused largely on the divestment movement or on shareholder engagement. However, given their limited success to date, additional strategies to influence the fossil fuel sector are merited. This review paper expands the scope of attention to investors, asking: what strategies for influencing the fossil fuel industry are available to institutional investors and what are the implications of these for achieving an inclusive fossil fuel phase-out? Through a systematic review of 153 papers, we identify seven strategies for influencing the fossil fuel phase-out: divestment, shareholder engagement, hiring practices, engaging the financial sector, engaging indirect financial actors, litigation, and green investment. These strategies represent ways for investors to increase the impact of their engagements, as well as areas deserving greater attention from academics, policymakers, and activists. Across these strategies, we note trade-offs in favour of financial returns at the expense of social, ecological, and equity outcomes. We argue that future research should focus on: (a) the role of under-studied actors in aligning finance with climate goals; (b) the implications of investor action for an inclusive energy transition; and (c) policy solutions capable of overcoming investors' short-term profit motives to instead incentivise long-term investor engagement with climate issues.

Carbon pricing is a key component of current climate policy agendas. There are a variety of societal and health impacts from carbon pricing interventions (e.g. from improved air quality). A better understanding of potential health impacts and how they depend on context and policy design is crucial to improve the political feasibility and fairness of carbon pricing. Recent reviews have synthesized evidence on the effectiveness, equity and perceptions of carbon pricing and on the health co-benefits of mitigation. This review provides a narrative structured synthesis of the health impacts of carbon pricing. We identified 58 relevant publications of which all were modelling studies. We classify review findings into policy-relevant categories, synthesizing information on how carbon pricing affects health outcomes when implemented in different contexts, in isolation or as part of policy mixes. Findings suggest that internalization of health co-benefits in optimal price level estimates could lead to substantial mitigation in some regions. There are also opportunities to design carbon pricing to improve health outcomes, including through progressive or targeted use of revenues to improve food security, subsidize healthier diets or promote active transportation. Revenue use, price differentiation, market size and permit allocation of emissions trading schemes (ETS), and interaction with other public health or mitigation policies all influence health outcomes. Overall, the health impacts of carbon pricing are highly context-specific and further evidence is needed, particularly on health inequalities and ex-post analysis. However, existing evidence suggests that it is possible to design health-beneficial carbon pricing policies, thus enhancing policy acceptability and feasibility.