Top-down and bottom-up modelling to support low-carbon scenarios: climate policy implications

Bottom-up and top-down models are used to support climate policies, to identify the options required to meet GHG abatement targets and to evaluate their economic impact. Some studies have shown that the GHG mitigation options provided by economic top-down and technological bottom-up models tend to vary. One reason for this is that these models tend to use different baseline scenarios. The bottom-up TIMES_PT and the top-down computable general equilibrium GEM-E3_PT models are examined using a common baseline scenario to calibrate them, and the extend of their different mitigation options and its relevant to domestic policy making are assessed. Three low-carbon scenarios for Portugal until 2050 are generated, each with different GHG reduction targets. Both models suggest close mitigation options and locate the largest mitigation potential to energy supply. However, the models suggest different mitigation options for the end-use sectors: GEM-E3_PT focuses more on energy efficiency, while TIMES_PT relies on decrease carbon intensity due to a shift to electricity. Although a common baseline scenario cannot be ignored, the models’ inherent characteristics are the main factor for the different outcomes, thereby highlighting different mitigation options. Policy relevance The relevance of modelling tools used to support the design of domestic climate policies is assessed by evaluating the mitigation options suggested by a bottom-up and a top-down model. The different outcomes of each model are significant for climate policy design since each suggest different mitigation options like end-use energy efficiency and the promotion of low-carbon technologies. Policy makers should carefully select the modelling tool used to support their policies. The specific modelling structures of each model make them more appropriate to address certain policy questions than others. Using both modelling approaches for policy support can therefore bring added value and result in more robust climate policy design. Although the results are specific for Portugal, the insights provided by the analysis of both models can be extended to, and used in the climate policy decisions of, other countries.

[1]  Mark Jaccard,et al.  Hybrid Modeling: New Answers to Old Challenges Introduction to the Special Issue of The Energy Journal , 2006 .

[2]  Jamil Khan,et al.  Governing the transition to low-carbon futures: A critical survey of energy scenarios for 2050 , 2011 .

[3]  Tom Kober,et al.  Implications of different climate protection regimes for the EU-27 and its member states through 2050 , 2012 .

[4]  Christoph Böhringer,et al.  The synthesis of bottom-up and top-down in energy policy modeling , 1998 .

[5]  Neil Strachan,et al.  Methodological review of UK and international low carbon scenarios , 2010 .

[6]  Bruno Lanz,et al.  General Equilibrium, Electricity Generation Technologies and the Cost of Carbon Abatement , 2011 .

[7]  T. Rutherford,et al.  Combining bottom-up and top-down , 2008 .

[8]  R. Loulou,et al.  Documentation for the TIMES Model PART I April 2005 , 2005 .

[9]  T. Kram,et al.  Comparison of top-down and bottom-up estimates of sectoral and regional greenhouse gas emission reduction potentials , 2009 .

[10]  Bert Saveyn,et al.  Economic Assessment of Post-2012 Global Climate Policies - Analysis of Gas Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction Scenarios with the POLES and GEM-E3 models , 2009 .

[11]  Stef Proost,et al.  Will a radical transport pricing reform jeopardize the ambitious EU climate change objectives , 2009 .

[12]  Richard D. Morgenstern,et al.  Carbon Abatement Costs: Why the Wide Range of Estimates? , 2006 .

[13]  Michael Grubb,et al.  The Costs of Limiting Fossil-Fuel CO2 Emissions: A Survey and Analysis , 1993 .

[14]  Gjalt Huppes,et al.  Cost of energy and environmental policy in Portuguese CO2 abatement—scenario analysis to 2020 , 2008 .

[15]  Anjana Das,et al.  ACROPOLIS: An example of international collaboration in the field of energy modelling to support greenhouse gases mitigation policies , 2007 .

[16]  L. Clarke,et al.  International climate policy architectures: Overview of the EMF 22 International Scenarios , 2009 .

[17]  Y. Kaya.  Impact of carbon dioxide emission control on GNP growth : Interpretation of proposed scenarios , 1989 .

[18]  Pierre Desprairies,et al.  World Energy Outlook , 1977 .

[19]  P. Ekins,et al.  Marginal abatement cost curves: a call for caution , 2011 .

[20]  J. Swisher,et al.  Exploring the gap : Top-down versus bottom-up analyses of the cost of mitigating global warming , 1993 .

[21]  Alban Kitous,et al.  Greenhouse gas reduction pathways in the UNFCCC process up to 2025 : policymakers summary and technical report , 2003 .

[22]  Patrícia Fortes,et al.  Integrated technological-economic modeling platform for energy and climate policy analysis , 2014 .

[23]  Mark Jaccard,et al.  Towards General Equilibrium in a Technology-Rich Model with Empirically Estimated Behavioral Parameters , 2006 .

[24]  Socrates Kypreos,et al.  The Economics of Low Stabilization: Model Comparison of Mitigation Strategies and Costs , 2010 .

[25]  Dennis Anderson,et al.  Induced Technical Change in Energy and Environmental Modeling: Analytic Approaches and Policy Implications , 2002 .

[26]  C. Bataille.  Design and application of a technologically explicit hybrid energy-economy policy model with micro and macro economic dynamics , 2005 .

[27]  Patrik Söderholm,et al.  Challenges in Soft-Linking: The Case of EMEC and TIMES-Sweden , 2013 .

[28]  Mark Jaccard,et al.  Modeling the cost of climate policy: Distinguishing between alternative cost definitions and long-run cost dynamics , 2003 .

[29]  B. Metz,et al.  Climate change 2007 : mitigation of climate change :contribution of Working Group III to the Fourth assessmentreport of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change , 2007 .

[30]  O. Edenhofer,et al.  Mitigation from a cross-sectoral perspective , 2007 .

[31]  Alain Haurie,et al.  Coupled Bottom-Up and Top-Down Modelling to Investigate Cooperative Climate Policies , 2010 .

[32]  Mark Jaccard,et al.  Useful models for simulating policies to induce technological change , 2006 .