Comparison of integrated assessment models: Carbon price impacts on U.S. energy

Integrated assessment models (IAMs) are increasingly used to evaluate carbon policy impacts on energy structure, but different models can yield considerably different results. This paper seeks to frame model results for policymakers and other consumers of model outputs. In this analysis we compare three models: GCAM, MERGE, and EPPA. We apply diagnostic carbon price scenarios, such as ramps and shocks, to identify key differences in model behavior that drive inter-model variability in projected policy impacts on the U.S. energy system. We report model results using several economic parameterizations and find that variation in carbon emissions across models results primarily from differences in carbon intensity of energy supply. These differences arise because models include different low-carbon energy technology options and vary widely in how flexible the electricity supply sector is at adapting to a change in policy. The timing of emissions abatement is also strongly influenced by whether the model is a simulation or an inter-temporal optimization scheme and the amount of foresight exhibited in the model. Our analysis demonstrates the usefulness of novel IAM diagnostic indicators and clarifies model features that are highly relevant for consumers of model results.

[1]  John P. Weyant,et al.  Preface and introduction to EMF 27 , 2014, Climatic Change.

[2]  Charlie Wilson Up-scaling, formative phases, and learning in the historical diffusion of energy technologies , 2012 .

[3]  M. Wise,et al.  An integrated assessment of climate change and the accelerated introduction of advanced energy technologies , 1997 .

[4]  John P. Weyant,et al.  Regional energy system variation in global models: Results from the Asian Modeling Exercise scenarios , 2012 .

[5]  Charlie Wilson,et al.  Diagnostic indicators for integrated assessment models of climate policy , 2015 .

[6]  J. Weyant,et al.  Overview of EMF 24 Policy Scenarios , 2014 .

[7]  Elmar Kriegler,et al.  Getting from here to there – energy technology transformation pathways in the EMF27 scenarios , 2014, Climatic Change.

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

[9]  Gunnar Luderer,et al.  Exploring the feasibility of low stabilization targets , 2011 .

[10]  John P. Weyant,et al.  Modeling for insights, not numbers: the experiences of the energy modeling forum , 1982 .

[11]  John P. Weyant,et al.  Overview of EMF 22 U.S. transition scenarios , 2009 .

[12]  William J. Nuttall,et al.  Nuclear Power: A Hedge against Uncertain Gas and Carbon Prices? , 2006 .

[13]  Nebojsa Nakicenovic,et al.  Dynamics of energy technologies and global change , 1999 .

[14]  L. Goulder,et al.  Climate change policy's interactions with the tax system☆ , 2013 .

[15]  John P. Weyant,et al.  Overview of EMF-21: Multigas Mitigation and Climate Policy , 2006 .

[16]  John P. Weyant,et al.  End use technology choice in the National Energy Modeling System (NEMS): An analysis of the residential and commercial building sectors , 2013 .

[17]  Stephen H. Schneider,et al.  Integrated assessment modeling of global climate change: Transparent rational tool for policy making or opaque screen hiding value‐laden assumptions? , 1997 .

[18]  F. Ackerman,et al.  Inside the integrated assessment models: Four issues in climate economics , 2009 .

[19]  V. Bosetti,et al.  Emissions Pricing to Stabilize Global Climate , 2011 .

[20]  A. Manne,et al.  Buying greenhouse insurance: The economics costs of carbon dioxide emission limits , 1992 .

[21]  Robert McDougall,et al.  Global trade, assistance, and production : The GTAP 5 Data Base , 2002 .

[22]  Stephen H. Schneider,et al.  Integrated Assessment Modeling of Global Climate Change: Much Has Been Learned—Still a Long and Bumpy Road Ahead , 2005 .

[23]  John P. Weyant,et al.  INTRODUCTION TO THE EMF28 STUDY ON SCENARIOS FOR TRANSFORMING THE EUROPEAN ENERGY SYSTEM , 2013 .

[24]  M. Wise,et al.  An Integrated Assessment of Climate Change and the Accelerated Introduction of Advanced Energy Technologies - An Application of MiniCAM 1.0 , 1997 .

[25]  Edward J. Balistreri,et al.  Introduction to the EMF 29 special issue on the role of border carbon adjustment in unilateral climate policy , 2012 .

[26]  William D. Nordhaus,et al.  Rolling the ‘DICE’: an optimal transition path for controlling greenhouse gases , 1993 .

[27]  R. Pindyck Climate Change Policy: What Do the Models Tell Us? , 2013 .

[28]  L. Clarke,et al.  Introduction to the EMF 22 special issue on climate change control scenarios , 2009 .

[29]  J. Edmonds,et al.  The ObjECTS Framework for Integrated Assessment: Hybrid Modeling of Transportation , 2006 .

[30]  N. Stern The Structure of Economic Modeling of the Potential Impacts of Climate Change: Grafting Gross Underestimation of Risk onto Already Narrow Science Models , 2013 .

[31]  Clare M. Goodess,et al.  Representing Climate and Extreme Weather Events in Integrated Assessment Models: A Review of Existing Methods and Options for Development , 2003 .

[32]  James Merrick,et al.  Trade-offs between mitigation costs and temperature change , 2014, Climatic Change.

[33]  Alan S. Manne,et al.  MERGE. A model for evaluating regional and global effects of GHG reduction policies , 1995 .

[34]  William D. Nordhaus,et al.  Optimal Greenhouse-Gas Reductions and Tax Policy in the "Dice" Model , 1993 .

[35]  J. Edmonds,et al.  Implications of Limiting CO2 Concentrations for Land Use and Energy , 2009, Science.