A multi-criteria evaluation of policy instruments for climate change mitigation in the power generation sector of Trinidad and Tobago

Even as small island developing states (SIDS) like Trinidad and Tobago (T&T) increase industrialization and grapple with the challenges of increased pollution, few studies provide guidance to policy makers of such countries on appropriate policy measures and instruments that can be implemented to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions. Here we apply a multi-criteria evaluation methodology to ascertain preferences for policy measures and instruments in the power generation sector. Four broad policy measures and twelve policy instruments are assessed on criteria of environmental performance, feasibility of implementation and political acceptability. This method proves useful in T&T, since typical to many SIDS, the intensive data required by other policy assessment methods is unavailable. Results indicate little difference in preference among the four policy measures thereby indicating that a multi-pronged approach on several policy fronts is required. The most preferred policy instruments to operationalize measures included provision of subsidies for energy saving technologies, creating an industry wide carbon trading scheme and implementing a feed-in tariff to increase the use of renewable energy sources. This study therefore provides specific insights for policy makers in Trinidad and Tobago while also providing power generation sector specific guidance to other rapidly industrializing small island developing states.

[1]  Linda Steg,et al.  Energy saving and energy efficiency concepts for policy making , 2009 .

[2]  T. Saaty,et al.  The Analytic Hierarchy Process , 1985 .

[3]  Kristina Ek,et al.  The devil is in the details: Household electricity saving behavior and the role of information , 2010 .

[4]  Valentina Bosetti,et al.  Climate Change Mitigation Strategies in Fast-Growing Countries: The Benefits of Early Action , 2009, SSRN Electronic Journal.

[5]  P. Doran,et al.  Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change , 2009 .

[6]  C. Taylor,et al.  Stern Review: The Economics of Climate Change , 2006 .

[7]  D. MacKenzie Making things the same: Gases, emission rights and the politics of carbon markets , 2009 .

[8]  José Ignacio Peláez,et al.  A Method for Improving the Consistency of Judgements , 2002, Int. J. Uncertain. Fuzziness Knowl. Based Syst..

[9]  K. Tsagarakis,et al.  Effective education for energy efficiency , 2008 .

[10]  Kalim U. Shah Corporate environmentalism in a small emerging economy: stakeholder perceptions and the influence of firm characteristics , 2011 .

[11]  M. Common,et al.  Natural resource and environmental economics , 1996 .

[12]  T. Saaty Relative measurement and its generalization in decision making why pairwise comparisons are central in mathematics for the measurement of intangible factors the analytic hierarchy/network process , 2008 .

[13]  Kalim U. Shah,et al.  Export processing zones and corporate environmental performance in emerging economies: The case of the oil, gas, and chemical sectors of Trinidad and Tobago , 2007 .

[14]  Jonathan Barzilai,et al.  Response to the Comments by Larichev, Korhonen and Vargas on ‘Power Relations and Group Aggregation in the Multiplicative AHP and SMART’ , 1997 .

[15]  Troy Lorde,et al.  The macroeconomic effects of oil price fluctuations on a small open oil-producing country: The case of Trinidad and Tobago , 2009 .

[16]  J. Iwaro,et al.  A review of building energy regulation and policy for energy conservation in developing countries , 2010 .

[17]  Judith Lipp,et al.  Lessons for effective renewable electricity policy from Denmark, Germany and the United Kingdom , 2007 .

[18]  E. Martinot,et al.  Renewable Energy Policies and Barriers , 2004 .

[19]  Y. Gagnon,et al.  An analysis of feed-in tariff remuneration models: Implications for renewable energy investment , 2010 .

[20]  Jonathan Barzilai,et al.  POWER RELATIONS AND GROUP AGGREGATION IN THE MULTIPLICATIVE AHP AND SMART , 1997 .

[21]  R. Stavins,et al.  Experience with Market-Based Environmental Policy Instruments , 2002 .

[22]  F. Lootsma SCALE SENSITIVITY IN THE MULTIPLICATIVE AHP AND SMART , 1993 .

[23]  K. Neuhoff,et al.  CO2 cost pass-through and windfall profits in the power sector , 2006 .

[24]  Popi Konidari,et al.  A multi-criteria evaluation method for climate change mitigation policy instruments , 2007 .

[25]  H. I. Furlonge,et al.  Overview of natural gas sector developments in Trinidad and Tobago , 2010 .

[26]  Hari Bansha Dulal,et al.  Capital assets and institutional constraints to implementation of greenhouse gas mitigation options in agriculture , 2011 .

[27]  Marcello Braglia,et al.  The analytic hierarchy process applied to maintenance strategy selection , 2000, Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf..

[28]  M. Gailfuss Das Gesetz für den Vorrang erneuerbarer Energien , 2000 .

[29]  Thomas C. Beierle,et al.  The Quality of Stakeholder‐Based Decisions , 2002, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[30]  Popi Konidari,et al.  Classification of emissions trading scheme design characteristics , 2003 .

[31]  C. Turcanu,et al.  On the governmental use of multi-criteria analysis , 2007 .