Integrated technological-economic modeling platform for energy and climate policy analysis

CGE (computable general equilibrium) and bottom-up models each have unique strengths and weakness in evaluating energy and climate policies. This paper describes the development of an integrated technological, economic modeling platform (HYBTEP), built through the soft-link between the bottom-up TIMES (The Integrated MARKAL-EFOM system) and the CGE GEM-E3 models. HYBTEP combines cost minimizing energy technology choices with macroeconomic responses, which is essential for energy-climate policy assessment. HYBTEP advances on other hybrid tools by assuming ‘full-form’ models, integrating detailed and extensive technology data with disaggregated economic structure, and ‘full-link’, i.e., covering all economic sectors. Using Portugal as a case study, we examine three scenarios: (i) the current energy-climate policy, (ii) a CO2 tax, and (iii) renewable energy subsidy, with the objective of assessing the advantages of HYBTEP vis-a-vis bottom-up approach. Results show that the economic framework in HYBTEP partially offsets the increase or decrease in energy costs from the policy scenarios, while TIMES is very sensitive to energy services-price elasticities, setting a wide range of results. HYBTEP allows the computation of the economic impacts of policies in a technological detailed environment. The hybrid platform increases transparency of policy analysis by making explicit the mechanisms through which energy demand evolves, resulting in high confidence for decision-making.

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

[2]  Alain Haurie,et al.  A Coupled Bottom-Up/Top-Down Model for GHG Abatement Scenarios in the Swiss Housing Sector , 2005 .

[3]  Alan S. Manne,et al.  MARKAL-MACRO: A linked model for energy-economy analysis , 1992 .

[4]  Wenying Chen,et al.  Carbon emission control strategies for China: A comparative study with partial and general equilibrium versions of the China MARKAL model , 2007 .

[5]  Christoph Böhringer,et al.  Integrated assessment of energy policies: Decomposing top-down and bottom-up , 2009 .

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

[7]  Henry D. Jacoby,et al.  Technology detail in a multisector CGE model: Transport under climate policy , 2005 .

[8]  Leo Schrattenholzer,et al.  MESSAGE-MACRO: Linking an energy supply model with a macroeconomic module and solving it iteratively , 2000 .

[9]  Júlia Seixas,et al.  Top-down and bottom-up modelling to support low-carbon scenarios: climate policy implications , 2013 .

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

[11]  Other.  Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions: Annual Policy Strategy for 2008 , 2007 .

[12]  Mei Yuan,et al.  A top–down bottom–up modeling approach to climate change policy analysis , 2009 .

[13]  Communication from the European commission to the council, the European parliament, the economic and social committee and committee of the regions , 2002 .

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

[15]  Dale W. Jorgenson,et al.  Economic and Technological Models for Evaluation of Energy Policy , 1977 .

[16]  Hal Turton,et al.  ECLIPSE: An integrated energy-economy model for climate policy and scenario analysis , 2008 .

[17]  Ian Sue Wing,et al.  The synthesis of bottom-up and top-down approaches to climate policy modeling: Electric power technology detail in a social accounting framework , 2008 .

[18]  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 .

[19]  Pierre-André Haldi,et al.  Dynamic formulation of a top-down and bottom-up merging energy policy model , 2003 .

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

[21]  R. Loulou,et al.  Climate mitigation under an uncertain technology future: A TIAM-World analysis , 2012 .

[22]  G. Goldstein,et al.  Documentation for the TIMES Model PART III , 2016 .

[23]  Miguel St. Aubyn,et al.  Hybrid modeling to support energy-climate policy: Effects of feed-in tariffs to promote renewable energy in Portugal , 2013 .

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

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

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

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

[28]  O. Davidson,et al.  Climate change 2001 : mitigation , 2001 .

[29]  R. Kannan,et al.  Hybrid modelling of long-term carbon reduction scenarios for the UK , 2008 .

[30]  Thomas Martinsen,et al.  Introducing technology learning for energy technologies in a national CGE model through soft links to global and national energy models , 2011 .

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

[32]  M. Tavoni,et al.  A World Induced Technical Change Hybrid Model , 2006 .

[33]  Valentina Bosetti,et al.  A World induced Technical Change Hybrid Model , 2006 .