Publications Published in Energy Journal

1. Combining Top-Down and Bottom-Up Approaches To Energy-Economy Modeling Using Discrete Choice Methods. Rivers, Nic; Jaccard, Mark.
   International Association for Energy Economics, Inc. Energy Journal: 2005
   Notes
   Recently, hybrid models of the energy-economy have been developed with the objective of combining the strengths of the traditional top-down and bottom-up approaches by simulating consumer and firm behavior at the technological level. We explore here the application of discrete choice research and modeling to the empirical estimation of key behavioral parameters representing technology choice in hybrid models. We estimate a discrete choice model of the industrial steam generation technology decision from a survey of 259 industrial firms in Canada. The results provide behavioral parameters for the CIMS energy-economy model. We then conduct a policy analysis and show the relative effects of an information program, technology subsidy, and carbon dioxide tax on the uptake of alternative industrial steam generation technologies, including boilers and cogeneration systems. We also show how empirically derived estimates of parameter uncertainty can be propagated through the model to provide uncertainty estimates for major model outputs. ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR Copyright of Energy Journal is the property of International Association for Energy Economics, Inc. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts)
   
   
   
2. Induced Technological Change: Exp;oring its Implications for the Economics of Atmospheric Stabilization Synthesis Report from the Innovation Modeling Comparison Project. Edenhofer, Ottmar; Lessmann, Kai; Kemfert, Claudia; Grubb, Michael; Kohler, Jonathan.
   Energy Journal: 2006
   Notes
   This paper summarizes results from ten global economy-energy-environment models implementing mechanisms of endogenous technological change (ETC). Climate policy goals represented as different C[O.sub.2] stabilization levels are imposed, and the contribution of induced technological change (ITC) to meeting the goals is assessed. Findings indicate that climate policy induces additional technological change, in some models substantially. Its effect is a reduction of abatement costs in all participating models. The majority of models calculate abatement costs below 1 percent of present value aggregate gross world product for the period 2000-2100. The models predict different dynamics for rising carbon costs, with some showing a decline in carbon costs towards the end of the century. There are a number of reasons for differences in results between models; however four major drivers of differences are identified. First, the extent of the necessary C[O.sub.2] reduction which depends mainly on predicted baseline emissions, determines how much a model is challenged to comply with climate policy. Second, when climate policy can offset market distortions, some models show that not costs but benefits accrue from climate policy. Third, assumptions about long-term investment behavior, e.g. foresight of actors and number of available investment options, exert a major influence. Finally, whether and how options for carbon-free energy are implemented (backstop and end-of-the-pipe technologies) strongly affects both the mitigation strategy and the abatement costs.
   
   
   
3. Technological Change for Atmospheric Stabilization: Introductory Overview to the Innovation Modeling Comparison Project. Grubb, Michael; Carraro, Carlo; Schellnhuber, John.
   Energy Journal: 2006
   
   
4. The Costs of Kyoto for the US Economy. Barker, Terry; Ekins, Paul.
   International Association for Energy Economics, Inc. Energy Journal: 2004
   Notes
   The high costs for the US economy of mitigating climate change have been cited by the Bush administration as one of the reasons for rejecting US ratification of the Kyoto Protocol. A range of cost estimates are assessed in the IPCC's third report (2001), but they are hedged with so many qualifications that it is not easy to reach useful conclusions. This paper organises, some of the quantitative information on costs of greenhouse gas mitigation for the US published before the US rejection of Kyoto. The aim is to put them in a wider context, e.g., allowing for non-climate benefits, and to draw conclusions that are robust in the face of the uncertainties. Important lessons can be drawn for how costs can be reduced in any future international commitment by the US to reduce emissions. Provided policies are expected, gradual and well designed (e.g., through auctioned Annex I tradable permits with revenues used to reduce burdensome tax rates) the net costs for the US of mitigation are likely to be insignificant, that is within the range ±1% of GDP.
   
   
   
5. The Transition to Endogenous Technical Change in Climate-Economy Models: A Technical Overview to the Innovation Modeling Comparison Project. Kohler, Jonathan; Grubb, Michael; Popp, David; Edenhofer, Ottmar.
   Energy Journal: 2006
   Notes
   This paper assesses endogenous technical change (ETC) in climate-economy models, using the models in the Innovation Modeling Comparison Project (IMCP) as a representative cross-section. ETC is now a feature of most leading models. Following the new endogenous growth literature and the application of learning curves to the energy sector, there are two main concepts employed: knowledge capital and learning curves. The common insight is that technical change is driven by the development of knowledge capital and its characteristics of being partly non-rival and partly non-excludable. There are various different implementations of ETC. Recursive CGE models face particular difficulties in incorporating ETC and increasing returns. The main limitations of current models are: the lack of uncertainty analysis; the limited representation of the diffusion of technology; and the homogeneous nature of agents in the models including the lack of representation of institutional structures in the innovation process.