Results 1 - 4 of 4
Results 1 - 4 of 4. Search took: 0.015 seconds
|Sort by: date | relevance|
[en] It is widely accepted that climate change raises equity considerations, and this has been addressed in various explicit and implicit ways in scenario-based climate and climate-policy research. In this paper I look in particular at the IPCC's well-known 'Special Report on Emissions Scenarios', in which equity is primarily quantified as the distribution of income between countries, and highlight the need for more explicit treatment of equity both within and across national borders. I apply an existing method for modeling subnational income distributions and show that this affects the results of welfare calculations of the type used in economic analyses of climate policy. Additionally, I suggest ways in which this kind of equity analysis could be applied to questions that address broader considerations of climate policy and development, such as burden sharing in the allocation of obligations, and conclude with remarks that frame the scenario development process in the context of what I call 'the contested storyline of the present'.
[en] Improving the energy economics of manufacturing is essential to revitalizing the industrial base of advanced economies. This paper evaluates ex-ante a federal policy option aimed at promoting industrial cogeneration—the production of heat and electricity in a single energy-efficient process. Detailed analysis using the National Energy Modeling System (NEMS) and spreadsheet calculations suggest that industrial cogeneration could meet 18% of U.S. electricity requirements by 2035, compared with its current 8.9% market share. Substituting less efficient utility-scale power plants with cogeneration systems would produce numerous economic and environmental benefits, but would also create an assortment of losers and winners. Multiple perspectives to benefit/cost analysis are therefore valuable. Our results indicate that the federal cogeneration policy would be highly favorable to manufacturers and the public sector, cutting energy bills, generating billions of dollars in electricity sales, making producers more competitive, and reducing pollution. Most traditional utilities, on the other hand, would lose revenues unless their rate recovery procedures are adjusted to prevent the loss of profits due to customer owned generation and the erosion of utility sales. From a public policy perspective, deadweight losses would be introduced by market-distorting federal incentives (ranging annually from $30 to $150 million), but these losses are much smaller than the estimated net social benefits of the federal cogeneration policy. - Highlights: ► Industrial cogeneration could meet 18% of US electricity demand by 2035, vs. 8.9% today. ► The policy would be highly favorable to manufacturers and the public. ► Traditional electric utilities would likely lose revenues. ► Deadweight loss would be introduced by tax incentives. ► The policy’s net social benefits would be much larger.