Showing papers by "John P. Weyant published in 2013"

Electric sector investments under technological and policy-related uncertainties: a stochastic programming approach

Abstract: Although emerging technologies like carbon capture and storage and advanced nuclear are expected to play leading roles in greenhouse gas mitigation efforts, many engineering and policy-related uncertainties will influence their deployment. Capital-intensive infrastructure decisions depend on understanding the likelihoods and impacts of uncertainties such as the timing and stringency of climate policy as well as the technological availability of carbon capture systems. This paper demonstrates the utility of stochastic programming approaches to uncertainty analysis within a practical policy setting, using uncertainties in the US electric sector as motivating examples. We describe the potential utility of this framework for energy-environmental decision making and use a modeling example to reinforce these points and to stress the need for new tools to better exploit the full range of benefits the stochastic programming approach can provide. Model results illustrate how this framework can give important insights about hedging strategies to reduce risks associated with high compliance costs for tight CO2 caps and low CCS availability. Metrics for evaluating uncertainties like the expected value of perfect information and the value of the stochastic solution quantify the importance of including uncertainties in capacity planning, of making precautionary low-carbon investments, and of conducting research and gathering information to reduce risk.

Analysis of the Climate Protection Act of 2013

Abstract: Last year, Senators Barbara Boxer (D-CA) and Bernie Sanders (I-VT) introduced S. 332, the Climate Protection Act of 2013. Based on a “fee-and-dividend” concept, the bill would levy a carbon pollution fee on carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions starting in 2014 at $20 per metric ton of CO2, rising at 5.6% per year through 2023. The carbon pollution fees under the Climate Protection Act would be utilized as follows: 3/5 would be directly rebated to U.S. residents; $20.5 billion per year would be used to assist trade-exposed industries, low-income households, displaced workers, and to increase energy RD and the remainder, about 1/4, would be used to reduce the U.S. federal budget deficit.Using an independent version of the U.S. Department of Energy’s 2013 National Energy Modeling System (NEMS-Stanford), we analyzed the macroeconomic, environmental, and distributional impacts of the Climate Protection Act. We find that the Climate Protection Act would: Reduce energy-related CO2 emissions by 4,200 million metric tonnes (MMt) CO2 in the first ten years of the program; reduce CO2 emissions from energy by 16.8% below 2005 levels in 2020, permit-ting the U.S. to meet its commitment under the Copenhagen Accord; result in modest impacts to GDP of less than one half of one percent in 2020; rebate $744 billion to households over ten years, with an average yearly house-hold rebate of between $181 and $223; reduce net energy-related expenditures for substantially all of the 80% of U.S. households with incomes less than $100,000 per year and for the average U.S. household in all regions of the country; reduce the U.S. federal budget deficit by $311 billion over ten years.