DOCSLIB.ORG

Juliana, Et Al. V. United States of America, Et Al. Expert Report Of

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Juliana, Et Al. V. United States of America, Et Al. Expert Report Of Case 6:15-cv-01517-TC Document 338-4 Filed 08/24/18 Page 1 of 129 Expert Report of Professor James L. Sweeney Submitted August 13, 2018 Kelsey Cascadia Rose Juliana; Xiuhtezcatl Tonatiuh M., through his Guardian Tamara Roske-Martinez; et al., Plaintiffs, v. The United States of America; Donald Trump, in his official capacity as President of the United States; et al., Defendants. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF OREGON (Case No.: 6:15-cv-01517-TC) Case 6:15-cv-01517-TC Document 338-4 Filed 08/24/18 Page 2 of 129 Contents I. Qualifications ...................................................................................................................... 1 II. Background and Assignment .............................................................................................. 3 III. Summary of Opinions ......................................................................................................... 6 IV. Climate Change Is a Real, Global Problem ........................................................................ 9 A. Global Climate Change Resulting from Greenhouse Gas Emissions ..................... 9 B. The U.S. Alone Cannot Ensure That Atmospheric CO2 Is No More Concentrated than 350 ppm by 2100....................................................................................................... 12 V. Energy Policy in the U.S. Requires Trade-Offs among Economic, Security, and Environmental Objectives ................................................................................................. 14 A. The Environment .................................................................................................. 15 B. Domestic and International Security ..................................................................... 16 C. The Economy ........................................................................................................ 17 D. Energy Policy Involves Trade-Offs among the Three Goals ................................ 18 VI. The U.S. Economy Has Decarbonized 66% since 1973 ................................................... 22 VII. Federal Programs and Policies Have Contributed Substantially to the Decarbonization of the U.S. Economy ............................................................................................................. 29 A. Affirmative Policy Steps Encouraging Energy Efficiency ................................... 29 B. Affirmative Policy Steps Encouraging Low Carbon Energy Sources .................. 37 C. CO2 from Fossil Fuel Production .......................................................................... 43 D. Participation in International Climate Change Initiatives ..................................... 45 E. The Federal Government Has Adopted Complex Energy Policy Strategies to Address Multiple Policy Goals ......................................................................................... 47 VIII. Many Policy Options Suggested in the Complaint Have Been Implemented .................. 49 IX. Policy Initiatives Demanded by Plaintiffs’ Experts Have Been Considered, Debated, and Rejected by Congress or Federal Administrations............................................................ 51 X. There Is an Important Economic Distinction between the Federal Government’s Direct Emissions and the Federal Government’s Role and Potential Role as Regulator of Third- Party Emissions ................................................................................................................. 55 XI. Plaintiffs and Their Experts Fail to Establish that the Acts of the Federal Government Caused Their Alleged Injuries .......................................................................................... 59 A. Plaintiffs and Their Experts Fail to Establish Causation ...................................... 61 B. Plaintiffs’ Experts Fail to Identify the Incremental Impact of the Conduct at Issue on Cumulative CO2 Emissions and CO2 Concentration ................................................... 62 i Case 6:15-cv-01517-TC Document 338-4 Filed 08/24/18 Page 3 of 129 1. Defendants’ Direct Consumption of Fossil Fuels ..................................... 63 2. Defendants’ Affirmative Policy Acts ........................................................ 64 3. Defendants’ Alleged Failure to Develop Policies to Mitigate GHG Emissions by Entities Other Than the Federal Government. ................................ 66 C. Plaintiffs Fail to Establish a Causal Link Between Their Alleged Injuries and Climate Change Effects Caused by the Conduct at Issue ................................................. 69 XII. Plaintiffs’ Experts’ Proposed Transformations of the U.S. Energy System Are Not Technically or Economically Feasible .............................................................................. 70 A. Several Examples Demonstrate the Technical and Economic Infeasibility of Converting Energy End Use to All-Electric or All-Hydrogen Systems ........................... 73 1. Transportation: Automobiles ................................................................... 74 2. Transportation: Aircraft ........................................................................... 78 3. Industrial Energy Use ............................................................................... 81 B. Plaintiffs’ Experts Understate Costs of their Proposed Energy Systems .............. 84 1. Plaintiffs’ Experts’ Cost Estimates Are Highly Uncertain ....................... 84 2. Plaintiffs’ Experts Cost Estimates Are Incomplete and Understate the Full Economic Impact of Decarbonization .................................................................. 86 3. Professor Jacobson Understates the Cost of Electricity Under His Proposed Energy System ...................................................................................... 87 C. Plaintiffs’ Experts’ Proposed Energy Systems Would Require Regulatory Intervention on a Large Scale ........................................................................................... 89 D. Plaintiffs’ Experts’ Proposed Energy Systems Deviate from Consensus Views Regarding Decarbonization .............................................................................................. 93 E. Addressing the Important Problem of Global Climate Change Requires Realistic Methods........................................................................................................................... 101 ii Case 6:15-cv-01517-TC Document 338-4 Filed 08/24/18 Page 4 of 129 List of Figures Figure 1. U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions by Gas ...................................................................... 11 Figure 2. Annual CO2 Emissions from Energy ............................................................................ 12 Figure 3. The Energy Policy Triangle .......................................................................................... 14 Figure 4. Factors Leading to Reduced Carbon Intensity of U.S. Economy ................................. 24 Figure 5. Factors in the Kaya Identity by Time Interval .............................................................. 25 Figure 6. Components of Energy System Decarbonization ......................................................... 28 Figure 7. New U.S. Electricity Generating Capacity Additions .................................................. 40 Figure 8. Sources of Greenhouse Gas Emissions in the U.S. ...................................................... 56 Figure 9. Global Fossil Fuel Market Response to Removal of U.S. Subsidies ........................... 66 List of Tables Table 1. Residential National Appliance Standards .................................................................... 31 Table 2. Commercial and Industrial National Appliance Standards ............................................ 32 Table 3. Lighting National Appliance Standards ......................................................................... 34 Table 4. Selected Federal Efficiency Standards and Tax Credits ................................................ 37 Table 5. Review of Decarbonization Studies Cited in Jacobson Report Exhibit D ..................... 98 iii Case 6:15-cv-01517-TC Document 338-4 Filed 08/24/18 Page 5 of 129 I. Qualifications 1. I, James L. Sweeney, am an economist at Stanford University. I have focused my professional activities on economic policy and analysis, particularly in energy, natural resources, and the environment, and am currently concentrating on energy efficiency. 2. At Stanford, I am a professor of management science and engineering. In addition, I am a senior fellow of the Hoover Institution, the Precourt Institute for Energy, and the Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research. 3. Also at Stanford, I have served as chairman of the Department of Engineering-Economic Systems and as chairman of the Department of Engineering-Economic Systems and Operations Research. I served for eight years as a member of the Executive Committee of the Stanford School of Engineering. I have also served as the Director of the Energy Modeling Forum (“EMF”), the Chairman of the Institute for Energy Studies, and the Director of the Center for Economic Policy Research (now named the Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research). I was founder and until recently, the director of the Precourt Energy Efficiency Center. 4. I have taught courses at Stanford on “Economics of Natural Resources,” “Energy and Environmental Policy Analysis,” “Economic Analysis,” “Engineering Economics,” and “Policy
Load more

Recommended publications
  • A Thesis Submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate School of Arts And
    THE ROAD AFTER PARIS: THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CLIMATE CHANGE POLICY STRINGENCY AND ECONOMIC GROWTH AT THE COUNTRY LEVEL A Thesis submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences of Georgetown University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Public Policy in Public Policy By David P. Allen, B.A. Washington, DC April 12, 2016 Copyright 2016 by David P. Allen All Rights Reserved ii THE ROAD AFTER PARIS: THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CLIMATE CHANGE POLICY STRINGENCY AND ECONOMIC GROWTH AT THE COUNTRY LEVEL David P. Allen, B.A. Thesis Advisor: Adam T. Thomas, Ph.D. ABSTRACT Increased emissions of carbon dioxide and greenhouse gases (GHG) have exacerbated the effects of climate change and have led to intensified weather events and a steady rise in the average global temperature. Countries sought to outline an aggressive agenda for combatting climate change at the Conference of the Parties (COP 21) in Paris last year. In order to reach a common goal, countries released national action plans, known as Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs) for reducing GHGs and CO2 emissions. However, a source of contention is the effect that limiting emissions might have on economic growth. In the context of the recently completed COP21, this paper examines the relationship between the stringency of climate policy implemented prior to 2015 and countries’ gross domestic product (GDP), as a proxy for economic growth. Because INDCs were only introduced in the lead up to COP 21, this paper instead uses the Climate Change Performance Index (CCPI) to measure the stringency of countries’ climate policies from 2010 through 2014.
    [Show full text]
  • Learning and Climate Change
    Submitted to Climate Policy as a Commentary September 8, 2006 Learning and Climate Change Brian C. O’Neill,1,2 Paul Crutzen,3 Arnulf Grübler,1 Minh Ha Duong,4 Klaus Keller,5 Charles Kolstad,6 Jonathan Koomey,7 Andreas Lange,8 Michael Obersteiner,1 Michael Oppenheimer,9 William Pepper,10 Warren Sanderson,11 Michael Schlesinger,12 Nicolas Treich,13 Alistair Ulph,14 Mort Webster,15 Chris Wilson1 1 International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, A-2361 Laxenburg, Austria, Tel: +43 2236 807 380, fax: +43 2236 71 313, e-mail:[email protected] 2 Watson Institute for International Studies, Brown University, Providence, RI, USA 3 Max Planck Institute for Chemistry, Mainz, Germany 4 CIRED/CNRS, Paris, France 5 Pennsylvania State University, Pennsylvania, USA 6 Donald Bren School of Environmental Science & Management, UC Santa Barbara, USA 7 Stanford University, Stanford, California, USA 8 AREC, University of Maryland, Maryland, USA 9 Woodrow Wilson School and Department of Geosciences, Princeton University, New Jersey, USA 10 ICF Consulting, Virginia, USA 11 Department of Economics, SUNY Stony Brook, USA 12 University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, Illinois, USA 13 INRA, Toulouse, France 14 Manchester University, Manchester, United Kingdom 15 University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, USA 1 Abstract Learning – i.e., the acquisition of new information that leads to changes in our assessment of uncertainty – plays a prominent role in the international climate policy debate. For example, the view that we should postpone actions until we know more continues to be influential. The latest work on learning and climate change includes new theoretical models, better informed simulations of how learning affects the optimal timing of emissions reductions, analyses of how new information could affect the prospects for reaching and maintaining political agreements and for adapting to climate change, and explorations of how learning could lead us astray rather than closer to the truth.
    [Show full text]
  • Let Me Just Add That While the Piece in Newsweek Is Extremely Annoying
    From: Michael Oppenheimer To: Eric Steig; Stephen H Schneider Cc: Gabi Hegerl; Mark B Boslough; [email protected]; Thomas Crowley; Dr. Krishna AchutaRao; Myles Allen; Natalia Andronova; Tim C Atkinson; Rick Anthes; Caspar Ammann; David C. Bader; Tim Barnett; Eric Barron; Graham" "Bench; Pat Berge; George Boer; Celine J. W. Bonfils; James A." "Bono; James Boyle; Ray Bradley; Robin Bravender; Keith Briffa; Wolfgang Brueggemann; Lisa Butler; Ken Caldeira; Peter Caldwell; Dan Cayan; Peter U. Clark; Amy Clement; Nancy Cole; William Collins; Tina Conrad; Curtis Covey; birte dar; Davies Trevor Prof; Jay Davis; Tomas Diaz De La Rubia; Andrew Dessler; Michael" "Dettinger; Phil Duffy; Paul J." "Ehlenbach; Kerry Emanuel; James Estes; Veronika" "Eyring; David Fahey; Chris Field; Peter Foukal; Melissa Free; Julio Friedmann; Bill Fulkerson; Inez Fung; Jeff Garberson; PETER GENT; Nathan Gillett; peter gleckler; Bill Goldstein; Hal Graboske; Tom Guilderson; Leopold Haimberger; Alex Hall; James Hansen; harvey; Klaus Hasselmann; Susan Joy Hassol; Isaac Held; Bob Hirschfeld; Jeremy Hobbs; Dr. Elisabeth A. Holland; Greg Holland; Brian Hoskins; mhughes; James Hurrell; Ken Jackson; c jakob; Gardar Johannesson; Philip D. Jones; Helen Kang; Thomas R Karl; David Karoly; Jeffrey Kiehl; Steve Klein; Knutti Reto; John Lanzante; [email protected]; Ron Lehman; John lewis; Steven A. "Lloyd (GSFC-610.2)[R S INFORMATION SYSTEMS INC]"; Jane Long; Janice Lough; mann; [email protected]; Linda Mearns; carl mears; Jerry Meehl; Jerry Melillo; George Miller; Norman Miller; Art Mirin; John FB" "Mitchell; Phil Mote; Neville Nicholls; Gerald R. North; Astrid E.J. Ogilvie; Stephanie Ohshita; Tim Osborn; Stu" "Ostro; j palutikof; Joyce Penner; Thomas C Peterson; Tom Phillips; David Pierce; [email protected]; V.
    [Show full text]
  • Response to the Peer Review Report EPA Base Case Version 5.13 Using IPM U.S
    Response to the Peer Review Report EPA Base Case Version 5.13 Using IPM U.S. EPA, Clean Air Markets Division SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION In October 2014, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) commissioned a peer review of the EPA Base Case version 5.13 using the Integrated Planning Model (IPM). 1 RTI International, an independent contractor, facilitated the peer review of the EPA Base Case v.5.13 in compliance with EPA’s Peer Review Handbook (U.S. EPA, 2006) and produced a report from that peer review. RTI selected five peer reviewers (Anthony Paul, Meghan McGuinness, Walter Short, Paul Sotkiewicz, and John Weyant) who have expertise in energy policy, power sector modeling and economics to review the EPA Base Case v.5.13 and provide feedback. The peer reviewers evaluated the adequacy of the framework, assumptions, and supporting data used in the EPA Base Case v.5.13 using IPM, and they suggested potential improvements. IPM is a multiregional, dynamic, deterministic model of the U.S. power sector that provides forecasts of least-cost capacity expansion, electricity dispatch and emission reliability constraints. The EPA uses the platform to project and evaluate the cost and emissions impacts of various policies to limit emissions of sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, particulate matter, mercury, hydrogen chloride, and carbon dioxide (CO2). The independent peer review panel provided expert feedback on whether the analytical framework, assumptions and applications of data in the EPA’s Base Case v.5.13 using IPM are sufficient for the EPA’s needs in estimating the economic and emissions impacts associated with the power sector due to emissions policy alternatives.
    [Show full text]
  • POLICY FORUM CLIMATE Bon Emissions to Global Economic Output) to 1.5% Per Year
    POLICY FORUM CLIMATE bon emissions to global economic output) to 1.5% per year. Calibrating the DICE-99 model to alter- To Hedge or Not Against native climate sensitivities that span the range displayed in the figure was more in- volved, because the DICE model includes a an Uncertain Climate Future? parameter that reflects the inverse thermal capacity of the atmospheric layer and the 1* 2 2 Gary Yohe, Natasha Andronova, Michael Schlesinger upper oceans. Larger climate sensitivities were associated with smaller inverse ca- t has been over a decade since Nordhaus and the damages associated with green- pacity values, so that the model could (1) published his seminal paper on miti- house gas–induced temperature change match observed temperature data when run Igation policy for climate change. His (4). We assume that decision-makers eval- in the historical past. The parameter was question was “To slow or not to slow?”; his uate the economic merits of implementing defined from optimization of the global answer was derived from a traditional cost- near-term global mitigation policies start- temperature departures calculated by DICE benefit approach. He found that a tax levied ing in 2005 that will be in force for 30 and calibrated against the observed depar- on fossil fuel in proportion to its carbon years. They know that they will be able to tures from Jones and Moberg (6) for the content, which would climb over time at “correct” their policy in 2035, and we as- prescribed range of the climate sensitivities Downloaded from o roughly the rate of interest, maximized sume that decisions will be informed by from 1.5° to 9 C (7).
    [Show full text]
  • Renewable Energy and Efficiency Modeling Analysis Partnership REMI Regional Economic Models Inc
    Technical Report Renewable Energy and Efficiency NREL/TP-6A2-45656 Modeling Analysis Partnership (REMAP): September 2009 An Analysis of How Different Energy Models Addressed a Common High Renewable Energy Penetration Scenario in 2025 Nate Blair, Thomas Jenkin, James Milford, Walter Short, Patrick Sullivan National Renewable Energy Laboratory David Evans, Elliot Lieberman Environmental Protection Agency Gary Goldstein, Evelyn Wright International Resources Group Kamala R. Jayaraman, Boddu Venkatesh ICF International Gary Kleiman Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management Christopher Namovicz, Bob Smith Energy Information Administration Karen Palmer Resources for the Future Ryan Wiser Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory Frances Wood OnLocation Technical Report Renewable Energy and Efficiency NREL/TP-6A2-45656 Modeling Analysis Partnership (REMAP): September 2009 An Analysis of How Different Energy Models Addressed a Common High Renewable Energy Penetration Scenario in 2025 Nate Blair, Thomas Jenkin, James Milford, Walter Short, Patrick Sullivan National Renewable Energy Laboratory David Evans, Elliot Lieberman Environmental Protection Agency Gary Goldstein, Evelyn Wright International Resources Group Kamala R. Jayaraman, Boddu Venkatesh ICF International Gary Kleiman Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management Christopher Namovicz, Bob Smith Energy Information Administration Karen Palmer Resources for the Future Ryan Wiser Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory Frances Wood OnLocation Prepared under Task No. SAO1.1005 National Renewable Energy Laboratory 1617 Cole Boulevard, Golden, Colorado 80401-3393 303-275-3000 • www.nrel.gov NREL is a national laboratory of the U.S. Department of Energy Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Operated by the Alliance for Sustainable Energy, LLC Contract No. DE-AC36-08-GO28308 NOTICE This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States government.
    [Show full text]
  • Energy Modeling Capabilities in ORD's Air, Climate and Energy
    Energy Modeling Capabilities in ORD’s Air, Climate and Energy (ACE) Program Presentation to ACE Centers Kick-Off Meeting September 15, 2016 Rebecca Dodder (presenting), Ozge Kaplan, Carol Lenox, Dan Loughlin Office of Research and Development U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Goals •Provide an overview of energy modeling efforts in ORD •Describe models and tools available •Provide a snapshot of different analyses and audiences 2 “You are here” Office of Research Climate Impacts, Vulnerability, and Development and Adaptation (CIVA) Protecting Environmental Public Health and Wellbeing (PEP) Air, Climate and Energy (ACE) Atmospheric and Integrated National Research Modeling Systems (AIMS) Program Emissions and Measurements (EM) Sustainable Energy and Mitigation (SEM) The research in the SEM topic area relies on an integrative approach to bring together data and analyses to evaluate and assess the environmental impacts of energy from the systems and lifecycle viewpoint, including dynamics between the energy sectors and crossing the energy continuum from extraction to end-use. 3 Motivation • WHY? The production and use of energy touches on multiple aspects of our economy and our lives and has a highly diverse and complex set of impacts on the environment. There is also deep uncertainty regarding how our energy system will unfold over time. • A long-range energy systems approach can address: • interactions among sectors • impacts across media • trade-offs and co-benefits • deep uncertainty • technology breakthroughs • We do analyses for specific
    [Show full text]
  • Wesleyan Economics Working Papers, Wesleyan University, Department
    Wesleyan Economics Working Papers http://repec.wesleyan.edu/ No: 2005-009 Managing the Risks of Climate Thresholds: Uncertainties and Information Needs Klaus Keller, Gary Yohe, and Michael Schlesinger December 2005 Department of Economics Public Affairs Center 238 Church Street Middletown, CT 06459-007 Tel: (860) 685-2340 Fax: (860) 685-2301 http://www.wesleyan.edu/econ Managing the Risks of Climate Thresholds: Uncertainties and Information Needs An Editorial Essay Klaus Keller,*,¶ Gary Yohe‡ and Michael Schlesinger§ * Department of Geosciences, Penn State, University Park, PA 16802 ‡ Department of Economics, Wesleyan University, Middletown, CT 06459 § Department of Atmospheric Sciences, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, IL 6182 Running Head: Managing the risks of climate thresholds ¶ To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: [email protected] Revised and Resubmitted to Climatic Change 1 1. Introduction Human activities are driving atmospheric greenhouse-gas concentrations beyond levels experienced by previous civilizations. The uncertainty surrounding our understanding of the resulting climate change poses nontrivial challenges for the design and implementation of strategies to manage the associated risks. One challenge stems from the fact that the climate system can react abruptly and with only subtle warning signs before climate thresholds have been crossed (Stocker, 1999; Alley et al., 2003). Model predictions suggest that anthropogenic greenhouse-gas emissions increase the likelihood of crossing these thresholds (Cubasch and Meehl, 2001, Yohe et al, 2006). Coping with deep uncertainty in our understanding of the mechanisms, locations and impacts of climate thresholds presents another challenge. Deep uncertainty presents itself when the relevant range of systems models and the associated probability functions for their parameterizations are unknown and/or when decision-makers strongly disagree on their formulations (Lempert, 2002).
    [Show full text]
  • John Weyant Professor (Research) of Management Science and Engineering and Senior Fellow at the Precourt Institute for Energy
    John Weyant Professor (Research) of Management Science and Engineering and Senior Fellow at the Precourt Institute for Energy Bio BIO John P. Weyant is Professor of Management Science and Engineering and Director of the Energy Modeling Forum (EMF) at Stanford University. He is also a Senior Fellow of the Precourt Institute for Energy and an an affiliated faculty member of the Stanford School of Earth, Environment and Energy Sciences, the Woods Institute for the Environment, and the Freeman-Spogli Institute for International Studies at Stanford. His current research focuses on analysis of multi-sector, multi-region coupled human and earth systems dynamics, global change systems analysis, energy technology assessment, and models for strategic planning. Weyant was a founder and serves as chairman of the Integrated Assessment Modeling Consortium (IAMC), a fourteen-year old collaboration among over 60 member institutions from around the world. He has been an active adviser to the United Nations, the European Commission, U.S.Department of Energy, the U.S. Department of State, and the Environmental Protection Agency. In California, he has been and adviser to the California Air Resources, the California Energy Commission and the California Public Utilities Commission.. Weyant was awarded the US Association for Energy Economics’ 2008 Adelmann-Frankel award for unique and innovative contributions to the field of energy economics and the award for outstanding lifetime contributions to the Profession for 2017 from the International Association for Energy Economics, and a Life Time Achievement award from the Integrated Assessment Modeling Consortium in 2018. Weyant was honored in 2007 as a major contributor to the Nobel Peace prize awarded to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and in 2008 by Chairman Mary Nichols for contributions to the to the California Air Resources Board's Economic and Technology Advancement Advisory Committee on AB 32.
    [Show full text]
  • An Expert Survey to Assess the Current Status and Future Challenges of Energy System Analysis
    An expert survey to assess the current status and future challenges of energy system analysis Fabian Scheller*, [email protected], Energy Economics and System Analysis, Division of Sustainability, Department of Technology, Management and Economics, Technical University of Denmark, Akademivej, 2800 Kgs. Lyngby, Denmark. Frauke Wiese, [email protected], Abteilung Energie- und Umweltmanagement, Europa- Universität Flensburg, 24943 Flensburg Jann Michael Weinand, [email protected], Chair of Energy Economics, Institute for Industrial Production (IIP), Karlsruhe Institute of Technology, 76131 Karlsruhe, Germany Dominik Franjo Dominković, [email protected], Department of Applied Mathematics and Computer Science, Technical University of Denmark, Matematiktorvet, 2800 Kgs. Lyngby, Denmark. Russell McKenna, [email protected], Chair of Energy Transition, School of Engineering, University of Aberdeen, King's College, Aberdeen AB24 3FX, United Kingdom & Department of Mechanical and Process Engineering (MAVT), ETH Zurich, 8092 Zürich, Switzerland * Corresponding author Abstract Decision support systems like computer-aided energy system analysis (ESA) are considered one of the main pillars for developing sustainable and reliable energy transformation strategies. Although today's diverse tools can already support decision-makers in a variety of research questions, further developments are still necessary. Intending to identify opportunities and challenges in the field, we classify modelling capabilities (32), methodologies (15) implementation issues (15) and management issues (7) from an extensive literature review. Based on a quantitative expert survey of energy system modellers (N=61) mainly working with simulation and optimisation models, the status of development and the complexity of realisation of those modelling topics are assessed. While the rated items are considered to be more complex than actually represented, no significant outliers are determinable, showing that there is no consensus about particular aspects of ESA that are lacking development.
    [Show full text]
  • A Review of Criticisms of Integrated Assessment Models and Proposed Approaches to Address These, Through the Lens of BECCS
    Review A Review of Criticisms of Integrated Assessment Models and Proposed Approaches to Address These, through the Lens of BECCS Ajay Gambhir 1,*, Isabela Butnar 2, Pei-Hao Li 2, Pete Smith 3 and Neil Strachan 2 1 Grantham Institute, Imperial College London, South Kensington SW7 2AZ, UK 2 Energy Institute, University College London, Central House, 14 Upper Woburn Place, London WC1H 0NN, UK; [email protected] (I.B.); [email protected] (P.-H.L.); [email protected] (N.S.) 3 Institute of Biological and Environmental Sciences, University of Aberdeen, 23 St Machar Drive, Aberdeen AB24 3UU, UK; [email protected] * Correspondence: [email protected] Received: 1 April 2019; Accepted: 3 May 2019; Published: 8 May 2019 Abstract: This paper reviews the many criticisms that Integrated Assessment Models (IAMs)—the bedrock of mitigation analysis—have received in recent years. Critics have asserted that there is a lack of transparency around model structures and input assumptions, a lack of credibility in those input assumptions that are made visible, an over-reliance on particular technologies and an inadequate representation of real-world policies and processes such as innovation and behaviour change. The paper then reviews the proposals and actions that follow from these criticisms, which fall into three broad categories: scrap the models and use other techniques to set out low-carbon futures; transform them by improving their representation of real-world processes and their transparency; and supplement them with other models and approaches. The article considers the implications of each proposal, through the particular lens of how it would explore the role of a key low-carbon technology—bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS), to produce net negative emissions.
    [Show full text]
  • Workshop Report on Methods for R&D Portfolio Analysis and Evaluation
    Workshop Report on Methods for R&D Portfolio Analysis and Evaluation Brian Bush,1 Rebecca Hanes,1 Chad Hunter,1 Caroline Hughes,1 Maggie Mann,1 Emily Newes,1 Sam Baldwin,2 Doug Arent,1 Erin Baker,3 Leon Clarke,4 Steve Gabriel,4 Max Henrion,5 Magdalena Klemun,6 Giacomo Marangoni,6 Gregory Nemet,6 Alexandra Newman,9 Mark Paich,10 Steven Popper,11 and Rupert Way12 1 National Renewable Energy Laboratory 2 U.S. Department of Energy 3 University of Massachusetts 4 University of Maryland 5 Lumina Decision Systems, Inc. 6 Massachusetts Institute of Technology 7 Polytechnic University of Milan 8 University of Wisconsin 9 Colorado School of Mines 10 PricewaterhouseCoopers 11 RAND Corporation 12 Oxford University NREL is a national laboratory of the U.S. Department of Energy Technical Report Office of Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy NREL/TP-6A20-75314 Operated by the Alliance for Sustainable Energy, LLC September 2020 This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications. Contract No. DE-AC36-08GO28308 Workshop Report on Methods for R&D Portfolio Analysis and Evaluation Brian Bush,1 Rebecca Hanes,1 Chad Hunter,1 Caroline Hughes,1 Maggie Mann,1 Emily Newes,1 Sam Baldwin,2 Doug Arent,1 Erin Baker,3 Leon Clarke,4 Steve Gabriel,4 Max Henrion,5 Magdalena Klemun,6 Giacomo Marangoni,6 Gregory Nemet,6 Alexandra Newman,9 Mark Paich,10 Steven Popper,11 and Rupert Way12 1 National Renewable Energy Laboratory 2 U.S. Department of Energy 3 University of Massachusetts 4 University of Maryland 5 Lumina Decision Systems, Inc.
    [Show full text]