Electricity Generation and Emissions Reduction Decisions under Policy Uncertainty: A General Equilibrium Analysis
Name
MITJPSPGC_Rpt260.pdf
Size
1.13 MB
Format
Adobe PDF
Checksum (MD5)
68dc0df2bf8d0a7bfbcf746039c2253e
Author(s)
Morris, J.
Webster, M.
Reilly, J.
Date Issued
April 2014
Publisher
MIT Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change
Citation
Report 260
Series/Report no.
MIT Joint Program Report Series;260
Abstract
The electric power sector, which accounts for approximately 40% of U.S. carbon dioxide emissions, will be a critical component of any policy the U.S. government pursues to confront climate change. In the context of uncertainty in future policy limiting emissions, society faces the following question: What should the electricity mix we build in the next decade look like? We can continue to focus on conventional generation or invest in low-carbon technologies. There is no obvious answer without explicitly considering the risks created by uncertainty. //
This research investigates socially optimal near-term electricity investment decisions under uncertainty in future policy. It employs a novel framework that models decision-making under uncertainty with learning in an economy-wide setting that can measure social welfare impacts. Specifically, a computable general equilibrium (CGE) model of the U.S. is formulated as a two-stage stochastic dynamic program focused on decisions in the electric power sector. //
In modeling decision-making under uncertainty, an optimal electricity investment hedging strategy is identified. Given the experimental design, the optimal hedging strategy reduces the expected policy costs by over 50% compared to a strategy derived using the expected value for the uncertain parameter; and by 12-400% compared to strategies developed under a perfect foresight or myopic framework. This research also shows that uncertainty has a cost, beyond the cost of meeting a policy. Results show that uncertainty about the future policy increases the expected cost of policy by over 45%. If political consensus can be reached and the climate science uncertainties resolved, setting clear, long-term policies can minimize expected policy costs. //
Ultimately, this work demonstrates that near-term investments in low-carbon technologies should be greater than what would be justified to meet near-term goals alone. Near-term low-carbon investments can lower the expected cost of future policy by developing a less carbon-intensive electricity mix, spreading the burden of emissions reductions over time, and helping to overcome technology expansion rate constraints—all of which provide future flexibility in meeting a policy. The additional near-term cost of low-carbon investments is justified by the future flexibility that such investments create. The value of this flexibility is only explicitly considered in the context of decision-making under uncertainty.
Persistent DSpace Link
