Deep greenhouse gas reduction scenarios for California - Strategic implications from the CA-TIMES energy-economic systems model

Energy Strategy Reviews

Volumn 1, Issue 1, 2012, Pages 19-32

  McCollum, David ^a   Yang, Christopher ^a   Yeh, Sonia ^a   Ogden, Joan ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

Alternative fuels; Climate change mitigation; Energy modeling; Energy scenarios; Transportation

Indexed keywords

ABATEMENT COSTS; CALIFORNIA; CARBON CAPTURE AND STORAGE; CLIMATE CHANGE MITIGATION; CLIMATE POLICY; DIRECT USE; EFFICIENCY IMPROVEMENT; ELECTRIC GENERATION; EMISSION REDUCTION; END-USES; ENERGY MODELING; ENERGY SCENARIOS; ENERGY SERVICES; ENERGY SUPPLIES; ENERGY SUPPLY TECHNOLOGY; ENERGY SYSTEMS; FUEL SUPPLY; FUEL SWITCHING; GREENHOUSE GAS REDUCTIONS; HYDROCARBON FUEL; HYDROGEN VEHICLES; LONG-TERM POLICIES; LOW-CARBON; MITIGATION STRATEGY; POLICY MAKERS; SYSTEMS MODELS; TECHNOLOGICAL UNCERTAINTY; TRANSPORTATION DEMAND;

ALTERNATIVE FUELS; CARBON CAPTURE; COST ACCOUNTING; COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS; COST ESTIMATING; ECONOMICS; ELECTRIC UTILITIES; ENERGY RESOURCES; GREENHOUSE GASES; HYDROCARBONS; HYDROGEN; TECHNOLOGY; TRANSPORTATION; UNCERTAINTY ANALYSIS;

INVESTMENTS;

EID: 84859049146     PISSN: 2211467X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.esr.2011.12.003     Document Type: Article

References (45)

1. CARB Climate Change Scoping Plan: A framework for Change 2008, California Air Resources Board.
2. IPCC Climate Change 2007-Fourth Assessment Report 2007, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Geneva.
3. Nakicenovic N., Swart R. IPCC Special Report on Emissions Scenarios 2000, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
4. Clarke L., et al. International climate policy architectures: overview of the EMF 22 international scenarios. Energy Economics 2009, 31(2):S64-S81.
5. Edenhofer O., et al. The economics of low stabilization: model comparison of mitigation strategies and costs. The Energy Journal 2010, 31(1):11-48.
6. GEA Global Energy Assessment 2011, IIASA and Cambridge University Press, Laxenburg and Cambridge.
7. IEA Energy Technology Perspectives 2010: Scenarios and Strategies to 2050 2010, International Energy Agency, Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), Paris, France.
8. Yang C., et al. Meeting an 80% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions from transportation by 2050: a case study in California, USA. Transportation research part D. Transport and Environment 2009, 14(3):147-156.
9. Leighty W. Deep Reductions in Greenhouse Gas Emissions from the California Transportation Sector: Dynamics in Vehicle Fleet and Energy Supply Transitions to Achieve 80% Reduction in Emissions from 1990 Levels by 2050, in Transportation Technology and Policy 2010, UC Davis: Davis.
10. CARB Attachment B: 2050 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Analysis: Staff Modeling in Support of the Zero Emission Vehicle Regulation 2009, California Air Resourcs Board.
11. CCST California's Energy Future - The View to 2050: Summary Report 2011, California Council on Science and Technology.
12. Busch C. Climate Policy and Economic Growth in California: A Comparative Analysis of Different Economic Impact Projections 2009, Center for Resource Solutions, San Francisco.
13. CARB Updated Economic Analysis of California's Climate Change Scoping Plan, Staff Report to the Air REsources Board 2010, California Air Resources Board, Sacramento.
14. ICF Modeling of Greenhouse Gas Reduction Measures to Support the Implementation of the California Global Warming Solutions Act (AB32): Energy 2020 Model Inputs and Assumptions 2010, ICF Consulting Canada and Systematic Solutions, Inc.
15. EIA Annual Energy Outlook 2011 with Projections to 2035 2011, US Department of Energy (DOE), Energy Information Administration (EIA).
16. Yeh S., et al. Optimizing U.S. Mitigation Strategies for the Light-Duty Transportation Sector: What We Learn from a Bottom-Up Model. Environmental Science and Technology 2008.
17. CARB California's 1990-2008 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory and 1990 Emissions Level, Technical Support Document 2010, California Air Resources Board.
18. D. McCollum, Achieving Long-term Energy, Transport and Climate Objectives: Multi-dimensional Scenario Analysis and Modeling Within a Systems Level Framework, in PhD Dissertation in Transportation Technology and Policy 2011, University of California, Davis: Davis.
19. Loulou R., Labriet M. ETSAP-TIAM: the TIMES integrated assessment model Part I: Model structure. Computational Management Science 2008, 5(1):7-40.
20. Caltrans MVSTAFF08: California Motor Vehicle Stock, Travel and Fuel Forecast, in Transportation System Information 2009, California Department of Transportation, Sacramento, CA.
21. CARB OFFROAD2007: Off-Road Emissions Inventory Program 2007, California Air Resources Board, Sacramento, CA.
22. EIA Annual Energy Outlook 2010 With Projections for 2035 2010, Energy Information Administration, U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, DC.
23. CPUC 33% RPS Calculator (7/1/2009 model version) 2009, California Public Utilities Commission.
24. CBC California Biomass Facilities Reporting System (BFRS) 2009, California Biomass Collaborative, University of California, Davis.
25. R. McCarthy, Assessing Vehicle Electricity Demand Impacts on California Electricity Supply (Ph.D. Dissertation), 2009, Institute of Transportation Studies, University of California-Davis.
26. CEC Energy Facility Status, Power Plant Projects Since 1996 2010, California Energy Commission.
27. N. Parker, Ph.D. Dissertation, 2010, Institute of Transportation Studies, University of California-Davis.
28. CEC Energy Almanac, Weekly Fuels Watch Report 2010, California Energy Commission.
29. EIA Petroleum Navigator 2010, Energy Information Administration, U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, DC.
30. EIA Natural Gas Navigator 2010, Energy Information Administration, U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, DC.
31. Bain R. Worldwide Biomass Potential: Technology Characterizations (NREL/MP-510-42467) 2007, National Renewable Energy Laboratory.
32. Kreutz T.G., et al. Fischer-Tropsch Fuels from Coal and Biomass 2008, Princeton Environmental Institute, Princeton University.
33. EPA EPA U.S. Nine Region MARKAL Database Documentation 2008, Air Pollution Prevention and Control Division, National Risk Management Research Laboratory, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
34. NRC The Hydrogen Economy: Opportunities, Costs, Barriers, and R&D Needs 2004, National Research Council, Washington, D.C.
35. McCarthy R.W., Yang C., Ogden J.M. California Baseline Energy Demands to 2050 for Advanced Energy Pathways, Research Report UCD-ITS-RR-08-07 2008, Institute of Transportation Studies, University of California, Davis.
36. McCarthy R.W., Yang C., Ogden J.M. California Energy Demand Scenario Projections to 2050, Research Report UCD-ITS-RR-08-11 2008, Institute of Transportation Studies, University of California, Davis.
37. EIA State Energy Data System, in US Department of Energy 2010, http://www.eia.gov/state/seds/.
38. B. Cowart, How Much Can We Slow VMT Growth? The Potential Savings of Implementing Best Practice Everywhere. in VMT & Climate Change Workshop. 2008. Center for Clean Air Policy.
39. C. Rodier, A Review of the International Modeling Literature: Transit, Land Use, and Auto Pricing Strategies to Reduce Vehicle Miles Traveled and Greenhouse Gas Emissions, in Transportation Research Board (TRB) Annual Meeting2009: Washington, DC.
40. Tol R.S.J. The marginal damage costs of carbon dioxide emissions: an assessment of the uncertainties. Energy Policy 2005, 33(16):2064-2074.
41. Stern N. The Economics of Climate Change: The Stern Review 2007, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
42. Brown S.P.A., Huntington H.G. Estimating U.S. Oil Security Premium, in Energy Modeling Forum 2009, Stanford University.
43. Messner S., Strubegger M. User's guide for MESSAGE III, Working Paper WP-95-069 1995, International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA), Laxenburg, Austria, 164.
44. CEC California Energy Demand 2010-2020 Commission Adopted Forecast 2009, California Energy Commission.
45. Turrentine T. The UC Davis MINI E Consumer Study, Research Report UCD-ITS-RR-11-05 2011, Institute of Transportation Studies, University of California, Davis, Davis.