Integrated technological-economic modeling platform for energy and climate policy analysis

Energy

Volumn 73, Issue , 2014, Pages 716-730

  Fortes, Patrícia ^a   Pereira, Rui ^b   Pereira, Alfredo ^b   Seixas, Júlia ^a  

^a UNIVERSIDADE NOVA DE LISBOA   (Portugal)

^b Dept of Economics and Thomas Jefferson Program in Public Policy at the College of William and Mary   (United States)

Author keywords

Bottom up; Energy climate policy; Hybrid modeling; Top down

Indexed keywords

CARBON DIOXIDE; ECONOMICS;

BOTTOM-UP; COMPUTABLE GENERAL EQUILIBRIUM; ECONOMIC FRAMEWORK; ECONOMIC STRUCTURE; ENERGY AND CLIMATE POLICIES; HYBRID MODEL; RENEWABLE ENERGIES; TOPDOWN;

CLIMATE MODELS;

BOTTOM-UP APPROACH; CARBON DIOXIDE; COMPUTABLE GENERAL EQUILIBRIUM ANALYSIS; DECISION MAKING; ECONOMIC IMPACT; ENERGY POLICY; ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY; INTEGRATED APPROACH; NUMERICAL MODEL; POLICY ANALYSIS; POLLUTION TAX; RENEWABLE RESOURCE; SUBSIDY SYSTEM; TECHNICAL EFFICIENCY;

PORTUGAL;

EID: 84905730939     PISSN: 03605442     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.energy.2014.06.075     Document Type: Article

References (46)

1. Böhringer C., Rutherford T.F. Combining bottom-up and top-down. Energy Econ 2008, 30:574-596.
2. Climate change 2001: mitigation. Contribution of working group III to the third assessment of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 2001, vol. 3. Cambridge University Press.
3. Bataille C., Jaccard M., Nyboer J., Rivers N. Towards general equilibrium in a technology-rich model with empirically estimated behavioral parameters. Energy J 2006, 27:93-112.
4. Bataille C.G.F., Columbia B. Design and application of a energy-economy policy model with micro and macro economic dynamics 2005, Simon Fraser University, Vancouver.
5. Labriet M., Kanudia A., Loulou R. Climate mitigation under an uncertain technology future: a TIAM-world analysis. Energy Econ 2012, 34:S366-S377.
6. Duerinck J, Van Regemorter D. Residential energy demand elasticities: what lessons can be learned from bottom-up and top-down. In: International Energy Workshop; 2011. p. 1-19.
7. Hourcade J., Jaccard M., Bataille C., Ghersi F. Hybrid modeling: new answers to old challenges. Energy J 2006, 2:1-12.
8. Grubb M., Kohler J., Anderson D. Induced technical change in energy and environmental modeling: analytic approaches and policy implications. Annu Rev Energy Environ 2002, 27:271-308.
9. Böhringer C., Rutherford T.F. Integrated assessment of energy policies: decomposing top-down and bottom-up. J Econ Dyn Control 2009, 33:1648-1661.
10. Hoffman K.C., Jorgenson D. Economic and technological models for evaluation of energy policy. Bell J Econ 1976, 8:444-466.
11. Labriet M., Drouet L., Vielle M., Haurie A., Kanudia A., Loulou R. Coupled bottom-up and top-down modelling to investigate cooperative climate policies 2010, 1-17. Les Cahiers du GERAD, Montreal.
12. Martinsen T. Introducing technology learning for energy technologies in a national CGE model through soft links to global and national energy models. Energy Policy 2011, 39:3327-3336.
13. Schäfer A., Jacoby H.D. Technology detail in a multisector CGE model: transport under climate policy. Energy Econ 2005, 27:1-24.
14. Drouet L., Haurie A., Labriet M., Thalmann P., Vielle M., Viguier L. A coupled bottom-up/top-down model for GHG abatement scenarios in the Swiss housing sector. Energy and environment 2005, 27-61. Springer, Montreal. R. Loulu, J.-P. Waaub, G. Zaccour (Eds.).
15. Manne A., Wene C.-O. MARKAL-MACRO: a linked model for energy-economy analysis 1992, Bookhaven national Laboratory, New York.
16. Manne A., Mendelsohn R., Richels R. MERGE: a model for evaluating regional and global effects of. Energy Policy 1995, 23:17-34.
17. Messner S., Schrattenholzer L. MESSAGE-MACRO: linking an energy supply model with a macroeconomic module and solving it iteratively. Energy 2000, 25:267-282.
18. Bosetti V., Carraro C., Galeotti M., Massetti E., Tavoni M.W.I.T.C.H. A world induced technical change hybrid model. Energy J 2006, 13-38.
19. Strachan N., Kannan R. Hybrid modelling of long-term carbon reduction scenarios for the UK. Energy Econ 2008, 30:2947-2963.
20. Bohringer C. The synthesis of bottom-up and top-down in energy policy modeling. Energy Econ 1998, 20:233-248.
21. Frei C.W., Haldi P.-A., Sarlos G. Dynamic formulation of a top-down and bottom-up merging energy policy model. Energy Policy 2003, 31:1017-1031.
22. Sue Wing I. The synthesis of bottom-up and top-down approaches to climate policy modeling: electric power technology detail in a social accounting framework. Energy Econ 2008, 30:547-573.
23. Proença S., St Aubyn M. Hybrid modeling to support energy-climate policy: effects of feed-in tariffs to promote renewable energy in Portugal. Energy Econ 2013, 38:176-185.
24. Tuladhar S.D., Yuan M., Bernstein P., Montgomery W.D., Smith A. A top-down bottom-up modeling approach to climate change policy analysis. Energy Econ 2009, 31:S223-S234.
25. Lanz B., Rausch S. General equilibrium, electricity generation technologies and the cost of carbon abatement: a structural sensitivity analysis. Energy Econ 2011, 33:1035-1047.
26. DGEG Portugal energy indicators 2013, General Directorate for Energy and Geology, Lisbon.
27. OECD OECD Environmental performance Reviews: Portugal 2011 2011, Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development.
28. Sixth national communication to the United Nations framework convention on climate change: third national communication in the context of the Kyoto protocol, Portuguese 2014, APA, Portuguese Environment Agency, Amadora.
29. Loulou R, Remme U, Kanudia A, Lehtila A, Goldstein G. Documentation for the TIMES model part I to III, Paris; 2005.
30. Capros P. GEM-E3: model manual 2010, E3M-Lab, Athens.
31. National accounts (Series 1995-2011) 2013, INE, National Institute of Statistics, Lisbon.
32. Eurostat The European system of accounts (ESA95): supply use and input-output tables 2011, European Commission, Luxembourg.
33. DGEG National energy balance (2005) 2007, General Directorate for Energy and Geology, Lisbon.
34. Portuguese national inventory report on greenhouse gases 2013, APA, Portuguese Environment Agency, Amadora.
35. Energy technology perspectives 2012: pathways to a clean energy system 2012, IEA, International Energy Agency, Paris.
36. End-use prices: energy prices in national currency per unit 2011, IEA, International Energy Agency, Paris.
37. 2 abatement-scenario analysis to 2020. Energy Policy 2008, 36:3598-3611.
38. Turton H. ECLIPSE: an integrated energy-economy model for climate policy and scenario analysis. Energy 2008, 33:1754-1769.
39. Eurostat Energy statistics 2014, European Commission, Luxembourg.
40. Alvarenga A, Carvalho P, Lobo A, Rogado C, Azevedo F, Guerra MD, et al. Long-term future of the portuguese economy: a scenario building process; 2011.
41. The 2012 ageing report: economic and budgetary projections for the 27 EU member states (2010-2060), European economy 2|2012 2012, EC, European Commission, Brussels.
42. Energy roadmap 2050 2011, EC, Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, European Commission, [COM(2011) 885 final].
43. RCM 20/2013. Resolução do Conselho de Ministros no. 20/2013 [Resolution of Council of Ministers 20/2013]; 2013. pp. 2022-91.
44. A roadmap for moving to a competitive low carbon economy in 2050 2011, EC, Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, European Commission, [COM(2011) 112 final].
45. Fortes P., Simões S., Seixas J., Van Regemorter D., Ferreira F. Top-down and bottom-up modelling to support low-carbon scenarios: climate policy implications. Clim Policy 2013, 13:285-304.
46. Chen W., Wu Z., He J., Gao P., Xu S. Carbon emission control strategies for China: a comparative study with partial and general equilibrium versions of the China MARKAL model. Energy 2007, 32:59-72.