Combining Climate and Energy Policies: Synergies or Antagonism? Modeling Interactions With Energy Efficiency Instruments

In addition to the already present Climate and Energy package, the European Union (EU) plans to include a binding target to reduce energy consumption. We analyze the rationales the EU invokes to justify such an overlapping and develop a minimal common framework to study interactions arising from the combination of instruments reducing emissions, promoting renewable energy (RE) production and reducing energy demand through energy efficiency (EE) investments. We find that although all instruments tend to reduce emissions and a price on carbon tends to give the right incentives for RE and EE too, the combination of more than one instrument leads to significant antagonisms regarding major objectives of the policy package. The model allows to show in a single framework and to quantify the antagonistic effects of the joint promotion of RE and EE. We also show and quantify the effects of this joint promotion on ETS permit price, on wholesale market price and on energy production levels.Renewable Energy, Energy Efficiency, Energy Policy, Climate Policy, Policy Interaction

Assessing and ordering investments in polluting fossil-fueled and zero-carbon capital

Climate change mitigation requires to replace preexisting carbon-intensive capital with different types of cleaner capital. Coal power and inefficient thermal engines may be phased out by gas power and efficient thermal engines or by renewable power and electric vehicles. We derive the optimal timing and costs of investment in a low- and a zero-carbon technology, under an exogenous ceiling constraint on atmospheric pollution. Producing output from the low-carbon technology requires to extract an exhaustible resource. A general finding is that investment in the expensive zero-carbon technology should always be higher than, and can optimally start before, investment in the cheaper low-carbon technology. We then provide illustrative simulations calibrated with data from the European electricity sector. The optimal investment schedule involves building some gas capacity that will be left unused before it naturally depreciates, a process known as mothballing or early scrapping. Finally, the levelized cost of electricity (LCOE) is a misleading metric to assess investment in new capacities. Optimal LCOEs vary dramatically across technologies. Ranking technologies according to their LCOE would bring too little investment in renewable power, and too much in the intermediate gas power.La transition vers une économie bas carbone nécessite de remplacer le capital existant, très émetteur de gaz à effet de serre (GES), par du capital partiellement ou totalement décarboné : les centrales à charbon peuvent être remplacées par du gaz de dernière génération ou des renouvelables, les véhicules thermiques inefficaces peuvent être remplacés par des véhicules thermiques efficaces ou des voitures électriques. Nous étudions le profil optimal d'investissements dans des technologies bas carbone et zéro carbone pour remplacer un stock existant de capital polluant, sous contrainte d'un plafond sur les émissions cumulées, et lorsque produire grâce à la technologie bas carbone requiert l'extraction de ressources fossiles. Nous trouvons que la technologie zéro carbone doit toujours être construite à un coût plus élevé que la technologie bas carbone, et que les investissements zéro carbone peuvent commencer avant les investissements bas carbone. Nous réalisons ensuite une simulation numérique calibrée sur le secteur électrique européen. Nous trouvons que la transition optimale vers un secteur électrique bas carbone impose d'investir dans des centrales à gaz qui seront par la suite sous-utilisées ("mise sous cocon"). Finalement, le coût actualisé de l'électricité (CAE) n'est pas un bon indicateur pour comparer les technologies. Classer les technologies par leur CAE induiraient trop d'investissements dans les centrales à gaz, et pas assez dans les renouvelables

Optimal Transition from Coal to Gas and Renewable Power under Capacity Constraints and Adjustment Costs

This paper studies the optimal transition from existing coal power plants to gas and renewable power under a carbon budget. It solves a model of polluting, exhaustible resources with capacity constraints and adjustment costs (to build coal, gas, and renewable power plants). It finds that optimal investment in renewable energy may start before coal power has been phased out and even before investment in gas has started, because doing so allows for smoothing investment over time and reduces adjustment costs. Gas plants may be used to reduce short-term investment in renewable power and associated costs, but must eventually be phased out to allow room for carbon-free power. One risk for myopic agents comparing gas and renewable investment is thus to overestimate the lifetime of gas plants - e.g., when computing the levelized cost of electricity - and be biased against renewable power. These analytical results are quantified with numerical simulations of the European Commission's 2050 energy roadmap

The European Union Emissions Trading System : should we throw the flagship out with the bathwater ?

The European Union Emissions Trading System (EU-ETS), presented as the ''flagship'' of European climate policy, is subject to many criticisms from different stakeholders. Criticisms include the insufficient carbon emissions reduction, the competitiveness losses and the induced carbon leakages, the unfair distributional effects, the frauds and the existence of several other overlapping climate policy instruments. We review these criticisms and find the EU-ETS brought small but real abatements. The competitiveness losses and carbon leakages do not seem to have occurred. The distributional effects have indeed been unfair and fraud has been important. Finally, the scheme does not justify abandoning other climate policies. Some of these problems could have been avoided and can still be corrected by rethinking flexibility mechanisms and by adding some control over the carbon price.Le système européen de quotas échangeables de CO2, présenté comme le " navire amiral " de la politique climatique européenne, fait l'objet de nombreuses critiques émanant de divers acteurs : il n'aurait pas réduit les émissions, il aurait entraîné des pertes de compétitivité et une augmentation des émissions dans le reste du monde (fuites de carbone), ses effets distributifs seraient injustes, il serait vulnérable à la criminalité financière et constituerait une incitation à supprimer les autres politiques climatiques. Nous passons en revue ces critiques et aboutissons aux conclusions suivantes : les réductions d'émissions sont réelles quoique faibles, les pertes de compétitivité et les fuites de carbone ne semblent pas avoir eu lieu, les effets distributifs ont en effet été injustes et les fraudes importantes, enfin le système ne justifie pas d'abandonner les autres politiques climatiques. Une partie de ces problèmes aurait pu être évitée et peut encore être corrigée en adoptant une approche plus critique à l'égard des mécanismes de flexibilité et en encadrant le prix du CO2

Can Uncertainty Justify Overlapping Policy Instruments to Mitigate Emissions?

This article constitutes a new contribution to the analysis of overlapping instruments to cover the same emission sources. Using both an analytical and a numerical model, we find that when the risk that the CO2 price drops to zero and the political unavailability of a CO2 tax (at least in the European Union) are taken into account, it can be socially beneficial to implement an additional instrument encouraging the reduction of emissions, for instance a renewable energy subsidy. Our analysis has both a practical and a theoretical purpose. It aims at giving economic insight to policymakers in a context of increased uncertainty concerning the future stringency of the European Emission Trading Scheme. It also gives another rationale for the use of several instruments to cover the same emission sources, and shows the importance of accounting for corner solutions in the definition of the optimal policy mix

Quelle place pour les aides aux technologies de réduction d'émissions en présence d'un prix du carbone? Le cas du secteur électrique

Thèse réalisée en collaboration avec EDF R&D, département EFESE.This thesis contributes to the literature on optimal policy choice. It studies the use of policy combinations to mitigate greenhouse gases emissions from electricity production. One finding applies to cases where uncertainty is such that the risk of a nil carbon price cannot be excluded. A cap on emissions alone may then not trigger enough abatements, justifying the addition of e.g. a renewable subsidy. When considering a transition toward a carbon-free electricity sector, capital accumulation causes complex dynamic effects to happen. We find that decisions taken by comparing the levelized costs of abatement technologies, even including carbon costs, would favor intermediate technologies (e.g. gas plants) to the detriment of more-expensive but lower-carbon technologies (renewable power), leading to a suboptimal investment schedule. This thesis also studies the effects of marginal policy changes in a mix comprising the main French instruments. We find that surprisingly, adding a tariff for renewables financed by a tax on electricity consumption to a cap on emissions and a subsidy for energy efficiency will reduce the consumer electricity price when the non-renewable production is fixed and does not depend on the carbon price. The assessment of the French climate policies in the electricity sector shows that overlapping policies for mitigation may be justified by multiple carbon price failures, even if the ideal long-term policy mix depends on the carbon price trajectory.Cette thèse étudie les conditions d'efficacité d'un portefeuille de politiques pour réduire les émissions de gaz à effet de serre du secteur électrique. Il est montré qu'en présence d'incertitude, le prix du carbone issu d'un marché de permis d'émissions peut ne pas entraîner suffisamment de réductions d'émission, justifiant l'ajout d'une politique au marché de permis, par exemple une subvention renouvelable. Dans le cadre d'une transition vers une production électrique décarbonée, l'accumulation du capital électrique génère des effets dynamiques complexes. Il est montré que l'utilisation naïve du signal-prix du carbone ou de critères statiques pour évaluer les investissements peut alors conduire à un sous-investissement en capital vert. L'effet d'une modification à la marge du portefeuille de politiques actuel est également étudié. Il est montré en particulier que si on suppose une seule technologie de production fossile à taux d'émission constant, contrainte par un plafond d'émissions - donc toutes les réductions d'émissions proviennent des renouvelables - augmenter à la marge le tarif d'achat renouvelable réduit le prix de l'électricité perçu par le consommateur, et ce paradoxalement même si la taxe à la consommation nécessaire pour financer le tarif augmente. Cette thèse réalise enfin une évaluation qualitative du portefeuille actuel de politiques climat-énergie en France. Cet examen montre que les multiples défaillances du prix du carbone justifient l'utilisation d'une combinaison de politiques, même si le portefeuille cible varie en fonction des hypothèses sur les trajectoires du prix du carbone

Assessing and ordering investments in polluting fossil-fueled and zero-carbon capital. Cired Working Paper

Abstract Climate change mitigation requires to replace preexisting carbon-intensive capital with different types of cleaner capital. Coal power and inefficient thermal engines may be phased out by gas power and efficient thermal engines or by renewable power and electric vehicles. We derive the optimal timing and costs of investment in a low-and a zero-carbon technology, under an exogenous ceiling constraint on atmospheric pollution. Producing output from the low-carbon technology requires to extract an exhaustible resource. A general finding is that investment in the expensive zero-carbon technology should always be higher than, and can optimally start before, investment in the cheaper low-carbon technology. We then provide illustrative simulations calibrated with data from the European electricity sector. The optimal investment schedule involves building some gas capacity that will be left unused before it naturally depreciates, a process known as mothballing or early scrapping. Finally, the levelized cost of electricity (LCOE) is a misleading metric to assess investment in new capacities. Optimal LCOEs vary dramatically across technologies. Ranking technologies according to their LCOE would bring too little investment in renewable power, and too much in the intermediate gas power. Keywords: levelized costs of electricity; lifecycle cost; climate change mitigation; path dependence; technology policy; optimal timing; capital utilization rate JEL classification: O21, Q32, Q41, R4, Q54, Q58 Évaluation et séquençage des investissements dans du capital bas carbone et zéro carbone Résumé La transition vers une économie bas carbone nécessite de remplacer le capital existant, très émetteur de gaz à effet de serre (GES), par du capital partiellement ou totalement décarboné: les centrales à charbon peuvent être remplacées par du gaz de dernière génération ou des renouvelables, les véhicules thermiques inefficaces peuvent être remplacés par des véhicules thermiques efficaces ou des voitures électriques. Nous étudions le profil optimal d'investissements dans des technologies bas carbone et zéro carbone pour remplacer un stock existant de capital polluant, sous contrainte d'un plafond sur les émissions cumulées, et lorsque produire grâce à la technologie bas carbone requiert l'extraction de ressources fossiles. Nous trouvons que la technologie zéro carbone doit toujours être construite à un coût plus élevé que la technologie bas carbone, et que les investissements zéro carbone peuvent commencer avant les investissements bas carbone. Nous réalisons ensuite une simulation numérique calibrée sur le secteur électrique européen. Nous trouvons que la transition optimale vers un secteur électrique bas carbone impose d'investir dans des centrales à gaz qui seront par la suite sous-utilisées ("mise sous cocon"). Finalement, le coût actualisé de l'électricité (CAE) n'est pas un bon indicateur pour comparer les technologies. Classer les technologies par leur CAE induiraient trop d'investissements dans les centrales à gaz, et pas assez dans les renouvelables. Mots-clés Abstract Climate change mitigation requires to replace preexisting carbon-intensive capital with different types of cleaner capital. Coal power and inefficient thermal engines may be phased out by gas power and efficient thermal engines or by renewable power and electric vehicles. We derive the optimal timing and costs of investment in a low-and a zero-carbon technology, under an exogenous ceiling constraint on atmospheric pollution. Producing output from the low-carbon technology requires to extract an exhaustible resource. A general finding is that investment in the expensive zero-carbon technology should always be higher than, and can optimally start before, investment in the cheaper low-carbon technology. We then provide illustrative simulations calibrated with data from the European electricity sector. The optimal investment schedule involves building some gas capacity that will be left unused before it naturally depreciates, a process known as mothballing or early scrapping. Finally, the levelized cost of electricity (LCOE) is a misleading metric to assess investment in new capacities. Optimal LCOEs vary dramatically across technologies. Ranking technologies according to their LCOE would bring too little investment in renewable power, and too much in the intermediate gas power

Combining Climate and Energy Policies: Synergies or Antagonism? Modeling interactions with energy efficiency instruments

In addition to the already present Climate and Energy package, the European Union (EU) plans to include a binding target to reduce energy consumption. We analyze the rationales the EU invokes to justify such an overlapping and develop a minimal common framework to study interactions arising from the combination of instruments reducing emissions, promoting renewable energy (RE) production and reducing energy demand through energy efficiency (EE) investments. We find that although all instruments tend to reduce emissions and a price on carbon tends to give the right incentives for RE and EE too, the combination of more than one instrument leads to significant antagonisms regarding major objectives of the policy package. The model allows to show in a single framework and to quantify the antagonistic effects of the joint promotion of RE and EE. We also show and quantify the effects of this joint promotion on ETS permit price, on wholesale market price and on energy production levels

Combining Climate and Energy Policies: Synergies or Antagonism? Modeling interactions with energy efficiency instruments. Nota di Lavoro 98.2011. Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei

The European Union plans to include an energy efficiency binding target in addition to the renewables and CO2 targets. In this paper, we develop a requisite framework to study interactions arising from the combination of instruments aiming at reducing emissions, promoting renewables and energy efficiency. The model allows the exact assessment of the instruments interactions for quantities and prices. All instruments lead to emissions reductions and the carbon price gives the right incentives for renewable and energy efficiency. Contrary to these expected positive outcomes, we find that the combination of more than two instruments creates significant antagonisms regarding major policy objectives

Can Uncertainty Justify Overlapping Policy Instruments to Mitigate Emissions?

This article constitutes a new contribution to the analysis of overlapping instruments to cover the same emission sources. Using both an analytical and a numerical model, we show that when the risk that the CO2 price drops to zero and the political unavailability of a CO2 tax (at least in the European Union) are taken into account, it can be socially optimal to implement an additional instrument encouraging the reduction of emissions, for instance a renewable energy subsidy. Our analysis has both a practical and a theoretical purpose. It aims at giving economic insight to policymakers in a context of increased uncertainty concerning the future stringency of the European Emission Trading Scheme. It also gives another rationale for the use of several instruments to cover the same emission sources, and shows the importance of accounting for corner solutions in the definition of the optimal policy mix