Climate Change Economics

The Energy Modeling Forum 28 (EMF28) study systematically explores the energy system transition required to meet the European goal of reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 80% by 2050. The 80% scenario is compared to a reference case that aims to achieve a 40% GHG reduction target. The paper investigates mitigation strategies beyond 2020 and the interplay between different decarbonization options. The models present different technology pathways for the decarbonization of Europe, but a common finding across the scenarios and models is the prominent role of energy efficiency and renewable energy sources. In particular, wind power and bioenergy increase considerably beyond current deployment levels. Up to 2030, the transformation strategies are similar across all models and for both levels of emission reduction. However, mitigation becomes more challenging after 2040. With some exceptions, our analysis agrees with the main findings of the "Energy Roadmap 2050" presented by the European Commission.

This paper examines how changes in an international climate regime would affect the European decarbonization strategy and costs through the mechanisms of trade, technology, and innovation. We present the results from the Energy Modeling Forum (EMF) model comparison study on European climate policy to 2050. Moving from a no-policy scenario to an existing-policies case reduces all energy imports, on average. Introducing a more stringent climate policy target for the EU only leads to slightly greater global emission reductions. Consumers and producers in Europe bear most of the additional burden and inevitably face some economic losses. More ambitious mitigation action outside Europe, especially when paired with a well-operating global carbon market, could reduce the burden for Europe significantly. Because of global learning, the costs of wind and especially solar-PV in Europe would decline below the levels observed in the existing-policy case and increased R&D spending outside the EU would leverage EU R&D investments as well.

Major cost concepts used for evaluation of carbon policy are considered, including change in GDP, change in consumption, change in welfare, energy system cost, and area under marginal abatement cost (MAC) curve. The issues associated with the use of these concepts are discussed. We use the results from the models that participated in the European Energy Modeling Forum (EMF28) study to illustrate the cost concepts. There is substantial variability in the estimates of costs between the models, with some models showing substantial costs and some models reporting benefits from mitigation in some scenarios. Because impacts of a policy are evaluated as changes from a reference scenario, it is important to define a reference scenario. MAC cost measures tend to exclude existing distortions in the economy, while existing energy taxes and subsidies are substantial in many countries. We discuss that carbon prices are inadequate measures of the policy costs. We conclude that changes in macroeconomic consumption or welfare are the most appropriate measures of policy costs.

Energy efficiency and decarbonization are important elements of climate change mitigation. We draw on European mitigation scenarios from the EMF28 modeling exercise to decompose economy-wide and sectoral emissions into their main components. We utilize the Logarithmic Mean Divisia Index (LMDI) to gain insights into five effects: affluence, energy intensity, carbon intensity, conversion efficiency, and structural change. Economy-wide analysis suggests that energy efficiency improvements (including end-use efficiency of production and structural change of the economy) determine emission reductions short to medium term while decarbonization becomes more important in the long term. Sectoral analysis suggests that electricity generation holds the largest potential for decarbonization. Mitigation in the transport and energy-intensive sectors is limited by technology availability, forcing output and energy inputs to decline to meet the given mitigation pathways. We conclude that energy efficiency improvements could bridge the time until carbon-free technologies mature, while their quick development remains essential.

The Energy Modeling Forum 28 (EMF28) performed a large-scale model comparison exercise to illustrate different technology pathways for cutting European greenhouse gas emissions by 80% by 2050. Focusing on selected countries (France, Germany, Italy, Sweden, and UK), this paper first analyzes climate and energy policy objectives and debates in the respective countries. It then compares EMF28 model results to the short-term projections of the National Renewable Energy Action Plans (NREAPs) and the long-term transformation pathway given in the European Commission's "Energy Roadmap 2050". It concludes that there is sufficient agreement with the NREAPs and national policies to accept the model results as conceivable scenarios. The scenarios suggest that in the future a variety of different national energy mixes will continue to reflect the different resource bases and preferences of individual Member States. In order to ensure a cost-efficient transformation, it is important to improve coordination between Member State policies and those at the EU level.

This paper summarizes the approaches to and the implications of bottom–up infrastructure modeling in the framework of the EMF28 model comparison "Europe 2050: The Effects of Technology Choices on EU Climate Policy". It includes models covering all the sectors currently under scrutiny by the European Infrastructure Priorities: Electricity, natural gas, and CO₂. Results suggest that some infrastructure enhancement is required to achieve the decarbonization, and that the network development needs can be attained in a reasonable timeframe. In the electricity sector, additional cross-border interconnection is required, but generation and the development of low-cost renewables is a more challenging task. For natural gas, the falling total consumption could be satisfied by the current infrastructure in place, and even in a high-gas scenario the infrastructure implications remain manageable. Model results on the future role of Carbon Capture, Transport, and Sequestration (CCTS) vary, and suggest that most of the transportation infrastructure might be required in and around the North Sea.

In the framework of the Energy Modeling Forum 28, we investigate how climate policy regimes affect market developments under different technology availabilities on the European power markets. We use the partial equilibrium model EMELIE-ESY with focus on electricity markets in order to determine how private investors optimize their generation capacity investment and operation over the horizon 2010 to 2050. For the year 2050, the model projects a minor increase of power consumption of 10% under current climate policy, and a balanced pathway for consumption under ambitious climate policy compared to 2010 levels. These results contrast with findings of POLES and PRIMES models that predict strong consumption increases of 44% to 48% by 2050 and claim competitiveness of nuclear power and CCS options. Under ambitious climate policy, our findings correspond with major increases of wholesale electricity market prices and comparatively less pronounced emission price increases, which trigger no investments into Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) and a strongly diminishing share of nuclear energy.