Over the past two decades, states and cities implemented low-carbon energy development, renewable portfolio standards, demand-side management (DSM), renewable energy production incentives, green building requirements, regional carbon trading agreements, and other energy-based economic development initiatives. Yet the dearth of state-level and substate-level models makes it difficult to predict the effects of such actions. This article addresses this shortcoming by presenting the performance results of the new Indiana Scalable Economy and Energy Model (IN-SEEM)—a model utilizing a dynamic, simultaneous equations framework—and demonstrates the model’s capabilities with an analysis of electricity price increases from a DSM program in the state of Indiana. Overall performance of the model is strong, with high adjusted R2 values and low mean absolute percent errors for most of 30 endogenous variables. A DSM price increase analysis finds variation in impact across the state’s 10 major economic sectors and small changes in energy consumption.
BillingsleyM. A.HoffmanI. M.StartE.SchillerS. R.GoldmanC. A.LaCommareK. (2014). The program administrator cost of saved energy for utility customer-funded energy efficiency programs (No. LBNL-6595E). Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. https://doi.org/10.2172/1129528
2.
BlanfordG. J.MerrickJ. H.YoungD. (2014). A clean energy standard analysis with the US-REGEN model. The Energy Journal, 35(S01), 137-164. https://doi.org/10.5547/01956574.35.SI1.8
3.
BrandsmaA.KancsD. (2015). RHOMOLO: A dynamic general equilibrium modelling approach to the evaluation of the European Union’s R&D policies. Regional Studies, 49(8), 1340-1359. https://doi.org/10.1080/00343404.2015.1034665
4.
BrandsmaA.Kancsd’A.MonfortP.RillaersA. (2015). RHOMOLO: A dynamic spatial general equilibrium model for assessing the impact of cohesion policy. Papers in Regional Science, 94(Suppl. 1), S197-S221. https://doi.org/10.1111/pirs.12162
5.
BushnellJ.PetermanC.WolframC. (2007). Local solutions to global problems: Policy choice and regulatory jurisdiction [National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper Series, No. 13472]. http://www.nber.org/papers/w13472
CarleyS. (2012). Energy demand-side management: New perspectives for a new era. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 31(1), 6-32. https://doi.org/10.1002/pam.20618
10.
CarleyS.LawrenceS.BrownA.NourafshanA.BenamiE. (2011). Energy-based economic development. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 15(1), 282-295. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2010.08.006
11.
ChenC.WiserR.MillsA.BolingerM. (2009). Weighing the costs and benefits of state renewables portfolio standards in the United States: A comparative analysis of state-level policy impact projections. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 13(3), 552-566. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2008.01.005
12.
CollinsA. R.HansenE.HendryxM. (2012). Wind versus coal: Comparing the local economic impacts of energy resource development in Appalachia. Energy Policy, 50, 551-561. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2012.08.001
13.
ConsidineT.MandersonE. (2013). Balancing fiscal, energy, and environmental concerns: Analyzing the policy options for california’s energy and economic future. Energies, 6(3), 1266-1297.
14.
CoonR. C.HodurN. M.BangsundD. A. (2012). Renewable energy industries contribution to the North Dakota Economy (Agribusiness and Applied Economics Report No. 702; Agribusiness and Applied Economics Report). http://ageconsearch.umn.edu/bitstream/140122/2/AAE702.pdf
15.
Electric Power Research Institute. (2014). US-REGEN model documentation (Technical Report 3002004693). EPRI.
16.
GabrielS. A.KydesA. S.WhitmanP. (2001). The national energy modeling system: A large-scale energy-economic equilibrium model. Operations Research, 49(1), 14-25. https://doi.org/10.1287/opre.49.1.14.11195
GranadeH. C.CreytsJ.DerkachA.FareseP.NyquistS.OstrowskiK. (2009). Unlocking energy efficiency in the US economy. McKinsey.
19.
GrubbM.KöhlerJ.AndersonD. (2002). Induced technical change in energy and environmental modeling: Analytic approaches and policy implications. Annual Review of Energy and the Environment, 27(1), 271-308. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.energy.27.122001.083408
20.
HourcadeJ.-C.JaccardM.BatailleC.GhersiF. (2006). Hybrid modeling: New answers to old challenges. Introduction to the special issue of “The Energy Journal.” Energy Journal, 1-11. https://doi.org/10.5547/ISSN0195-6574-EJ-VolSI2006-NoSI2-1
21.
HumanD. (2013, August19). Utilities fall short on efficiency spending. Indianapolis Business Journal, pp. 1, 22.
22.
Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission. (2009). Cause Number 42693.
23.
JaccardM. (2005). Hybrid energy-economy models and endogenous technological change. In Energy and environment (pp. 81-109). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/0-387-25352-1_4
24.
JaccardM.NyboerJ.BatailleC.SadownikB. (2003). Modeling the cost of climate policy: distinguishing between alternative cost definitions and long-run cost dynamics. Energy Journal, 24(1), 49-73.
25.
JonesM.KaneS. P.McKissickJ. C. (2010). An estimation of the potential impact on Georgia’s economy of higher energy costs predicted under the Cap and Trade Provisions of HR 2454. Journal of Agribusiness, 28(2), 183-202.
LuL.PreckelP. V.GothamD.LiuA. L. (2016). An assessment of alternative carbon mitigation policies for achieving the emissions reduction of the clean power plan: Case study for the state of Indiana. Energy Policy, 96, 661-672. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2016.06.045
30.
McCollumD.YangC.YehS.OgdenJ. (2012). Deep greenhouse gas reduction scenarios for California – Strategic implications from the CA-TIMES energy-economic systems model. Energy Strategy Reviews, 1(1), 19-32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esr.2011.12.003
MehmoodS. R.PelkkiM. H. (2009). Economic impacts of future biorefineries in the state of Arkansas: An input-output analysis. Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science, 63, 195-197.
MurrayB. C.PizerW. A.RossM. T. (2015). Regulating existing power plants under the U.S. Clean Air Act: Present and future consequences of key design choices. Energy Policy, 83, 87-98. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2015.03.028
36.
National Academy of Sciences. (2010). Real prospects for energy efficiency in the United States. National Academies Press.
37.
PenceM. R. (2014, March27). Letter to Legislative Leaders on SEA340.
38.
PollittH.AlexandriE.ChewpreechaU.KlaassenG. (2015). Macroeconomic analysis of the employment impacts of future EU climate policies. Climate Policy, 15(5), 604-625. https://doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2014.953907
Regional Economic Models, Inc. (2007). REMI Policy Insight 9.5 Model Documentation.
42.
RiversN.JaccardM. (2005). Combining top-down and bottom-up approaches to energy-economy modeling using discrete choice methods. Energy Journal, 26(1), 83-106. https://doi.org/10.5547/ISSN0195-6574-EJ-Vol26-No1-4
43.
Roland-HolstD. (2008). Energy efficiency, innovation, and job creation in California. Center for Energy, Resources, and Economic Sustainability.
44.
Roland-HolstD. (2010). Real incomes, employment, and California Climate Policy (Research Paper No.1007241). Center for Energy, Resources, and Economic Sustainability.
45.
Roland-HolstD. (2011). More jobs per gallon: How vehicle efficiency fuels growth in California (Research Paper No. 1103011). Center for Energy, Resources, and Economic Sustainability.
RossM. T. (2008). Documentation of the applied dynamic analysis of the Global Economy (ADAGE) Model (Working Paper 08_01). Research Triangle Institute.
50.
RossM. T. (2014a). Structure of the dynamic integrated economy/energy/emissions model: Computable general equilbrium component, DIEM-CGE (Working Paper NI WP 14-12). Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions.
51.
RossM. T. (2014b). Structure of the dynamic integrated economy/energy/emissions model: Electricity component, DIEM-electricity (Working Paper NI WP 14-11). Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions.
52.
RossM. T.HoppockD.MurrayB. C. (2015). Assessing impacts of the clean power plan on Southeast states (Working Paper NI WP 15-03). Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions. http://nicholasinstitute.duke.edu/publications
53.
RossM. T.HoppockD.MurrayB. C. (2016). Ongoing evolu-tion of the electricity industry: Effects of market conditions and the clean power plan on states (Working Paper NI WP 16-07). Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions. http://nicholasinstitute.duke.edu/ publications
54.
RossM. T.MurrayB. C. (2016). What is the fuel of the future? Prospects under the clean power plan. Energy Economics, 60, 451-459. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2016.09.021
55.
RossM. T.MurrayB. C.BeachR. H.DeproB. M. (2008). State-level economic impacts of a National Climate Change policy. Pew Center on Global Climate Change.
56.
RossM. T.MurrayB. C.HoppockD. (2015). The clean power plan: Implications of three compliance decisions for U.S. states (Working Paper NI WP 15-02). Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions. http://nicholasinstitute.duke.edu/publications
57.
RubinB. M.HiltonM. D. (1996). Identifying the local economic development impacts of global climate change. Economic Development Quarterly, 10(3), 262-279. https://doi.org/10.1177/089124249601000306
58.
RubinB. M.GailmardS.MarshD.SeptoffA. (1997). Assessing the state-level consequences of global warming: Socioeconomic and energy demand impacts. World Resource Review, 9(3), 379-387.
ShortW.SullivanP.MaiT.MowersM.UriarteC.BlairN.HeimillerD.MartinezA. (2011). Regional energy deployment system (ReEDS) (Technical Report NREL/TP-6A20-46534). National Renewable Energy Laboratory.
61.
SlatteryM. C.LantzE.JohnsonB. L. (2011). State and local economic impacts from wind energy projects: Texas case study. Energy Policy, 39(12), 7930-7940. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2011.09.047
62.
SolomonB. D.RubinB. M. (1997). Environmental linkages in regional econometric models: an analysis of coal development in Western Kentucky. Land Economics, 62(1), 43-57. https://doi.org/10.2307/3146139
63.
TuladharS. D.MontgomeryW. D.KaufmanN. (2015). Environmental policy for fiscal reform: Can a carbon tax play a role?National Tax Journal, 68(1), 179-194. https://doi.org/10.17310/ntj.2015.1.08
64.
WeiM.PatadiaS.KammenD. M. (2010). Putting renewables and energy efficiency to work: How many jobs can the clean energy industry generate in the US?Energy Policy, 38(2), 919-931. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2009.10.044
65.
WiserR.PorterK.ClemmerS. (2000). Emerging markets for renewable energy: The role of state policies during restructuring. Electricity Journal, 13(1), 13-24. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1040-6190(99)00101-3
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
