Policy makers and analysts are raising questions about the adequacy of policy and technology representation in conventional energy and economic models. Most conventional models rely on a highly stylized and limited characterization of technology. In these models, any desired changes in energy demand are driven largely by pure price mechanisms such as energy taxes or carbon charges. In this paper, however, we explore the mapping of discrete technology characterizations and examine how cost-effective technologies and programs might prompt desirable increases in energy efficiency. Using the commercial health care sector as an example, we show how changes in energy efficiency and technology investments might be more properly represented in policy models.
BrownMarilyn, (2001). “Market Failures and Barriers as a Basis for Clean Energy Policies.” Energy Policy, volume 29, pp. 1197-1207.
2.
[BEA 2004] Bureau of Economic Analysis (2004). “Benchmark Input-Output Accounts for the U.S. Economy 2002,” Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Commerce.
3.
[CPPD 2004] Climate Protection Partnerships Division (2004). “Protecting The Environment— Together Energy Star and Other Voluntary Programs Climate Protection Partnerships Division (CPPD) 2003 Annual Report.” US Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.
4.
[EIA 2005]. Energy Information Adminustration (2005). “AEO 2006 Reference Case Tables and Technology Files for Buildings Sector,” Data file used as an input into the National Energy Modeling Systems, U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, DC, December2005.
5.
[GTAP 2004] Global Trade and Analysis Project (2004). College of Agriculture, Department of Agricultural Economics, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN.
6.
HansonDonald A.JohnA. “Skip” Laitner (2004). “An Integrated Analysis of Policies That Increase Investments in Advanced Energy-Efficient/Low-Carbon Technologies.” Energy Economics, 2004, 26(4), pp. 739-755.
7.
HansonDonald A.JohnA., “Skip” Laitner (2005). “Tripling the Nation’s Clean Energy Technologies: A Case Study in Evaluating the Performance of Energy Policy Models,” 2005 ACEEE Summer Study on Energy Efficiency in Industry. Washington, DC: American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy.
8.
HansonDonald A.JohnA., “Skip” Laitner (2006a). The AMIGA Modeling System, Version 4.2: Disaggregated Capital and Physical Flows of Energy within a General Equilibrium Framework, Argonne National Laboratory, Argonne, IL (draft).
9.
HansonDonald A.JohnA., “Skip” Laitner (2006b). “Technology Policy and World Greenhouse Gas Emissions in an Economy-Wide Model.” Energy Journal (forthcoming).
10.
[IEA 2004] International Energy Agency’s, 2004 World Energy Outlook 2004. Paris, France.
11.
KemfertClaudia (1998). “Estimated Substitution Elasticities of a Nested CES Production Function Approach for Germany,” Energy Economics, 1998, 20, pp. 249-264.
12.
LaitnerJohn A. “Skip”,
13.
DonaldA.HansonA.MintzerIrvingLeonardAmber J.(2006). “Adapting in Uncertain Times: A Scenario Analysis of U.S. Energy and Technology Futures.” Energy Studies Review, 2005, 14(1), pp. 120-135.
14.
LaitnerJohn A.SanstadAlan H. “Skip”(2004). “Learning-by-Doing on Both the Demand and the Supply Sides: Implications for Electric Utility Investments in a Heuristic Model,” International Journal of Energy Technology and Policy, 2004, 2(1/2), pp. 142-152.
15.
LaitnerJohn A.DeCanioStephen J.KoomeyJonathan G.SanstadAlan H. “Skip”(2003). “Room for Improvement: Increasing the Value of Energy Modeling for Policy Analysis,” Utilities Policy11 (2003), pp. 87-94.
16.
LancasterKelvin (1971). Consumer Demand: A New Approach, Columbia University Press, New York.
17.
McDonaldAlanSchrattenholzerLeo (2001). “Learning Rates for Energy Technologies.” Energy Policy, 29, pp. 255-261.
18.
MunsonRichard (2004). “Improving Prediction of Energy Futures.” Issues in Science and Technology, Spring, pp. 26-29.
19.
NadelStephenGellerHoward (2001). Energy Efficiency Policies for a Strong America, Washington, DC: American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy, September.
20.
SanstadAlan H.“Skip” LaitnerJohn A.KoomeyJonathan G(2006). “Back to The Future: Long-Range U.S. Energy Price and Quantity Projections in Retrospect,” International Journal of
21.
Energy Technology and Policy (in review).
22.
VarianHal R. (1992). Microeconomic Analysis, Third Edition, W.W. Norton &Co., New York. Wene, Clas-Otto (2000). Experience Curves for Energy Technology Policy. Paris, France: International Energy Agency.
23.
WorrellErnstRamesohlStephanBoydGale A. (2003). “Towards Increasing Policy Relevance in Energy Modeling, Proceedings of the 2003 ACEEE Summer Study on Energy Efficiency in Industry, American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, Washington, DC.
