4.7 Article

Estimating the implied cost of carbon in future scenarios using a CGE model: The Case of Colorado

Journal

ENERGY POLICY
Volume 102, Issue -, Pages 500-511

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.enpol.2016.12.046

Keywords

Renewable Portfolio Standard; Computable General Equilibrium

Funding

  1. U.S. Department of Energy [DE-AC36-08GO28308]
  2. National Renewable Energy Laboratory
  3. Joint Institute for Strategic Energy Analysis
  4. U.S. Department of Energy's National Renewable Energy Laboratory
  5. University of Colorado-Boulder
  6. Colorado School of Mines
  7. Colorado State University
  8. Massachusetts Institute of Technology
  9. Stanford University

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Using Colorado as a case study, we develop a state-level computable general equilibrium (CGE) model that reflects the roles of coal, natural gas, wind, solar, and hydroelectricity in supplying electricity. We focus on the economic impact of implementing Colorado's existing Renewable Portfolio Standard, updated in 2013. This requires that 25% of state generation come from qualifying renewable sources by 2020. We evaluate the policy under a variety of assumptions regarding wind integration costs and assumptions on the persistence of federal subsidies for wind. Specifically, we estimate the implied price of carbon as the carbon price at which a state-level policy would pass a state-level cost-benefit analysis, taking account of estimated greenhouse gas emission reductions and ancillary benefits from corresponding reductions in criteria pollutants. Our findings suggest that without the Production Tax Credit (federal aid), the state policy of mandating renewable power generation (RPS) is costly to state actors, with an implied cost of carbon of about $17 per ton of CO2 with a 3% discount rate. Federal aid makes the decision between natural gas and wind nearly cost neutral for Colorado.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available