|
|
|
Sort Order |
|
|
|
Items / Page
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Srl | Item |
| 1 |
ID:
109388
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2011.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Costs and benefits of building energy efficiency are estimated as a means of reducing greenhouse gas emissions in Pittsburgh, PA and Austin, TX. The analysis includes electricity and natural gas consumption, covering 75% of building energy consumption in Pittsburgh and 85% in Austin. Two policy objectives were evaluated: maximize GHG reductions given initial budget constraints or maximize social savings given target GHG reductions. This approach evaluates the trade-offs between three primary and often conflicting program design parameters: initial capital constraints, social savings, and GHG reductions. Results suggest uncertainty in local stocks, demands, and efficiency significantly impacts anticipated outcomes. Annual GHG reductions of 1 ton CO2 eq/capita/yr in Pittsburgh could cost near nothing or over $20 per capita annually. Capital-constrained policies generate slightly less social savings (a present value of a few hundred dollars per capita) than policies that maximize social savings. However, sectors and end uses targeted for intervention vary depending on policy objectives and constraints. Optimal efficiency investment strategies for some end uses vary significantly (in excess of 100%) between Pittsburgh and Austin, suggesting that resources and guidance conducted at the national scale may mislead state and local decision-makers. Results are used to provide recommendations for efficiency program administrators.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 2 |
ID:
111450
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2012.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Although the benefits of distributed cogeneration are widely cited, adoption has been slow in the United States. Adoption could be encouraged by making cogeneration more economically attractive, either by increasing the expected returns or decreasing the risks of such investments. We evaluate the expected returns from demand response, capacity markets, regulation markets, accelerated depreciation, pricing CO2 emissions, and net metering. We find that (1) there is an incentive to overcommit in the capacity market due to lenient non-response penalties, (2) there is significant revenue potential in the regulation market, though demand-side resources are yet to participate, (3) a price on CO2 emissions will make cogeneration more attractive relative to conventional, utility-supplied energy, and (4) accelerated depreciation is an easy and effective mechanism for improving the economics of cogeneration. We go on to argue that uncertainty in fuel and electricity prices present a significant risk to cogeneration projects, and we evaluate the effectiveness of feed-in tariffs at mitigating these risks. We find that guaranteeing a fixed electricity payment is not effective. A two-part feed-in tariff, with an annual capacity payment and an energy payment that adjusts with fuel costs, can eliminate energy-price risks.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 3 |
ID:
104954
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2011.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
An econometric study of the Portuguese residential electricity consumption is presented, with a focus on the influence of dwelling characteristics on consumption. The relationship between the dwelling and household characteristics on per capita residential electricity consumption is estimated at two different scales, involving two distinct databases: the first includes data at the municipality level for 2001, the second is the most recent Portuguese consumer expenditure survey that was collected in 2005 and 2006. The results of the analysis at both scales are consistent and indicate that household and dwelling characteristics have a significant influence on residential electricity consumption. Our results show that in Portugal the direct effect of income on electricity consumption is low and becomes smaller when more relevant control variables are included in the analysis. Future demand of electricity in Portugal will be significantly influenced by trends in socioeconomic factors as well as changes in the building stock. These trends should be taken in consideration in the formulation of policy measures to reduce electricity consumption.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|