Towards General Equilibrium in a Technology-Rich Model with Empirically Estimated Behavioral Parameters

Abstract

Most energy-economy policy models offered to policy makers are deficient in terms of at least one of technological explicitness, microeconomic realism, or macroeconomic completeness. We herein describe CIMS, a model which starts with the technological explicitness of the “bottom-up” approach and adds the microeconomic realism and macroeconomic completeness of the “topdown” CGE approach. This paper demonstrates CIMS’ direct utility for policy analysis, and also how it can be used to better estimate the long run capital-forenergy substitution elasticity (ESUB) and autonomous energy efficiency index (AEEI) technology parameters used in top-down models. By running CIMS under several possible energy price futures and observing their effects on capital and energy input shares and energy consumption, we estimate an economy-wide ESUB of 0.26 and an AEEI of 0.57%, with significant sectoral differences for both parameters.

Keywords

CGE approach CIMS model Energy policy Hybrid modeling Technological change

References

REFEREnCES

Babiker

Reilly

Mayer

Eckaus

Wing

Hyman

(2001). The MIT Emissions Prediction and Policy Analysis Model: Revisions, Sensitivities, and Comparisons of Results. MIT Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Berndt

E.R.

Wood

D.O.

(1975). “Technology, Prices, and the Derived Demand for Energy.” Review of Economics and Statistics (August) 57: 259-68.

Bernstein

Montgomery

Rutherford

(1999). “Global Impacts of the Kyoto Agreement: Results from the MS-MRT Model.” Resource and Energy Economics 21:375-413.

Böhringer

(1998). “The Synthesis of Bottom-up and Top-Down in Energy Policy Modeling.” Energy Economics 20(3): 233-248.

Christensen

Jorgensen

Lau

L.J.

(1973). “Transcendental Logarithmic Production Frontiers.” The Review of Economics and Statistics (February) 55: 28-45.

Fishbone

Abilock

(1981). “MARKAL, a Linear Programming Model for Energy Systems Analysis: Technical Description of the Brookhaven National Laboratory Version.” International Journal of Energy Research 5: 353-75.

Frei

Haldi

Sarlos

(2003). “Dynamic Formulation of a Top-Down and Bottom-Up Merging Energy Policy Model.” Energy Policy 31: 1017-1031.

Griffin

(1977). “The Econometrics of Joint Production: Another Approach.” The Review of Economics and Statistics (August) 59: 389-97.

10.

Grubb

Kohler

Anderson

(2002). “Induced Technical Change in Energy and Environmental Modeling: Analytical Approaches and Policy Implications.” Annual Review of Energy and the Environment 27: 271-308.

11.

Hanson

Laitner

(2004). “An integrated analysis of policies that increase investments in advanced energy-efficient/low-carbon technologies”. Energy Economics 26 (4):739-755.

12.

Horne

Jaccard

Tiedmann

(2005). “Improving behavioral realism in hybrid energy- economy models using discrete choice studies of personal transportation decisions.” Energy Economics 27(1): 59-77.

13.

Iorwerth

Bagnoli

Dissou

Peluso

Rudin

(2000). A Computable General Equi- librium Aalysis of Greenhouse Gas Reduction Paths and Scenarios. Economic Studies and Policy Analysis Division, Finance Canada.

14.

Jaccard

Bailie

Nyboer

(1996). “CO2 Emission Reduction Costs in the Residential Sector: Behavioral Parameters in a Bottom-up Simulation Model”. The Energy Journal 17(4): 107-134.

15.

Jaccard

Bataille

(2000). “Estimating Future Elasticities of Substitution for the Rebound Debate.” Energy Policy 28: 451-55.

16.

Jaccard

Nyboer

Bataille

Sadownik

(2003). “Modeling the Cost of Climate Policy: Distinguishing Between Alternative Cost Definitions and Long run Cost Dynamics.” The Energy Journal 24(1): 49-73.

17.

Jacobsen

(1998). “Integrating the Bottom-up and Top-Down Approach to Energy-Economy Modeling: The Case of Denmark.” Energy Economics 20(4), 443-461.

18.

Koopmans

C.C.

D.W.

Velde (2001). “Bridging the Energy Efficiency Gap: Using Bottom-up Information in a Top-Down Energy Demand Model.” Energy Economics 23(1): 57-75.

19.

Kurosawa

Yagita

Weisheng

Tokimatsu

Yanagisawa

. (1999). “Analsyis of Carbon Emissions Stabilization Targets and Adaptation by Integrated Assessment Model.” Energy Journal Special Issue 157-177.

20.

Labriet

Loulou

Kanudia

. (2004). “Chapter 1: Global Energy and CO2 Emission Scenarios – Analysis with a 15 region world MARKAL Model.”In The Coupling of Climate and Economic Dynamics, edited by Haurie

Viguier

. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

21.

Löschel

(2002). “Technological Change in Economic Models of Environmental Policy: A Survey.” Ecological Economics 43: 105-126.

22.

Loulou

Lavigne

. (1996). “MARKAL Model with Elastic Demands: Application to GHG Emission Control.” In Operations Research and Environmental Engineering, edited by C.Carraro and A. Haurie , 201-20. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

23.

McDonald

Shrattenholzer

(2001). “Learning Rates for Energy Technologies.” Energy Policy 29: 255-261.

24.

McFarland

Reilly

Herzog

(2004) “Representing energy technologies in top-down economic models using bottom-up information.” Energy Economics 26: 685-707.

25.

McKitrick

(1998). “The Econometric Critique of Computable General Equilibrium Modeling: The Role of Functional Forms.” Economic Modeling 15: 543-73.

26.

Manne

Wene

C.O.

(1992). MARKAL-MACRO: A Linked Model for Energy-Economy Analysis. Brookhaven National Laboratory.

27.

Michaelis

Davidson

(1996). “GHG Mitigation in the Transport Sector.” Energy Policy 24(10/11): 969-84.

28.

McKibbin

Wilcoxen

(1999). “The Theoretical and Empirical Structure of the G-Cubed Model.” Economic Modelling 16: 123-48.

29.

Morris

Goldstein

Fthenakis

(2002) “NEMS and MARKAL-MACRO Models for Energy-Environmental-Economic Analysis: A Comparison of the Electricity and Carbon Reduction Projections.” Environmental Modeling and Assessment 17: 207-216.

30.

Nyboer

(1997). Simulating Evolution of Technology: An Aid to Energy Policy Analysis. A Case Study of Strategies to Control Greenhouse Gases In Canada. Simon Fraser University Ph.D. Thesis.

31.

Rivers

Jaccard

. (2005) “Combining Top-Down and Bottom-Up Approaches to Energy- Economy Modeling Using Discrete Choice Methods.” The Energy Journal 26(1): 83-106.

32.

Sands

(2002). “Dynamics of Carbon Abatement in the Second Generation Model.” Energy Eco- nomics 26(4): 721-738.

33.

Schäfer

Jacoby

(2005). “Technology Detail in a Multi-Sector CGE Model: Transport Under Climate Policy.” Energy Economics 27: 1-24.

34.

Wirjanto

(1999). Estimation of Import and Export Elasticities: A Report Prepared for the Economic and Fiscal Policy Branch at the Department of Finance. Department of Economics, University of Waterloo.