能源转型的改革战略：从零碎到全系统的变革（英）.pdf资源-CSDN文库

版权申诉

103 浏览量 2022-11-17 16:03:39 上传评论收藏 725KB PDF 举报

《能源转型的改革战略：从零碎到全系统的变革》这篇工作论文由Steven Fries撰写，于2022年8月发布，旨在探讨如何将能源转型从分散的、局部的改变转变为全面系统的改革，以应对气候变化的严峻挑战。论文特别引用了IPCC第六次评估报告关于气候变缓减排行动与气候稳定目标之间的巨大差距，并对其提出的广泛政策建议进行了深化。作者提出两个非传统的政策建议： 1. 政府除了提供研发支持外，还需要在初期市场为低碳技术的早期部署提供市场创建支持。这意味着政府不仅要投资技术研发，还要通过补贴、税收优惠等方式推动新技术在特定市场的应用，帮助这些技术快速成熟并降低成本，从而实现规模化应用。 2. 排放定价应遵循创新和市场创建支持后实施，并在不同能源部门间进行差异化定价，而不是实施统一的经济范围内的价格。这种方法可以针对那些脱碳成本更高的部门设定更高的排放价格，仍然能有效地减少温室气体排放，同时减轻可能产生的不利分配效应，确保公平性。此外，论文还关注了非价格壁垒，如技术标准、法规限制等，以及如何在国内改革之间建立协调机制。对于跨国问题，作者认为需要国际间的协调合作，共同制定和执行相关政策，以促进全球能源转型的同步进行。 JEL代码：O25（经济发展中的机构和政策），O38（技术创新和研发政策），Q48（能源经济和政策），Q58（环境经济学：气候变化）。关键词包括：低碳技术、创新政策、市场创建政策、成本效益定价、分配公平性、效率监管、制度改革和国际协调。作者Steven Fries自2022年3月以来，作为彼得森国际经济研究所的非驻所高级研究员，其研究和见解对全球能源政策的讨论具有重要意义。这篇论文提供的策略不仅关注技术进步，还强调了政策设计的重要性，以确保能源转型的系统性和公平性，这为各国政府提供了有价值的参考。

资源详情

资源评论

1750 Massachusetts Avenue, NW | Washington, DC 20036-1903 USA | +1.202.328.9000 | www.piie.com

WORKING PAPER

22-13 A Reform Strategy to

Transform Energy

From Piecemeal to Systemwide Change

Steven Fries

August 2022

ABSTRACT

The IPCC Sixth Assessment Report on Climate Change Mitigation highlights the

vast gap between climate change mitigation actions and climate stabilization

goals. But its broad policy prescriptions are likely to leave policymakers pondering

what specific actions to take. Informed by accumulating evidence on transforming

aspects of energy systems like power generation from solar and wind resources

and battery electric cars, this paper develops a more pointed energy reform

strategy than that of the IPCC to deliver the necessary systemwide changes. It

makes the case for two unorthodox policies. One is for governments to provide,

in addition to R&D supports, market-creating supports for early deployment of

low-carbon technologies in initial markets. The second is to sequence emissions

pricing after innovation and market-creating supports and differentiate this

pricing across key energy sectors rather than impose one economywide price.

Compared with a single price, targeting higher emissions pricing on sectors that

are costlier to decarbonize still promotes cost-effective emission cuts but limits

adverse distributional impacts. The paper also considers nonprice barriers to

change and ways to coordinate domestic reforms across countries.

JEL codes: O25, O38, Q48, Q58

Keywords: low-carbon technologies, innovation policy, market-creating policies,

cost-effective emissions pricing, distributional fairness, efficiency regulation,

institutional reforms, international coordination.

Note: The author thanks Joseph Gagnon, Cullen Hendrix, Jean Pisani-Ferry, Asher

Rose, Jeffrey Schott, Steve Weisman, and David Wilcox for helpful comments on

previous drafts.

Steven Fries, nonresident

senior fellow at the

Peterson Institute for

International Economics

since March 2022, is a

senior associate fellow

at the Institute for New

Economic Thinking at

the University of Oxford.

He was previously chief

economist at Shell and the

UK Department of Energy

and Climate Change.

2 WP 22-13 | AUGUST 2022

INTRODUCTION

The Sixth Assessment Report on Climate Change Mitigation of the

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) finds a brief and rapidly

closing window of opportunity to stabilize the Earth’s climate and avoid the

most dangerous impacts of climate change (IPCC 2022). The still rising trend in

emissions of carbon dioxide (CO

) and other greenhouse gases must be reversed

and brought down to zero on balance to stabilize the climate. Moreover, net zero

emissions (NZE) must be achieved rapidly—by around mid-century—if the Paris

Agreement goals for limiting cumulative emissions and maintaining a relatively

safe climate are to be achieved. But acknowledging current and planned policies

and the pace of technological advances in decarbonizing energy, agriculture, and

other activities, the report reveals a vast gap between climate change mitigation

actions and climate stabilization goals.

While the report sets out likely developments in the global economy, energy,

land use, and emissions on the one hand and bleak projections for the Earth’s

climate on the other, it also highlights important advances in limiting CO

emissions.

They include the sharply declining costs and increasing deployment of solar

photovoltaics (PV) and wind turbines to produce low-carbon electricity from

renewable resources and rechargeable batteries for cars to power them with

electricity rather than fossil fuels. While such piecemeal changes fall far short of the

systemwide energy transformations necessary to eliminate net CO

emissions, they

provide important opportunities to learn from experience in transforming aspects of

energy systems. But the report’s broad policy prescriptions are short on specifics.

Informed by accumulating evidence on transforming energy systems, this

paper provides a more pointed energy reform strategy than that of the IPCC. It

makes the case for two unorthodox policies. One is market-creating government

supports for early deployment of low-carbon technologies in their initial markets,

especially in countries with the skills, technical capabilities, and interests to

scale them. This is in addition to well-established government research and

development (R&D) supports to counter knowledge spillovers from innovation.

The second is to sequence emissions pricing after innovation and market-creating

supports and calibrate this price across the key energy sectors to projected long-

run costs of eliminating net emissions in each. These sectors include those that are

relatively low cost to decarbonize in the long run—electric power, road transport,

and buildings—and those that are likely to be high cost—aviation, shipping, and

materials and fuel production (e.g., cement, chemicals, plastics, refining, and

steel—so-called heavy industry). Targeting higher emissions pricing on sectors

that are costlier to decarbonize promotes cost-effective emission cuts while

limiting adverse distributional impacts compared to a single economywide price.

The paper also examines nonprice barriers to change and ways to coordinate

domestic energy reforms across countries. It begins with a summary of the IPCC

policy prescriptions to achieve an NZE energy system.

1 See Davis et al. (2018) and Fries (2021, pp. 72–92) for descriptions of feasible NZE energy

systems based on low-carbon technologies that have advanced to the stage of commercial dem-

onstration projects or further. In this paper the term “low-carbon technologies” refers to those

consistent with an NZE energy system in the long run even if their current deployment entails

some emissions. For example, use of battery electric vehicles (EVs) in the short run causes emis-

sions because electric power is not fully decarbonized, but less than those from an internal com-

bustion engine. But in the context of a comprehensive and credible energy reform strategy, a

fleet of battery EVs powered by low-carbon electricity would be consistent with an NZE system.

Informed by

accumulating

evidence on

transforming

energy systems,

this paper

provides a more

pointed energy

reform strategy

than that of the

IPCC. It makes

the case for two

unorthodox

policies.

3 WP 22-13 | AUGUST 2022

1. IPCC ASSESSMENT OF ENERGY POLICIES

Notwithstanding the still rising trend in global emissions, the IPCC assesses

energy policy effectiveness in the countries and sectors where climate actions

have been taken. It considers primarily the effect of policies on emissions

relative to the likely counterfactual in their absence—their cost effectiveness

attracts less emphasis.

The IPCC finds that many policy and regulatory instruments have been

deployed successfully. Table 1 summarizes its findings on effectiveness in

avoiding emissions from energy supply and use in buildings, transport, and

industry. The assessment spans overall emission reductions along with impacts

on energy efficiency and deployment of low-carbon technologies—the two key

ways to cut emissions. The policy instruments in focus are emissions pricing,

direct regulation of energy efficiency and emissions, and various types of

government support to advance low-carbon technologies.

Table 1

IPCC attributions of energy policy effectiveness in avoiding emissions

Sector Policy effects on overall

emissions

Policy effects on energy

efficiency

Policy effects on low-

carbon technologies

Energy supply Emissions pricing, emissions

standards, and technology

support policies have led to

declining emissions associated

with the supply of energy

Emissions pricing and technology

support policies have led to

improvements in the efficiency of

energy conversion

A variety of market-based

instruments, especially

technology support policies,

have led to high diffusion

rates and cost reductions for

renewable energy technologies

Buildings Regulatory standards have led

to reduced emissions from new

buildings

Regulatory standards, financial

support for building renovation,

and market-based instruments

have led to improvements in

building and building system

efficiencies

Technology support policies and

regulatory standards have led to

adoption of low-carbon heating

systems and high-efficiency

appliances

Transport Vehicle standards, land-use

planning, and carbon pricing

have avoided emissions in ground

transportation

Vehicle standards, carbon

pricing, and policy support

for electrification have led

to automobile efficiency

improvements

Technology support policies

and emissions standards have

increased diffusion rates and

reduced costs for electric

vehicles

Industry Emissions pricing has led to

efficiency improvements in

industrial facilities

Note: Statements describe the effects of policies across those countries where policies are in place. All

findings are of high confidence. Technology support policies include government supports for innovation

systems, like tax credits for private investment and public investment in R&D, and market-creating

policies for low-carbon technologies like feed-in tariffs for renewable power and subsidies for electric

vehicles and charging points.

Source: IPCC (2022, p. 118), Technical Summary.

4 WP 22-13 | AUGUST 2022

Based on its assessment of policy effectiveness, the IPCC concludes that

governments can take actions now to shift economic development pathways

and accelerate climate mitigation and transitions across systems—energy, urban

forms, rural land use, and finance.

Many regulatory and economic instruments

that have been deployed successfully could support deep emissions reductions

and stimulate innovation if designed to promote fairness and applied at scale and

more widely in scope.

The IPCC further observes that comprehensive policy reforms that enable

innovation and build capacity are better able than individual policies to support a

shift toward equitable low-emission futures. It also finds that climate governance

is most effective when it integrates across policy domains, helps realize synergies

and minimize trade-offs, and connects national and subnational policymaking

levels. Of course, such broad domestic policy prescriptions are difficult to

oppose, but policymakers may be forgiven if they are left pondering what

specific actions to take.

In a similar vein, the IPCC states that international cooperation is a critical

enabler for achieving ambitious climate change mitigation goals and that the UN

Framework Convention on Climate Change, Kyoto Protocol, and Paris Agreement

are supporting rising levels of national ambition, though gaps remain. It points

out that partnerships, agreements, institutions, and initiatives are emerging at the

subglobal and sectoral levels and engaging multiple actors, with mixed levels of

effectiveness. These statements effectively say that the “glass” of international

cooperation is “half full” rather than “half empty”—perhaps reflecting the IPCC

vantage point. On international climate finance, the IPCC is more pointed. It finds

that tracked financial flows fall short of levels needed to achieve mitigation goals

across all sectors and regions, with the largest gaps in developing countries. If

these IPCC observations were transposed to policy prescriptions, they would

be that countries should cooperate more on climate mitigation and developed

countries should provide more financing to developing ones for this purpose and

for climate adaptation.

A striking aspect of the IPCC’s broad policy prescriptions is their treatment

of emissions pricing. It is only one among several highlighted policy instruments,

rather than the primary one together with government R&D supports for

innovation, which in economics is the orthodox policy prescription for climate

mitigation. This broad approach reflects a key observation about policy

effectiveness: that the main effects of emissions pricing so far have been

modest and limited to energy efficiency rather than development of low-carbon

technologies (table 1). Governments have clearly struggled to implement the level

and sectoral coverage of emissions pricing considered to adequately reflect the

projected societal losses from climate change and the cost of deep emission cuts

2 These are the policy prescriptions that the IPCC assesses as “effective with high confidence.”

See IPCC (2022, pp. 57–63), Summary for Policy Makers.

A striking aspect

of the IPCC’s

broad policy

prescriptions is

their treatment

of emissions

pricing. It

is only one

among several

highlighted

policy

instruments,

rather than the

primary one

together with

government

R&D supports

for innovation.

5 WP 22-13 | AUGUST 2022

(OECD 2018).

It is thus vital to understand why emissions pricing has not played

a significant role in advancing low-carbon technologies and how it might do so.

2. HAPPENSTANCE AND PIECEMEAL CHANGE SO FAR

Evidence on transforming energy systems so far tells a story of happenstance

and piecemeal change. The happenstances are three oil price shocks since the

1970s. The first two were associated with oil supply disruptions associated with

the fourth Arab-Israeli war (October 1973) and Iranian revolution (1978–79) and

the third with energy demand growth arising from China’s period of exceptional

economic development since the early 2000s. These oil price shocks spurred

waves of investment in innovations for alternative vehicle drivetrains, energy

efficiency and power generation technologies like solar PV, wind turbines, and—

until the accidents at Three Mile Island and Chernobyl—nuclear reactors. They

also led to new oil and natural gas extraction technologies such as hydraulic

fracturing of resource-bearing shales. Figure 1 shows the correlation between

changes in the real oil price and low-carbon innovations as measured by their

share of new internationally cited patents.

The piecemeal changes are market-creating policies that supported early

deployment of solar PV, wind turbines, and battery electric vehicles (EVs) in

initial markets—the low-carbon technologies that had in effect been primed by

the oil price shocks. These policies included feed-in tariffs for renewables in

Europe and China, which fixed subsidized prices for their power, and renewable

portfolio standards for power generation and associated tax credits in the United

States. They achieved material scale around the turn of the last decade with

some tacit policy coordination in the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis and

as the performance of these technologies improved.

At the same time, major

car-producing countries provided purchase subsidies for EVs, especially as

their performance improved over the past decade, along with supports for early

deployment of their charging infrastructure.

3 See also the World Bank Carbon Pricing Dashboard for an up-to-date assessment of emissions

pricing. Countries with the highest level and widest sectoral coverage of emissions pricing

tend to have significant shares of low-carbon power generation from incumbent hydro and

nuclear technologies and high fuel taxes due to long-standing energy security concerns about

oil import dependence (Fries 2021, pp. 144–45). This observation suggests that causality runs

at least in part from greater availability of cost-effective, low-carbon technologies and energy

security concerns around fossil fuels to more adequate emissions pricing.

4 For a survey of evidence on innovations induced by energy price shocks, see Fries (2021,

pp. 100–03) and Grubb et al. (2021). Energy-efficiency innovation responses were mediated

in part by policy and regulatory responses to energy price shocks (e.g., stricter efficiency

standards for appliances, buildings, and cars) that addressed nonprice barriers to energy

efficiency investments (Popp 2019). These empirical findings are consistent with the theory of

directed technological progress, which predicts that innovations are directed toward specific

technology fields by shifts in relative prices, market demands, and policies that increase their

expected profitability (see, e.g., Acemoglu et al. 2012 and Aghion et al. 2016).

5 The alignment at that time between the need for macroeconomic policies to support

aggregate demand and investment and increased investment in renewables strengthened

these energy initiatives.

Evidence on

transforming

energy systems

so far tells

a story of

happenstance

and piecemeal

change.

剩余24页未读，继续阅读

评论收藏

内容反馈

版权申诉

能源转型的改革战略：从零碎到全系统的变革（英）.pdf

评论0

最新资源

能源转型的改革战略：从零碎到全系统的变革（英）.pdf

评论0

最新资源

相关推荐

企业战略转型与系统变革

企业战略的转型及系统变革.pptx

企业的战略转型与系统变革.pptx

2019知识点零碎记忆有诀窍.pdf

藏经阁-计算：精准医疗的 变革力量和创新阵地.pdf

installshield零碎知识点集锦.zip

SAP-BASIS-日常使用事务代码.doc

基于Android的零碎时间交易APP设计与开发.pdf

企业战略转型与系统变革.pptx

企业战略转型与系统变革全球.pptx

人教版四年级（下册）语文词语盘点看拼音写词语(2018新版-A4纸格式).doc

过程控制系统与仪表_习题答案_王再英.doc

新能源发电企业造价管理分析.pdf

云计算在英语教学中的应用.pdf

S5PV210学习笔记.pdf

企业战略转型与系统变革.ppt

公司战略转型和系统变革.pptx

企业战略转型与系统变革概述.pptx

kafka学习文档

计算机操作系统期末考试题及答案.pdf

Qt那些零碎的小知识

藏经阁-计算：精准医疗的变革力量和创新阵地.pdf