Steinberg, Daniel C. (ORCID:0000000317692261)

DOE OSTI2022

Quantifying Value and Representing Competitiveness of Electricity System Technologies in Economic Models

Evaluating competition between electricity technologies is challenging because it depends on both their costs and their values. While technology costs can typically be estimated from projections of the cost components - capital, fuel, and O&M - estimating a technology's value is more complex due to its dependence on its contributions to multiple different grid services, each with prices that can vary substantially over space and time. In this work, using an electricity model of the contiguous United States, we develop relationships between relative value and share of total generation for major electricity generation technologies which, when paired with projections of technology costs, can be used to estimate technology competitiveness. We identify significant differences in the relationship between relative value and generation share for variable renewable energy (VRE) and non-VRE sources, but we demonstrate that all technologies require consideration of their dynamic values (in addition to cost) when evaluating competitiveness. In addition, we demonstrate that relative value of a technology is substantially impacted by not only its own generation share but also other aspects of the system state, in particular the mix of other technologies present in the system. Finally, we use the developed relative value relationships in combination with projections of future technology costs in a coarse resolution model that competes technologies based on a comprehensive competitiveness metric: profitability-adjusted LCOE (PLCOE). We show that this simple representation of technology competition approximately recovers the generation mix from a detailed model, which is not possible using LCOE alone. Such an approach can be used to improve the representation of technology competition in coarse-resolution models such as integrated assessment models, for which simplified metrics are often needed.

electricity model↗

DOE OSTI2021

Relative Cost-Effectiveness of Electricity and Transportation Policies as a Means to Reduce CO2 Emissions in the United States: A Multi-Model Assessment

Two common energy policy instruments in the United States are tax incentives and technology standards. Although these instruments have been shown to be less cost-effective as a means to reduce CO2 emissions than direct emissions pricing mechanisms, it can be challenging to compare the CO2 emissions reduction costs of such policies across sectors, given the wide range in estimates for any given policy and inconsistencies in how such estimates are constructed across studies. This study addresses this analytical gap by simultaneously comparing the cost-effectiveness of policies across the electricity and transportation sectors using three publicly available US energy system models (EM-NEMS, ReEDS, and GCAM-USA). Four policies are explicitly compared: wind and solar tax credits, a renewable portfolio standard (RPS), a renewable fuel standard (RFS), and an electric vehicle (EV) tax credit. An economy-wide carbon tax is used as a benchmark for cost-effectiveness. Results from this study confirm prior insights about the cost-effectiveness of economy-wide carbon pricing relative to sectoral instruments but also reveal several novel insights about particular sectoral policies. Specifically, this study finds that (1) current electricity tax incentives provide uneven support for wind and solar technologies, (2) despite known inefficiencies, renewable energy policies in the electricity sector are less expensive than earlier estimates due to technology advancement and changes in market conditions, (3) within transportation, an expanded RFS with increasing advanced biofuel targets is more cost-effective than an EV tax credit extension under plausible assumptions, (4) EV incentives lead to a rebound in conventional vehicle fuel economy that further erodes cost-effectiveness, and (5) the change in policy costs over time is not known a priori, but the relative cost ordering among these policies does not depend on the timeframe of analysis. These results are largely robust to the underlying modeling framework, increasing the confidence with which they can be applied to climate policy evaluation.

economics↗