|
on Regulation |
| By: | Greg Schivley; Michael Blackhurst; Patricia Hidalgo-Gonzalez; Jesse Jenkins; Oleg Lugovoy; Qian Luo; Michael J. Roberts; Rangrang Zheng; Cameron Wade; Matthias Fripp |
| Abstract: | This study undertakes a detailed intercomparison of four open-source electricity system capacity expansion models--Temoa, Switch, GenX, and USENSYS--to examine their suitability for guiding U.S. power sector decarbonization policies. We isolate the effects of model-specific differences on policy outcomes and investment decisions by harmonizing empirical inputs via PowerGenome and systematically defining "scenarios" (policy conditions) and "configurations" (model setup choices). Our framework allows each model to be tested on identical assumptions for policy, technology costs, and operational constraints, thus distinguishing results that arise from data inputs or configuration versus inherent model structure. Key findings highlight that, when harmonized, models produce very similar capacity portfolios under each current policies and net-zero configuration, with less than 1 percent difference in system costs for most configurations. This agreement across models allows us to examine the impact of configuration choices. For example, configurations that assume unit commitment constraints or economic retirement of generators reveal the difference in investment decisions and system costs that arise from these modeling choices, underscoring the need for clear scenario and configuration definitions in policy guidance. Through this study, we identify critical structural assumptions that influence model outcomes and demonstrate the advantages of a standardized approach when using capacity expansion models. This work offers a valuable benchmark and identifies a few key modeling choices for policymakers, which ultimately will enhance transparency and reliability in modeling efforts to inform the clean energy transition for clean energy planning. |
| Date: | 2024–11 |
| URL: | https://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:arx:papers:2411.13783 |
| By: | Th\'eo Durandard; Alexis Ghersengorin |
| Abstract: | We study the robust regulation of labour contracts in moral hazard problems. A firm offers a contract to incentivise production by an agent protected by limited liability. A regulator chooses the set of permissible contracts to (i) improve efficiency and (ii) protect the worker. The regulator ignores the agent's productive actions and the firm's costs and evaluates regulation by its worst-case regret. The regret-minimising regulation imposes a linear minimum wage, allowing all contracts above this linear threshold. The slope of the minimum contract balances the worker's protection - by ensuring they receive a minimal share of the production - and the necessary flexibility for incentive provision. |
| Date: | 2024–11 |
| URL: | https://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:arx:papers:2411.04841 |
| By: | Long, Xianling; Huang, Kaixing; Xu, Shang |
| Abstract: | Employing a spatial equilibrium model and exploiting staggered solar farm installations across Chinese counties, this study reveals that solar energy development reduces local GDP per capita by an average of 2.7\%. This negative effect, primarily from competition for high-value land, is more pronounced in counties with high land opportunity costs. We observe a 2\% increase in the local population despite lower wages and higher housing prices, implying improvements in local amenities. This paper reframes the resource curse debate by examining the impacts of renewable energy, specifically solar power. |
| Keywords: | Solar energy, Land competition, Economic growth, Welfare. |
| JEL: | I31 O13 Q43 Q56 R14 |
| Date: | 2024 |
| URL: | https://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:pra:mprapa:122651 |
| By: | Desing, Harald; Schlesier, Hauke; Gauch, Marcel |
| Abstract: | What if every person on Earth would get a personal budget of solar energy, free to use individually or sell to others? A solar basic service—similar to other basic services like public education, roads or health care—can facilitate universal access to energy, end energy poverty, increase energy security, and trigger further investments to become independent of fossil fuels. Acknowledging the urgency for climate action in the face of a rapidly shrinking remaining carbon budget, it aims at accelerating the energy transition in a socially just way. It also aims at reducing barriers, potentially triggering positive social tipping towards a sunflower society predominantly powered by direct solar energy. Furthermore, it may help to legitimize currently unpopular, but highly necessary climate policies related to restricting fossil fuels. |
| Date: | 2024–11–22 |
| URL: | https://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:osf:osfxxx:2e6jn |
| By: | Mertens, Matthias (MIT); Schoefer, Benjamin (University of California, Berkeley) |
| Abstract: | We document and dissect a new stylized fact about firm growth: the shift from labor to intermediate inputs. This shift occurs in input quantities, cost and output shares, and output elasticities. We establish this fact using German firm-level data and replicate it in administrative firm data from 11 additional countries. We also document these patterns in micro-aggregated industry data for 20 European countries (and, with respect to industry cost shares, for the US). We rationalize this novel regularity within a parsimonious model featuring (i) an elasticity of substitution between intermediates and labor that exceeds unity, and (ii) an increasing shadow price of labor relative to intermediates, due to monopsony power over labor or labor adjustment costs. The shift from labor to intermediates accounts for one half to one third of the decline in the labor share in growing firms (the remainder is due to wage markdowns and markups) and rationalizes most of the labor share decline ingrowing industries. |
| Date: | 2024–11 |
| URL: | https://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:iza:izadps:dp17461 |
| By: | Alex Armand (Institute for Fiscal Studies); Britta Augsburg (Institute for Fiscal Studies); Antonella Bancalari (Institute for Fiscal Studies); Maitreesh Ghatak (Institute for Fiscal Studies) |
| Date: | 2023–11–15 |
| URL: | https://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:ifs:ifsewp:23/37 |