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.
BabikerM.ReillyJ.MayerM.EckausR.WingI.HymanR. (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.
3.
BerndtE.R.WoodD.O. (1975). “Technology, Prices, and the Derived Demand for Energy.” Review of Economics and Statistics (August) 57: 259-68.
4.
BernsteinP.MontgomeryW.RutherfordT. (1999). “Global Impacts of the Kyoto Agreement: Results from the MS-MRT Model.” Resource and Energy Economics21:375-413.
5.
BöhringerC. (1998). “The Synthesis of Bottom-up and Top-Down in Energy Policy Modeling.” Energy Economics20(3): 233-248.
6.
ChristensenL.JorgensenD.LauL.J. (1973). “Transcendental Logarithmic Production Frontiers.” The Review of Economics and Statistics (February) 55: 28-45.
7.
FishboneLAbilockA. (1981). “MARKAL, a Linear Programming Model for Energy Systems Analysis: Technical Description of the Brookhaven National Laboratory Version.” International Journal of Energy Research5: 353-75.
8.
FreiC.HaldiP.SarlosG. (2003). “Dynamic Formulation of a Top-Down and Bottom-Up Merging Energy Policy Model.” Energy Policy31: 1017-1031.
9.
GriffinJ. (1977). “The Econometrics of Joint Production: Another Approach.” The Review of Economics and Statistics (August) 59: 389-97.
10.
GrubbM.KohlerI.AndersonD. (2002). “Induced Technical Change in Energy and Environmental Modeling: Analytical Approaches and Policy Implications.” Annual Review of Energy and the Environment27: 271-308.
11.
HansonD.LaitnerS. (2004). “An integrated analysis of policies that increase investments in advanced energy-efficient/low-carbon technologies”. Energy Economics 26 (4):739-755.
12.
HorneM.JaccardM.TiedmannK. (2005). “Improving behavioral realism in hybrid energy- economy models using discrete choice studies of personal transportation decisions.” Energy Economics27(1): 59-77.
13.
IorwerthA.BagnoliP.DissouY.PelusoT.RudinJ. (2000). A Computable General Equi- librium Aalysis of Greenhouse Gas Reduction Paths and Scenarios. Economic Studies and Policy Analysis Division, Finance Canada.
14.
JaccardM.BailieA.NyboerJ. (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.
JaccardM.BatailleC. (2000). “Estimating Future Elasticities of Substitution for the Rebound Debate.” Energy Policy28: 451-55.
16.
JaccardM.NyboerJ.BatailleC.SadownikB. (2003). “Modeling the Cost of Climate Policy: Distinguishing Between Alternative Cost Definitions and Long run Cost Dynamics.” The Energy Journal24(1): 49-73.
17.
JacobsenH. (1998). “Integrating the Bottom-up and Top-Down Approach to Energy-Economy Modeling: The Case of Denmark.” Energy Economics20(4), 443-461.
18.
KoopmansC.C.teD.W. Velde (2001). “Bridging the Energy Efficiency Gap: Using Bottom-up Information in a Top-Down Energy Demand Model.” Energy Economics23(1): 57-75.
19.
KurosawaA.YagitaH.WeishengZ.TokimatsuK.YanagisawaY.. (1999). “Analsyis of Carbon Emissions Stabilization Targets and Adaptation by Integrated Assessment Model.” Energy Journal Special Issue 157-177.
20.
LabrietM.LoulouR.KanudiaA.. (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 HaurieA.ViguierL.. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
21.
LöschelA. (2002). “Technological Change in Economic Models of Environmental Policy: A Survey.” Ecological Economics43: 105-126.
22.
LoulouR.LavigneD.. (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.
McDonaldA.ShrattenholzerL. (2001). “Learning Rates for Energy Technologies.” Energy Policy29: 255-261.
24.
McFarlandJ.ReillyJ.HerzogH. (2004) “Representing energy technologies in top-down economic models using bottom-up information.” Energy Economics26: 685-707.
25.
McKitrickR. (1998). “The Econometric Critique of Computable General Equilibrium Modeling: The Role of Functional Forms.” Economic Modeling15: 543-73.
26.
ManneA.WeneC.O. (1992). MARKAL-MACRO: A Linked Model for Energy-Economy Analysis. Brookhaven National Laboratory.
27.
MichaelisL.DavidsonO. (1996). “GHG Mitigation in the Transport Sector.” Energy Policy24(10/11): 969-84.
28.
McKibbinW.WilcoxenP. (1999). “The Theoretical and Empirical Structure of the G-Cubed Model.” Economic Modelling16: 123-48.
29.
MorrisS.GoldsteinG.FthenakisV. (2002) “NEMS and MARKAL-MACRO Models for Energy-Environmental-Economic Analysis: A Comparison of the Electricity and Carbon Reduction Projections.” Environmental Modeling and Assessment17: 207-216.
30.
NyboerJ. (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.
RiversN.JaccardM.. (2005) “Combining Top-Down and Bottom-Up Approaches to Energy- Economy Modeling Using Discrete Choice Methods.” The Energy Journal26(1): 83-106.
32.
SandsR. (2002). “Dynamics of Carbon Abatement in the Second Generation Model.” Energy Eco- nomics26(4): 721-738.
33.
SchäferA.JacobyH. (2005). “Technology Detail in a Multi-Sector CGE Model: Transport Under Climate Policy.” Energy Economics27: 1-24.
34.
WirjantoT. (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.
