IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/appene/v304y2021ics0306261921010916.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Promoting reproducibility and increased collaboration in electric sector capacity expansion models with community benchmarking and intercomparison efforts

Author

Listed:
  • Henry, Candise L.
  • Eshraghi, Hadi
  • Lugovoy, Oleg
  • Waite, Michael B.
  • DeCarolis, Joseph F.
  • Farnham, David J.
  • Ruggles, Tyler H.
  • Peer, Rebecca A.M.
  • Wu, Yuezi
  • de Queiroz, Anderson
  • Potashnikov, Vladimir
  • Modi, Vijay
  • Caldeira, Ken

Abstract

Electric sector capacity expansion models are widely used by academic, government, and industry researchers for policy analysis and planning. Many models overlap in their capabilities, spatial and temporal resolutions, and research purposes, but yield diverse results due to both parametric and structural differences. Previous work has attempted to identify some differences among commonly used capacity expansion models but has been unable to disentangle parametric from structural uncertainty. Here, we present a model benchmarking effort using highly simplified scenarios applied to four open-source models of the U.S. electric sector. We eliminate all parametric uncertainty through using a common dataset and leave only structural differences. We demonstrate how a systematic model comparison process allows us to pinpoint specific and important structural differences among our models, including specification of technologies as baseload or load following generation, battery state-of-charge at the beginning and end of a modeled period, application of battery roundtrip efficiency, treatment of discount rates, formulation of model end effects, and digit precision of input parameters. Our results show that such a process can be effective for improving consistency across models and building model confidence, substantiating specific modeling choices, reporting uncertainties, and identifying areas for further research and development. We also introduce an open-source test dataset that the modeling community can use for unit testing and build on for benchmarking exercises of more complex models. A community benchmarking effort can increase collaboration among energy modelers and provide transparency regarding the energy transition and energy challenges, for other stakeholders such as policymakers.

Suggested Citation

  • Henry, Candise L. & Eshraghi, Hadi & Lugovoy, Oleg & Waite, Michael B. & DeCarolis, Joseph F. & Farnham, David J. & Ruggles, Tyler H. & Peer, Rebecca A.M. & Wu, Yuezi & de Queiroz, Anderson & Potashni, 2021. "Promoting reproducibility and increased collaboration in electric sector capacity expansion models with community benchmarking and intercomparison efforts," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 304(C).
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:appene:v:304:y:2021:i:c:s0306261921010916
    DOI: 10.1016/j.apenergy.2021.117745
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0306261921010916
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.apenergy.2021.117745?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ottmar Edenhofer, Kai Lessmann, Claudia Kemfert, Michael Grubb and Jonathan Kohler, 2006. "Induced Technological Change: Exploring its Implications for the Economics of Atmospheric Stabilization: Synthesis Report from the Innovation Modeling Comparison Project," The Energy Journal, International Association for Energy Economics, vol. 0(Special I), pages 57-108.
    2. Howells, Mark & Rogner, Holger & Strachan, Neil & Heaps, Charles & Huntington, Hillard & Kypreos, Socrates & Hughes, Alison & Silveira, Semida & DeCarolis, Joe & Bazillian, Morgan & Roehrl, Alexander, 2011. "OSeMOSYS: The Open Source Energy Modeling System: An introduction to its ethos, structure and development," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(10), pages 5850-5870, October.
    3. Ringkjøb, Hans-Kristian & Haugan, Peter M. & Solbrekke, Ida Marie, 2018. "A review of modelling tools for energy and electricity systems with large shares of variable renewables," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 96(C), pages 440-459.
    4. Koltsaklis, Nikolaos E. & Dagoumas, Athanasios S., 2018. "State-of-the-art generation expansion planning: A review," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 230(C), pages 563-589.
    5. Huber, Matthias & Roger, Albert & Hamacher, Thomas, 2015. "Optimizing long-term investments for a sustainable development of the ASEAN power system," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 88(C), pages 180-193.
    6. Ottmar Edenhofer, Kai Lessmann, Claudia Kemfert, Michael Grubb and Jonathan Kohler, 2006. "Induced Technological Change: Exploring its Implications for the Economics of Atmospheric Stabilization: Synthesis Report from the Innovation Modeling Comparison Project," The Energy Journal, International Association for Energy Economics, vol. 0(Special I), pages 57-108.
    7. John Weyant & Elmar Kriegler, 2014. "Preface and introduction to EMF 27," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 123(3), pages 345-352, April.
    8. Mai, Trieu & Bistline, John & Sun, Yinong & Cole, Wesley & Marcy, Cara & Namovicz, Chris & Young, David, 2018. "The role of input assumptions and model structures in projections of variable renewable energy: A multi-model perspective of the U.S. electricity system," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 76(C), pages 313-324.
    9. Clarke, Leon & Krey, Volker & Weyant, John & Chaturvedi, Vaibhav, 2012. "Regional energy system variation in global models: Results from the Asian Modeling Exercise scenarios," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 34(S3), pages 293-305.
    10. Dyner, Isaac & Larsen, Erik R., 2001. "From planning to strategy in the electricity industry," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 29(13), pages 1145-1154, November.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Grace C. Wu & Ranjit Deshmukh & Anne Trainor & Anagha Uppal & A. F. M. Kamal Chowdhury & Carlos Baez & Erik Martin & Jonathan Higgins & Ana Mileva & Kudakwashe Ndhlukula, 2024. "Avoiding ecosystem and social impacts of hydropower, wind, and solar in Southern Africa’s low-carbon electricity system," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 15(1), pages 1-13, December.
    2. Chang, Miguel & Lund, Henrik & Thellufsen, Jakob Zinck & Østergaard, Poul Alberg, 2023. "Perspectives on purpose-driven coupling of energy system models," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 265(C).
    3. Alyssa Diva Mustika & Rémy Rigo-Mariani & Vincent Debusschere & Amaury Pachurka, 2022. "New Members Selection for the Expansion of Energy Communities," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(18), pages 1-15, September.
    4. Oleg Lugovoy & Varun Jyothiprakash & Sourish Chatterjee & Samridh Sharma & Arijit Mukherjee & Abhishek Das & Shreya Some & Disha L. Dinesha & Nandini Das & Parthaa Bosu & Shyamasree Dasgupta & Lavanya, 2021. "Towards a Zero-Carbon Electricity System for India in 2050: IDEEA Model-Based Scenarios Integrating Wind and Solar Complementarity and Geospatial Endowments," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(21), pages 1-57, October.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Cohen, S.M. & Iyer, G.C. & Brown, M. & Macknick, J. & Wise, M. & Binsted, M. & Voisin, N. & Rice, J. & Hejazi, M., 2021. "How structural differences influence cross-model consistency: An electric sector case study," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 144(C).
    2. Chang, Miguel & Lund, Henrik & Thellufsen, Jakob Zinck & Østergaard, Poul Alberg, 2023. "Perspectives on purpose-driven coupling of energy system models," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 265(C).
    3. Østergaard, P.A. & Lund, H. & Thellufsen, J.Z. & Sorknæs, P. & Mathiesen, B.V., 2022. "Review and validation of EnergyPLAN," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 168(C).
    4. Huntington, Hillard G., 2021. "Model evaluation for policy insights: Reflections on the forum process," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 156(C).
    5. Santiago Moreno-Bromberg & Luca Taschini, 2011. "Pollution permits, Strategic Trading and Dynamic Technology Adoption," Papers 1103.2914, arXiv.org.
    6. Wiebe, Kirsten S. & Lutz, Christian, 2016. "Endogenous technological change and the policy mix in renewable power generation," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 60(C), pages 739-751.
    7. Weber, Thomas A. & Neuhoff, Karsten, 2010. "Carbon markets and technological innovation," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 60(2), pages 115-132, September.
    8. Gusdorf, Francois & Hallegatte, Stephane, 2007. "Behaviors and housing inertia are key factors in determining the consequences of a shock in transportation costs," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(6), pages 3483-3495, June.
    9. Kesicki, Fabian, 2013. "What are the key drivers of MAC curves? A partial-equilibrium modelling approach for the UK," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 58(C), pages 142-151.
    10. Ottmar Edenhofer & Susanne Kadner & Christoph von Stechow & Gregor Schwerhoff & Gunnar Luderer, 2014. "Linking climate change mitigation research to sustainable development," Chapters, in: Giles Atkinson & Simon Dietz & Eric Neumayer & Matthew Agarwala (ed.), Handbook of Sustainable Development, chapter 30, pages 476-499, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    11. Céline Guivarch & Renaud Crassous & Olivier Sassi & Stéphane Hallegatte, 2009. "The costs of climate policies in a second best world with labour market," CIRED Working Papers hal-00866429, HAL.
    12. Rick Baker & Andrew Barker & Alan Johnston & Michael Kohlhaas, 2008. "The Stern Review: an assessment of its methodology," Staff Working Papers 0801, Productivity Commission, Government of Australia.
    13. Radulescu, Doina & Stimmelmayr, Michael, 2010. "The impact of the 2008 German corporate tax reform: A dynamic CGE analysis," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 27(1), pages 454-467, January.
    14. Jayadev, Gopika & Leibowicz, Benjamin D. & Kutanoglu, Erhan, 2020. "U.S. electricity infrastructure of the future: Generation and transmission pathways through 2050," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 260(C).
    15. Keller, Victor & English, Jeffrey & Fernandez, Julian & Wade, Cameron & Fowler, McKenzie & Scholtysik, Sven & Palmer-Wilson, Kevin & Donald, James & Robertson, Bryson & Wild, Peter & Crawford, Curran , 2019. "Electrification of road transportation with utility controlled charging: A case study for British Columbia with a 93% renewable electricity target," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 253(C), pages 1-1.
    16. Dranka, Géremi Gilson & Ferreira, Paula & Vaz, A. Ismael F., 2021. "A review of co-optimization approaches for operational and planning problems in the energy sector," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 304(C).
    17. van Ouwerkerk, Jonas & Gils, Hans Christian & Gardian, Hedda & Kittel, Martin & Schill, Wolf-Peter & Zerrahn, Alexander & Murmann, Alexander & Launer, Jann & Torralba-Díaz, Laura & Bußar, Christian, 2022. "Impacts of power sector model features on optimal capacity expansion: A comparative study," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 157(C).
    18. Dranka, Géremi Gilson & Ferreira, Paula & Vaz, A. Ismael F., 2020. "Cost-effectiveness of energy efficiency investments for high renewable electricity systems," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 198(C).
    19. Michael Grubb & Jean-Francois Mercure & Pablo Salas & Rutger-Jan Lange & Ida Sognnaes, 2018. "Systems Innovation, Inertia and Pliability: A mathematical exploration with implications for climate change abatement," Working Papers EPRG 1808, Energy Policy Research Group, Cambridge Judge Business School, University of Cambridge.
    20. Seljom, Pernille & Kvalbein, Lisa & Hellemo, Lars & Kaut, Michal & Ortiz, Miguel Muñoz, 2021. "Stochastic modelling of variable renewables in long-term energy models: Dataset, scenario generation & quality of results," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 236(C).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:appene:v:304:y:2021:i:c:s0306261921010916. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/405891/description#description .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.