迈向新的国家能源政策:评估各种选择Toward a New National Energy Policy: Assessing the Options in2010

这项研究的几个重要特征使其与美国气候和能源选择的其他评估不同。•首先，我们的研究明确侧重于政策设计和评估。许多先前的研究已经检验了替代燃料、新技术和未来减少石油使用和二氧化碳排放的途径的技术可行性。然而，必须超越工程估计或特定燃料和技术的可得性，考虑将导致这些减少的机制，即推动私营市场变化的具体政府政策工具，这是我们的关键重点。如果不了解这些政策是如何运作的，决策者就无法明确地指导如何向前发展。•第二，我们采用一致的经济建模方法，这是研究的基础。这种模型，我们称之为NEMS-RFF，是美国能源部/能源信息管理局国家能源建模系统（NEMS）的RFF版本。我们在OnLocation，Inc.的帮助下开发了这个版本。通过使用相同的模型和相同的基本假设，我们可以对不同的策略进行评分，从而进行苹果对苹果的比较。我们的得分基于两个有效性指标：石油消耗量减少1桶，二氧化碳排放量减少1吨，以及每项政策的成本。•第三，这项研究范围广泛，考虑到了一系列广泛的政策。与其他一些研究不同，我们还研究了一系列横切策略，这些策略组合了多个单独的策略。我们针对一个参考案例，研究了35项政策，包括4项交叉政策选择。尽管没有一项研究能够完全全面，但我们认为，这份报告涵盖了决策者目前面临的许多相关能源政策选择。•第四，这项研究的一个特点是根据基本的微观经济原则，对经济或“福利”成本进行审查，其中成本是社会为实现特定的石油使用和/或二氧化碳排放减少而放弃的资源的价值。例如，这些成本可能包括使用更清洁但更昂贵的燃料生产电力、减少驾驶或采用更节能的技术。许多研究都是根据一种燃料替代另一种燃料或一种节能技术替代另一种效率较低的燃料的情况来计算直接支出变化。其他国家，特别是那些着眼于碳税或总量管制和贸易计划等基础广泛的政策的国家，评估国内生产总值（GDP）的变化。尽管如此

Several important features of this study distinguish it from other assessments of U.S. climate and energy options.  •First, our research focuses explicitly on policy design and evaluation. Many previous stud-ies have examined the technical feasibility  of alternative fuels, new technologies, and future pathways to reduce oil use and CO2 emissions. However, it is essential to look beyond engineering estimates or availability of particular fuels and technologies, and consider the mechanisms that will bring about those reductions, namely, the specific government policy instruments that will drive changes in private markets, our key focus. Without an understanding of how these policies work, decisionmakers have no clear guidance on how to move forward.  •Second, we use a consistent economic model-ing approach, which is the backbone of the study. This model, which we call NEMS-RFF, is an RFF version of the U.S. Department of Energy/Energy Information Administration’s National Energy Modeling System (NEMS). We developed this version with the assistance of OnLocation, Inc. By using the same model with the same underlying assumptions, we can score different policies, making apples-to-apples comparisons. We based our scores on two effectiveness metrics—reduction in    barrels of oil consumed1 and reduction in tons of CO2 emitted—as well as the cost of each policy.  •Third, the study is wide-ranging, taking into account a broad menu of policies. Unlike some other studies, we also examine an array of crosscutting policies that combine multiple individual policies. We examined 35 policy sce-narios, including 4 crosscutting policy options, against a reference case. Although no study can be completely comprehensive, we believe this report covers many of the relevant energy policy options currently facing policymakers.  •Fourth, a hallmark of this study is its examina-tion of economic or “welfare” costs, based on fundamental microeconomic principles in which cost is the value of the resources that society gives up to achieve a given reduction in oil use and/or CO2 emissions. These costs could include, for example, producing elec-tricity with cleaner but more expensive fuels, driving less, or adopting more energy-efficient technologies. Many studies calculate direct expenditure changes from scenarios in which one fuel substitutes for another or one energy-efficient technology replaces another, less efficient one. Others, particularly those looking at broad-based policies such as carbon taxes or cap-and-trade programs, assess changes in gross domestic product (GDP). Although such