Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31073254›Full record

ArticleEnergy economics2018

Electric sector policy, technological change, and U.S. emissions reductions goals: Results from the EMF 32 model intercomparison project.

John E Bistline, Elke Hodson, Charles G Rossmann, Jared Creason, Brian Murray, Alexander R Barron

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Energy economics, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

11 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Simulating institutional heterogeneity in sustainability science.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2024
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Expert assessments of the cost and expected future performance of proton exchange membrane fuel cells for vehicles.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2019
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

John E BistlineElectric Power Research Institute, 3420 Hillview Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94304, USA.
Elke HodsonU.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue, Washington, DC 20585, USA.
Charles G RossmannSouthern Company, 600 N. 18th Street, Birmingham, AL 35203, USA.
Jared CreasonU.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, Mail Code 6207J, Washington, DC 20460, USA.
Brian MurrayDuke University, Energy Initiative and Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions, Box 90335, Durham, NC 27708, USA.
Alexander R BarronSmith College, 44 College Lane, Northampton, MA 01063, USA.

Funding

Intramural EPA EPA999999
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The Energy Modeling Forum (EMF) 32 study compares a range of coordinated scenarios to explore implications of U.S. climate policy options and technological change on the electric power sector. Harmonized policy scenarios (including mass-based emissions limits and various power-sector-only carbon tax trajectories) across 16 models provide comparative assessments of potential impacts on electric sector investment and generation outcomes, emissions reductions, and economic implications. This paper compares results across these policy alternatives, including a variety of technological and natural gas price assumptions, and summarizes robust findings and areas of disagreement across participating models. Under a wide range of policy, technology, and market assumptions, model results suggest that future coal generation will decline relative to current levels while generation from natural gas, wind, and solar will increase, though the pace and extent of these changes vary by policy scenario, technological assumptions, region, and model. Climate policies can amplify trends already under way and make them less susceptible to future market changes. The model results provide useful insights to a range of stakeholders, but future research focused on intersectoral linkages in emission reductions (e.g., the role of electrification), effects of energy storage, and better coverage of bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS) can improve insights even further.

Indexed as

C6Climate policyElectric sectorEnergy-economic modelingL94Market-based environmental policyModel intercomparisonQ41Q42Q48Q55Technology

Identifiers

PMID31073254
PMCPMC6503684

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.