• Energy Research

Hydroelectricity provides approximately 65% of Brazil’s power generating capacity, making the country vulnerable to droughts, which are becoming increasingly frequent. Current energy law and policy responses to the problem rely on a sectorial approach and prioritise energy security and market regulation. Brazil has opted to increase energy security levels during periods of hydrological variability with national grid interconnection and thermal plants backup. Additionally, Brazil has created the Energy Reallocation Mechanism (MRE) to manage the generators’ financial impacts in times of insufficient water. This policy, however, was unable to avoid the high financial exposure of generators in the spot market during the severe droughts experienced in the period 2013-2017. To explore how a more diversified electricity matrix can contribute to reducing hydrological risk, this article uses Integrated Assessment Modelling (IAM) techniques to analyse future macroeconomic and energy scenarios for Brazil in a global context, aligned with the Brazilian Nationally Determined Contributions (NDC) under the 2015 Paris Agreement on Climate Change. We show that the addition of non-hydro renewables is an advantage from the integrated Water-Energy-Food nexus perspective because it reduces trade-offs amongst the water and energy sectors. Our conclusions suggest that a nexus perspective can provide useful insights on how to design energy laws and policies.

Hydroelectricity provides approximately 65% of Brazil’s power generating capacity, making the country vulnerable to droughts, which are becoming increasingly frequent. Current energy law and policy responses to the problem rely on a sectorial approach and prioritise energy security and market regulation. Brazil has opted to increase energy security levels during periods of hydrological variability with national grid interconnection and thermal plants backup. Additionally, Brazil has created the Energy Reallocation Mechanism (MRE) to manage the generators’ financial impacts in times of insufficient water. This policy, however, was unable to avoid the high financial exposure of generators in the spot market during the severe droughts experienced in the period 2013-2017. To explore how a more diversified electricity matrix can contribute to reducing hydrological risk, this article uses Integrated Assessment Modelling (IAM) techniques to analyse future macroeconomic and energy scenarios for Brazil in a global context, aligned with the Brazilian Nationally Determined Contributions (NDC) under the 2015 Paris Agreement on Climate Change. We show that the addition of non-hydro renewables is an advantage from the integrated Water-Energy-Food nexus perspective because it reduces trade-offs amongst the water and energy sectors. Our conclusions suggest that a nexus perspective can provide useful insights on how to design energy laws and policies.

AbstractThe distribution of ownership of transition risk associated with stranded fossil-fuel assets remains poorly understood. We calculate that global stranded assets as present value of future lost profits in the upstream oil and gas sector exceed US$1 trillion under plausible changes in expectations about the effects of climate policy. We trace the equity risk ownership from 43,439 oil and gas production assets through a global equity network of 1.8 million companies to their ultimate owners. Most of the market risk falls on private investors, overwhelmingly in OECD countries, including substantial exposure through pension funds and financial markets. The ownership distribution reveals an international net transfer of more than 15% of global stranded asset risk to OECD-based investors. Rich country stakeholders therefore have a major stake in how the transition in oil and gas production is managed, as ongoing supporters of the fossil-fuel economy and potentially exposed owners of stranded assets.

AbstractThe distribution of ownership of transition risk associated with stranded fossil-fuel assets remains poorly understood. We calculate that global stranded assets as present value of future lost profits in the upstream oil and gas sector exceed US$1 trillion under plausible changes in expectations about the effects of climate policy. We trace the equity risk ownership from 43,439 oil and gas production assets through a global equity network of 1.8 million companies to their ultimate owners. Most of the market risk falls on private investors, overwhelmingly in OECD countries, including substantial exposure through pension funds and financial markets. The ownership distribution reveals an international net transfer of more than 15% of global stranded asset risk to OECD-based investors. Rich country stakeholders therefore have a major stake in how the transition in oil and gas production is managed, as ongoing supporters of the fossil-fuel economy and potentially exposed owners of stranded assets.

Studies report that firms do not invest in cost-effective green technologies. While economic barriers can explain parts of the gap, behavioural aspects cause further under-valuation. This could be partly due to systematic deviations of decision-making agents' perceptions from normative benchmarks, and partly due to their diversity. This paper combines available behavioural knowledge into a simple model of technology adoption. Firms are modelled as heterogeneous agents with different behavioural responses. To quantify the gap, the model simulates their investment decisions from different theoretical perspectives. While relevant parameters are uncertain at the micro-level, using distributed agent perspectives provides a realistic representation of the macro adoption rate. The model is calibrated using audit data for proposed investments in energy efficient electric motors. The inclusion of behavioural factors reduces significantly expected adoption rates: from 81% using a normative optimisation perspective, down to 20% using a behavioural perspective. The effectiveness of various policies is tested. 21 pages, 6 figures, 7 tables, to appear in Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions