1 / 13

Dalia Patiño-Echeverri Nicholas School of the Environment - Duke University CEDM Annual Meeting

Decision Support for Public Stake-holders assessing utilities responses to new EPA rules for coal-fired power plants. Dalia Patiño-Echeverri Nicholas School of the Environment - Duke University CEDM Annual Meeting May 21-22, 2012, Carnegie Mellon University. Motivation.

noelani-shelton
Télécharger la présentation

Dalia Patiño-Echeverri Nicholas School of the Environment - Duke University CEDM Annual Meeting

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Decision Support for Public Stake-holders assessing utilities responses to new EPA rules for coal-fired power plants Dalia Patiño-Echeverri Nicholas School of the Environment - Duke University CEDM Annual Meeting May 21-22, 2012, Carnegie Mellon University

  2. Motivation • Upcoming EPA regulations for power plants are forcing utilities to retrofit or replace coal-fired power plants • PUCs are required to assess prudency of these investments but do not have adequate tools • Other interveners that could provide alternative decision analysis to PUCs often lack tools as well Can we help improve decision making in this transcendental and complex issue?

  3. Goal of this project: Provide decision making tools to facilitate analysis that: • Is prospective and comprehensive • Considers current and potential future rules • Considers “all” possible investment alternatives • Explicitly accounts for the multiple-criteria affecting the decision • Criteria are identified, ranked, and weighted • Tradeoffs between criteria are quantified • Explicitly accounts for uncertainty judgments

  4. PUC Project Using inputs from CEDM research: In collaboration with: Identify role UC Berkeley, UCLA, UMN, UNC, USF With help from: Seven MEM students working on their MP Nicholas Institute Staff Identify multiple criteria Communication materials on CCS, renewables . L.Fleishman Expert elicitation materials Morgan, G. Expert weighting approaches, Guvenc et al. Determine how uncertainty is characterized Cost and environmental performance of Wind, natural gas, demand response Expand / Improve PowerOptInvest

  5. Multiple-criteria affecting PUC decision making example 1: • West Virginia: “to ensure that reasonably priced and reliable utility services are available to all customers and to increase business investment, job creation/retention, and the state’s overall economic competitiveness”

  6. Multiple-criteria affecting PUC decision making example 2: • Colorado: “Regulate effectively so that the people of Colorado receive safe, reliable, and reasonably priced services consistent with the economic, environmental and socialvalues of our state”

  7. Multi-criteria decision making tool Methods: Historical Review / Interviews / Survey Instrument

  8. Characterizing uncertainty

  9. Characterizing uncertainty Methods: Historical Review / Elicitation of subjective judgments

  10. PowerOptInvest: • UIDT available to public stake holders • Presented in a number of NARUC webinars, conferences and private meetings • Developing didactical “examples” and scenarios data to preload

  11. Thank you! • dalia.patino@duke.edu • http://nicholasinstitute.duke.edu/climate/poweroptinvest

More Related