Search

Climate-induced extreme weather events, as well as other natural and human-caused disasters, have the potential to increase the duration and frequency of large power outages. Resilience, in the form of supplying a small amount of power to homes and communities, can mitigate outage consequences by sustaining critical electricity-dependent services. Public decisions about investing in resilience depend, in part, on how much residential customers value those critical services. Here we develop a method to estimate residential willingness-to-pay for back-up electricity services in the event of a large 10-day blackout during very cold winter weather, and then survey a sample of 483 residential customers across northeast USA using that method. Respondents were willing to pay US$1.7–2.3 kWh–1 to sustain private demands and US$19–29 day–1 to support their communities. Previous experience with long-duration outages and the framing of the cause of the outage (natural or human-caused) did not affect willingness-to-pay.

Benefit-cost analysis is widely used to evaluate alternative courses of action that are designed to achieve policy objectives. Although many analyses take uncertainty into account, they typically only consider uncertainty about cost estimates and physical states of the world, whereas uncertainty about individual preferences, thus the benefit of policy intervention, is ignored. Here, we propose a strategy to integrate individual uncertainty about preferences into benefit-cost analysis using societal preference intervals, which are ranges of values over which it is unclear whether society as a whole should accept or reject an option. To illustrate the method, we use preferences for implementing a smart grid technology to sustain critical electricity demand during a 24-hour regional power blackout on a hot summer weekend. Preferences were elicited from a convenience sample of residents in Allegheny County, Pennsylvania. This illustrative example shows that uncertainty in individual preferences, when aggregated to form societal preference intervals, can substantially change society's decision. We conclude with a discussion of where preference uncertainty comes from, how it might be reduced, and why incorporating unresolved preference uncertainty into benefit-cost analyses can be important.

Residents in developed economies depend heavily on electric services. While distributed resources and a variety of new smart technologies can increase the reliability of that service, adopting them involves costs, necessitating tradeoffs between cost and reliability. An important input to making such tradeoffs is an estimate of the value customers place on reliable electric services. We develop an elicitation framework that helps individuals think systematically about the value they attach to reliable electric service. Our approach employs a detailed and realistic blackout scenario, full or partial (20 A) backup service, questions about willingness to pay (WTP) using a multiple bounded discrete choice method, information regarding inconveniences and economic losses, and checks for bias and consistency. We applied this method to a convenience sample of residents in Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, finding that respondents valued a kWh for backup services they assessed to be high priority more than services that were seen as low priority ($0.75/kWh vs. $0.51/kWh). As more information about the consequences of a blackout was provided, this difference increased ($1.2/kWh vs. $0.35/kWh), and respondents' uncertainty about the backup services decreased (Full: $11 to $9.0, Partial: $13 to $11). There was no evidence that the respondents were anchored by their previous WTP statements, but they demonstrated only weak scope sensitivity. In sum, the consumer surplus associated with providing a partial electric backup service during a blackout may justify the costs of such service, but measurement of that surplus depends on the public having accurate information about blackouts and their consequences.

While they are rare, widespread blackouts of the bulk power system can result in large costs to individuals and society. If local distribution circuits remain intact, it is possible to use new technologies including smart meters, intelligent switches that can change the topology of distribution circuits, and distributed generation owned by customers and the power company, to provide limited local electric power service. Many utilities are already making investments that would make this possible. We use customers' measured willingness to pay to explore when the incremental investments needed to implement these capabilities would be justified. Under many circumstances, upgrades in advanced distribution systems could be justified for a customer charge of less than a dollar a month (plus the cost of electricity used during outages), and would be less expensive and safer than the proliferation of small portable backup generators. We also discuss issues of social equity, extreme events, and various sources of underlying uncertainty.

A number of analyses, meta-analyses, and assessments, including those performed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, and the International Energy Agency, have concluded that deployment of a diverse portfolio of clean energy technologies makes a transition to a low-carbon-emission energy system both more feasible and less costly than other pathways. In contrast, Jacobson et al. [Jacobson MZ, Delucchi MA, Cameron MA, Frew BA (2015) Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 112(49):15060-15065] argue that it is feasible to provide "low-cost solutions to the grid reliability problem with 100% penetration of WWS [wind, water and solar power] across all energy sectors in the continental United States between 2050 and 2055", with only electricity and hydrogen as energy carriers. In this paper, we evaluate that study and find significant shortcomings in the analysis. In particular, we point out that this work used invalid modeling tools, contained modeling errors, and made implausible and inadequately supported assumptions. Policy makers should treat with caution any visions of a rapid, reliable, and low-cost transition to entire energy systems that relies almost exclusively on wind, solar, and hydroelectric power.

Many studies anticipate that carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) will be essential to decarbonizing the U.S. economy. However, prior work has not estimated the time required to develop, approve, and implement a geologic sequestration site in the United States. We generate such an estimate by identifying six clearance points that must be passed before a sequestration site can become operational. For each clearance point (CP), we elicit expert judgments of the time required in the form of probability distributions and then use stochastic simulation to combine and sum the results. We find that, on average, there is a 90% chance that the time required lies between 5.5 and 9.6 y, with an upper bound of 12 y. Even using the most optimistic expert judgements, the lower bound on time is 2.7 y, and the upper bound is 8.3 y. Using the most pessimistic judgements, the lower bound is 3.5 y and the upper bound is 19.2 y. These estimates suggest that strategies must be found to safely accelerate the process. We conclude the paper by discussing seven potential strategies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

With the growing interest in hydrogen as an energy carrier and the federal-level investments in the development of hydrogen hubs in the United States, public perception and understanding of hydrogen and of regional hydrogen hubs will play a key role. The tri-state region of Southwestern Pennsylvania is a prime candidate for the development of such a hub. Because most people in the region have almost no familiarity with hydrogen, a modified mental models approach was developed. Eight participatory seminars were conducted over the course of five months in the greater Pittsburgh region to develop an initial understanding of likely public reactions. The study presents an overview of which advantages, disadvantages and uncertainties were mentioned across the group interviews, both as related to blue hydrogen and to a hypothetical hydrogen hub. While some discussions confirmed prior findings on public perception studies, we found that even when topics are not introduced by a facilitator, the interviews allowed participants the freedom to raise even advanced engineering topics independently. The groups were asked to identify which groups would be likely to support and oppose a hypothetical hub project. Participants' responses displayed unique regional considerations. Based on the discussions observed, developing a cohesive public communication strategy between public and private sectors will need to account for both hydrogen production methods and, where relevant, associated technologies (such as carbon capture and sequestration). Lastly, regional differences are likely to play a role in determining the topics and communication strategy that would best address potential concerns of residents. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]