Policy - POLES

From IAMC-Documentation
Jump to: navigation, search

Model Documentation - POLES

Corresponding documentation
Previous versions
Model information
Model link
Institution JRC - Joint Research Centre - European Commission (EC-JRC), Belgium, http://ec.europa.eu/jrc/en/.
Solution concept Partial equilibrium (price elastic demand)
Solution method SimulationRecursive simulation
Anticipation Myopic

The POLES model is used to simulate:

  • GHG policies
    • Country/region objective: Implementation of carbon (or CO2eq) pricing (iterative calibration)
    • Cumulated GHG/CO2 buget: Regional differentiation of constraint and carbon pricing permitting to reduce emissions within budget (iterative calibration)
    • Carbon leakage (limited)
  • Energy taxation policies
    • GHG-related pricing policies (carbon pricing)
    • other environmental taxes (e.g. introduction of environmental damage tax on non-conventional fuels production)
    • fossil fuel subsidies (possibility to phase out)
    • introduction of renewable fuels subsidy
  • Support policies for specific technologies
    • Electricity generation feed-in tariffs
    • Low interest loans or subsidies to capital cost in purchase of energy consuming equipment
    • Acceleration of the penetration emerging vehicle technologies
    • Modal shifts in passenger transport
  • Efficiency standards
    • fuel efficiency standards in vehicles
    • penetration of low-energy consuming buildings
  • Openness to investment
    • Reactivity to prices on exploration and production in oil and gas producing regions
    • Discount rates in investment
    • National preference in the sourcing of fossil fuels or national resource management in domestic fossil fuels production

Policies included are updated regularly to reflect the current state of affairs at country and sector level. See for example the list of policies in the GECO 2016 scenarios.

The model has been used extensively to study climate mitigation scenarios:

  • It has specifically been used to inform UNFCCC international negotiations, looking at global and regional climate mitigation scenarios and assessing the economic costs (and, in tandem with other models, the economic impacts) of the transition to a low-carbon economy: with relation to the Kyoto Protocol and beyond12, in the negotiations around the COPs in Copenhagen and Doha345 and more recently on the Paris Agreement67.
  • It has been used in several global climate policy modelling exercises89101112, as well as studies on the national/regional level (Europe1314, Mexico15, ...).
  • Additionally, using MACCs from the model, it is possible to study regional emissions trading schemes and participation schemes in wider global regimes161718.


  1. ^  |  Russ H, Wiesenthal T, Van Regemorter D, Ciscar Martinez J (2005). Global Climate Policy Scenarios for 2030 and beyond - Analysis of Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction Pathway Scenarios with the POLES and GEM-E3 Models. [1]. Seville, Spain: European Commission - Joint Research Centre.
  2. ^  |  Peter Russ, Patrick Criqui (2007). Post-Kyoto CO2 emission reduction: The soft landing scenario analysed with POLES and other world models. Energy Policy, 35 (), 786-796. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2006.03.010
  3. ^  |  Russ H, Ciscar Martinez J, Szabo L (2005). Analysis of Post-2012 Climate Policy Scenarios with Limited Participation. [1]. Seville, Spain: European Commission - Joint Research Centre.
  4. ^  |  Russ H, Ciscar Martinez J, Saveyn B, Soria Ramirez A, Szabo L, Van Regemorter D (2005). Economic Assessment of Post-2012 Global Climate Policies - Analysis of Gas Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction Scenarios with the POLES and GEM-E3 models. [1]. Seville, Spain: European Commission - Joint Research Centre.
  5. ^  |  Keywan Riahi, Elmar Kriegler, Nils Johnson, Christoph Bertram, Michel den Elzen, Jiyong Eom, Michiel Schaeffer, Jae Edmonds, Morna Isaac, Volker Krey, Thomas Longden, Gunnar Luderer, Aurélie Méjean, David L. McCollum, Silvana Mima, Hal Turton, Detlef P. van Vuuren, Kenichi Wada, Valentina Bosetti, Pantelis Capros, Patrick Criqui, Meriem Hamdi-Cherif, Mikiko Kainuma, Ottmar Edenhofer (2015). Locked into Copenhagen pledges — Implications of short-term emission targets for the cost and feasibility of long-term climate goals. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 90 (), 8-23. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2013.09.016
  6. ^  |  Kitous A., Keramidas K. (2014). Analysis of scenarios integrating the INDCs. [1]. Seville, Spain: European Commission - Joint Research Centre.
  7. ^  |  Toon Vandyck, Kimon Keramidas, Bert Saveyn, Alban Kitous, Zoi Vrontisi (2016). A global stocktake of the Paris pledges: Implications for energy systems and economy. Global Environmental Change, 41 (), 46-63. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2016.08.006
  8. ^  |  Patrick Criqui, Peter Russ, Daniel Deybe (2006). Impacts of Multi-gas Strategies for Greenhouse Gas Emission Abatement: Insights from a Partial Equilibrium Model. The Energy Journal, SI2006 ()http://dx.doi.org/10.5547/issn0195-6574-ej-volsi2006-nosi3-12
  9. ^  |  Detlef P. van Vuuren, Elie Bellevrat, Alban Kitous, Morna Isaac (2010). Bio-Energy Use and Low Stabilization Scenarios. The Energy Journal, 31 ()http://dx.doi.org/10.5547/issn0195-6574-ej-vol31-nosi-8
  10. ^  |  Peter Rafaj, Wolfgang Schöpp, Peter Russ, Chris Heyes, Markus Amann (2012). Co-benefits of post-2012 global climate mitigation policies. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, 18 (), 801-824. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11027-012-9390-6
  11. ^  |  A. Markandya, M. González-Eguino, P. Criqui, S. Mima (2014). Low climate stabilisation under diverse growth and convergence scenarios. Energy Policy, 64 (), 288-301. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2013.07.046
  12. ^  |  Elmar Kriegler, Keywan Riahi, Nico Bauer, Valeria Jana Schwanitz, Nils Petermann, Valentina Bosetti, Adriana Marcucci, Sander Otto, Leonidas Paroussos, Shilpa Rao, Tabaré Arroyo Currás, Shuichi Ashina, Johannes Bollen, Jiyong Eom, Meriem Hamdi-Cherif, Thomas Longden, Alban Kitous, Aurélie Méjean, Fuminori Sano, Michiel Schaeffer, Kenichi Wada, Pantelis Capros, Detlef P. van Vuuren, Ottmar Edenhofer (2015). Making or breaking climate targets: The AMPERE study on staged accession scenarios for climate policy. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 90 (), 24-44. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2013.09.021
  13. ^  |  Loreta Stankeviciute, Patrick Criqui (2008). Energy and climate policies to 2020: the impacts of the European “20/20/20” approach. International Journal of Energy Sector Management, 2 (), 252-273. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/17506220810883243
  14. ^  |  Patrick Criqui, Silvana Mima (2012). European climate—energy security nexus: A model based scenario analysis. Energy Policy, 41 (), 827-842. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2011.11.061
  15. ^  |  Jason Veysey, Claudia Octaviano, Katherine Calvin, Sara Herreras Martinez, Alban Kitous, James McFarland, Bob van der Zwaan (2016). Pathways to Mexico’s climate change mitigation targets: A multi-model analysis. Energy Economics, 56 (), 587-599. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2015.04.011
  16. ^  |  Patrick Criqui, Silvana Mima, Laurent Viguier (1999). Marginal abatement costs of CO2 emission reductions, geographical flexibility and concrete ceilings: an assessment using the POLES model. Energy Policy, 27 (), 585-601. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/s0301-4215(99)00051-8
  17. ^  |  Loreta Stankeviciute, Alban Kitous, Patrick Criqui (2008). The fundamentals of the future international emissions trading system. Energy Policy, 36 (), 4272-4286. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2008.07.035
  18. ^  |  Peter Russ, Tom van Ierland (2009). Insights on different participation schemes to meet climate goals. Energy Economics, 31 (), S163-S173. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2009.07.009