O.R. Applications
A multiple criteria decision-aid approach in defining national priorities for greenhouse gases emissions reduction in the energy sector

https://doi.org/10.1016/S0377-2217(02)00250-3Get rights and content

Abstract

The introduction of the Kyoto Protocol in 1997 represents a very important step in the effort for the limitation of the emissions of greenhouse gases. The energy sector, being responsible for the large majority of emissions, represents the most crucial field for undertaking mitigation actions. A large number of potential emission reduction measures exist in this sector, characterised by different cost, applicability difficulties, environmental and social impacts. These criteria define the degree of acceptance of the various actors involved in the decision-making process. In this paper, the possibilities offered by a multicriteria method – namely ELECTRE Tri – are investigated through its application in the case study of Greece, in order to define national priorities for a National Action Plan for GHG mitigation in the energy sector and to formulate a relevant time-schedule for actions’ implementation.

Introduction

The introduction of the Kyoto Protocol (KP) in December 1997 represents a very important step in the effort for the limitation of the emissions of the six greenhouse gases (GHG) (CO2, CH4, N2O, HFCs, PFCs and SF6), so that negative impacts from human activities on global climate can be anticipated.

The KP safeguards a basis according to which future actions can be intensified, specifies for the first time legally binding commitments for the limitation of GHG emissions and indicates the desire of the global community to cooperate in the confrontation of a serious global environmental problem. This fact is very important, taking into account that up to the KP signature the commitments of certain developed countries were too lax, while the rate of increase of GHG emissions remains very high in most of developed countries.

Quantified targets for developed countries agreed within the KP framework will lead to a reduction of their overall GHG emissions by at least 5% below 1990 levels in the first commitment period (2008–2012). The European Union (EU) committed for a reduction of its GHG emissions by 8%. Within the context of the EU burden-sharing agreement, Greece must limit its total increase of GHG emissions to +25% in the period 2008–2012 compared to the base year (i.e. the year 1990 for CO2, CH4 and N2O and the year 1995 for HFCs, PFCs and SF6).

In 1998 at the EU level, total emissions of the six GHG were approximately 4 billion tons of carbon dioxide equivalent. Of these, CO2 emissions accounted for 82% of total GHG emissions. The energy sector was responsible for 95% of total CO2 emissions (European Environment Agency, 2000).

In Greece, total GHG emissions for 1998 rose up to 0.124 billion tons of carbon dioxide equivalent. The contribution of CO2 and the energy sector are similar to the ones at the EU level: CO2 represents 81% of total GHG emissions, while the energy sector accounts for 91% of total CO2 emissions (MEPPPW/NOA, 2000). Compared to 1990, the overall increase of CO2 emissions was 18%, while since 1996 CO2 emissions show a high annual rate of increase (+3.1%, compared to +1.1% during the period 1990–1995). This trend was due mainly to transport and electricity generation, which accounted for 74% of total CO2 emissions in 1998.

From the above-presented figures, it is clear that the limitation of CO2 emissions in the energy sector represents the highest priority in the formulation of a National Action Plan (NAP) for the period 2008–2012 in order to achieve the national commitments according to the KP framework. The Ministry for Development (responsible for energy issues), acknowledging this fact, financed recently a research project (National Observatory of Athens, 2000) aiming at the investigation of potential measures for the limitation of CO2 emissions in the energy sector for the period 2008–2012. The final aim of this project was to propose a set of mitigation measures in this sector, structured in priority levels and followed by a relevant time-schedule of actions’ implementation. The results presented below derive from the outcomes of this project and will form the basis of the Greek Action Plan for the limitation of GHG emissions for the first commitment period (2008–2012) which is under preparation.

Up to now, the majority of efforts in the field of climate change mitigation policy refer to the development and application of top-down, bottom-up or hybrid energy models (see for example: Hourcade, 1996; Capros and Mantzos, 1999; Kainuma et al., 1998; Manne and Richels, 1998). These models are based on cost minimisation for different levels of emissions’ reduction, providing finally the marginal cost curve for emissions reduction targets. Efforts restricted to this general framework cannot take into account the fact that in reality, the penetration of mitigation measures depends also on other criteria than cost (e.g. implementation difficulties of an institutional or legislative nature, social and environmental impacts, etc.). In addition, models of this type cannot provide a practical time-schedule of implementation actions. However, both elements are necessary and influence the degree of “acceptance” of decision-makers involved in the decision-making process. Furthermore, it should be also emphasised that in formulating an NAP for GHG reduction, there is not a unique decision-maker, but on the contrary a relatively large number of actors involved, which must come to a compromise so that the NAP can be agreed and successfully implemented.

Multicriteria analysis forms a very useful tool in order to take into account simultaneously all the basic aspects of the problem during the formulation of priorities for the implementation of various measures and represents a sound methodology applied internationally during the last decade in several problems of environmental and energy planning (as an indication, see Rousseau and Martel, 1993; Mavrotas et al., 1994; Mirasgedis and Diakoulaki, 1997; Georgopoulou et al., 1998).

Section snippets

Overall framework

The methodology followed for the formulation of priorities in the context of CO2 reduction policy for the energy sector comprised the following methodological steps:

Estimation of future CO2 emissions in the case of a “Business-as-Usual” (BaU) scenario for 2008–2012. This scenario represents the normal trend of emissions under the existing behaviour of energy consumers and suppliers, but takes also into account the existing and officially announced policies and measures in energy supply,

Actors involved in the decision-aid procedure

During the decision-aid procedure, the following actors have been contacted:

  • 1.

    Ministry for Development (Department of Fossil Fuels’ Policy, Department of Electricity Generation, Department of Renewable Energy Sources, Department of Energy Conservation).

  • 2.

    Ministry for Environment, Physical Planning and Public Works (Department of Buildings, Department of Vehicles and External Combustion).

  • 3.

    Ministry for Transport (Department of Road Security and Environment, Section of Vehicle Technology, Section of

Final remarks

The MCDA approach forms a useful tool in defining national priorities for greenhouse emission reductions and in developing a realistic time-schedule of implementation, as it allows for a simultaneous consideration of criteria other than cost, which have been proven to be of a significant importance in many real-world decision situations. In reality, the least-cost path for emissions reduction is not always followed, due to legal or institutional system imperfections, which can be hardly

References (24)

  • Arondel, C., Girardin, P., 1998. Sorting cropping systems on the basis of their impact on groundwater quality. Cahiers...
  • C.A. Bana e Costa et al.

    MACBETH – An interactive path towards the construction of cardinal value functions

    International Transactions in Operational Research

    (1994)
  • Capros, P., Mantzos, L., 1999. Energy system implications of reducing CO2 emissions: Analysis for EU Sectors and Member...
  • Diakoulaki, D., Kormentza, Y., Hontou, V., 2000. An MCDA approach to burden-sharing among industrial branches for...
  • European Commission/DG XII, 1997a. ExternE: Externalities of Energy – Fuel Cycles for Emerging and End-Use...
  • European Commission/DG XII, 1997b. External costs of electricity generation in Greece. Final report prepared by the...
  • European Environment Agency, 2000. European Community and Members States greenhouse gas emission trends 1990–1998,...
  • E. Georgopoulou et al.

    Design and implementation of a Group DSS for sustaining renewable energies exploitation

    European Journal of Operational Research

    (1998)
  • Hourcade, J.C. (Convening Author), 1996. A review of mitigation cost studies. In: Climate Change 1995: Economic and...
  • Kainuma, M., Matsuoka, Y., Morita, T., 1998. Analysis of post-Kyoto scenarios: The AIM Model. Draft paper presented at...
  • Manne, A.S., Richels, R.G., 1998. The Kyoto Protocol: A cost-effective strategy for meeting environmental objectives?...
  • G. Mavrotas et al.

    Energy planning and trade-offs between environmental and economic criteria

  • Cited by (86)

    • Decision support models in climate policy

      2020, European Journal of Operational Research
    • An impact evaluation framework based on sustainable livelihoods for energy development projects: an application to Ethiopia

      2018, Energy Research and Social Science
      Citation Excerpt :

      It takes its rationale from the Cost Benefit Analysis (CBA), and provides a quantitative approach to convert into economic values all those affects which typically do not have a market value, such as social ones [47]. Among practical cases, evaluation of energy projects often emphasises just one aspect at a time such as the technological (maximising energy supply [48]), economic (reducing costs [49–52], improving business models [53]), social (good welfare [54], health [55]), environmental [56], mitigating damage [57,58]) or governance (effectiveness of the regulatory system of electricity provision [59], energy management [60,61]). However, a proper impact evaluation should be able to aggregate different aspects concurrently, taking into account possible effects on the human, social, environmental, economic and institutional context.

    • ELECTRE TRI-nB: A new multiple criteria ordinal classification method

      2017, European Journal of Operational Research
    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text