Decision Support Framework for Developing Regional Energy Strategies

Abstract

In an effort to reduce "carbon pollution" as well as prepare the U.S. for the impacts of climate change, President Obama's 2013 Climate Action Plan calls for changes to be made to the nation's energy system. In addition to focusing on alternative portfolios of different fuels and power-generation technologies, researchers and advisory panels have urged that changes to the nation's energy system be based on a decision-making framework that incorporates stakeholders and accounts for real-world resource, supply, and demand constraints. To date, research and development on such a framework have proven elusive. The research reported here describes the development and test of a potential decision support framework that combines elements from structured decision-making (SDM) with portfolio analysis, methods that have been used independently to elicit preferences in complex decision contexts. This hybrid framework aimed to (1) provide necessary background information to users regarding the development of coupled climate-energy strategies; (2) account for users' values and objectives; (3) allow for the construction of bespoke energy portfolios bounded by real-world supply and demand constraints; and (4) provide a more rigorous basis for addressing trade-offs. Results show that this framework was user-friendly, led to significant increases in users' knowledge about energy systems and, importantly, led to more internally consistent decisions. For these reasons, this framework may serve as a suitable template for supporting decisions about energy transitions in the United States and abroad.

Beliefs and values explain international differences in perception of solar radiation management: insights from a cross-country survey

“…Much like efforts which focus on supporting decisions about energy transitions (Arvai et al 2012;Bessette et al 2014), policy makers-as well as advocates of SRM-must begin to more meaningfully account for the objectives of different stakeholders as they evaluate their positions on SRM. Because the effects of SRM will not respect international borders, it is especially important that decisionmaking about SRM be an internationally inclusive and collaborative affair, taken up by a body like the Conference of the Parties (COP), before any nation goes too far in terms of further developing the technology.…”

The promise of asymmetric interventions for addressing risks to environmental systems

“…Research suggests that the disconnect between attitudes about the importance of environmental protection and choices is dependent on the fact that people often have difficulty articulating and accounting for a full range of objectives-e.g., personal, social, environmental-during decision-making (Bessette et al 2014;Bond et al 2008). Instead, decision-making is often driven by a focus on alternatives; here, the objectives that may help to guide decisions-to the extent that they are considered at all-are derived from the available alternatives and not from an a priori assessment of a decision-maker's values or concerns.…”

“…These approaches, which we term active decision-support, typically help decision-makers to understand and define decision problems, identify and operationalize objectives, and develop and evaluate alternatives (Arvai and Post 2012;Bessette et al 2014;Fischhoff 2012;Kiker et al 2005). But, despite their appeal and positive results, the application of active decision-aiding approaches to risks associated with global change has been the exception rather than the rule.…”

“…To this end, we worked with university administrators to provide a series of research-based recommendations that RHS could consider to conserve natural resources (mainly water), and to reduce the University's emission of greenhouse gases since water on campus is heated by an on-campus coal-fired power plant (see Bessette et al 2014). The initial target of our efforts was tray use in university dining areas.…”

“…2, of active decision-support approaches. Based on our own experiences with these approaches (e.g., Arvai and Campbell-Arvai 2013;Arvai et al 2014;Arvai and Post 2012;Bessette et al 2014;Kenney et al 2015), we believe strongly that asymmetric interventions should not be applied until those engineering the decision-making environment have a clear sense of the personal, societal, or environmental objectives that they are trying-and, importantly, that decision-makers wish-to meet (Smith et al 2013). In this light, we feel that a deliberative and transparent approach to identifying and implementing defaults and other nudges (including addressing potential trade-offs between autonomy and benefits to individuals and society) will go a long way to addressing ethical concerns relating in particular to consumer autonomy and welfare (Spotswood et al 2012).…”