The Interaction of

Climate Mitigation and

Universal Energy

Access Policies

Narasimha D. Rao

(with Shonali Pachauri & Keywan Riahi)

Global Energy Assessment, IIASA

1.3 billion

itimes.com

Energy Poverty in South Asia

Analytical Challenges

• Economic (income) and spatial

(urban/rural) heterogeneities

– Differential impacts

• Addressed with a household fuel choice

model, calibrated to household surveys

Scenarios (Part 1): Climate Policies

Carbon Policies

Name 2020 Carbon Price

NNP: $0/T CO2 eq

C10 $10/T CO2 eq

C20 $20/T CO2 eq

C30 $30/T CO2 eq

C40 $40/T CO2 eq0,0

0,5

1,0

1,5

2,0

2,5

3,0

3,5

4,0

4,5

2000 2020 2040 2060 2080 2100

Glo

bal

Tem

per

atu

re In

crea

se (

°C)

NNP

C10

C20

C30

C40

Results: Solid Fuel Use and a carbon

tax

0

0,2

0,4

0,6

0,8

1

1,2

1,4

2010 2020 2030 2040 2050

Solid

Fu

els

Use

rs (

Bill

ion

s)

C40

C30

C20

C10

NNP

• 433 Million Additional

Solid Fuel Users

• Equivalent to no

change from 2010

• C40 scenario has larger impact

in 2050 than C10

• 336 Million Additional

Solid Fuel Users

• Equivalent to access

uptake from 15 years

of GDP growth

• No effect of the

carbon tax on the

poorest group

Results: Distributional Effects of Climate Policy

2040 2050203020202010R2 most effected group:

• 56% of “additional” solid

fuel users in 2030

• 67% of additional solid

fuel users in 2050

2° carbon tax causes

10% of U2 to remain

reliant on solid fuels

through 2050

Scenarios (Part 2): Access Policies

• Two policy mechanisms for increasing LPG

affordability:

– Stove subsidy (0% - 100%)

– Fuel subsidy (0% - 75%)

• 1,680 policy scenarios

– 334 combinations of stove and fuel subsidy

for each carbon tax scenario

Results: No carbon tax, 2030

s100f0

s100f25

s100f50

No Access Policy

Results: with carbon tax (C30), 2030

s100f65

2° climate policy decreases access achievement of s100f0 by 18%

Cost to achieve 95%

access increases:

$11.5 billion per year

Cost to achieve 100%

access increases:

$14.9 billion per year

Results: Distributional effects, 2030

0

0,1

0,2

0,3

0,4

0,5

0,6

0,7

0,8

0,9

1

NNP C30 NNP C30 NNP C30 NNP C30

Po

pu

lati

on

Usi

ng

Mo

de

rn F

ue

ls (

Bill

)

s100f50

s100f25

s100f0

s50f0

s0f0

R2 U1 U2R1

R1 requires substantial

stove and fuel subsidy

regardless of climate policy

Fuel subsidies not

needed by R2 in NNP,

but needed in C30

U2 needs partial stove

subsidy to achieve

complete access in C30

Key Conclusions

• Stringent GHG mitigation can (significantly)

reduce the uptake of modern cooking fuels –

• Impact can be mediated (substantially) by ‘pro-

poor’ policies

• Policy costs to improve access vary more with

access policy mechanism choice than with the

stringency of climate mitigation

Thank you!

nrao@iiasa.ac.at