The current version of the webtool[1] has tabs for: Energy, electricity, sanky diagram, area and story. Our intention is to add another tab: costs. The excel version will allow the user to vary all the options in exploring cost outputs but given space and presentation requirements we will have to limit both the information we present and the user variables. Below we outline the current options we are considering in presenting costs:
Unit for costs presented
The user feedback for costs could be presented in a number of ways, options include:
| Unit | Advantages | Disadvantages |
| £ per person, per year | The unit is more material than an economy-wide figure | May imply each person pays this amount when in fact this will simply be the average amount spent on cars, houses, to businesses and electricity (amongst other costs) |
| % GDP | Contextualises energy spending and accounts for increases in income | Could be misinterpreted as a cost to growth |
| Total costs out to 2050 | Quick and accurate way to compare across pathways | £trillion figures may be quite meaningless without context or comparitors |
| Costs split by CAPEX, OPEX and fuel | Shows different composition of costs, useful for comparing investment needed (CAPEX) | More useful for technical experts than general users |
Presenting financing costs
Financing costs could be presented in the following ways:
- The user defines the financing cost and loan period - May be a little complex given the granularity of detail
- Financing costs are included as a cost range where private finance (10% nominal interest rate) is high and transfers are low (0%)
- Financing costs are a seperate cost and variable which can be adjusted by the user
Incremental costs and the baseline
Costs could be presented as the total spending on energy production and use or compared to a baseline. The baseline could be:
- A user variable
- All level 1s i.e. no action on climate change or energy efficiency
- All level 1s but include a damage cost of carbon[2]
Cost ranges
At present there is little indication on the probability distribution within the cost range and in practise this may be impractical to quantify for a large number of technology costs. However, there are a number of options for presenting the range:
- Present the range in full, without assigning probabililties and let the user vary the input cost assumptions
- Have a starting screen to determine the users views on progression of technology costs and fossil fuel prices, narrowing the range based on these choices
- Have a broad range (representing all credible views) and a narrower range representing the majority of views or DECC input assumptions for analysis
QUESTIONS TO STAKEHOLDERS
- Among the options presented in the table above, what metric would be the most informative and clear one to present the costs to the public (ie. lay people)?
The costs need to be presented by category (energy, transport, etc) and expressed as an annual cost in today's money with a reference cost which is today's cost. The disadvantage of this approach is that it will not take account of changes in household wealth. Possibly this could be addressed by presenting the costs as a percentage of household income but this adds a complication which maybe confusing. Keeping it simple seems best.
- Should the same matric be used for engaging the more relevant stakeholders? (ie. policymakers, sector organizations etc)
Yes as a starting point.
- What should constitute the baseline? Should it include/exclude the existing policy commitments?
It should include the existing policy commitments
- Should the financing costs be included? If so, is 10% nominal interest rate appropritate to use?
Yes but it should be consistent with what has been used elsewhere.
- How user friendly is this wiki? This is a trial method of gathering evidence from stakeholders. Do you find it convenient, or easy to use? How could it be improved?
General Comments
Please add any general comments here, along with your name.
- http://2050-calculator-tool.decc.gov.uk/
- note: the damage cost of carbon methodology is currently not used in Government analysis