Have a personal or library account? Click to login

Methods to Evaluate Electricity Policy from Climate Perspective

Environmental and Climate Technologies
Volume 23 (2019): Issue 2 (November 2019)
By:
Open Access
|Nov 2019

References

  1. [1] European Commission. Making the Internal Energy Market Work. Communication from The Commission to The European Parliament, The Council, The European Economic and Social Committee and The Committee of The Regions. 2012.
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  2. [2] European Commission. 2030 climate & energy framework [Online]. [Accessed 10.01.2019]. Available: https://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/strategies/2030_en
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  3. [3] Locmelis K., Blumberga A., Bariss U., Blumberga D. Energy policy for energy intensive manufacturing companies and its impact on energy efficiency improvements. System dynamics approach. Energy Procedia 2017:128:10–16. doi:10.1016/j.egypro.2017.09.00510.1016/j.egypro.2017.09.005
    Open DOISearch in Google ScholarBack to article
  4. [4] Okpala et al. A review of modelling as a tool for environmental impact assessment. IREJEST 2013:10(1):39–46.
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  5. [5] Dagiliute R., Juozapaitiene G. Stakeholders in the EIA Process: What is Important for them? The Case of Road Construction. Environmental and Climate Technologies 2018:22(1):69–82. doi: doi:10.2478/rtuect-2018-000510.2478/rtuect-2018-0005
    Open DOISearch in Google ScholarBack to article
  6. [6] Pre-consultants. Guide to using ECO-it 1.3., 2004.
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  7. [7] Therivel R. Strategic environmental assessment in action, 2nd ed. London: Earthscan, 2010.
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  8. [8] Bidstrup M., Hansen A. M. The paradox of strategic environmental assessment. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 2014:47:29–35. doi:10.1016/j.eiar.2014.03.00510.1016/j.eiar.2014.03.005
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  9. [9] European Commission. Strategic Environmental Assessment. [Online]. [Accessed 10.01.2019]. Available: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/eia/sea-legalcontext.htm
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  10. [10] International Association for Impact Assessment. Strategic Environmental assessment. [Online]. [Accessed 11.01.2019]. Available: http://www.iaia.org/wiki-details.php?ID=24
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  11. [11] Carew J., Strategic Environmental Assessment, Process and Methods. Strategic Environmental Assessment Workshop, 24–27 May 2016.
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  12. [12] Ward E. J., Dimitriou H. T., Dean M. Theory and background of multi-criteria analysis: Toward a policy-led approach to mega transport infrastructure project appraisal. Research in Transportation Economics 2016:58:21–45. doi:10.1016/j.retrec.2016.08.00310.1016/j.retrec.2016.08.003
    Open DOISearch in Google ScholarBack to article
  13. [13] Doukas H., Nikas A. Decision support models in climate policy. European Journal of Operational Research 2019:280(1):1–24. doi:10.1016/j.ejor.2019.01.01710.1016/j.ejor.2019.01.017
    Open DOISearch in Google ScholarBack to article
  14. [14] Celli G., et al. Multi-Criteria Analysis for decision making applied to active distribution network planning. Electric Power Systems Research 2018:164:103–111. doi:10.1016/j.epsr.2018.07.01710.1016/j.epsr.2018.07.017
    Open DOISearch in Google ScholarBack to article
  15. [15] Blanco G., Amarilla R., Martinez A., Lilamosas C., Oxilia V. Energy transitions and emerging economies: A multi-criteria analysis of policy options for hydropower surplus utilization in Paraguay. Energy Policy 2017:108:312–321. doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2017.06.00310.1016/j.enpol.2017.06.003
    Open DOISearch in Google ScholarBack to article
  16. [16] Ertugrul I., Karakasoglu N. Performance evaluation of Turkish cement firms with fuzzy analytic hierarchy process and TOPSIS methods. Expert Systems with Applications 2009:36(1):702–715. doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2007.10.01410.1016/j.eswa.2007.10.014
    Open DOISearch in Google ScholarBack to article
  17. [17] Seyedmohammadi J., Sarmadian F., Jafarzadeh A. A., Mohammad A. Application of SAW, TOPSIS and fuzzy TOPSIS models in cultivation priority planning for maize, rapeseed and soybean crops. Geoderma 2018:310:178–190. doi:10.1016/j.geoderma.2017.09.01210.1016/j.geoderma.2017.09.012
    Open DOISearch in Google ScholarBack to article
  18. [18] Pelegrina G. D., Duarte L. T., Romano J. M. T. Application of independent component analysis and TOPSIS to deal with dependent criteria in multicriteria decision problems. Expert Systems with Applications 2019:122:262–280. doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2019.01.00810.1016/j.eswa.2019.01.008
    Open DOISearch in Google ScholarBack to article
  19. [19] Ervural B. C., et al. An ANP and fuzzy TOPSIS-based SWOT analysis for Turkey’s energy planning. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviewed 2018:82(1):1538–1550. doi:10.1016/j.rser.2017.06.09510.1016/j.rser.2017.06.095
    Open DOISearch in Google ScholarBack to article
  20. [20] Zihare L., Splavins K., Blumberga D. Multi criteria analysis for products derived from agro-industrial by-products. Energy Procedia 2018:147:452–457. doi:10.1016/j.egypro.2018.07.04510.1016/j.egypro.2018.07.045
    Open DOISearch in Google ScholarBack to article
  21. [21] European Commission. Clean energy for all European. [Online]. [Accessed 10.01.2019]. Available: https://ec.europa.eu/energy/en/topics/energy-strategy-and-energy-union/clean-energy-all-europeans
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  22. [22] United Nations. Framework Convention on Climate Change. FCCC/INFORMAL/84 GE.05-62220 (E) 200705. 1992.
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  23. [23] European Commission. Communication from The Commission to The European Parliament, The Council, The European Economic and Social Committee and The Committee of The Regions A Roadmap for moving to a competitive low carbon economy in 2050. COM/2011/0112.
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  24. [24] European Council. Conclusions on 2030 climate and energy policy framework. Brussels: European Commission, 2014.
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  25. [25] European Commission. Proposal for a Regulation of The European Parliament and of the Council on the internal market for electricity (recast). COM/2016/0861. Brussels: European Commission, 2016.
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  26. [26] European Commission. Proposal for a Directive of The European Parliament and Of the Council on Common Rules for The Internal Market in Electricity (Recast) COM/2016/0864. Brussels: European Commission, 2017.
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  27. [27] European Commission. Proposal for A Regulation of The European Parliament and of the Council on Risk-Preparedness in The Electricity Sector and repealing Directive 2005/89/EC. COM/2016/0862. Brussels: European Commission, 2016.
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  28. [28] European Commission. Proposal for A Regulation of The European Parliament and of the Council Establishing the Connecting Europe Facility and repealing Regulations (EU) No 1316/2013 and (EU) No 283/2014. COM/2018/438. Brussels: European Commission, 2018.
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/rtuect-2019-0060 | Journal eISSN: 2255-8837 | Journal ISSN: 1691-5208
Journal RSS Feed
Language: English
Page range: 131 - 147
Published on: Nov 18, 2019
Published by: Riga Technical University
In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services
Publication frequency: 2 issues per year
Keywords:
Climate change,
electricity policy,
multi-criteria analysis
Related subjects:
Life sciences,
Life sciences, other

© 2019 Liga Rozentale, Dagnija Blumberga, published by Riga Technical University
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 License.

Previous articleVolume 23 (2019): Issue 2 (November 2019)Next article