Search

Superstorm Sandy hit the northeastern United States in October 2012, knocking out power to 10 million people and highlighting energy and critical infrastructure system vulnerabilities in the face of a changing climate. The increased frequency and intensity of such disruptive events is shifting priorities in electricity system planning around the world, including how multiple stakeholders consider linkages between climate vulnerability and energy. This research links smart grid development with adaptation to changing climates and explores how different stakeholders grapple with system vulnerabilities and climate disruptions. To illustrate this, the in-depth case study assesses post-Sandy discourse to compare how electricity sector stakeholder groups in New York, Massachusetts and Vermont associate energy, smart grid, and climate change. To explore how different energy system stakeholders frame the impacts of Superstorm Sandy on energy system planning, we conducted 22 focus groups with a broad range of organizations representing diverse aspects of the electricity system including utilities, regulatory authorities, research and development agencies, regional transmission organizations, academic research institutions, consumer advocacy and environmental organizations across the three states. We used these data to examine post-Sandy discourse about climate mitigation and climate adaptation, routine system management, and the potential value of “smart grid” for future energy system planning. We found that both New York and Massachusetts stakeholders focused more on climate adaptation than climate mitigation, while stakeholders in Vermont focused more on mitigation. In all three states stakeholder discussions of adaptation focused most heavily on system resilience and reliability, whereas discussions of mitigation focused on demand-side management and demand response followed by alternative energy strategies. These results suggest that extreme weather and climate disruptions will differentially shape discourse around smart grid and energy system change and shift the focus among energy system stakeholders on climate adaptation compared to climate mitigation. This research demonstrates variation between political jurisdictions (states) and energy system stakeholders in energy system planning in the face of new challenges related to an uncertain and rapidly changing world. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Environmental Policy Integrated Climate (EPIC) model was used to assess the impacts of climate change and proposed adaptation measures on yields of corn ( Zea mays L.) and soybean ( Glycine max L.) as well as aggregated yields of C 3 [soybean, alfalfa ( Medicago sativa L.), winter wheat ( Triticum aestivum L.)] and C 4 [corn, sorghum ( Sorghum bicolor L.), pearl millet ( Pennisetum glaucum L.)] crop types from representative farms in ten Southeastern US states. Adaptations included annual biochar applications and irrigation. Historical baseline (1979–2009) and future (2041–2070) climate scenarios were used for simulations with baseline and future CO 2 concentrations of 360 ppmv and 500 ppmv, respectively. Four regional climate models (RCMs) nested within global climate models (GCMs) were used to run future simulations. The experiment was analyzed as randomized complete block design with split-plots in time for baseline vs. future comparisons, and as a randomized complete block design with repeated measures for comparisons between future periods within each RCM_GCM model. Compared to historical baseline scenario, increases in future corn yield ranged between 36–83%, but yields decreased by 5–13% towards 2066–2070 due to temperature stress. Future soybean yields decreased by 1–13% due to temperature and moisture stresses. Future aggregated C 4 crops produced higher yields compared to historical C 4 yields. There were no differences between future aggregated and historical C 3 crop yields. Both crop types were negatively affected by progressing climate change impacts towards the end of 2066–2070 simulation period. Reductions in future aggregated C 3 crop yields ranged between 10–22%, and between 6–10% for C 4 crops. We explained lower reductions in C 4 compared to C 3 crops due to a lesser degree of photorespiration, better water use efficiency, and better heat tolerance under conditions of high light intensities and increased temperatures in C 4 crops. Irrigation resulted in increased future corn yields between 29–33%, and 3–38% of aggregated C 4 crop yields, with no effect on soybean or aggregated C 3 crop yields. In some regions, biochar applications caused significant yield reductions of 9.5–20% for corn, 5–7% for aggregated C 3 , and 3–5% for aggregated C 4 crops, depending on the model. Yield reductions were ascribed to alterations in plant nutrient availability. It was concluded that under drier weather scenarios, irrigation may be a promising adaptation strategy for agriculture in the Southeastern US. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]