{
  "docId": "019dd923-5e88-73ef-bd59-6131f37efc2b",
  "docSlug": "71b5b657f034a972",
  "documentTitle": "ey net zero centre carbon offset publication 20220530",
  "authorId": "MorganStanley",
  "authorName": "Grantham Research Institute",
  "documentKindSlug": "consulting-deck",
  "documentKindLabel": "Consulting deck",
  "sourceTypeSlug": "equity_research",
  "sourceTypeLabel": "Equity research",
  "presentationDate": null,
  "orientation": "portrait",
  "aspectRatio": 0.707,
  "pageNumber": 30,
  "pageCount": 45,
  "prevPage": 29,
  "nextPage": 31,
  "slideType": "sensitivity_analysis",
  "function": "analyze_data",
  "density": "overcrowded",
  "nDataPoints": 2,
  "notes": "Figure 11 shows sensitivity to small differences in capacity, capacity factor, and connection distance.",
  "elementsJson": [
    "paragraph",
    "line_chart"
  ],
  "metadataConfidence": 0.9,
  "imagePath": null,
  "slideHref": "/slides/019dd923-5e88-73ef-bd59-6131f37efc2b/30",
  "deckHref": "/decks/019dd923-5e88-73ef-bd59-6131f37efc2b",
  "deckJsonHref": "/decks/019dd923-5e88-73ef-bd59-6131f37efc2b.json",
  "deckAnchorHref": "/decks/019dd923-5e88-73ef-bd59-6131f37efc2b#slide-30",
  "components": [
    {
      "bbox": null,
      "kind": "callout",
      "text": "The number of BLIMP offsets declines, however, it remains above 5 million CERs even for very high values of alpha.",
      "attrs": null,
      "subkind": null,
      "toolName": "Visual emphasis",
      "toolSlug": "visual-emphasis",
      "confidence": null,
      "componentId": "019dd952-340a-72a9-845b-4faed1414b13",
      "frameworkName": null,
      "frameworkSlug": null
    },
    {
      "bbox": {
        "h": 0.23,
        "w": 0.33,
        "x": 0.145,
        "y": 0.405
      },
      "kind": "chart",
      "text": "BLIMP offsets (million CERs) vs Margin of error",
      "attrs": null,
      "subkind": "line",
      "toolName": null,
      "toolSlug": null,
      "confidence": null,
      "componentId": "4ac0d211-0511-40c6-9458-18173ed90e0f",
      "frameworkName": null,
      "frameworkSlug": null
    },
    {
      "bbox": {
        "h": 0.23,
        "w": 0.33,
        "x": 0.455,
        "y": 0.405
      },
      "kind": "chart",
      "text": "Pr(Lottery allocates fewer CERs to BLIMPs than does CDM) vs Margin of error",
      "attrs": null,
      "subkind": "line",
      "toolName": null,
      "toolSlug": null,
      "confidence": null,
      "componentId": "94c932f4-86ab-479f-9b04-531115e1db86",
      "frameworkName": null,
      "frameworkSlug": null
    },
    {
      "bbox": null,
      "kind": "metric",
      "text": "BLIMP offsets: 5 million",
      "attrs": null,
      "subkind": "primary",
      "toolName": "Quantification",
      "toolSlug": "quantification",
      "confidence": null,
      "componentId": "019dd952-340a-72a9-845b-5310c6c0c709",
      "frameworkName": null,
      "frameworkSlug": null
    },
    {
      "bbox": {
        "h": 0.175,
        "w": 0.764,
        "x": 0.118,
        "y": 0.094
      },
      "kind": "paragraph",
      "text": "that these wind farms seem not to have been completed despite being registered under the CDM. This suggests that the CDM not only registered too many blatantly infra-marginal projects, but also failed to provide adequate support to potentially marginal projects that did manage to get registered. Still, this is clearly the lesser problem. Even if the CDM had shepherded all 200 of these unconfirmed projects to completion, a lottery would still have allocated fewer CERs to BLIMPs 950 times out of 1,000. This is likely an overestimate of the CDM's performance, since we are only including uncompleted projects that registered under the CDM. If we were able to include uncompleted projects that did not apply, but would have been completed with the CDM's support, this would further improve the performance of the lottery.",
      "attrs": null,
      "subkind": "paragraph",
      "toolName": null,
      "toolSlug": null,
      "confidence": null,
      "componentId": "1f6e7e27-ecab-439d-9a4b-18239a31ce4d",
      "frameworkName": null,
      "frameworkSlug": null
    },
    {
      "bbox": {
        "h": 0.02,
        "w": 0.74,
        "x": 0.13,
        "y": 0.678
      },
      "kind": "paragraph",
      "text": "Figure 11: Sensitivity to small differences in capacity, capacity factor, and connection distance",
      "attrs": null,
      "subkind": "paragraph",
      "toolName": null,
      "toolSlug": null,
      "confidence": null,
      "componentId": "4c37a9fd-4d8b-448f-8237-0d9b7bab9087",
      "frameworkName": null,
      "frameworkSlug": null
    },
    {
      "bbox": {
        "h": 0.215,
        "w": 0.764,
        "x": 0.118,
        "y": 0.715
      },
      "kind": "paragraph",
      "text": "One way to address this concern is to generalize the definition of a BLIMP so that only subsidized project that are much bigger and better located than the comparison projects qualify. More precisely, let's say that a subsidized project is a BLIMP only if another project, built in the same state and year, has alpha >= 1 times the connection distance, 1/alpha times the capacity, and 1/alpha times the capacity factor. In the main analysis alpha = 1, but Figure 11 shows what happens when we gradually increase the margin of error to alpha = 2. At this point we are demanding to see projects that are twice as remote, with half the capacity, and with half the wind, before calling something a BLIMP. The full results for alpha = 1.2 are also reported in row (18) of Table 1. The number of BLIMP offsets declines, however, it remains above 5 million CERs even for very high values of alpha. The CDM's",
      "attrs": null,
      "subkind": "paragraph",
      "toolName": null,
      "toolSlug": null,
      "confidence": null,
      "componentId": "9a333958-1d51-4589-920d-97714f5578a5",
      "frameworkName": null,
      "frameworkSlug": null
    },
    {
      "bbox": {
        "h": 0.075,
        "w": 0.764,
        "x": 0.118,
        "y": 0.299
      },
      "kind": "paragraph",
      "text": "Allowing for mistakes: One challenge to our findings is that, perhaps, we are applying our criteria too unsparingly. Maybe developers sometimes mistakenly invest in projects that are unlikely to be profitable, or the CDM mistakenly approves an application that they shouldn't have. When the mistakes are small, perhaps it is reasonable to make allowances.",
      "attrs": null,
      "subkind": "paragraph",
      "toolName": null,
      "toolSlug": null,
      "confidence": null,
      "componentId": "df847507-30ee-497f-9a23-0011bd5fa6dc",
      "frameworkName": null,
      "frameworkSlug": null
    }
  ],
  "metrics": [],
  "tools": [
    {
      "name": "Chart Selection Guide",
      "slug": "chart-selection-guide",
      "agent": "Designer",
      "layer": "slide",
      "matchId": "50c7f44c-3d44-4b21-b7e2-56ab2cb80f83",
      "evidence": "Figure 11: Sensitivity to small differences in capacity, capacity factor, and connection distance",
      "confidence": 0.7
    }
  ],
  "frameworks": [
    {
      "name": "sensitivity-analysis",
      "slug": null,
      "matchId": "0dcaa3f1-3ce9-484a-bac4-5cbc33e7012f",
      "evidence": "Figure 11 shows sensitivity to small differences in capacity, capacity factor, and connection distance",
      "confidence": 1
    }
  ],
  "arcBeats": [],
  "loops": [],
  "imagePathAlt": null,
  "thumbSrc": null,
  "thumbSrcAlt": null,
  "locked": true
}