Silviase/jgov_v1.4_full_ann huggingface dataset:
points such as law, regulation or control regime for anti-money laundering, and investigation of money laundering crime.

Summarily, the process of the mutual evaluation refers to the following:

1. Desk-based review of the country's level of technical compliance, and the contextual factors and ML/TF risks

2. On-site visit to clarify issues relating to the country’s AML/CFT system

3. Discussion at the FATF Plenary Meeting

The scope of the evaluations will involve two inter-related components for technical compliance and effectiveness.

The scope of the evaluations involves two inter-related components for technical compliance (TC) and effectiveness. The TC component will assess whether the necessary laws, regulations or other required measures are in force and effect, and whether the supporting AML/CFT institutional framework is in place. The effectiveness component, which will be introduced in the fourth round evaluation for the first time, will assess whether the AML/CFT systems are working, and the extent to which the country is achieving the defined set of outcomes. There are four possible levels of TC: C (Compliant), LC (Largely Compliant), PC (Partially Compliant) and NC (Non-Compliant). There are four possible levels of effectiveness: High, Substantial, Moderate and Low.

The evaluation results are summarized in the Mutual Evaluation Report (MER), which is published after being discussed and adopted at the FATF Plenary Meeting. After the finalization of the evaluation, the assessed countries are required to provide follow-up reports on the status of improvement regarding deficiencies. The assessed countries will also have a follow-up assessment after five years after the finalization of evaluation, where re-ratings on TC and effectiveness will be possible as part of the follow-up process. The assessed countries could be placed in either regular or enhanced follow-up. While regular follow-up is based on a system of biennial reporting, enhanced follow-up involves a more intensive process such as reporting back more frequently. The assessed countries are expected to address deficiencies identified in the MER.

In response to the new 40 Recommendations, the fourth round of FATF Mutual Evaluation of its member jurisdictions started in 2013 based on the assessment methodology (evaluation standard for assessors) that was adopted in the same year.

## 3 Mutual Evaluation

FATF conducted Mutual Evaluations on Japan three times (in 1994, 1998 and 2008). In the third round Mutual Evaluation, for each of the 40 Recommendations and the 9 Special Recommendations, there were four possible levels of compliance of C (Compliant), LC (Large-ly Compliant), PC (Partially Compliant) and NC (Non-Compliant). Japan was rated at C on four recommendations, at LC on 19 recommendations, at PC on 15 recommendations and at NC on 10 recommendations (See Table 6-1; besides those recommendations, there was one
recommendation that was not applicable (N/A) to Japan).

Japan, which has been carrying out legislative work necessary for addressing the remained deficiencies identified in the third round Mutual Evaluation, has reported the progress in the work at the FATF Plenary Meeting.

The schedule of the fourth round Mutual Evaluation of Japan has not been fixed yet.

## 4 JAfic's Participation

As one of the founding members of FATF, Japan has been a very active contributor to its work since its establishment in 1989. Japan had participated in tri-annual Plenary Meetings and working groups which conduct analysis of money laundering typologies, and chaired the plenary between July 1998 and June 1999. Since the National Public Safety Commission / National Police Agency started to take the responsibility as Japan Flu, JAFlC has continued robust efforts even more, to lead the global AML/CFT standard setter to a better way at every meeting of the Plenary or working group.

FATF Plenary Meeting (France)
Table 6-1 Overview of the “40 Recommendations” and “9 Special Recommendations,” and Results of the Third FATF Mutual Evaluation of Japan

Recommendation	Outline of Recommendation	Rating	Recommendation	Outline of Recommendation	Rating
40 Recommendations	23	Supervisory obligation for financial institutions	LC
1	Money laundering offence	LC
2	Money laundering offence - mental element and corporate liability	LC	24	Supervisory obligation for DNFBP	PC
25	Guideline & feedback	LC
3	Confiscation and provisional measures	LC	26	FIU	LC
4	Secrecy laws consistent with the Recommendations	C	27	Investigation for money laundering and terrorist financing	LC
28	Power of competent authorities	C
5	Customer due diligence (financial institutions)	NC	29	Supervisory authorities	LC
6	Individuals who are or have been entrusted with prominent public function in a foreign country	NC	30	Resources, integrity and training	LC
31	National cooperation	LC
7	Correspondent banking	NC	32	Statistics	LC
8	Misuse of new technologies & non face-to-face business	PC	33	Legal person-beneficial owners	NC
34	Legal arrangements (trust) - beneficial owners	NC
9	Rely on third parties and introducers for Customer due diligence	N/A	35	Convention	PC
10	Obligation to maintain records of customer identification and transaction record	LC	36	Mutual legal assistance	PC
37	Dual criminality	PC
11	Obligation to pay special attention for unusual transaction	PC	38	Mutual legal assistance on confiscation and freezing	LC
12	Customer due diligence by DNFBP (designated non-financial businesses and professions)	NC	39	Extradition	PC
40	International cooperation (information exchange with foreign counterparts)	LC
13	Suspicious Transaction Report by financial institutions (STRs)	LC
14	Obligation to protect reporter	LC	9 Special Recommendations
15	Obligation to maintain internal controls	NC	I	Implement United Nation instruments	PC
16	Suspicious Transaction Report by DNFBP	PC	II	Criminalist terrorist financing	PC
III	Freeze and confiscate terrorist assets	PC
17	Sanction for non-compliance	LC
18	Shell bank (bank incorporated in a jurisdiction in which it has no physical presence)	PC	IV	Suspicious transaction reporting related to terrorism	LC
V	International cooperation for terrorism	PC
19	Other forms of reporting	C
20	Other DNFBP & secure transaction technique	C	VI	Money/value transfer services	PC
VII	Wire transfer rules	LC
21	Special attention for higher risk countries	NC	VIII	Non profit organization (NPO)	PC
22	Foreign branches & subsidiaries	NC	IX	Cross border declaration & disclosure (Cash courier)	NC

Note: Evaluation levels are as follows:

C: Compliant, LC: Largely Compliant, PC: Partially Compliant, NC: Non-compliant, N/A: Not applicable
Table 6-2 Overview of the New “40 Recommendations”

New Recommendation	Old Recommendation	Outline of Recommendation	New Recommendation	Old Recommendation	Outline of Recommendation
1	—	Assessing risks & applying a risk-based approach	22	12	DNFBPs: Customer due diligence
23	16	DNFBPs: Other measures
2	31	National cooperation and coordination	24	33	Transparency and beneficial ownership of legal persons
3	12	Money laundering offence	25	34	Transparency and beneficial ownership of legal arrangements
4	3	Confiscation and provisional measures	26	23	Regulation and supervision of financial institutions
5	II	Terrorist financing offence	27	29	Powers of supervisors
6	III	Targeted financial sanctions related to terrorism & terrorist financing	28	24	Regulation and supervision of DNFBPs
7	—	Targeted financial sanctions related to proliferation	29	26	Financial intelligence units
8	VIII	Non-profit organisations (NPO)	30	27	Responsibilities of law enforcement and investigative authorities
9	4	Financial institution secrecy laws	31	28	Powers of law enforcement and investigative authorities
10	5	Customer due diligence
11	10	Record keeping	32	IX	Cash couriers
12	6	Politically exposed persons	33	32	Statistics
13	7	Correspondent banking	34	25	Guidance and feedback
14	VII	Money or value transfer services	35	17	Sanctions
15	8	New technologies	36	35	International instruments
16	VII	Wire transfers
17	9	Reliance on third parties	37	36	Mutual legal assistance
18	15	Internal controls and foreign branches and subsidiaries	38	38	Mutual legal assistance: freezing and confiscation
19	21	Higher-risk countries	39	39	Extradition
20	13	Reporting of suspicious transactions	40	40	International cooperation (information exchange with foreign counterparts)
21	14	Tipping-off and confidentiality

Note: “New Recommendation” refers to the New “40 Recommendations,” while “Old Recommendations” indicates the numbers of the old “40 Recommendations” and the “9 Special Recommendations.” The Arabian numbers under the “Old Recommendations” refer to the “40 Recommendations,” while the Roman numbers are the Recommendation numbers for the “9 Special Recommendations.” “-” indicates a new Recommendations.
## Paragraph 2 APG

## 1 APG

APG (Asia/Pacific Group on Money Laundering) is an international cooperative body whose establishment was decided in February 1997 at the FATF 4th Asia/Pacific Money Laundering Symposium held in Thailand. In the context of increasing risks of vulnerability to money laundering in the Asia/Pacific region, the APG was established to promote regional cooperation, adoption of the international standards, and to provide assistance to jurisdictions. As of the end of December 2014, the APG consists of 41 jurisdictions, including Japan.

## 2 Activities

The main activities of APG are as follows.

1. Promotion of compliance with the FATF Recommendations in the Asia/Pacific region

2. Promotion of legislation on AML/CFT in the APG member jurisdictions

3. Mutual Evaluations on APG member jurisdictions

4. Information exchange and analysis on the trend of money laundering in the Asia/Pacific region

## 3 JAfic's participation

Japan is one of the founding members of APG and has been actively contributing to the activities of APG, much as it has with FATF. For example, the first Plenary Meeting and second typology meeting were both held in Tokyo in March 1998 and March 1999, respectively. Japan took on the co-chair with Australia between July 2004 and June 2006.

Since the National Public Safety Commission / National Police Agency started to

APG Annual Meeting (Macau)

take the responsibility as Japan FIU, JAFIC has continued to work on APG and join many discussions at the annual meetings or typology studies especially the latest ML/TF trend being looking at from FIU's perspective.

## Paragraph 3 Egmont Group

## 1 Egmont Group

The Egmont Group is an international forum established mainly by FIUs of several European nations and the United States in April 1995 with the goal of promoting cooperation on information exchange, trainings and expertise between FIUs around the world engaging in AML measures. The group is named after the Egmont castle in Belgium where the first plenary session was held. Although the Egmont Group was established as an informal forum at the
beginning, it has become an internationally recognized official body at present, through the adoption of the Egmont Group Charter at the May 2007 annual plenary in Bermuda and the establishment of its permanent Secretariat in Toronto, Canada.

The Egmont Group revised its charter in light of the growing needs for close international cooperation between FlUs due to increasing sophistication and complexity of money laundering around the world; its increasingly diverse functions; and the inclusion of the enhancement of the FlUs' functions and a system of international cooperation in FATF's new "40 Recommendations." A new charter that better specifies the objectives and role of the Egmont Group was adopted at an annual plenary held in South Africa in July 2013.

The Egmont Group consists of FLUs of 147 jurisdictions as of the end of December 2014.

## 2 Activities of the Egmont Group

In addition to the annual Plenary Meeting which representatives from all member FlUs attend, the Egmont Group has the following working groups, which are held twice a year.

1. The Legal Working Group (LWG) reviews the candidacy of potential members and handles all legal aspects and matters of principle within Egmont members.

2. The Outreach Working Group (OWG), works to create a global network of FIUs by identifying candidates for membership and working with those countries to ensure that they meet international standards

3. The Training Working Group (TWG) develops training methods for Flu personnel, and conducts training seminars for Egmont members as well as for non-Egmont jurisdictions.

4. The Operational Working Group (OpWG) seeks to bring FIUs together on typologies development and long-term strategic analytical project.

5. The IT Working Group (ITWG) provides advice and research analysis support software for IT systems of the new and existing FIUs.

## 3 JAfic's Participation

Upon establishing JAFIO in February 2000 within the Financial Supervisory Agency (later the Financial Services Agency) as a Japanese version of FLU, Japan applied for membership

in the Egmont Group, and was granted it in

May 2000 at the 8th annual plenary held in Panama.

Since then, JAFIO has actively participated in the activities of the Egmont Group. It sent staff members to working group meetings and the Plenary Meetings, and took part in the drafting of the Egmont Group Charter. JAFIO also undertook the role of FIU for supporting the application procedures (in co-sponsorship with the Thailand FIU) (hereinafter referred to as “sponsor FIU”) for

Egmont Group Meeting (Peru)
Myanmar FIU, which is currently not yet an Egmont Group member.

Since the National Public Safety Commission / National Police Agency started to take the responsibility as Japan FIU in April 2007, JAFIC took over the functions of Japan FIU from JAFIO, was granted the Egmont Group membership as the new Japan FIU at the 15th Plenary Meeting held in Bermuda in May 2007.

After joining the Egmont Group, JAFIC has sent its members to both the annual meetings and working groups to participate in the discussions on the principles related to information exchange between FIUs and other matters.

Moreover, JAFIC has taken over the role of sponsor FIU for the FIU of Myanmar in the application procedures into the Egmont Group from JAFIO and accepted the role of sponsor FIU for Pakistan FIU (in co-sponsorship with the U.S. FIU) at the request of the Egmont Group in 2011. In 2012, JAFIC sent staff members to Pakistan for a joint onsite survey with U.S. FIU staff members regarding Pakistan FIU's membership qualification.

## Section 2 Progress of the International Cooperation in 2014

## Paragraph 1 Participation in the Activities of International Organizations

Table 6-3 presents that JAFIC has been actively participating in the activities of international organizations by sending its members to each occasion.

Table 6-3 Participation in the Activities of International Organizations in 2014

Month	Name of meeting	Location
FATF	February	Plenary Meeting	Paris (France)
June	Plenary Meeting	Paris (France)
October	Plenary Meeting	Paris (France)
APG	May	Workshop	Seoul (Korea)
July	Annual Meeting	Macau (China)
November	Typology Meeting	Bangkok (Thailand)
Egmont Group	February	Working Group	Budapest (Hungary)
June	Annual Meeting	Lima (Peru)

## Paragraph 2 Information Exchange with Foreign FIUs

## 1 Establishment of the Framework for Exchange of Information

It is necessary to exchange information on suspicious transactions with foreign FlUs timely in order to detect money laundering by appropriately tracing criminal proceeds or terrorist financing transferred across borders.
On the other hand, Article 13 of the Act on Prevention of Transfer of Criminal Proceeds stipulates that the National Public Safety Commission(for which JAFlC serves as a secretariat) may disseminate information on suspicious transactions to foreign FlUs on condition that there is a framework governing the restrictions on the use of the disseminated information in foreign countries.

In response, JAFIC has established the necessary framework by exchanging a document specifying the restrictions on the use of provided information and other matters with foreign FlUs. JAFIC has been coping with the negotiations for establishing the frameworks for information exchange with numerous foreign FlUs in order to enable constructive exchange of information with them.

From its establishment of April 2007 till the end of 2014, JAFIC has set the frameworks for information exchange with the FlUs of 78 jurisdictions. (See Table 6-4).

Establishment of Framework with Anguilla FIU

Establishment of Framework with Monacan FIU

Table 6-4 [Countries and regions with which JAFIC has set the Frameworks for Information Exchange between FIUs]

Year of Agreement	Countries and Regions
2007	Hong Kong, Thailand, Malaysia, Belgium, Australia, U.S., Singapore, Canada, Indonesia, U.K., Brazil, Philippines
2008	Switzerland, Italy, Portugal, Korea, Romania
2009	Paraguay, France, Qatar
2010	Turkey, Mexico, Luxembourg, Chile, Finland, India
2011	Nigeria, China, Cambodia, Macau, Cyprus, Argentina, Spain, San Marino
2012	Montenegro, Netherlands, Germany, Cayman Islands, Czech Republic, Mongolia, Aruba, Colombia, Lebanon, Sweden, Peru, Armenia
2013	British Virgin Islands, Malta, Israel, Bermuda, Liechtenstein, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Denmark, Bolivia, Russia, Slovenia, Seychelles, Senegal, Costa Rica, Bahrain, Latvia, Vietnam, Turkmenistan, Poland, Isle of Man, Jersey, Guernsey, New Zealand, Nepal
2014	Algeria, Monaco, Saint Martin, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Anguilla, Panama, Curaçao, Gibraltar
## 2 Situation of Information Exchange

JAFIC exchanges suspicious transaction information with foreign FlUs in a positive and expeditious manner.

As JAFIC allocated sufficient resources to STR analysis, it has made actively arrangements on information exchange with foreign FlUs. In 2014, unusual or unreasonable money transfers to and from foreign countries, which were identified in STR analyses, JAFIC, for further analysis, made 166 requests to relevant foreign FlUs for information such as the flow of funds transferred out of Japan, the source of remittance from abroad.

In addition to these requests for information, between FIUs, there are mechanisms for spontaneously exchanging information which is useful for effective AML/CFT.

The number of cases where JAFIC exchanged information with foreign FlUs in 2014 totaled 254 (See Table 6-5).

Table 6-5 Number of information exchange between JAFIC and foreign FLUs

Year Category	2010	2011	2012	2013	2014
Number of requests for information from foreign FIUs to JAFIC	54	63	53	73	34
Number of requests for information from JAFIC to foreign FIUs	78	136	100	159	166
Number of spontaneous disclosure from foreign FIUs to JAFIC	23	18	29	28	37
Number of spontaneous disclosure from JAFIC to foreign FIUs	7	16	9	21	17
Total	162	233	191	281	254

## 3 Discussions

In order to facilitate exchange of information, JAFIC has carried out various activities including having discussions to promote information exchange, in the context of approaches such as learning analysis techniques in foreign FLUs, studying how the foreign LEAs utilize STRs and visiting FLUs of jurisdictions where there is a need for close coordination especially from the viewpoint of effective AML/CFT and where JAFIC has not established the framework for information exchange.

The following presents the discussions held with foreign FLUs and international organizations in 2014:

April: Information sharing session with U.S. FIU (Washington)

Information sharing session with the U.S. Department of the Treasury (Washington)

May: Information sharing session with Hong Kong FIU (Hong Kong)

Information sharing session with South Korea FIU (Seoul)

September: Information sharing session with Thailand FlU (Tokyo)
October: Information sharing session with Cambodia FIU (Phnom Penh)

Information sharing session with Vietnam FIU (Hanoi)

Information sharing session Hong Kong Flu

Information sharing session Thailand Flu

Information sharing session Cambodia Flu

Information sharing session Vietnam Flu
課題名 RFe-11T1 実装可能な技術による我が国の未来エネルギーシステムの構築

課題代表者名 加藤之貴 （東京工業大学 原子炉工学研究所）

研究实施期间 平成23年度

累計予算額 累計予算額 11,582 千円

予算額は、間接経費を含む。

## 研究体制

(1)エネルギー技術のリスク評価と解析（早稲田大学）

(2)リスク評価に基づく技術ロードマップ検討（東京大学）

(3)エネルギーシステム評価研究（九州大学）

(4)低炭素化効果の評価（名古屋大学）

(5) 未来エネルギーシステム提案（東京工業大学）

研究協力機関

記載すべき事項はない

## 研究概要

### 1. はじめに(研究背景等)

代表者と研究分担者は2010年に「実装可能なエネルギー技術で築く未来—骨太のエネルギーロードマップ—」(実装骨太)を編纂した。本研究はこれを発展させるものである。実装骨太ではエネルギー技術の積上げによる2040年における二酸化炭素排出量削減見通しを検討した。しかしながら、その評価は2040年単年のみの基礎的な評価に過ぎず検討として不十分であった。とくにエネルギー需要の日間、季節間、年間変化を配慮した動的な評価が無く、より実用に即したエネルギーの需要側、これに応じたエネルギー供給側の構成を検討する必要があった。そこで、本研究ではサブグループ（1）〜（5）が連携し、実装骨太著者グループらと各エネルギー技術の可能性、リスクを精査しさらにその成果を統合し、より実装性の高いエネルギーシステムの構築を検討した。同時に提案システムの精度の高い評価を目指すこととした。

さらに、平成23年3月11日の東日本大震災以降では日本のエネルギー需給構造の大きく、かつ早急な変革が必要になり、ここ数年のエネルギー技術選択が中長期のエネルギー需給のあり方に大きく影響するに至った。そこで、震災後を考慮し、2050年までを視野にいた、中長期エネルギーシステムの検討を進める必要が生じた。これらを背景に実装可能性を基準とした未来エネルギーシステムの構築を目指した。

### 2. 研究開発目的

実装骨太において種々のエネルギー技術分野について技術可能性と技術のリスクをあわせて評価する手法を既に確立している。本研究では各技術の効果、さらに時系列的な技術進歩、技術リスク予測を進めることを目指す。サブグループ（1）〜（5）が連携し、各技術に関する将来予測をより詳細に精度高く進める。検討結果をもとに我が国のエネルギービジョンに寄与する、より実装性を基準とした未来エネルギーシステム構築を目指す。具体的には2050年までを視野にいれた日本の中長期エネルギーシステムを検討するためのエネルギー需給構造の評価ツールの提供を目指す。東日本大震災以後のエネルギーシステムの変化を配慮する。実装可能な技術による我が国の未来エネルギーシステム構築のためエネルギー需給構築の定量的な評価ツールを検討する。評価ツールを基にシナリオ評価を進め、エネルギー分野に関する低炭素化効果を定量評価し、政策提言を示す。各エネルギー技術のリスク評価を進め将来の普及性を工学的な視点で検討する。選択されたエネルギー技術を利用しての将来のエネルギー需要を日間、季節間、年間変動を考慮しての導入シナリオを作成し、そのエネルギー需要評価ツールを作成する。さらに、この需要に応じた系統側電力のエネルギー源、発電技術毎の供給構成を検討する。低炭素、低コストを指標とした電源構成の検討行う。上記の検討より得られた、電源構成評価手法、エネルギー需要側評価手法の双方を用いた統合評価を行う。様々なエネルギー導入シナリオのもとで、日本全体の地球温暖化ガス発生量を評価し、望ましい未来エネルギーシステムの構成を示す。統合評価の結果をもとに政策提言の提示を目指す。

### 3. 研究開発の方法

## (1) エネルギー技術のリスクの評価と解析

エネルギー技術のリスクの評価と解析は、サブテーマ(2)〜(4)で実施される研究のベースとなるものであり、
研究方法は実装骨太の技術ロードマップ著者へのアンケートとヒアリングを中心に実施した。

アンケートおよびヒアリングの内容については研究会での議論およびアドバイザー会合における意見を反映して準備した。特に、3.11の東日本大震災を経て、執筆時点の震災前と震災後のロードマップにおける変化の可能性に加え、これまで議論されてなかった災害発生時のリスクについても回答を依頼した。

その結果を踏まえ、解析フォームを用いて統一的にまとめた上で評価・解析を実施した。なお、調査の一部はサブテーマ（4）に連携して実施した。

## (2) リスク評価に基づく技術ロードマップ検討

本テーマにおいてはサブテーマ（1）で特定された技術のリスクに基づきながら、将来エネルギーシステムに組み込まれる技術を特定し、そのロードマップを検討しながら、将来エネルギーの需要状況をシミュレートできるモデルを構築する。将来のエネルギーシステムを設計するためには、エネルギー技術を体系的に分析し、一つのシステムとして組み合わせたときのエネルギーコスト、安定供給性、環境負荷、安全性などのような多面性を評価できるようにしなくてはならない。構築するモデルは技術の将来における性能や普及率といった変数を決定し、エネルギーシステムに組み込まれたときに得られる機能を推定し、最終的な燃料や電力の必要量を分析できるものとする。

モデルの構築にあたっては、技術のリスク評価に基づくロードマップの検討が必要となる。ロードマップを検討する上で考慮すべきリスクとしては、同一のエネルギー需要に対して複数の技術が導入される技術の競合、一つの技術の効率が他の技術の効率などに影響する重複、他方の技術が他方の技術に含まれ効率に影響を与える技術の包含、技術の導入が他の技術の導入を前提にした依存などの、技術同士の相互関係がありえる。これらの技術間の関係におけるリスクを考慮し、技術ロードマップを検討していく。

また、構築にあたっては、技術の実装可能性にも留意する。“実装可能性”には大きく技術的なものと社会的なものがあると考える。技術が技術的に実装可能とは、実証段階にあり、量産可能で、導入場所があり、既存の技術に比べ著しく高コストでないことを指す。技術が社会的に実装可能とは、環境、社会、経済への影響を考慮した上で、社会に導入可能または導入に対し合意形成可能であることを指す。既に実証から大規模導入に掛かっている技術については過去の統計データから将来を予測するための機構を構築し、現在実証段階にある技術については国内外の専門家や文献、特許などを参考にしながら将来を予測可能とするモデルを構築する。

## (3) エネルギーシステム評価研究

各種発電技術は、設備費、燃料費、負荷追従性、資源確保の安定性、環境負荷など異なる特性を有する。それらの特性を踏まえ、夏季昼間や冬季夕方の需要ピーク時にも安定に電力を供給する中期・長期の電源構成を計画するため、本研究では、様々な制約条件を線形計画法で解く電源構成モデルを使用した。電力需要は東京電力から公表された2008年、2010年の需要データをもとに、夏、春・秋、冬の各平日・休日および夏季最大ピーク3日平均の7代表日の全国の仮想電力需要データを構築した。それらのデータをもとに、人口減と省エネ化シナリオに基づき、今後の需要データを評価した結果および太陽光発電や風力発電などの今後の設置量・稼働率シナリオを入力として電力網に関わる発電技術をどのように組み合わせた時に安定供給を実現しつつ電力網の発電コストを最小化できるかを評価した。各発電技術の設置年から既設の設備容量の今後の推移を設定し、評価の対象年は2010、2020、2030、2040、2050年とした。化石燃料価格についてはコスト等検証委員会の新政策シナリオを標準シナリオとして想定した。

## (4) 低炭素化効果の評価

本テーマでは、各提案技術を導入したエネルギーシステムの低炭素化効果の評価を実施した。ここでは、低炭素化効果の指標としてGHG（Greenhouse Gas）排出量を用いた。一般に、エネルギー技術の導入に伴うGHG排出量の変化は燃料消費に伴う排出と電力使用に伴う排出双方の増減により生じる。そこで、サブテーマ（2）で構築されたエネルギー需要の将来予測モデルを用いて、あるエネルギー技術を導入した際の2010、2020、2030、2040、2050年における産業、業務、家庭、運輸セクターの各需要家についての各種燃料の消費量および電力の日負荷曲線を決定した。つづいて各年毎の電力の日負荷曲線をサブテーマ（3）で構築された電源構成モデルへの入力として与え、2050年までの発電コストが最小化になるように最適計算を行い、電力使用時のCO₂排出原単位、CO₂排出量、総発電コストなどを決定した。以上得られたデータに基づいて、GHG排出量＝Σ（各燃料消費量ₓ燃料種ごとのGHG排出係数+電力消費量ₓ電力使用時のCO₂排出原単位）（i：各需要家）によりGHG排出量を算出し、ベースケースとの比較からGHG排出量の削減効果を定量的に示した。さらに、実装可能性の観点から評価されたエネルギー技術の性能および導入量予測を基準として、性能および導入量の変動がGHG削減効果に与える影響についての感度解析も実施した。

なお、本計算にあたっては2050年までのエネルギー技術の性能および導入量予測が必要であるが、この点に