Published on EME 444: Global Energy Enterprise D7 (https://www.e-education.psu.edu/eme444)

Home > Lessons > Case Study

Case Study

Introduction

Case Study Overview

This is a Nonmarket Analysis Case Study completed as a Team Project, with a few assignments that are to be done individually. All due dates are posted in the Canvas calendar.

Case Study Issues for Current Semester

On the following page, you will find a list of Case Study Issues for the current semester. Each topic is phrased as an issue appropriate for nonmarket analysis and is accompanied by several general references to help you become acquainted with the issue. Based on the results of your Interest Survey (see below) you will be assigned to a team and an issue for your case study. Your team will also be assigned two other issues where you will be the "audience" for the case study presentation.

Case Study Issue Interest Survey

This is a Canvas survey, completed INDIVIDUALLY. See Canvas for the due date.

On the following page in this lesson, you will find a list of case study issues (“topics”) current for this semester. After exploring each of these topics on your own, complete the Case Study Interest Survey. You will find the “Case Study Issue Interest Survey" under the Modules tab and Case Study Assignments subheading. There are no right or wrong answers! These results will be used to make team assignments.

Case Study Team Project

The Case Study is a TEAM project with three parts. Each part is submitted via Canvas. See Canvas for due dates.

Detailed guidelines for each part of your Nonmarket Analysis Case Study are given in the following pages of this Lesson. Your Team will receive one grade for each part of the Case Study. These grades will not be posted to the grade book.

After all parts of the Case Study are complete, each member of the team will complete a team assessment survey of individual contributions by each team member (see below).

Your Team will be given one total Case Study score. Individual scores for the Case Study will be calculated as:

Team Score x Team Assessment of Contribution.

Depending on your level of contribution to the Case Study, your individual score may be the same as the Team Score, or it may be lower or higher (not to exceed 100 points).

Team Assessment of Contribution

This is a Canvas survey, completed INDIVIDUALLY. See Canvas for the due date.

In this survey, you will provide feedback on the contributions of other members of your team to this project. This is to encourage all team members to work together and contribute fully to this project. Each student's final score on this team project is calculated as:

Team Score x Team Assessment of Contribution

Depending on the Team's assessment of your level of contribution to the Case Study, your individual score may be the same as the Team Score or it may be lower or it may be higher (not to exceed 100 points).

You will find the “Team Assessment of Contribution” survey under the Modules tab. You'll be asked to assess the contributions of other Team members to this group project. When considering the contributions of each team member, please include these factors: level of engagement, timeliness of work, quality of work, and integrity of work (correct and complete source citations). For each Team member, your options are:

  • this is me
  • did not contribute (0%)
  • did very little to contribute (50%)
  • did far less than fair share (80%)
  • did less than fair share (90%)
  • did around fair share (100%)
  • did more than fair share (110%)
  • did MUCH more than fair share (120%)

Case Study Q & A (Canvas Discussion Forum)

These are Canvas Discussion Forums, graded INDIVIDUALLY. See Canvas for due dates.

Near the end of the semester, each Case Study will be presented in a Q&A Discussion Forum in Canvas. The Team that did the Case Study will be the Host of the forum and two other Teams will be assigned to participate as Audience members. Each student will participate in three Case Study Q&As (once as Host, twice as Audience). Participation in all three Discussion Forums is graded on an individual basis.

Specific guidance is presented with each Discussion Forum.

Fall 2017 Case Study Options

1. Should the U.S. support or oppose the use of carbon trading as an allowable method to achieve carbon reductions outlined in the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) Paris Agreement [1]?

  • Trump lays groundwork for staying in Paris Agreement [2]
    (Climate Home, August 2017)
  • Outcomes of the U.N. Climate Change Conference in Paris [3]
    (Center for Climate and Energy Solutions, Dec 2015)
  • What's ahead for carbon markets after COP 21 [4]
    (Center for Climate and Energy Solutions, February 2016)
  • How emissions trading at Paris climate talks has set us up for failure [5]
    (The Conversation, Dec 2015)
  • How the aviation sector's carbon offset plans will undermine the Paris agreement [6]
    (REDD Monitor, December 2016)

2. Would you support or oppose a national revenue-neutral carbon tax, as proposed by the Climate Leadership Council?

  • The Four Pillars of our Carbon Dividends Plan [7]
    (Climate Leadership Council, accessed August 2017. I suggest looking around their website.)
  • Exxon Mobil Lends Its Support to a Carbon Tax Proposal [8]
    (New York Times, June 2017) 
  • Why a "revenue neutral" carbon tax could hurt - not help - the planet [9]
    (Common Dreams, November 2016)
  • 10 Reasons to Oppose a Carbon Tax [10]
    (American Energy Alliance, Nov 2015)

3. Would you support or oppose removing the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's 2016 methane regulation rule?

  • EPA's Methane Rule: Should it Stay or Should It Go? [11]
    (Resources for the Future, July 2017)
  • Court Blocks E.P.A. Effort to Suspend Obama-Era Methane Rule [12]
    (New York Times, July 2017)
  • EPA mulls options after appeals court blocks delay of Obama-era methane gas rule [13]
    (CNN, July 2017)

4. Would you support or oppose Congressional action to repeal the Renewable Fuel Standard [14]?

  • Overview for Renewable Fuel Standard [15]
    (The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, June 2017)
  • Trump should drain the renewable fuel standard swamp [16]
    (The Hill, April 2017)
  • Scrap or overhaul? Trump and Clinton promise changes to the Renewable Fuel Standard [17]
    (Forbes, October 2016)
  • The EPA raises the Renewable Fuels Standard. Here's why that makes no sense. [18]
    (Grist, Nov 2015)

5. Would you support or oppose building the Jordan Cove Energy Liquified Natural Gas (LNG) export project [19] in Oregon?

  • What a West Coast gas terminal could mean for the Rockies [20]
    (Marketplace, August 2017)
  • FERC to prepare Jordan Cove LNG EIS [21]
    (LNG World News, June 2017)
  • Jordan Cove LNG [19]
    (Jordan Cove LNG project website)
  • Jordan Cove LNG project plans to re-apply at FERC [22]
    (Natural Gas Intelligence, December 2016)
  • Stop Liquified Natural Gas [23] 
    (Sierra Club (Oregon Chapter), Dec 2015)

Case Study Team Project

The Case Study Nonmarket Analysis Team Project consists of three parts submitted individually. Parts I and II are written documents, which may include figures, tables, and graphics. Part III is a slide presentation. Please see Canvas calendar for due dates.

Guidelines for individual Parts of the Case Study are provided below. The following important guidelines apply to all Parts--

  • Audience.
    This Case Study is prepared for a general audience. Assume the reader has no prior background on the topic.
  • Organization.
    Use subheads, paragraphs, bulleted lists, and other defining features to organize each Part of your case study clearly and orderly. This will help your team be sure that all bases are covered and will help the audience understand the points you are making. Format all structural features (e.g., subheads, lists) consistently. Be sure that all figures, graphs, and tables are clearly labeled and referenced.
  • Overall Presentation.
    Write in a professional tone (not in the first person). Format Parts I and II consistently. Use page numbers. Give your Case Study a short title and include it on all pages and slides (in footer or header). For all Parts (I, II, and III) include a title page/slide with your Case Study title, course name, date, and names of all Team members. Carefully spell check, grammar check, and proofread each Part before submitting.
  • References.
    All sources MUST be cited. Please review the Academic Integrity Guide [24] (link also in Resources menu) for guidelines and formatting methods. Select a formatting approach and use it consistently throughout your Case Study. Include a properly formatted and organized list of References with each Part of your Case Study. Use APA formatting.

All Parts of all Team Case Studies will be shared with others in this course and will be the subject of Case Study Q & A Discussion Forums. This will happen near the end of the term after all Case Studies are complete.

Part I. Background and Status

(For example, see RPS Case Study, Lesson 1, “Background and Status”)

Research and collect background on your Case Study Issue. Document key terms and concepts, historical context, current status, and the overall timeline of relevant past events and upcoming ones (if known). Clearly explain what the issue is about! Use data, graphs, pictures, and tables as needed to describe the issue.

Format Part I as a Word (.doc or .docx) file OR share a Google Document with me and upload (or submit a link to the Google Doc) to Canvas using the link to "Case Study Part I. Background and Status." This is under the Case Study Assignments subheading in the Modules tab.

Note that all sources must be cited, and direct quotes must be indicated. I use a software called SafeAssign that will clearly indicate any material that is plagiarized. I will be very strict about this, and take academic dishonesty very seriously.   

Part II. Stakeholders and Nonmarket Analysis Summary Framework

(For example, see RPS Case Study, Lesson 2, “Stakeholder and Nonmarket Analysis Summary Framework”)

Identify stakeholders (firms, associations, groups, or individuals) that have an interest in the outcome of your team’s Issue. Include a group of at least six stakeholders that represents a sound balance of different positions on the Issue.

For each stakeholder, provide name, type of organization, and its mission. Establish stakeholder’s initial position on the issue and explain the basis for this position.

For each stakeholder, continue the analysis with an orderly presentation of all variables related to demand and supply of nonmarket action.

To evaluate demand for nonmarket action, assess available substitutes, aggregate benefits, and per capita benefits. To evaluate supply of nonmarket activities, assess effectiveness (numbers, coverage, and resources) and cost of organizing.

To make these assessments, you’ll need to establish a scale for each variable. You can use the one in the RPS case study (for example, benefits are “small”, “moderate”, “considerable”, “large” or “substantial”) or design your own. Either way, include the scales you are using in your case study.

In all cases, be sure to give some reasoning that supports the value you have assigned. If you indicate that “coverage” is “extensive,” explain why you believe this to be true.

Now you are ready to predict the likelihood of the stakeholder taking nonmarket action. To do this, review the information you have collected to this point. For each stakeholder, weigh the demand for taking action against the supply of action. The greater the demand, the more likelihood of taking action. The greater the cost (considering available resources), the less likelihood of taking action. You’ll need to establish a scale for this too. You can use the one from the RPS case study or establish your own. Either way, be sure to include it.

Finally, summarize all of your findings into a Nonmarket Analysis Summary Framework. You’ll find an Excel template for the Nonmarket Analysis Summary Framework in the “Case Studies” folder under the Modules tab in Canvas. Be sure to group stakeholders based on their position on the issue. Integrate the Excel Summary Framework into your Part II document.

Format Part II as a Word (.doc or .docx) file OR share a Google Document with me and upload (or provide link) to Canvas ("Case Study Part II. Stakeholders and Framework").

Part III. Strategy and Recommendations

Parts I and II of the Case Study didn't "pick sides." Part I framed the issue (Background and Status). Part II identified key stakeholders on all sides of the issue and gave a basis for their positions.

In Part III, your Team WILL take sides. As a Team, select one of your stakeholders and assume you are making nonmarket strategic recommendations to that stakeholder. Clearly identify the stakeholder to whom your presentation is submitted.

Imagine that your Team has been invited to make recommendations to this stakeholder. You've been asked to prepare and submit a presentation of no more than 20 slides. The presentation needs to stand on its own (you can include some notes in the Notes section of PowerPoint if desired). It will be submitted electronically and shared with others, without your being there.

Present your Team's nonmarket strategy recommendations with as much detail as possible. If your issue will be handled in a government arena, consider appropriate public politics strategies. If your issue is not being addressed in a government arena, consider appropriate private politics strategies. Or some of both. Include specifics; be imaginative!

Organize your strategy and recommendations carefully. Be sure that what you are suggesting and why will be clear to your stakeholder. But, do not pack your slides with words and data. Be creative and succinct.  Feel free to write some narrative in the slide notes at the bottom of the page, but please keep the slides themselves relatively uncluttered.

The RPS Case Study “Strategy and Recommendations" in Lesson 3 gives an example of a nonmarket strategy that you may find to be a helpful reference. It is not, however, in a presentation (slide) format as required for Part III of your Team's Case Study.

Format Part III as a PowerPoint Presentation (.ppt or .pptx) file and upload to Canvas ("Case Study Part III. Strategy and Recommendations").

Case Study Assignments and Grading

Please check the Canvas calendar for all due dates.


INDIVIDUAL Case Study Assignments

Case Study Issue Interest Survey (Canvas survey, see Canvas for due date)

You will find the “Case Study Issue Interest Survey" under the Case Study Assignments sub heading in the Modules tab. This assignment is not graded, but all students are required to complete the survey. (The individual case study final grade will be penalized 1 point for late, incomplete or missing survey results.)

Team Assessment of Contribution (Canvas survey, see Canvas for due date)

You will find the “Team Assessment of Contribution” survey under the Modules tab. Not graded, but all students are required to complete the survey. (The individual case study final grade will be penalized 1 point for late, incomplete or missing survey results.)

Case Study Q & A (Canvas Discussion Forum, see Canvas for due dates)

Each Case Study will be presented as a Q&A Discussion Forum. The Team that did the Case Study will be the Host of the forum and two other Teams will be assigned to participate as Audience members. Each student will participate in three Case Study Q&As (once as Host, twice as Audience). Participation in all three Discussion Forums is graded on an individual basis.

Each Discussion Forum is worth 3% of your course grade. Grading criteria are presented with each Discussion Forum.


TEAM Case Study Assignments

The Team will receive one grade for each Part of the Case Study. See Canvas for due dates. These grades will not be posted to the grade book.

After all parts of the Case Study are submitted, the Team will be given one total Case Study score. Each Part is weighted equally.

Scoring for each Part of the Case Study is based on:

35% Completeness (meeting requirements outlined in this lesson)

35% Level of research and quality of information (reasoning, supported with data, clearly stated assumptions)

30% Writing quality, organization, and presentation.

All sources and references MUST be identified and properly referenced. Failure to do so can result in a failing grade and other possible sanctions. See College of Earth, Mineral and Sciences Academic Integrity and Research Ethics [25].

After all parts of the Case Study are submitted, each member of the team will complete a team assessment survey of individual contributions by each team member.

Individual scores for the Case Study will be calculated as Team Score x Average Team Assessment of Contribution.

  • this is me
  • did not contribute (0%)
  • did very little to contribute (50%)
  • did far less than fair share (80%)
  • did less than fair share (90%)
  • did around fair share (100%)
  • did more than fair share (110%)
  • did MUCH more than fair share (120%)

See Canvas for complete assignment description. See the rubric for grading, and the Canvas or Google Calendar for due dates.

Depending on your level of contribution to the Case Study, your individual score may be the same as the Team Score, or it may be lower or higher (not to exceed 100 points).

The Team Case Study is worth 30% of your course grade.


If you have questions, please post to the "Questions about EME 444?" Discussion Forum. I'll be happy to help you!


Source URL: https://www.e-education.psu.edu/eme444/node/388

Links
[1] http://unfccc.int/meetings/paris_nov_2015/in-session/items/9320.php
[2] http://www.climatechangenews.com/2017/08/11/trump-lays-groundwork-staying-inside-paris-agreement/
[3] http://www.c2es.org/international/negotiations/cop21-paris/summary
[4] http://www.c2es.org/newsroom/articles/whats-ahead-for-carbon-markets-after-cop-21
[5] https://theconversation.com/how-emissions-trading-at-paris-climate-talks-has-set-us-up-for-failure-52319
[6] http://www.redd-monitor.org/2016/12/06/how-the-aviation-sectors-carbon-offset-plans-will-undermine-the-paris-agreement/
[7] https://www.clcouncil.org/our-plan/
[8] https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/20/science/exxon-carbon-tax.html?smid=tw-share
[9] http://www.commondreams.org/views/2016/11/05/why-revenue-neutral-carbon-tax-could-hurt-not-help-planet
[10] http://americanenergyalliance.org/2015/11/04/10-reasons-to-oppose-a-carbon-tax/
[11] http://www.rff.org/blog/2017/epa-s-methane-rule-should-it-stay-or-should-it-go
[12] https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/03/climate/court-blocks-epa-effort-to-suspend-obama-era-methane-rule.html
[13] http://www.cnn.com/2017/07/04/politics/dc-circuit-epa-methane-ruling/index.html
[14] https://www.epa.gov/renewable-fuel-standard-program/program-overview-renewable-fuel-standard-program
[15] https://www.epa.gov/renewable-fuel-standard-program/overview-renewable-fuel-standard
[16] http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/energy-environment/331028-trump-should-drain-the-renewable-fuel-standard-swamp
[17] http://www.forbes.com/sites/energysource/2016/10/12/scrap-or-overhaul-trump-and-clinton-promise-changes-to-the-renewable-fuel-standard/#7ace93b019e8
[18] http://grist.org/climate-energy/the-epa-raises-the-renewable-fuels-standard-heres-why-that-makes-no-sense/
[19] http://jordancovelng.com/
[20] https://www.marketplace.org/2017/08/09/sustainability/what-west-coast-gas-terminal-could-mean-rockies
[21] http://www.lngworldnews.com/ferc-to-prepare-jordan-cove-lng-eis/
[22] http://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/print/108766-jordan-cove-lng-project-plans-to-re-apply-at-ferc
[23] http://oregon2.sierraclub.org/chapter/stop-lng
[24] https://www.e-education.psu.edu/eme444/node/419
[25] http://www.ems.psu.edu/current_undergrad_students/academics/integrity_policy