Moving Multi-Pollutant Planning Forward

Jason Rudokas

EAG Meeting

June 11, 2010

Moving Multi-Pollutant Planning Forward

2

Planning Challenges for Coming Decade

• We have achieved great success in dramatically reducing emissions of lead, CO, ozone & acid rain

• These successes are tempered by:– the growing understanding of environmental & public health

threats posed by microscopic particles & greenhouse gases– awareness of impacts of cumulative exposures and

synergistic effects– potential for exacerbating one problem while addressing

another

• GHG agenda implies virtual elimination of air pollutants associated with combustion

3

Planning Needs for the Coming Decade

• Move to holistic multi-pollutant planning approach

• Simultaneously meet short- and long-term objectives (e.g. air quality and climate)

• Account for potential trade-offs• Expand scope to include social and economic

considerations

4

Our Definition of Multi-Pollutant Multi-Pollutant PlanningPlanning

• Addresses multiple pollutants, including SO2, NOX, CO2, and Hg

• Highlights tradeoffs and co-benefits of policy options

• Analyzes the environmental, public health, economic, & energy implications of various pollution control strategies

• Allows for multi-sector analyses

5

Multi-Pollutant Planning Makes SenseMulti-Pollutant Planning Makes Sense

• Strategies & technologies that reduce GHGs can also reduce traditional pollutants

• Can help design cost-effective approaches that minimize burden on industry & maximize the use of state resources

• Can result in better environmental results at lower cost

• Promotes integrated energy & air quality planning

6

6

This is a New Planning ParadigmThis is a New Planning Paradigm

• Is a broader, longer term multi-pollutant planning process from which multiple SIPs and plans can be developed

• The SIP is no longer the sole driver, but one of several drivers and derivative products

• Requires working with/aligning multiple state offices in joint data development and planning to identify solutions that meet multiple needs

7

Proof of Concept for NESCAUM’s Multi-Pollutant Policy Analysis Framework

• NESCAUM has developed NE-MARKAL that covers region from DC to Maine

• MARKAL is a least-cost optimization linear programming model that focuses on energy systems & technologies

• Linked to atmospheric dispersion, macro-economic, & public health assessment models

8

NESCAUM’s Multi-Pollutant Policy Analysis Framework

NE-MARKAL Energy Model

Evolution of Energy SystemEvolution of Energy System

12-State REMIEconomic Model

KeyEconomic Indicators

CMAQAir Quality Model

emiss

ions

emiss

ions

expendituresexpenditures

Wet/DryDeposition

Ambient Concentrations

BenMAPHealth Benefits Assessment

Health EffectsIncidence and Cost/Benefit

Goals & Policies

9

Scale and Scopeof NESCAUM’s MPAF tool

• Regional Integrated Assessment: 12 state-level models linked into a regional framework (never been done regionally outside EU)

• State-level Planning: analytical tools are based on individual states

• Individual Regulations: bottom-up approach ties model results directly to regulatory specifications

10

NE-MARKAL: Energy & Technology Model

Source: EPA ORD

Uranium

Fossil Fuels

OilRefining & Processing

H2 Generation

Clean Energy

Biomass

Combustion

Nuclear Power

Gasification

RenewableResources

Carbon Sequestration

Industry

Industry

Commercial

Residential

Automobiles

Evolution of Today’s Energy System

11

The following results are preliminary, and are intended only to illustrate model capabilities.

12

by Fuel Typeby Fuel Type by Fuel Typeby Fuel Type

Annual Average Growth Rate Annual Average Growth Rate between 2007 and 2030between 2007 and 2030

Reference Power Sector Generation MixReference Power Sector Generation Mix RPS Power Sector Generation MixRPS Power Sector Generation Mix

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

2002 2005 2008 2011 2014 2017 2020 2023 2026 2029

tBT

U

Coal Gas Hydro Nuclear Oil Renewable

State RPS: 25% by 2013

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

2002 2005 2008 2011 2014 2017 2020 2023 2026 2029

tBT

U

Reference Case CCoal 0.0% 0.0%Gas 1.4% 1.0%Hydro 0.2% 0.3%Nuclear 0.0% 0.0%Oil 0.0% 0.0%Renewable 0.0% 6.3%

(RPS)

2029 Renewable Generation Breakout ( tBTU , % )

33, 44%

9, 11%7, 9%

28, 36%

On Shore Wind

Off Shore Wind

MSW

BiomassGasification

Biomass DirectCombustion

Preliminary Results – Draft – Do not quote or cite

13

Net Generation Change 2007-2030 Relative to ReferenceNet Generation Change 2007-2030 Relative to Reference

Net Capacity Change 2007-2030 Relative to ReferenceNet Capacity Change 2007-2030 Relative to Reference

Power Sector Cost BreakoutPower Sector Cost Breakout

Power Sector Emissions ChangesPower Sector Emissions Changes

Cost Changes relative to NYREF (2008 $US)

Change in capital costs

Change in fixed & variable costs

Change in fuel costs

Annual

(2029)

+$1.1 B

(2.2 times REF)

+$75 M

(+3.1%)

-$1.1 B

(-20%)

Cumulative

(2008-2029)

+$20 B

(2.6 times REF)

+$1.5 B

(+2.6%)

-$15 B

(-13%)

Emission Changes relative to NYREF

CO2

(Million Tons)

NOx

(Thousand Tons)

SO2

(Thousand Tons

Hg

(lbs)

Annual

(2029)

-12

(-18%)

-2.5

(-6.3%)

-1.5

(-1.1%)

-11

(-0.8%)

Cumulative

(2007-2030)

-180

(-12%)

-47

(-4.5%)

-25

(-0.7%)

-120

(-0.3%)

-250

-200

-150

-100

-50

0

50

100

Co

al

Ga

s

Hy

dro

Nu

cle

ar

Oil

Re

ne

wa

ble

GW

-1800

-1300

-800

-300

200

700

1200

Co

al

Gas

Hyd

ro

Nu

clea

r

Oil

Ren

ewab

le

tBT

U

State RPS: 25% by 2013


14

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

2002 2005 2008 2011 2014 2017 2020 2023 2026 2029

MV

MT

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

2002 2005 2008 2011 2014 2017 2020 2023 2026 2029

MV

MT

14

60% of LDV fleet to electric vehicle by 2029

by Vehicle Categoryby Vehicle Category by Vehicle Categoryby Vehicle Category

Time Integrated Change Time Integrated Change between 2007 and 2030between 2007 and 2030

LDV Technology Deployment - ReferenceLDV Technology Deployment - Reference LDV Technology Deployment - EVLDV Technology Deployment - EV

-400

-300

-200

-100

0

100

200

300

400

CN

G V

EH

ICL

ES

CO

NV

EN

TIO

NA

LD

IES

EL

CO

NV

EN

TIO

NA

LG

AS

E8

5 E

TH

AN

OL

EL

EC

TR

ICV

EH

ICL

E

GA

S H

YB

RID

HY

DR

OG

EN

FU

EL

CE

LL

MV

MT

HYDROGEN FUEL CELL

GAS HYBRID

ELECTRIC VEHICLE

E85 ETHANOL

CONVENTIONAL GAS

CONVENTIONAL DIESEL

CNG VEHICLES


1515

60% of LDV fleet to electric vehicle by 2029LDV Transportation Sector Cost BreakoutLDV Transportation Sector Cost Breakout

LDV Transportation Sector Emissions ChangesLDV Transportation Sector Emissions Changes



Change in fixed costs


Annual

(2029)

+$18B

(+35%)

-$1.8 B

(-22%)

-$10 B

(-52%)

Cumulative

(2007-2030)

+$120 B

(+13%)

-$15 B

(-8.7%)

-$90 B

(-20%)


CO2

(Million Tons)

NOx

(Thousand tons)

SO2

(Tons)

CO

(Thousand tons)

VOC

(Thousand tons)

CH4

(Thousand tons)

Annual

(2029)

-42

(-43%)

-110

(-40%)

-850

(-22%)

-1,500

(-65%)

-80

(-61%)

-4.2

(-73%)

Cumulative

(2007-2030)

-320

(-14%)

-840

(-14%)

-6,900

(-6.5%)

-11,700

(-22%)

-600

(-19%)

-28

(-20%)


16

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

2002 2005 2008 2011 2014 2017 2020 2023 2026 2029

tBtu

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

2002 2005 2008 2011 2014 2017 2020 2023 2026 2029

tBtu

16

Electricity Generation by Fuel Type

Reference CaseReference Case EVEV

60% of LDV fleet to electric vehicle by 2029



Change in fixed costs


Annual

(2029)

+$174 M

(+29%)

+$108 M

(+6%)

+1.9 B

(+23%)

Cumulative

(2007-2030)

+$2 B

(+20%)

+$1.2 B

(+3%)

+$19 B

(+12%)


CO2

(Million Tons)

NOx

(Thousand Tons)

SO2

(Thousand Tons)

Hg

(lbs)

Annual

(2029)

+16

(+25%)

+4

(+12%)

+2

(+2%)

+86

(+2%)

Cumulative

(2007-2030)

+170

(+12%)

+51

(+5%)

+60

(+2%)

+800

(+2%)

Coal Gas Hydro Nuclear Oil Renewable


17

NE-MARKAL Brings it All Together

• RPS (currently use IPM?)• EV (currently use MOBILE or MOVES + IPM?)• What about a “Combination Run”?

– 25% RPS by 2013– 25% fleet EV by 2030– 25% fleet Hybrid by 2030– + Energy Efficiency– + CHP– + Low Sulfur Fuel

18

NE-MARKAL Brings it All Together: 2007-2030 Cumulative Emissions Reductions

-50%

-40%

-30%

-20%

-10%

0%

10%

RPS EV ComboElectric Sector

Net Emission Impact

R/C/I Sector

Transportation Sector

+

+

-50%

-40%

-30%

-20%

-10%

0%

10%

RPS EV Combo

-50%

-40%

-30%

-20%

-10%

0%

10%

RPS EV Combo

-50%

-40%

-30%

-20%

-10%

0%

10%

RPS EV Combo

Analysis of a large EV program would provide detailed information on vehicle technologies, fuel use, and emissions.

A follow-up analysis could analyze the power sector impacts

This could be done with tools like MOBILE or MOVES in combination with IPM or other power sector models

RPS analysis provides detailed power sector information on technology deployment, costs, and emission impacts.

This could be done with tools like IPM or other power sector models


CO2 Hg NOx SO2

19

NE-MARKAL Brings it All Together: 2007-2030 Cumulative Costs/Savings

Electric Sector

Net Cost Impact

R/C/I Sector

Transportation Sector

+

+

-100-50

050

100

RPS EV Combo

Bill

ion

$U

SD

(20

08)

-100-50

050

100

RPS EV Combo

Bill

ion

$U

SD

(20

08)

-100-50

050

100

RPS EV Combo

Bill

ion

$U

SD

(20

08)

-100-50

050

100

RPS EV Combo

Bill

ion

$U

SD

(20

08)

Analysis of a large EV program would provide detailed information on vehicle technologies, fuel use, and emissions.

A follow-up analysis could analyze the power sector impacts

Transportation sector costs CAN NOT be examined with tools like MOBILE or MOVES or with IPM or other power sector models

RPS analysis provides detailed power sector information on technology deployment, costs, and emission impacts.

This could be done with tools like IPM or other power sector models

Preliminary Results – Draft – Do not quote or citeFuel

O&M

Cap Invest

20

NE-MARKAL: Evolution of Energy System

Source: EPA ORD

Uranium

Fossil Fuels

OilRefining & Processing

H2 Generation

Clean Energy

Biomass

Combustion

Nuclear Power

Gasification

RenewableResources

Carbon Sequestration

Industry

Industry

Commercial

Residential

Automobiles

Evolution of Today’s Energy System

EntireEntire

$

TechnologyCosts

New PowerInfrastructure

Fuel Savings

EmissionsEmissions

Multi-sectorEmissions;(cross-sectoremissions tradeoffs)

Upstream Emissions

21

Ozone SIP

Acid Dep Plan

Many Potential Products

NE-MARKAL Energy Model

Evolution of Energy System

12-State REMIEconomic Model

KeyEconomic Indicators

CMAQAir Quality Model

emiss

ions

expenditures

Wet/DryDeposition

Ambient Concentrations

BenMAPHealth Benefits Assessment

Health EffectsIncidence and Cost/Benefit

Goals & Policies

IRP

EconomicPlans

PM2.5 SIP

Hg Plan

Haze,etc.

Climate ActionPlan

NOx/SO2

2ndary Std

AQMP

22

How to Move Forward?

• As states?• As a region?• Partnering with EPA?• Other?

The time is ripe to proceed, given the current landscape (e.g., EPA administration, new NAAQS, federal and states’ climate goals)

23

THANK YOU

Documents

Moving Multi-Pollutant Planning Forward