Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Moving States Towards Multi-Moving States Towards Multi-Pollutant Air Quality Planning
Leah WeissSenior Policy Advisor
Gary KleimanScience & Technology Program Manager
OTC Fall Meeting
gy g g
Baltimore, MDNovember 5, 2009
AcknowledgementsAcknowledgements• New York:
– Sandi Meier - Carl MasSandi Meier Carl Mas– Ted Lawrence - Ellen Burkhart– David Shaw - Rob Sliwinski– Bob Bielawa - Dave Gardner
Ona Papageorgio Scott Griffin– Ona Papageorgiou - Scott Griffin– Kevin Civerolo - Kevin Watz– Carlos Mancilla
• Massachusetts:– Nancy Seidman - Vivek Mohta
M l d• Maryland:– Tad Aburn - Diane Franks– Brian Hug - Mary Jane Rutkowski
2
Take-Away MessageTake Away Message
•• An integrated multiAn integrated multi--pollutant planningpollutant planningAn integrated multiAn integrated multi pollutant planning pollutant planning approach, supported by a technical framework, approach, supported by a technical framework, can enable states to:can enable states to:
–– meet air quality objectivesmeet air quality objectivesreduce greenhouse gasesreduce greenhouse gases–– reduce greenhouse gasesreduce greenhouse gases
–– meet electricity demand through reliable and diverse meet electricity demand through reliable and diverse suppliessupplies
3
Traditional Air Planning Approach is Traditional Air Planning Approach is ffffBecoming Less EffectiveBecoming Less Effective
• Climate Change has moved to center stage on the g gpolicy agenda
• Single pollutant programs can’t solve all air quality g p p g q yproblems, and can create or exacerbate other problemsSt t h ti d• States have many competing needs, e.g., economic, environmental, energy, security
4
MultiMulti--Pollutant Planning Makes SensePollutant Planning Makes SenseMultiMulti Pollutant Planning Makes SensePollutant Planning Makes Sense
• Energy and air quality are linked -- programs that gy q y p greduce greenhouse gases can also reduce PM and ozone precursors
• Can be a more cost-effective approach, using state resources effectively and efficientlyC id tif t ti l t d ff d id• Can identify potential tradeoffs and provide information for policy makers to make informed decisions
• Can result in equal and better environmental results overall
5
NESCAUM’s View of MultiNESCAUM’s View of Multi--Pollutant Pollutant PlanningPlanning
• Addresses multiple pollutants, including SO2, NOX, p p , g 2, X,CO2, PM, and Hg
• Highlights tradeoffs and co-benefitsg g
• Analyzes the economic and environmental implications of various planning optionsimplications of various planning options
• Allows for multi-sector analyses
6
Need to Change Planning ParadigmNeed to Change Planning Paradigm
• Move to a broader, longer term multi-pollutant , g pplanning approach, from which the SIP can be developed
• SIP is no longer the sole driver, but one of several drivers and components
• Work with/align various state offices in a new planning exercise to identify common solutions
7
Need to Modify Planning HorizonsNeed to Modify Planning Horizons
• Air quality agenda requires multiple plans and q y g q p pregulations on relatively short-term planning cycles (typically three to nine years)
• Energy and Climate programs work under longer term planning cycles
• Possible to plan for longer cycles while meeting shorter term goals
8
NESCAUM’s GoalsNESCAUM’s GoalsNESCAUM s GoalsNESCAUM s Goals
• Enable state multi-pollutant planning through p p g greplicable, consistent and predictable protocols
• Foster integrated environmental and energy g gyplanning by leading with energy
• Refine tools that can support integrated, multi-ll t t k d b li d ti lpollutant work, and can be applied on a national
scale• Ensure that results from this approach can be usedEnsure that results from this approach can be used
in SIPs and by energy planners to develop their Integrated Resource Plans (IRPs)
9
NESCAUM’s MultiNESCAUM’s Multi--Pollutant Pollutant Policy Analysis FrameworkPolicy Analysis FrameworkPolicy Analysis Framework Policy Analysis Framework
(MPAF)(MPAF)
10
NESCAUM’sNESCAUM’sM ltiM lti P ll t t P li A l i F kP ll t t P li A l i F kMultiMulti--Pollutant Policy Analysis FrameworkPollutant Policy Analysis Framework
Goals & Policies
NE-MARKAL Energy Model CMAQ BenMAP
Evolution of Energy SystemAir Quality Model
expenditures
Health Benefits Assessment
12-State REMIEconomic Model
Ambient Concentrations
Health Effects
KeyE i
Wet/DryDeposition
Health EffectsIncidence and Cost/Benefit
11
Economic Indicators
NENE--MARKAL: MARKAL: CCEnergy Model as CenterpieceEnergy Model as Centerpiece
Today’s Energy Systemy gy y
Oil
Oil
Refining Automobiles
U i
Natural Gas
Residential
Uranium
Coal
Electricity Generation
Commercial
Renewables
Industry
Industry
12
Source: EPA ORD
NENE--MARKAL: MARKAL: CCEnergy Model as CenterpieceEnergy Model as Centerpiece
Oil
Fossil Fuels
Refining & ProcessingAutomobiles
H2 GenerationBiomass
CombustionGasification
Residential
Uranium Nuclear Power
Commercial
Clean Energy
RenewableResources
Carbon Sequestration
Industry
13Source: EPA ORD
Industry
Example of ResultsExample of ResultsExample of ResultsExample of Results
Transportation E ampleTransportation Example
•Fuel and Technology DeploymentFuel and Technology Deployment
•Emissions
•Costs
14
Example Transportation Policy( f )(state-specific projections)
Technology Deployment Changes with EV Mandategy p y g
Reference With Policy300 300
150
200
250
300
MT
HYDROGEN FC
GAS HYBRID
E85 ETHANOL
150
200
250
MT
HYDROGEN FUEL CELLGAS HYBRIDELECTRIC VEHICLEE85 ETHANOLCONVENTIONAL GAS
50
100
150
MV CONVENTIONAL
GASCONVENTIONALDIESELCNG VEHICLES 50
100
150
MVM CONVENTIONAL DIESEL
CNG VEHICLES
0
2002 2008 2014 2020 202602002 2008 2014 2020 2026
15
Example Transportation Policy( f )(state-specific projections)
Fuel Consumption Changes with EV Mandatep g
Reference With Policy1400 1400
800
1000
1200
1400
u
Hydrogen
Gasoline
Ethanol 800
1000
1200
1400
u
Hydrogen
Gasoline
Eth l
200
400
600TBtu Ethanol
Electricity
Diesel
CNG 200
400
600TBt Ethanol
Electricity
Diesel
CNG
02002 2008 2014 2020 2026
02002 2008 2014 2020 2026
16
Example Transportation Policy( f )(state-specific projections)
Power Generation Changes with EV Mandateg
Reference With Policy2500
1500
2000
2500
TU
1500
2000
2500
TU0
500
1000tB
0
500
1000tBT
2002 2008 2014 2020 2026
Coal Gas Hydro Nuclear Oil Renewable
02002 2008 2014 2020 2026
Coal Gas Hydro Nuclear Oil Renewable
17
GHG & Criteria Pollutant Emission Reductions GHG & Criteria Pollutant Emission Reductions (state(state--specific projections)specific projections)
40%
50%
60%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
-30%
-20%
-10%
A B C D E F G H I
• Climate focused policies can help to meet short- and long-t it i ll t t l
-40%
CH4 NOX SO2 VOC CO2 CO EV Policy
term criteria pollutant goals.• Near-term criteria pollutant goals, however, play only a
small role in achieving long term climate goals.• The multi-pollutant approach provides the opportunity to
18
The multi pollutant approach provides the opportunity to simultaneously address criteria and climate pollutant goals more efficiently than a pollutant by pollutant approach.
Change in Total System Cost Change in Total System Cost (analysis done for one state)(analysis done for one state)
NPV Cost Change Relative to Reference Run Type
A -1.2% Constraint
B 0 3% ConstraintB -0.3% Constraint
C 0.2% Constraint
D 1.4% Constraint
E 4 3% D d R d ti
EV PolicyE -4.3% Demand Reduction
F -0.5% Constraint
G -0.1% Constraint
H 1 2% C t i tH 1.2% Constraint
I -1.4% Constraint
• The multi-pollutant approach also allows decision makers to weigh cost against environmental benefits for multiple scenarios multiple pollutants
19
benefits for multiple scenarios, multiple pollutants, multiple sectors
Air Quality, Public Health, and Economic Analyses
• Emissions projections are inputs for air p j pquality models
• Traditional estimates of monetized li / bidi i l l dmortality/morbidity impacts are calculated
from projected air quality changes• Monetized health impacts can be fed back• Monetized health impacts can be fed back
into regional economic model to estimate scenario-specific projected economic impacts on Gross State Product, labor income, and jobs
20
Advantages to Using NEAdvantages to Using NE--MARKALMARKALAdvantages to Using NEAdvantages to Using NE MARKALMARKAL
• Quick to run and turn around resultsR l i l i i• Relatively inexpensive to use
• Transparent to review• Detailed enough to assess a wide range of climate, air quality
and energy policiesand energy policies• Can analyze at different levels (state/regional), as well as
multiple and/or single strategies• Outputs can link to other models – REMI, CMAQ, BenMAP• Is a multi-pollutant model. Outputs include: emissions changes
in CO2, NOx, PM; Hg for power sector, and; SO2, VOC, CO for transportation sector
• Shows trade-offsShows trade offs• Is an energy model – its use by air regulators starts the
integration between air and energy
21
Limitations to Using NELimitations to Using NE MARKALMARKALLimitations to Using NELimitations to Using NE--MARKALMARKAL
• While expansive in its coverage, it will not provide perfect representation of all sectors p p pand technologies
• Should be used for comparative policy p p yanalysis, not energy dispatch or forecasting
• Does not simulate behavior or consumer response
22
How This is DifferentHow This is DifferentHow This is DifferentHow This is Different
• Broader planning horizons, bigger picture, multi-di i lidisciplinary
• The planning happens first, results then feed into various plans (i.e., SIP, IRP)
• An iterative process – the model must first be tailored to state-specific conditions before it can be used to inform decisions
ff• Requires policy-makers to look at tradeoffs• NE-MARKAL outputs can be used as inputs to other
models; results are useful to state policy makers• Outputs can inform air, energy, and economic policy
(and vice versa)
23
The Time is Ripe for MultiThe Time is Ripe for Multi--Pollutant Pollutant PlanningPlanning
• Has the potential to align various state offices in a p gnew planning exercise and identify common solutions.
• Can enable states to meet air quality objectives,Can enable states to meet air quality objectives, reduce greenhouse gases, and meet electricity meet electricity demand through reliable and diverse suppliesdemand through reliable and diverse supplies
• Can identify potential tradeoffs and provides• Can identify potential tradeoffs and provides information for policy makers to make informed decisions.
SC ’• Tools are out there and available. NESCAUM’s framework leads with energy and can help air regulators move toward multi-pollutant planning.
24
THANK YOU!THANK YOU!THANK YOU!THANK YOU!
The NESCAUM Multi-P Team:The NESCAUM Multi P Team:
– Leah Weiss, Senior Policy Advisor, y• [email protected] (617-416-4829)
– Gary Kleiman, Science & Technology Program Manager• gkleiman@nescaum org (617-259-2027)[email protected] (617 259 2027)
– John Graham, Senior Scientist• [email protected] (617-259-2023)
J R d k Cli t & E A l t– Jason Rudokas, Climate & Energy Analyst• [email protected] (617-259-2075)
25
