Transportation and the Transportation and the CDM:CDM:

Key Issues & Potential Case Key Issues & Potential Case StudiesStudies

March 14, 2003Winnipeg

CDM & The Transportation CDM & The Transportation SectorSector

Project BoundariesProject Boundaries

Which gases? CO2, N2O, CH4, CFCs?

Lifecycle vs. Direct Emissions? E.g., methane leaks upstream E.g., biofuel sequestration upstream What if emissions or sequestration occur

outside Chile?

Technology projects 1. Set baseline as current technology Set

baseline as marginal technology, if different

For travel demand/behavioral policies1. Compare to current mode split and VKT

Compare to projected mode split and VKT

Transportation Baseline IssuesTransportation Baseline Issues

For how long should the baseline be valid?

Should the baseline be fixed or revisable during the crediting lifetime?

If implementation time frame is longer than 5-year Kyoto budget periods, is there still a significant role for CDM?

TimeframeTimeframe

Need to balance environmentally integrity and practicality.

Technology projects Track VKT, efficiency (emission rates)

For travel demand/behavioral policies Track VKT, mode split

Is it appropriate to use modeling results for current or projected data?

Frequency of mode split data collection may be a concern

MonitoringMonitoring

Cost IssuesCost Issues

Incremental/Full Cost Assessment How to allocate costs across project benefits? (GHG,

air quality, economic development, etc.) What aspects are not a part of ‘true’ CDM project costs?

(infrastructure, modeling, planning, pre-feasibility)? Once elements are identified as not part of the CDM

project costs, should there be any limits on how those non-CDM costs are financed?

Role for ODA funding:

EB/Panel has yet to develop guidance on determining when national policies are relevant to baselines and to take them into account

No explicit rule preventing new government policies from qualifying as CDM projects.

The eligibility of government policies as projects will be determined based on OE/EB decisions as projects come through the pipeline

Relevance of National PoliciesRelevance of National Policies

“Carbon quality” is high if there is a high-degree of certainty that emission reductions will persist over time

Fixed technologies (e.g., hybrid buses) or infrastructure (e.g., metro expansion, segregated busways, land use, pedestrian or bicycle) may be higher quality than policies and incentives that could change over time.

Persistence & “Carbon Quality”Persistence & “Carbon Quality”

Potential Case StudiesPotential Case Studies

Case 1: 25% Increase in Bus EfficiencyCase 1: 25% Increase in Bus Efficiency

What if… buses were converted to Hybrid Electric or CNG technologies Key Assumptions

Diesel bus: 2.0 km/liter New bus: 2.5 km/liter 100,000 km/yr/bus 9,000 buses in Santiago region

GHG Savings from +25% Bus EfficiencyGHG Savings from +25% Bus Efficiency

GHG savings if 9,000 buses replaced Direct: 0.08 MMTCE (300 Gg CO2)

1.4% of transport sector emissions

Lifecycle: 0.10 MMTCE (360 Gg CO2)

GHG savings if 25% of buses replaced Direct: 0.021 MMTCE (75 Gg CO2)

0.3% of transport sector emissions

Lifecycle: 0.025 MMTCE (90 Gg CO2)

Issues to ConsiderIssues to Consider

Data improvements and monitoring Track actual VKT Improve fuel efficiency data

What would CDM investors invest in? Marginal cost of high efficiency bus?

Case 2: 10% Increase in Bus RidershipCase 2: 10% Increase in Bus Ridership

What if…the number bus passenger trips increased by 10%? Key Assumptions

4.25 million bus trips/day in Santiago 10 km trip length 265 weekdays/year Average vehicle loading

Bus = 34, Car = 1.9 BAU mode split (2010)

Bus = 62%, Car = 35%

GHG Savings from +10% Bus RidershipGHG Savings from +10% Bus Ridership

GHG savings if all new riders shift from cars 0.12 MMTCe (436 Gg CO2)

2.0% of transport sector emissions

GHG savings if new riders shift from BAU mode split (35% car) 0.04 MMTCe (150 Gg CO2)

0.7% of transport sector emissions

Issues to ConsiderIssues to Consider

Data improvements and monitoring Ridership, trip length, vehicle loading Current and projected mode split Bus and car efficiency

Additionality concerns What would CDM investors fund?

Segregated busways, electronic fare boxes, multi-modal stations, signalization improvements?

Other Potential Case StudiesOther Potential Case Studies

Taxis?Taxis?

Taxis 10% of sector emissions 25% efficiency improvement in 25% of

the fleet would result in GHG savings of: 0.04 MMTCE (131 Gg CO2)

What policies? Tax credit? Producer incentives? Voluntary agreements??

Trucks?Trucks?

Trucks 22% of sector emissions 25% efficiency improvement in 25% of

the fleet would result in GHG savings of: 0.08 MMTCE (301 Gg CO2)

What policies? Tax credit? Producer incentives? Voluntary agreements??

Metro expansion

Busways Under consideration by World Bank for PCF Good “carbon quality” if segregated

corridors with 10-year concessions

Transit System ImprovementsTransit System Improvements

“Infill” development in the Anillo Central?

“Mixed-use” development around new Metro stations?

What would a CDM investor fund? Planning, tax credits for developers? Developer as CDM investor?

Land Use PoliciesLand Use Policies

Bicycle network expansion Need to assess leisure vs. non-leisure

trips

BicycleBicycle

Others?

• Others: urban planning; freight? (inter modal shifting?);

• What about the most prominent ‘culprit’? The privately owned vehicle? Any room for improvements here? Efficiency/air quality tests, etc?

Hora Para la DiscusiónHora Para la Discusión