cge training workshop on mitigation assessments - seoul - september 20052005 international...

2005 International Conference on Atmosphere ProtectionCGE Training Workshop on Mitigation Assessments - Seoul - September 2005

Integrated Environmental Strategiesand Co-Benefits

Jack Fitzgerald, USEPA

Jose Ramon T. Villarin, SJ, PhD


Presentation Overview

• Introduction to Co-benefits• Background on IES• Case Studies – Manila, Beijing and

Santiago• Select Partner Achievements• Partner Support• Supporting the International Co-Benefits

Community• Contact Information


Co-benefits: Why They Matter

• Basic definition: All of the positive outcomes associated with multiple, simultaneous emissions reductions.

• From a decision making perspective, co-benefits analysis allows energy options, health impacts, other policy goals, and GHG emissions to be linked together and evaluated.

• Co-benefits analysis enables sound policy making to be based on quantitative analysis.

• It helps prioritize options in an environment where resources are limited.

• Supports mitigation analysis to inform environmental programming and decision making.


Low-sulfur coal

Smokestack controls

Catalytic converters

Diesel particle traps

Evaporative controls

Clean fuels/renewables

Energy efficiency programs

Methane gas recovery

Fuel switching

Public transport and land use

Retirement of older vehicles

Efficiency standards for new vehicles/appliances

Inspection and maintenance programs

Geological and terrestrial sequestration

Land use and land use change

Control of other GHGs (CH4, N2O, HFCs, PFCs, SF6)

Local

Global

Integrated

IntegratedAdapted from Jason West et al (2002)

How Can Co-benefits Be Achieved?

•Integrated measures that reduce GHG emissions and improve local air quality


IES: U.S. EPA’s Integrated Environmental Strategies Program

• Established in 1998 as a capacity-enhancing co-benefits program.

• Partners local teams in developing countries with experts and tools from U.S. EPA, other IES projects, and other organizations (e.g., U.S. AID, U.S. National Renewable Energy Laboratory).

• Flexible, to address local air quality and public health needs of stakeholders in cities.

• Identifies and analyzes integrated (i.e., air-quality improvement and greenhouse-gas mitigation) strategies and co-benefits.


IES Goals

• Identify strategies that reduce GHG emissions and improve local air quality while meeting public health, economic development objectives.

• Provide stakeholders with quantitative estimates of global and local co-benefits of policies and technologies.

• Engage stakeholders to lay groundwork for implementation of cost-effective air quality management strategies.

• Build analytical, institutional, and human capacity for multidisciplinary analysis of GHG mitigation, health, and environmental impacts of alternative strategies.

• Transfer tools and methodologies for co-benefits analysis.


IES Partners

Countries with IES projects:


How IES Works

Prepare baseline inventory to identify sources of AQ and GHG emissions. Develop alternative, integrated scenarios of measures based on local objectives

using energy/economic models. Estimate concentrations of air pollution and exposure through AQ modeling. Estimate air pollution public-health benefits. Compare costs and benefits of alternative mitigation options and business-as-

usual scenarios. Present results and seek feedback from policymakers/ stakeholders, fostering

support for implementation. Integrate results into planning processes.

EnergyEmissionsModeling

EnergyEmissionsModeling

ProjectedAnnual

Emissions

ProjectedAnnual

Emissions

AirQuality

Modeling

AirQuality

Modeling

Projected Ambient

Concentration

Projected Ambient

Concentration

HealthEffects

Modeling

HealthEffects

Modeling

ProjectedPublic Health

Impacts

ProjectedPublic Health

Impacts

Economic Valuation Modeling

Economic Valuation Modeling

Projected Economic Benefits

Projected Economic Benefits

Inform PolicyInform Policy

OUTPUTSOUTPUTS

TOOLSTOOLS


Integrated Environmental Strategies(Philippine Study)


Outline

• Context and objective• Framework• Policy identification• Methodology• Results• Conclusions and recommendations


Context and objective

• Context– 2003 Inventory: significant contribution of transport to

AQ degradation– Transport: Fourfold increase past two decades (4.2 M

vehicles)– Public health: bronchial disease on the rise

• Objective– Assess and quantify impact of different mitigation

policies and measures (transport sector)– Air pollution and GHG mitigation– Health and economic impact


Framework

• Mitigation policy identification• Scenario development• Baseline development (BAU)• AQ pollutant and GHG reduction computation• Health benefit calculation

– Scenario minus baseline

– Exposure (response function)

• Economic benefit computation• Policy prioritization


Policy identification

• Transport demand management• Rail-based mass transit system• Bikeways• Motor Vehicle Inspection System (MVIS)• CNG-powered buses• CME for diesel-powered jeepneys• Two to four-stroke tricycles• Diesel traps


Policy identification

• Combo1: all policies except railways and four-stroke conversion

• Combo2: all except railways• Combo3: all including railways


Methodology

• Scenario dev, example:– Policy: 4-Stroke conversion

– Scenario: PM emission factor of tricycles was reduced to 1/5 of the emission factor of tricycles in the baseline scenario applied to all tricycles in all zones


Methodology

• PM concentration calculation– Emissions inventory– Dispersion modeling

• Health effects estimation– Risk as function of exposure-response, excess

exposure, baseline mortality/morbidity rates– Avoided health cases (relative to baseline)

• Economic valuation– Benefits transfer, direct cost (medical), indirect (lost

work days)


Methodology

0 m 1 0 0 0 0 m 2 0 0 0 0 m 0 m 1 0 0 0 0 m 2 0 0 0 0 m

0 0 . 5 1 1 . 5 2 2 . 5

2005Baseline

2015BAU

0 m 1 0 0 0 0 m 2 0 0 0 0 m

2015Com bination

Annual PM concentration (ug/m3)

Emissions (tons/year)


Figure ES-1. Projected Travel Demand: 2005

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

S c e n a r I o s

million vehicle-km per day

gas tricycle

diesel bus

diesel jeepney

diesel truck

diesel car

gas jeepney

gas car

Combi = MVIS+TDM+CNGBH+CMEJH+DPTBJ

Results

• Scenario development– Baseline travel demand (2005)


Results

• PM level calculation (mean annual concentration in Metro Manila, BAU and mitigation scenarios)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

Co

nc (

ug

/Ncm

)

Business-as-Usual

Traffic Demand Mgmt.

CNG for Buses

CME for Jeepneys

Bikeways

Diesel PM Traps(Buses and Jeepneys)

Diesel PM Traps(Buses)

Shift to 4-Stroke TCs

Motor VehicleInspection

Combination-1

Combination-2


Results

• Health impacts


Results

• Economic costs– Dominance of averted deaths and chronic bronchitis (similar

to Chile study)


Results

• Co-benefits– PM mitigation tracks CO2 mitigation in all policy

scenarios except for 4-stroke conversion and diesel particulate traps

– Minimal impact (on both PM and CO2) of CNG and CME policies

– Individually, MVIS and railways have largest impact on both PM and CO2

– Best is still combination of mitigation policies


Conclusion and recommendations

• From health and economic standpoint, three priorities: – MVIS– four-stroke conversion– Metro railway system

• Minimal impact of CNG, CME policies because of low target vehicle population

• Significant CO2 impact from MVIS and TDM, but key dual impact (PM and CO2) from MVIS and Railway policies


Conclusions and recommendations

• Abatement cost associated with mitigation policy still needs to be incorporated

• Extend analysis beyond transport to include stationary or area sources of pollution

• Extend assessment beyond Manila to other emerging cities such as Cebu, Baguio, Davao and scale up to national level

• Data collection, model refinement


Case Study: Beijing, China

• Integrated Measures– Developed from Beijing Olympic Air Quality Action

Plan.– Include changing coal boilers to natural gas, improving

residential lighting and A/C practices, LPG in taxis, expanding public transportation development and vehicular emission standards.

• Co-Benefits Analysis– Compared business as usual scenario against

scenarios with measures. Projected out 30 years.– Models used:

• LEAP 2000 (energy), ISC (air pollution) , APHEBA (health benefits)


Stationary Source Fuel-Switching: Beijing, China

• Stationary source fuel-switching policies in the Clean Energy Consumption scenario include: changing industrial coal-fired boilers to natural gas, LPG for cooking in rural residences, and expanded natural gas power in the electrical grid.

Stationary Source Fuel-

switching Measures Analyzed

Indicator

Changing coal-fired boilers to

natural gas

40% and 60% of coal-fired boilers will

change to NG in 2010 and 2030

LPG for cooking in rural

residences

20% and 40% of rural residents will

use LPG for cooking in 2010 and 2030

Expanded natural gas power in the electrical grid

NG power plants will produce 1200MW in 2010, and 2800MW

in 2030


CO2 and PM10 Emissions Under the Clean Energy Consumption (CEC) Scenario Relative to

BAU Emissions

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

1.1

1999 2010 2020 2030Year

Rat

io o

f B

AU

to

EE

P

BAU

CEC CO2

CEC PM10

Stationary Source Fuel-Switching: Beijing, China


Case Study: Santiago, Chile

• Integrated Measures– Developed from the Chilean National Environmental

Commission’s Santiago Decontamination Plan.– Include changing diesel boilers to natural gas,

improving energy efficiency of residential and commercial lighting, CNG in buses, and mandatory renovation of the ageing taxi cab fleet.

• Co-Benefits Analysis– Compared business as usual scenario against climate

policy scenario with integrated measures. Projected out 20 years.

– Models used:• Eulerian Box Model (air pollution), APHEBA (health

benefits)


Energy Efficiency in Santiago, Chile

Electricity Savings

Measures

% CO2 Emissions Reduction from BAU

Incandescent to Compact

Fluorescent Lamps (CFL)

80%

Efficient Reflectors for Fluorescent

Lamps

44%

Sodium Lamps for Public Lighting

48%

• By switching to more efficient technologies the Chile team realized significant reductions in all emissions (i.e., GHGs and air pollutants) from energy generation.

• The Chile team found that of all the measures they analyzed, energy efficiency measures were the most cost-effective during peak hours of energy consumption for GHG and air pollutant emissions.


Santiago, ChileComparison of the ranking of measures by their carbon abatement costs

and their PM2.5 precursors abatement costs.


Select IES Partner Achievements

• In-country teams have completed initial assessments in Argentina, Brazil, China, Chile, India, Mexico, the Philippines, and South Korea. Potential AQ, public health, and GHG reductions are significant.

• Partners in Santiago, Shanghai, and Seoul used results and the IES approach in developing AQ management plans.

• Beijing is using the IES approach to support their Olympics AQ planning process.

• Chile used results to support successful application for GEF funds to implement measures.

• Korea’s analysis showed that 71% of cost of reducing CO2 emissions by 10% in 2010 would be offset by health benefits from associated AQ improvements.


Partner Support

• Air Pollution Health Benefits Assessment Model (APHEBA) users’ guide and training course.– Provides a resource for conducting health benefits

assessments of changes in air pollution concentrations.

• Training course and materials on health benefits analysis.– Provides basic information and training to country

experts with conducting health benefits analysis as part of integrated environmental analysis projects.

• “Reduced form” analytical tools and methodologies.– Supports analysis of air pollution and GHG mitigation

co-benefits where local data for detailed analysis of air pollution public health benefits is lacking.


Supporting the International Co- Benefits Community

• IES Web site launched Fall 2004 – features information on methodology, country profiles, final country reports and other documents, presentations and publications. Available at <http://www.epa.gov/ies>

• The IES Handbook: A Resource Guide for Air Quality Planning – The Handbook is intended to serve as a resource to support the development of co-benefits analysis projects in developing countries. Available at <http://www.epa.gov/handbook.htm> or by request.

• International version of manual for EPA’s Environmental Benefits Mapping and Analysis Program (BenMAP) software.

• International Training Module for developing countries interested in performing co-benefits analysis with IES methodology.


Contact information

Jack Fitzgerald

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Washington, DC

[email protected]

IES email box at [email protected]

IES Web site at http://www.epa.gov/ies/

cge training workshop on mitigation assessments - seoul - september 20052005 international...

Documents

mitigation assessments

international conference

cobenefits analysis

cge training workshop

mitigation analysis

co benefits program

cobenefits background

local air quality slide