International Transport Energy Modeling (iTEM2): Acomparison of national and international transport energyand climate policy strategies and scenarios

Paul Natsuo Kishimoto1 Sonia Yeh2 Pierpaolo Cazzola3 David Daniels4Jari Kauppila5 Page Kyle6 Lew Fulton7 John Maples8 David McCollum9

Joshua Miller10 Wei-Shiuen Ng5 Robert Spicer11

15th IAEE European Conference, Vienna, ATSession 1H — 14:00–15:30, 04 September 2017(1) Massachusetts Institute of Technology. (2) Chalmers University of Technology. Corresponding author: sonia.yeh@chalmers.se. (3) InternationalEnergy Agency. (4) Energy Information Administration. (5) International Transport Forum. (6) Pacific Northwest National Laboratory. (7) University ofCalifornia, Davis. (8) Energy Information Administration. (9) International Institute of Applied Systems Analysis. (10) International Council on CleanTransportation. (11) BP plc.

Outline

The iTEM project

Motivation & context

Models included in iTEM2

Key findings from model intercomparison

Discussion

Implications for modeling

iTEM3+ methodology

1

The iTEM project

Motivation

• Paris Agreement @ UNFCCC CoP21 sets up a new climate policy regime:• 5-year pledge & review cycles based on nationally determined contributions(NDC) of parties.

• Parties’ individual & joint assessment of individual & collective progress iscritical to future rounds of NDCs.

• (in parallel) Global agenda for sustainable transport development.• Economic & equity aspects, alongside the environmental.• Promoted by international groups, development banks, etc.

• Stakeholders use available reports/model outputs to inform expectations.• Likely/counterfactual outcomes under “business as usual.”• Impacts of proposed/hypothetical policies → what is achievable?• Divergence in these projections makes this assessment process difficult andcostly.

2

Motivation

• Paris Agreement @ UNFCCC CoP21 sets up a new climate policy regime:• 5-year pledge & review cycles based on nationally determined contributions(NDC) of parties.

• Parties’ individual & joint assessment of individual & collective progress iscritical to future rounds of NDCs.

• (in parallel) Global agenda for sustainable transport development.• Economic & equity aspects, alongside the environmental.• Promoted by international groups, development banks, etc.

• Stakeholders use available reports/model outputs to inform expectations.• Likely/counterfactual outcomes under “business as usual.”• Impacts of proposed/hypothetical policies → what is achievable?• Divergence in these projections makes this assessment process difficult andcostly.

2

Motivation

• Paris Agreement @ UNFCCC CoP21 sets up a new climate policy regime:• 5-year pledge & review cycles based on nationally determined contributions(NDC) of parties.

• Parties’ individual & joint assessment of individual & collective progress iscritical to future rounds of NDCs.

• (in parallel) Global agenda for sustainable transport development.• Economic & equity aspects, alongside the environmental.• Promoted by international groups, development banks, etc.

• Stakeholders use available reports/model outputs to inform expectations.• Likely/counterfactual outcomes under “business as usual.”• Impacts of proposed/hypothetical policies → what is achievable?• Divergence in these projections makes this assessment process difficult andcostly.

2

iTEM: International Transport Energy Modeling

• A consortium of groups that:• use models to project future transport activity,• globally and inclusive of all modes,• with a focus on energy use and GHG emissions (minimum), and otherenvironmental impacts.

• Groups contribute their model input assumptions and scenario results forinter-comparison and participate in interpretation.

https://transportenergy.org

3

Groups & models participating iTEM2:

Abbreviation Group Model name Reference

GCAM PNNL Global Change AssessmentModel

MESSAGE IIASAMoMo IEA Mobility ModelRoadmap ICCT RoadmapEPPA JPSPGC Economic Projection & Policy

AnalysisChen et al. 2015

Exxon ExxonMobilGET Chalmers UniversityStatoil StatoilITF ITFWEPS+ EIA World Energy Projection Sys-

tem Plus 4

iTEM2 expands the set of groups & models participating:

Including a wide set of participants that enrich the representations of modelingexpertise, scenarios, motivations, data sources, and discussions:

• A mix of groups:• National and international government organization—e.g. U.S. IEA, EIA.• NGOs, non-profits & think-tanks—e.g. ICCT, IEA, ITF-OECD.• Research/academic—e.g. Chalmers, UCDavis, IIASA, MIT, DOE PNNL.• Firms—e.g. BP, Shell, Statoil.

• Diverse research foci & scenarios (business strategy, IPCC support, academic),core model logic, methods, resolution, & sectoral/regional aggregation.

• Model source code, input data, and full-resolution outputs may each beeither public or proprietary, or in between.

5

Key findings from modelintercomparison

Key findings from model intercomparison

• Energy: largest variation across models for China, followed by U.S. andMiddle East.

• Policy scenario reductions become noticeable after 2030–2035; fossil fuelscontinue to dominate.

• Little decarbonization of fuels under business-as-usual.• CO2 levels higher than those identified by IEA ETP 2017 as necessary forglobal 2°C stabilization.

• Broad consensus: aviation, shipping & truck modes grow faster than LDVs.• Very wide variation in projections of per-capita vehicle ownership.

6

Global: Transport CO2 emissions remain high even in policy (2°C) scenarios

2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2050

6000

8000

10000

12000

TTW

emis

sion

s[M

tC

O2/y

ear]

ModelBP

GCAM

MESSAGE

MoMo

Roadmap

Shell

Scenariopolicy

reference

7

Global: Fossil liquids still the dominant fuel even in policy scenarios

0

50

100

150

200

EJ/y

ear

BP

FuelBiomass Liquids

Coal

Electricity

Fossil Liquids

Hydrogen

Natural Gas

Total Liquids

ExxonMobil GCAM GET MESSAGE MoMo Roadmap Shell WEPS+

policy

2010

2030

2050

0

50

100

150

200

2010

2030

2050

2010

2030

2050

2010

2030

2050

2010

2030

2050

2010

2030

2050

2010

2030

2050

2010

2030

2050

2010

2030

2050

reference

No peak in global oil demand(other than IEA MoMo policy).

Electricity, biomass, or naturalgas are likely to play small tomoderate roles after 2030. 8

Global: Aviation and freight are the fastest growing modes

0

50

100

150

200

250

EJ/y

ear

BP Mode2W and 3W

All

Aviation

Bus

Domestic Shipping

Freight Rail

Freight Rail and Air and Ship

HDT

International Shipping

LDV

Passenger Rail

Rail

EPPA5 ExxonMobil GCAM GET MESSAGE MoMo Roadmap Shell Statoil WEPS+

policy

2010

2030

2050

0

50

100

150

200

250

2010

2030

2050

2010

2030

2050

2010

2030

2050

2010

2030

2050

2010

2030

2050

2010

2030

2050

2010

2030

2050

2010

2030

2050

2010

2030

2050

2010

2030

2050

reference

9

Regional: Peak oil/fuel for the U.S. and EU-27

0

10

20

30

EJ/y

ear

BP

FuelAll

Biomass Liquids

Coal

Electricity

Fossil Liquids

Hydrogen

Natural Gas

Total Liquids

ExxonMobil GCAM MESSAGE MoMo Roadmap Shell WEPS+

policy

2010

2030

2050

0

10

20

30

2010

2030

2050

2010

2030

2050

2010

2030

2050

2010

2030

2050

2010

2030

2050

2010

2030

2050

2010

2030

2050

reference

USA

10

Regional: Peak oil/fuel for the U.S. and EU-27

0

5

10

15

20

EJ/y

ear

BP

FuelAll

Biomass Liquids

Coal

Electricity

Fossil Liquids

Hydrogen

Natural Gas

Total Liquids

ExxonMobil GCAM MESSAGE MoMo Roadmap Shell WEPS+

policy

2010

2030

2050

0

5

10

15

20

2010

2030

2050

2010

2030

2050

2010

2030

2050

2010

2030

2050

2010

2030

2050

2010

2030

2050

2010

2030

2050

reference

EU-27

10

Regional: Greater uncertainty for China—policy scenario & travel modes

0

10

20

30

40

EJ/y

ear

BP

FuelAll

Biomass Liquids

Coal

Electricity

Fossil Liquids

Hydrogen

Natural Gas

Total Liquids

ExxonMobil GCAM MESSAGE MoMo Roadmap Shell WEPS+

policy

2010

2030

2050

0

10

20

30

40

2010

2030

2050

2010

2030

2050

2010

2030

2050

2010

2030

2050

2010

2030

2050

2010

2030

2050

2010

2030

2050

reference

11

Regional: Greater uncertainty for China—policy scenario & travel modes

0

10

20

30

40

EJ/y

ear

BP Mode2W and 3W

All

Aviation

Bus

Domestic Shipping

Freight Rail

Freight Rail and Air and Ship

HDT

International Shipping

LDV

Passenger Rail

Rail

EPPA5 ExxonMobil GCAM MESSAGE MoMo Roadmap Shell Statoil WEPS+

policy

2010

2030

2050

0

10

20

30

40

2010

2030

2050

2010

2030

2050

2010

2030

2050

2010

2030

2050

2010

2030

2050

2010

2030

2050

2010

2030

2050

2010

2030

2050

2010

2030

2050

reference

11

Regional: China LDV stock projections show two patterns

20052010201520202025203020352040205020602070208020902100

year

0

100

200

300

400

500

stoc

k[1

06ve

hicl

e]

Scenarioreference

policy

ModelBP

EPPA5

GCAM

MESSAGE

Roadmap

Statoil

12

Discussion

Implications for modeling

• The key strength of iTEM is the diversity in models, expertise, participants,scenarios, and objectives.

• Several aspects of modeling methods complicate comparison:• Use of different historical baselines, exogenous projections, t0/base years, GHGaccounting conventions.

• Broadly different policy scenarios chosen for distinct purposes → feasiblecomparison is more qualitative than quantitative.

• Options for significantly reducing transport GHGs, e.g.• behavioural change,• new transport technologies & business models (AV, MaaS), or• large-scale & high carbon prices

…will add to uncertainty; each modeling group may incorporate thesedifferently, possibly increasing inter-model divergence.

13

iTEM3+ methodology / future work

Enhancements of the iTEM intercomparison method can improve themeta-knowledge about transport energy projections that is available tostakeholders:

Flexibility. Ingest groups’ new model results or scenarios more frequently,instead of biannual update. Allow more diverse policy categories(partial NDC, full NDC, stringent). Sensitivity to alternate input dataused in regional re-aggregation.

Automation. Script all participants’ transformation of model outputs to iTEMdatabase inputs. Expose assumptions in this process.

Calibration. Work ongoing to ensure models have access to more consistentbase year data.

Common policies. As in other model intercomparisons, pre-defined scenarioscan be implemented to better compare policy response. 14

Thank you!

14