RECYCLING AND THE ENVIRONMENT - BIGGEST

“BANGS”:

Do Recycling Programs Perform Better than Energy Efficiency Programs for

GHG and Jobs Creation?

Lisa A. Skumatz, Ph.D. Skumatz Economic Research Associates, Inc.The Econservation Institute762 Eldorado Drive, Superior, CO 80027

303/494-1178 email: skumatz@serainc.com May be used only with permission of Author - ©SERA2009Internally funded

SERA

US GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS (2005) - CONVENTIONAL

Electricity34%

Transportation28%

Industry16%

Commercial6%

Agricultural8% Waste

3%

Residential5%

Source: USEPA

SERA

GOAL – REDUCE MTCE… Historic takeaways –

Prioritized actions in energy efficiency (EE), transportation

BUT – if an MTCE is an MTCE*, all reductions are great…

…and a CHEAPER one may be even greater…! What is the cost hierarchy? And are there other factors to consider?

**And an MTCE may not be an MTCE – methane (from solid waste)Has a more intense effect over 20 years – front-loaded. MultiplierMay be 23 times worse … or with the time element, 70 times worse.

CONSIDER…

Analyze Delivery of GHG Reductions – Energy vs. Diversion…

SERA

WASTE PROGRAMS ANALYZED

Curbside Recycling(CS Recy)

Pay As You Throw (PAYT)

Curbside Yard Waste(CS YW)

SERA

ENERGY PROGRAMS ANALYZED

ResidentialWeatherization(Res EE)

Commercial Lighting (Coml EE)

Solar

Wind

SERA

PROGRAMS MODELED Solid waste:

Pay as you throw (PAYT) incentive – 3 effects

Residential curbside recycling

Residential organics composting collection (yard and food waste)

Energy Efficiency: Commercial lighting retrofit Residential weatherization Wind Photovoltaics / solar

Computation Steps - Estimated program costs: per MSW ton diverted (solid

waste) per kWh for energy

programs Used in-house SERA, “NEB-

It”© model, and external data

Modeled GHG impacts Computed $/MTCO2e for

each program “Normalized”

SERA

RELATIVE COST PER MTCO2e FOR SOLID WASTE, ENERGY PROGRAMS

01

2

34

5

67

Results show key MSW programs cheaper to reduce CO2 than EE.PV, Wind high cost per MTCO2e.Source: Skumatz Economic Research Associates, Inc. SERA, Superior, COAll rights reserved, Draft. May be used with permission of author,

7x 18x

1x

3x

0.6x 0.3x 0.5x*

*Organics figuresVary based on model used

SERA

UPSTREAM PRODUCTION SAVINGS - LONG-HAUL BREAK-EVEN FIGURES

Material Prod’n Sav. (MMBTU/ ton coll’n)

Break even- Truck

Break even- Rail

Break even - Freighter

Aluminum 177 121,000 475,000 538,000

LDPE 61 41,000 162,000 184,000

PET 59 40,000 157,000 178,000

Steel 19 13,000 52,000 59,000

Newspaper 16 11,000 43,000 49,000

Corrugated 12 9,000 33,000 38,000

Office pap 10 7,000 27,000 31,000

Boxboard 6.5 4,400 17,400 19,800

Glass (to bottles) 1.9 1,300 5,100 5,800

Break even: transport energy = energy saved displacing virgin feedstockSource: Allaway, Oregon DEQ, draft)

It is not about the landfill savings – embedded energy as driver…Methane also important (front-loaded, high impact)

SERA

US GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS (REVISED)

Food12%

Inter-city Passenger Transport

7%

Building Energy Use31%

Local Passenger Transport

12%

Provision of Goods & Materials

38%

Source: USEPA (Prelim); from Allaway (ORDEQ)

AUXILIARY IMPACTS AND POLICY ISSUES

Or how all kWh (or MTCE) may not be created equal…

SERA

JOB MULTIPLIERS FOR ENERGY AND RECYCLING PROGRAMS

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

Weatheriz Appliance

CAWINat'l

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Landfill YW Recy

J ob/ 10KTons

More local & national job impacts in weatherization because labor intensive pgm;Appliance replacement programs more limited impact (appliances not made in US)

Sources: Energy Job Multipliers - Skumatz Economic Research Associates, Inc. (SERA) Superior, CO All rights reserved. May be used with permission of author; Solid waste job mult from Institute of Local Self Reliance, Washington DC.

ENERGY JOBS(per $1 million investment)

SOLID WASTE JOBS(per 10,000 tons)

SERA

MULTIPLIERS – GHG, JOBS, AND $ FOR DIVERSION & EE

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

$/ MTCO2E Jobs/ MTCO2E Jobs/ $1M

Source: DRAFT figures, Skumatz Economic Research Associates, Inc. (SERA)Superior, CO. All rights reserved. May be used with permission of author.

Diversion cheaperper MTCE than EEor renewables.

EE labor intensive per MTCE, butdiversion compar-able in jobs/$1M

18x

OTHER PROGRAM / POLICY CONSIDERATIONS

Dollars aren’t the whole picture either…

SERA

SPEED / COVERAGE / AUTHORITY – COMPARISONS

Speed to implement Stroke of a pen…

Coverage All households vs. slow buildup

Authority Cities / counties often no authority over energy…. But

states have regulatory authority over both… Retention…

Studied in energy, not solid waste (PAYT exception) Advantage, solid waste on these issues…

SERA

RELATIVE COST (PER MTCO2E) AND COVERAGE – “RECYCLING” VS ENERGY EFFICIENCY

  Normalized Multiplier for Cost per MTCO2E (SERA)

Speed to implement and full scale implementation coverage

Commercial Energy Efficiency 

1.0 – baseline 1-3 years; fraction of customer base

Residential Energy Efficiency 

3 times as expensive as com’l EE 1-3 years; fraction of customer households

Wind 7-8 times as expensive as  com’l EE TBD, Phase 2

PhotoVoltaic (PV) 18-25 times com’l EE TBD, Phase 2

Curbside Recycling 0.6-0.7 times the cost of com’l EE 0.5- 2 years; covers all households (HH) in area 

Pay As You Throw (PAYT)  0.2-0.3 times cost of com’l EE 3-9 months after political approval; covers all single family HH

Prevention & reuse  0 cost No lag; education

Yard Waste program 0.5 +/- times cost of com’l EE (Phase 2) 1-2 years, Phase 2

NOTE: Conservative estimates (Source: Skumatz Economic Research Associates SERA 2007-2008; DRAFT); may be used with permission of author

PROGRAM SELECTION / DELIVERY IMPLICATIONS

Integrated planning…

SERA

SUPPLY CURVE - PORTFOLIO FOR GHG STRATEGY– YEAR 1… YEAR N

Quantity (tons, kwh MTCE)

Cost $/MTCE

R1R2

EE1

EE2

R3

T1Etc…

Local, state, federal…

Other criteria – risk, reliability,Control, etc for portfolio…

Technical potential issue; Also RETENTION a factor….

SERA

AVOIDED GHG SUPPLY CURVE: RAMP UP MORE QUICKLY & CHEAPLY

Hypothetical / template program assumptions…Illustrative Purposes Only

Percent of GHG Goal

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

1 6 11 16 21 26

Year

With Recycling

Without Recycling

Costs Pct Sav25% 49%50% 32%75% 38%90% 20%

Years to Goal

With Recycling

Without Recycling

25% 2 550% 6 1075% 10 2790% 18 61

SERA

CONCLUSIONS & IMPLICATIONS Measurable impacts from GHG reductions

Millions in savings and premiums per ton diverted. Cost to achieve GHG reductions from strategies

Some “recycling” cheaper than energy conservation Faster to implement / greater coverage / have authority –

early “big bang” programs (phase 2) Broader context… “making the case” for diversion

beyond economics… Comparisons on other factors – jobs, stimulus implications Not 3% - Solid waste is faster / cheaper… Near term – Solid waste should be at the table for climate

change… policy / programs local, state, federal.

SERA

CONTACT INFORMATION

Lisa A. Skumatz, Ph.D.SERA, Inc.

762 Eldorado Drive, Superior, CO 80027Phone: 303/494-1178

Email: skumatz@serainc.comWeb www.serainc.com

Thanks to communities that fill out surveys on www.serainc.com – helps us with these statistical surveys!!

Happy to provide slides – leave business card or send email