Rhode Island GHG Scenarios2007 Update

Charlie HeapsStockholm Environment Institute - U.S. Center

11 Curtis AvenueSomerville, MA 02144

Web: www.sei-us.orgEmail: charlie.heaps@sei-us.org

1

Revised RI GHG Emissions Scenarios for 2007

• Baseline revised for first time in 5 years (shown last time) using a new and simpler methodology. Recap…

– Eliminates end-use detail.– Now based primarily on EIA State energy data reports for consumption data (sector by fuel detail

only)– Uses EIA’s Annual Energy Outlook results for New England to project consumption growth and

future electric sector mix. – No changes made to non-energy sector baseline.– No changes made to emissions factors.

• Measures have been updated..– Added consideration of RGGI in Implemented Scenario.– Added consideration of Least Cost Procurement (75% of SBC @ same unit costs and savings)– Revised B&F measures analysis: SBC measures grouped together and shifted to using utilities’

cost estimates for these options, instead of in-house estimates.– Updated prices using EIA historical state data and fuel price projections from AEO2006 and

RGGI, and revised costs for Natural Gas and Wind operation.– No major updates to emission factors.

• New analysis is simpler and easier to update in the future.

Reminder: Change in Units

• In the past we have shown GHG emissions results as the Global Warming Potential of all greenhouse gases in Metric Tonnes Carbon equivalent.

• We now use U.S. Short Tons. (1 Metric Tonne = 1.102 Short Tons)

• To convert results into CO2 equivalent from Carbon equivalent multiply by 44/12 = 3.67.

Revised Baseline & Target

2.50

3.00

3.50

4.00

4.50

5.00

1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020

Mill

ion

Sho

rt T

ons

C e

quiv

alen

t

Old Baseline

New Baseline

NE Govs/Canadian Prems Target

4

RI GHG Baseline by Sector

5

Mill

ion

Sho

rt T

ons

C e

q.

Four Scenarios’ GHGs Compared to Target

2020 Savings vs. Baseline:

I+F+UD = 1.41

I+F = 0.78

I = 0.64

NEG/CP = 1.26

Targets are:

1990 levels by 2010

10% below 1990 by 2020

Mill

ion

Sho

rt T

ons

C e

q.

6

Four Scenarios’ GHGs Compared to Target in 2010 and 2020

7

2010 RI GHGs % Decrease % Above(Mill. Short Tons) from Baseline Target

Baseline 4.14 24%Implemented 3.98 4% 19%Implemented + Finalized 3.94 5% 18%Implemented + Finalized + Under Development 3.80 8% 14%NEGCP Target 3.34 19%

2020 RI GHGs % Decrease % Above(Mill. Short Tons) from Baseline Target

Baseline 4.26 42%Implemented 3.62 15% 21%Implemented + Finalized 3.48 18% 16%Implemented + Finalized + Under Development 2.85 33% -5%NEGCP Target 3.00 30%

Four Scenarios Compared to Target Cumulative GHG Emissions 2000-2020

8

Mill

ion

Sho

rt T

ons

C e

q.

RI GHG Savings By Option in 2020 vs. Baseline

Mill

ion

Sho

rt T

ons

C e

q.

9

Buildings & Facilities GHG Savings in 2020Summarized by Option for 3 Scenarios

Mill

ion

Sho

rt T

ons

C e

q.

10

LCP assumed to equal 75% of SBC

Transport GHG Savings in 2020Summarized by Option for 3 Scenarios

Mill

ion

Sho

rt T

ons

C e

q.

11

Energy Supply GHG Savings in 2020Summarized by Option for 3 Scenarios

Mill

ion

Sho

rt T

ons

C e

q.

12

Other (Non-Energy) GHG Savings in 2020Summarized by Option for 3 Scenarios: No change in modeling

Mill

ion

Sho

rt T

ons

C e

q.

13

Comparison of GHG Reductions2007 versus 2006 estimates relative to each year’s baseline

Mill

ion

Sho

rt T

ons

C e

q.

14

Main Additional Policies:

▪ RGGI

▪ Least Cost Procurement

Cumulative Net Savings of Three Scenarios

Mill

ion

Cum

ulat

ive

Dis

coun

ted

Dol

lars

v.s

Bas

elin

e

Notes:

Results highly sensitive to fuel prices and other assumptions.

AEO2007 fuel price projections rather conservative (low) – higher prices = higher savings.

Does not include externality costs (would also increase savings)

Cumulative Costs & Savings for 2020M

illio

n C

umul

ativ

e D

isco

unte

d D

olla

rs v

s. B

asel

ine

16

Cost Curve: Major Options Sorted by Cost of Saved Carbon

Notes:

Values below X axis show net benefits. GHG savings and costs are cumulative from 2000-2020. Costs are discounted.

GHG Savings Cost Option Thou Tons $/Short Ton CTransit Oriented Development 517 (494) LEV 744 (485) VMT Based Insurance 1,521 (476) Local Govt Vehicle Fuel Efficiency 1,531 (474) State Feebate 1,987 (438) Compact Appliances 2,275 (275) Energy Efficiency Standards Legislation 2,398 (255) Efficient Heating Initiative 2,515 (205) Fossil Energy Efficiency 2,610 (179) Upgrade Building Code 3,173 (169) Pavley 4,179 (137) SBC 5,485 (119) Building Shell Retrofit 5,503 (81) Tax Credits Energy Efficiency 5,768 (57) LCP 6,411 (55) CHP 6,813 (28) RGGI 8,456 (26) Forestry & Land Use 9,056 - Solid Waste 9,953 - RPS 11,027 64

Sensitivity: AEO2007 Prices +50% in 2020Net Savings of 3 Scenarios

Mill

ion

Cum

ulat

ive

Dis

coun

ted

Dol

lars

v.s

Bas

elin

e

18

Notes:

Sensitivity assumes 50% higher prices for Natural Gas and Gasoline in 2020.

Benefits increase by $400m for I+F scenario and by ~$700m for I+F+UD scenario.

Carbon Monoxide Emissions by Scenario

Tho

usan

d S

hort

Ton

s

Notes:

I and I+F have almost the same values so only one is visible.

CO emissions are dominated (96%) by transport. Transport policies are the same between I and I+F.

PM10 Emissions by ScenarioS

hort

Ton

s

20

NOx Emissions by ScenarioT

hous

and

Sho

rt T

ons

21

VOC Emissions by ScenarioT

hous

and

Sho

rt T

ons

22

SO2 Emissions by ScenarioT

hous

and

Sho

rt T

ons

23

Summary of Local Air Pollutant Emissions

24