Policy scenarios and national abatement potential

Transcription

1 Policy scenarios and national abatement potential Marie Lindberg, Michiel Schaeffer and Fabio Sferra, Climate Analytics Technical Workshop on Intended Nationally Determined Mitigation Contributions Washington, September 18-19, 2014

2 International expertise to design & evaluate INDCs What do countries need in terms of assistance in order to develop robust mitigation (and adaptation, finance?) contributions broadly supported by key (national) players? What is required depends highly on what governments expect from the INDC development Technocratic vs aspirational guidance or vision What can external experts offer? Methodological skills, data, tools Experience from similar work What is goal of collaboration? Access to data or data collection Cross-sectoral engagement of national and local experts, with international perspective if relevant and requested 10/17/14 2

3 Where are we in the process? Still no final definition of what the INDCs will contain Mitigation Adaptation Finance? Difficult to say what exactly is needed to develop and assess the INDCs we might need a variety of tools Will depend on their scope and probably vary across countries Developing countries might see the INDC support as a chance to assess potentials and costs for clean energy development Will require a comprehensive assessment of the economy and sectoral potential 10/17/14 3

4 Types of mitigation commitments Already now, different mitigation contributions exists, which can be classified into economy-wide or sectoral targets, relative targets (also economy-wide or sectoral), policies and measures Projects Table from Ecofys paper Intended Nationally Determined Contribution under the UNFCCC (Höhne, Ellermann and Li, 2014) on next slide. 10/17/14 4

5 Type Example 2020 pledges Characteristics Most important information requirements for gap assessment Relative to base year: USA, EU, Japan - Full flexibility where to reduce emissions - For developed countries a continuation of the status quo Accounting for forestry Economy-wide emission reduction targets Relative to baseline scenario: Brazil, Mexico, Chile, South Korea - Full flexibility where to reduce emissions - Can factor in economic growth - Creates a moving target if baseline changes Level of baseline scenario Relative to GDP: China, India - Full flexibility where to reduce emissions - Adaptive to changes in economic development - Emission outcome uncertain Assumed level of future GDP Energy targets China, Peru - Closer to actual actions than emission targets Definition of the target, quantification of impact on emissions Policies Brazil, Argentina - Directly under control of the government Projects Ethiopia - Very detailed in scope Quantification of impact on emissions Quantification of impact on emissions 10/17/14 5

6 Climate Action Tracker assesses policies and targets Provide national, fast-response assessments from a high-level perspective for a large number of countries: around 30 countries covering around 80% of global emissions Evaluate current climate-change policies, emission reduction contributions, reduction potentials and effort-sharing in an international context Analysis in principle ex-post, but evaluations are published in parallel to INDC development process, hence informs this by providing international perspective (e.g. equity, comparability) Apply harmonized approach in order to provide a general overview of the current status of contributions and policies in the respective countries Evaluate consequences of national emissions on global climate through aggregation of national pathways to global level 10/17/14 6

7 Example: INDCs informed by potential and effort sharing Comparison of mitigation contribution against Effort sharing Potential Range of financial transfers needed Illustra(ve example

8 Example: INDCs informed by potential and effort sharing Comparison of mitigation contribution against Effort sharing Potential Range of financial transfers needed Emissions in 2030 Contribution Potential Effort sharing Illustrative example 1: Contribution in line with what is fair to reach 2 C globally (Effort Sharing) and what can be done nationally (Potential) 10/17/14 8

9 Example: INDCs informed by potential and effort sharing Comparison of mitigation contribution against Effort sharing Potential Range of financial transfers needed Emissions in 2030 Effort sharing Potential Contribution Illustrative example 2: Contribution falls short of what is fair to reach 2 C globally (Effort Sharing) and what can be done nationally (Potential) Implication: more could be done nationally 10/17/14 9

10 Example: INDCs informed by potential and effort sharing Comparison of mitigation contribution against Effort sharing Potential Range of financial transfers needed Emissions in 2030 Effort sharing Potential Contribution International finance contribution Illustrative example 3: Contribution in line with what is fair to reach 2 C globally (Effort Sharing) but is less than what can be done nationally (Potential) Implication: case for international climate finance to complement national contribution 10/17/

11 Example: Illustrating global implications/perspective Tracking progress to get on track for long-term temperature limits: Where do we stand when we add up & aggregate all contributions to emission reductions? National contributions Current policy projections Two methods to supplement each other Method 1: Extension of emission scenarios post-2020 and 2030, then apply carbon-cycle/climate model for projections of warming CAT: C by 2100 for intended national contributions CAT: C by 2100 for current policy projections IPCC Fifth Assessment Report WGIII 2014: without additional mitigation C by 2100 Method 2: Emissions Gap method, i.e. compare 2020/2030 emission levels with large library of long-term mitigation scenarios UNEP gap report 2013 (incl. CAT): on track to 3-5 C by 2100 IPCC Fifth Assessment Report WGIII 2014: The Cancún Pledges are broadly consistent with cost-effective scenarios that are likely to keep temperature change below 3 C relative to preindustrial levels 10/17/

12 Conditions and resulting approach General principles Comparability of results Transparency and robustness Compatibility of data within projects Simplicity Overall approach: Inputs Data on emissions, energy and activity level (projections and historic data) Breakdown of data by sector/sub-sector or gas Information on assumptions, scope and currency of data Harmoniza(on of data Addi(onal own calcula(ons Outputs Consolidated range of economy wide GHG emissions in 2020 Other indicators depending on country, e.g. share of renewables, carbon intensity etc. Up to date information on current policies and their effectiveness

13 Challenges to the analysis and solutions Challenge Lack of data Lack of data especially for developing countries Depth of informa(on available by country varies greatly Approaches Scaling down data/informa(on to countries/ sectors Extra/- interpola8on to/between years Take own assump8ons on future development of indicators Conflic(ng data Historic data and future projec(ons do not match Various contradic(ng projec(ons Harmonisa8on to reported emissions Hirarchy of data sources (na(onal data first) Thorough research on quality of sources Recent policy development not included Qualita(ve assessment of relevancy If relevant, own quan8ta8ve assessement Various standardised tools for specific policy instruments Interac(ons between policies/sectors Policies targe(ng same area Demand and supply sector dependencies Quan(fy strongest policy in area, others reflect likelyhood of implementa(on Demand side first, adapt energy supply sector 10/17/

14 Conclusions Applying the method to more than 20 countries has proven it is useful. The method has certain strengths and weaknesses: Strengths High flexibility regarding data and (me availability Adaptable to different countries and policies Simple and transparent calcula(ons Weaknesses No complex feedback loops considered Lack/uncertainty of data not necessarily visible Requires thorough case by case documenta(on Further possible application in different context possible: Quantification and evaluation of Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs) Determine trends of emissions or other indicators of sub-national stakeholders or companies/other organisations

15 Climate Analytics: assists in developing INDCs for three countries Two African least-developed countries: Gambia and Mali One small island developing state: the Marshall Islands Experiences so far: Very different expectations from the governments on the level of support required Data availability varies substantially Some countries need support to collect data, others only to analyse them INDC development can be used to carry out comprehensive assessments of all relevant sectors 10/17/

16 Sectoral example: Electricity sector October 2014

17 INDC Defining assessment conditions Economic assessment needs to integrate the following technical and socioeconomic conditions: Technical condi8ons CO 2 emissions target Costs: Technological op(ons Grid expansion Socioeconomic condi8ons Economic growth increasing needs for energy Popula(on growth increasing needs for capacity & grid Current & projected policies Current & projected fossil fuel prices October 2014

18 Methodology Proposed Approach: a partial equilibrium model AIM: identify the optimal electricity mix (based on costeffectiveness), which emissions are consistent with a 2C target (top-down approach, based on IPCC results) The model takes into account: Investment costs of technological options (centralized and decentralized) Costs of grid expansion, transmission and distribution (depending on number of kilometers and capacity needed) Variable costs (fuel and operation and maintenance) Discount rate October 2014

19 Main Equations Objective function: Capital accumulation: Capital accumulation: 10/17/

20 Relating options cost and emissions Technology op8ons Cost ($/kw): investment, O&M, fuel cost Cost ($/km): grid expansion CO 2 emissions (CO 2 /kwh) Small Home System (SHS) Small- scale PV + ++ (D) +++ Large- scale PV ++ + (D+T) +++ PV- Wind hybrid ++ + (D+T) +++ Small- scale diesel + ++ (D) Large- scale FF (D+T) - - Legend: Costs range from --- (very high $/kw) to +++ (very low $/kw) Emissions range from --- (very high CO 2 /kw) to +++ (very low CO 2 /kw) D is distribution, T is transmission as transmission grid cost is much higher than distribution grid cost Potential data sources: existing or future infrastructure projects in the country; market prices; World Bank paper data; IEA World Energy Outlook October 2014

21 THANK YOU!