Michigan State University Climate Symposium Presentation Tom Looby

Transcription

1 Michigan State University Climate Symposium Presentation Tom Looby April 26, 2010

2 2 Overview State Climate Planning Regional Climate Initiatives National Scale up of Selected State Climate Policies

3 3 Climate Planning in the States

4 4 U.S. State Climate Actions Contents Coverage 32 climate action plans 2/3 of U.S. economy and population 1/2 of US GHG emissions All sectors, policy mechanisms, levels of government 900+ specific quantified policy actions to reduce GHGs, provide co-benefits Include macroeconomic studies Over 1,500 Stakeholders, six years of planning processes

5 China Russia Japan India Germany Texas Canada United Kingdom Korea, South Italy South Africa France Iran California Saudi Arabia Mexico Australia Spain Brazil Ukraine Indonesia Poland Pennsylvania Taiwan Netherlands Ohio Florida Illinois Indiana Thailand New York Turkey Michigan Louisiana Georgia Kazakhstan Malaysia North Carolina Egypt Kentucky Belgium Venezuela Alabama Missouri Argentina United Arab Virginia New Jersey Singapore Tennessee Uzbekistan Pakistan West Virginia Czech Republic Wisconsin Greece Minnesota Oklahoma Romania Arizona Colorado Nigeria South Carolina Massachusetts Washinton Iowa Maryland Algeria Kansas Iraq Hong Kong Vietnam Austria Philippines Korea, North MMtCO2 US States: 30 of Top 75 World Emitters (US DOE, 2005) 5 5,000 US States: 30 of Top 75 Emitters 4,500 D 4,000 3,500 3,000 2,500 2,000 1,500 1, Nations US States

6 State and Provincial Goals and Targets 6 State, Province, or Region State GHG Reduction Goals/Targets/Scenarios Arizona 2000 levels by 2020; 50% below by % below 2005 levels by 2020 (WCI) British Columbia 15% below 2005 levels by 2020 (WCI) California E.O.: 2000 level by 2010; 1990 by 2020; 80% below 1990 by 2050 AB-32: 1990 levels by % below 2005 levels by 2020 (WCI) Colorado 20% below 2005 level by 2020; 80% below by 2050 Connecticut 1990 level by 2010; 10% below by 2020; 75% below by 2050 Florida 2000 level by 2017; 1990 level by 2025; 80% below 1990 by 2050 Iowa Two Scenarios Presented: 50% or 90% below 2005 by % Scenario: 1% below 2005 by 2012 and 11% by % Scenario: 3% below 2005 by 2012 and 22 % by Manitoba Below 1990 levels by 2012 (in line with Kyoto Treaty) 15% below 2005 levels by 2020 (WCI) Massachusetts 1990 level by 2010; 10% below by 2020; 75% below by 2050 Maine 1990 level by 2010; 10% below by 2020; 75% below by 2050 Maryland Recommended: 10% below 2006 levels by 2012; 15% below 2006 levels by 2015; 25% (enforceable)- 50% (science based) below 2006 levels by 2020; 90% below 2006 levels by Michigan Recommended: 20% reduction of GHGs below 2005 levels by 2020 and an 80% reduction below 2005 levels by Minnesota Next Generation Energy Act: 15% below 2005 levels by 2015; 30% by 2025; 80% by 2050 Montana 1990 level by 2020; 80% below by 2050 (consumption & production)

7 State and Provincial Goals and Targets 7 State, Province, or Region State GHG Reduction Goals/Targets/Scenarios North Carolina? NEG/EC 1990 level by 2010; 10% below by 2020; 75% below by 2050 New Jersey E.O. 54: 1990 level by 2020; 80% below 2006 levels by 2050 New Mexico 2000 level by 2012; 10% below by 2020; 75% below by % below 2005 levels by 2020 (WCI) New York 80% below 1990 by 2050 Ontario 6% below 1990 by 2014 Oregon 10% below 1990 by 2020; 75% below 1990 by % below 2005 levels by 2020 (WCI) Puget Sound 1990 level by 2010; 10% below by 2020; 75% below by 2100 Rhode Island 1990 level by 2010; 10% below by 2020; 75% below by 2050 South Carolina 5% below 1990 levels by 2020 (voluntary) Vermont 25% below 1990 levels by 2012; 50% below 1990 by 2028; 75% below by 2050 Utah 15% below 2005 levels by 2020 (WCI) Washington E.O.: 1990 levels by 2020; 25% below 1990 by 2035; 50% below 1990 by % below 2005 levels by 2020 (WCI) WCI 15% below 2005 levels by 2020 (AZ, NM, CA, OR, UT, WA, BC, MB)

8 8 U.S. State Plan Results (Sample) State Policy Options Degree of Unanimity AZ 49 92% Amount of GHG Reductions 2000 level by 2020 Half 2000 level by 2040 CA n/a n/a AB-32: 1990 level by 2020 FL % 33% below 1990 level by 2025 NC 56 85% 47% below projected emissions by 2020 PA 5 80% 1990 levels by 2020 MI 53 97% 1990 levels by 2020 Overall NPV Cost or Savings $5.5 billion savings AB-32 $4 billion savings $28 billion savings $7.5 billion savings $2 billion savings $10 billion savings Net Job Gain 289,000 AB-32 83, ,000 15,000 10, ,000

9 9 Regional Climate Initiatives

10 REGIONAL CLIMATE INITIATIVES 10

11 11 REGIONAL CLIMATE INITIATIVES Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) CT, DE, ME, MD, MA, NH, NJ, NY, RI, VT Electric Power Generation Sector Mandatory CO2 Reduction Program 10% Reduction From 2009 Cap By 2018 Status: Seventh Allowance Auction 40.6 M CO2 Allowances $2.07/Allowance $88 Million in Revenue ($582 Million Total)

12 REGIONAL CLIMATE INITIATIVES 12 Western Climate Initiative AZ, CA, MT, NM, OR, UT, WA, BC, MB, ON, QC Multi-Sector Proposal 15% Reduction From 2005 Levels By 2020 Status: AZ Withdrawal from Cap & Trade Political Debate in States

13 13 REGIONAL CLIMATE INITIATIVES Midwest Governors GHG Accord IA, IL, KS, MI, MN, WI, MB Multi-Sector Proposal 20% Reduction From 2005 Levels By 2020 Status: Review by Member States

14 14 REGIONAL CLIMATE INITIATIVES Southern Governors Association Climate Briefing By Center for Climate Strategies (CCS) in August Major Mitigation Options Assessed Potential To Significantly Reduce GHGs Cost-Effectiveness Varies Significantly By Sector And Option Type Status: Individual States (KY, NC) Follow Up

15 15 National Scale-up of 23 Selected State Climate Policies

16 16 16 Quantified State Climate Plans

17 17 Policy Scenarios Scenario 1: Stakeholder Target 23 major sector-based policy options recommended by stakeholders (exceed economy wide targets of Senate) Scenario 2: Stakeholder target, C&T, fuel tax same as above, plus Senate C&T covering electricity, industry; gasoline tax Scenario 3: Senate target, C&T, fuel tax same as above, but 23 sector based measures are implemented equal to but not beyond economy wide targets of Senate

18 18 Sector Based Measures Developed by over 1,500 stakeholders in 16 states Formal consensus building processes Open choices regarding policy selection, design, tools Balanced portfolio approach; actions in all sectors plus cross-cutting approaches All available implementation instruments (price plus non-price instruments) 1 Alaska, Arkansas, Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, New Mexico, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Vermont, and Washington

19 19 23 Major/Recurring Policy Options ~90 percent of all emissions reduction potential of the 900 quantified policy options in the 16 state plans Extrapolation to remaining 34 states using 37 sector and state specific factors with weighted average application on a state-by-state, policy-by-policy basis National aggregation and analysis; state and regional disaggregation possible

20 20 Energy Supply and Demand Heat & Power Residential, Commercial, Industrial 1. Renewable Portfolio Standard 2. Nuclear 3. Carbon Capture Sequestration/Reuse 4. Coal Plant Efficiency Improvements and Repowering 1. Demand Side Management Programs 2. High Performance Buildings (private and public) 3. Appliance standards 4. Building Codes 5. Combined heat and power

21 21 Transportation, Natural Resources Transport Agriculture, Forestry, Waste 1. Vehicle Purchase Incentives, including rebates 2. Renewable Fuel Standard (biofuels goals) 3. Smart Growth/Land Use 4. Transit 5. Anti Idling Technologies and Practices 6. Mode Shift from Truck to Rail 1. Crop Production Practices 2. Livestock Manure Management and Recycling 3. Forest Retention 4. Reforestation/Afforestation 5. Urban Forestry 6. MSW Source Reduction 7. Enhanced Recycling of Municipal Solid Waste 8. Landfill Gas Management

22 MMtCO2e Actions, Full Implementation 8,000 U.S GHG Reduction Potential by Sector, Stakeholder Implementation (Total from Individual Options) (Center for Climate Strategies, 2010) 7,000 6,000 5, GHG ES Reduction RCI Reduction 4,000 3,000 2,000 TLU Reduction AFW Reduction 1,000 0

23 23 GHG Emissions Reduction 9,000 8,000 7,000 6,000 5,000 MMtCO2e 4, U.S. GHG Reduction Potential, Congressional Target and Stakeholder Target Scenarios Center for Climate Strategies, ,000 2,000 Baseline Emissions Congressional Target Stakeholder Target 1,000 0

24 24 Macroeconomic Summary Scenario 2020 GHG Reduction( BMtCO 2 e) a 2020 Direct cost (billion$) b 2020 New Jobs (million) 2020 GDP Impact (billion$) Total 2020 New Gov t Revenue c ( billion$) 23 Sector Actions at full implementation 3.2 -$ $134.3 NA

25 25 Macroeconomic Effects REMI Policy Insight Plus Model Direct effects = cost effectiveness inputs from state climate action plans Additional inputs related to national price mechanism (electricity and industrial sector cap and trade, gasoline taxes and revenue recycling) Indirect effects calculated by REMI PI+ Jobs, income, economic growth, prices

26 26 Marginal Cost/Savings Curve Marginal Cost ($/tco2e) $60 $40 $20 $0 -$20 -$40 -$60 -$80 -$100 -$120 -$140 -$ Marginal Cost Curve of U.S., Stakeholder Implementation RCI-1 RCI-3 TLU-5 TLU-1 TLU-6 (Center for Climate Strategies, 2010) RCI-4 RCI-2 AFW-8 TLU-3 AFW-6 AFW-1 RCI-5 TLU-4 TLU-2 All Sector TLU ES AFW RCI Percentage Reduction of 2020 BAU GHG Emissions ES-1 ES-2 ES-3 AFW- AFW-7 ES-4 AFW- AFW- AFW-4

27 Sector Results Residential, Commercial, Industrial Sector Climate Mitigation Actions Estimated 2020 Annual GHG Reduction Potential (MMtCO2e) Estimated Cost or Cost Savings per ton GHG Removed ($) RCI-3 Appliance standards $53.21 RCI-1 Demand Side Management Programs $40.71 RCI-2 High Performance Buildings (private and public sector) $24.99 RCI-4 Building Codes $22.86 RCI-5 Combined heat and power $ $10 RCI Marginal Cost Curve of U.S., 2020, Stakeholder Implementation (Center for Climate Strategies, 2010) $0 -$10 Marginal -$20 Cost ($/tco2e) -$30 -$40 -$50 -$ RCI-1: DSM RCI-3: Appliance Standards RCI-5: CHP RCI-2: High Performance RCI-4: Building Codes Percentage Reduction of 2020 Economy-wide BAU GHG Emissions

28 Sector Results Transportation and Land Use Sector Climate Mitigation Actions Estimated 2020 Annual GHG Reduction Potential (MMtCO2e) Estimated Cost or Cost Savings per ton GHG Removed ($) TLU-6 Mode Shift from Truck to Rail $91.56 TLU-1 Vehicle Purchase Incentives, including rebates $66.37 TLU-5 Anti-Idling Technologies and Practices $65.19 TLU-3 Smart Growth/Land Use $1.11 TLU-4 Transit $16.72 TLU-2 Renewable Fuel Standard (biofuels goals) $ $60 $40 $20 $0 -$20 Marginal -$40 Cost -$60 ($/tco2e) -$80 -$100 -$120 -$140 -$ TLU Marginal Cost Curve of U.S., Stakeholder Implementation (Center for Climate Strategies, 2010) TLU-3: Smart TLU-5: Anti-Idling Technologies and Practices TLU-1: Vehicle Purchase Incentives TLU-6: Mode Shift from Truck to Rail TLU-4: TLU-2: RFS Percentage Reduction of 2020 Economy-wide BAU GHG Emissions

29 29 Sector Results Energy Supply Sector Climate Mitigation Actions Estimated 2020 Annual GHG Reduction Potential (MMtCO2e) Estimated Cost or Cost Savings per ton GHG Removed ($) ES-4 Coal Plant Efficiency Improvements and Repowering $12.95 ES-1 Renewable Portfolio Standard $17.84 ES-2 Nuclear $26.98 ES-3 Carbon Capture Storage/Reuse $32.92 $40 $30 $20 Marginal Cost $10 ($/tco2e) $0 -$10 -$ ES Marginal Cost Curve of U.S., Stakeholder Implementation (Center for Climate Strategies, 2010) ES-1: RPS ES-4: Coal Plant Efficiency ES-3: CCSR ES-2: Nuclear Percentage Reduction of 2020 Economy-wide BAU GHG Emissions

30 Sector Results Agriculture, Forestry and Waste $50 $40 $30 $20 Marginal $10 Cost $0 ($/tco2e) -$10 -$20 -$30 -$40 -$ AFW Marginal Cost Curve of U.S., Stakeholder Implementation (Center for Climate Strategies, 2010) AFW-4: Reforestation/Afforestation AFW-6: MSW Source AFW-1: Crop Production Sector AFW-3: Forest AFW-5: Urban Forestry AFW-7: Enhanced Recycling of MSW AFW-2: Livestock Manure AFW-8: MSW Landfill Gas Mgt. Percentage Reduction of 2020 Economy-wide BAU GHG Emissions Climate Mitigation Actions Estimated 2020 Annual GHG Reduction Potential (MMtCO2e) Estimated Cost or Cost Savings per ton GHG Removed ($) AFW-1 Crop Production Practices to Achieve GHG Benefits $15.69 AFW-6 MSW Source Reduction $3.20 AFW-8 MSW Landfill Gas Management $0.34 AFW-2 Livestock Manure - Anaerobic Digestion and Methane Utilization $11.27 AFW-7 Enhanced Recycling of Municipal Solid Waste $13.39 AFW-5 Urban Forestry $15.35 AFW-4 Reforestation/Afforestation $33.18 AFW-3 Forest Retention $

31 31 Scenario 1 Results Actions Full Implementation 3.2 BMTCO2e GHG reductions in 2020(27% below 1990 levels) 2.5 million net gain in employment $134.3 billion net gain in GDP $5.1 billion net direct cost savings net impact on consumer energy prices: -0.56% for gasoline and oil -0.60% for fuel oil and coal -2.01% for electricity -0.87% for natural gas

32 32 Key Findings Improvement of economy possible Reduction in energy prices possible Stakeholder recommendations critical Comprehensive policies/programs needed Federal, State and Local jurisdictions must be partners

33 MMtCO2e Governance 2020 Stakeholder Implementation Potential GHG Emissions Reductions by Jurisdiction Center for Climate Strategies, 2010 Primary Local, 3% 33 U.S GHG Emissions and Reduction Potential by Jurisdiction Stakeholder Implementation (Center for Climate Strategies, 2010) 8,000 7,000 Shared State/Federal, 38% Shared Local/State, 28% 6,000 5,000 4,000 3,000 2,000 1, GHG Emissions Primary State, 31% 4/23/10

34 34 More Information Thomas D. Peterson, (202) ext. 101 Jeffrey Wennberg, (202) Dr. Adam Rose, (213) June Taylor, (202) ext. 109 Center for Climate Strategies,