Trends in : Performance and Role of Public Policies and Programs State & Local Capacity Building Branch STAPPA/ALAPCO Global Warming Committee February 9, 2005
Roadmap 1. Overview of the (CEEII) Objectives and Methodology 2. Key Findings Insights from Corollary studies CEEI and State Performance Peer Group Analysis Insights from State Level Analysis of (CEEI) 3. Value to State and Local Governments 4. Summary and Potential Next Steps 2
Overall Objectives of the CEEII Framework Estimate and measure CO 2 emissions relative to economic activity Show trends in state-level CO 2 emissions and intensity over time in aggregate By energy-consuming sector Support understanding of change over time in emissions and emissions intensity in terms of key macro-factors Energy efficiency Fuel mix Composition of economic activity across key sectors Quantity of economic activity 3
Overall Objectives of the CEEII Framework Provide a framework for comparing CO 2 intensity, and change in intensity across states to the nation as a whole Support state and local government s programs and activities that affect CEEI by assessing effectiveness of state-level programs and policies support lessons learned from one state to another 4
Summary of the CEEII Framework CEEII reports, at the state level, carbon emissions in relation to the value of the activity that generates the emissions Basic question of analysis: How productive are states in the use of carbon emissions as an input to production of economic value? CEEII is calculated over the period 1977-2000 for all states and the District of Columbia Analysis disaggregated into five key energy consuming sectors: 1. Electric power generation 2. Industry 3. Commercial/Institutional 4. Transportation 5. Residential 5
Summary of the CEEII Framework - background For economic value producing sectors, CEEII calculated using value added: Electric power generation Industry Commercial/Institutional Transportation value added component only For other sectors, CEEII calculated using other appropriate value normalizing concepts Residential population, number of households Non value added Transportation non-truck vehicle miles; also registered vehicles and total vehicle miles traveled for all transportation 6
Summary of the CEEII Framework - background emissions are estimated based on fuel consumption by sector, using fuel- and, where appropriate, state-specific carbon emission factors DOE/EIA is source of fuel consumption and emission factor information We normalize emission estimates for year-to-year fluctuation in heating and cooling requirements emissions from electricity generation analyzed in two ways: As generated by the electric power sector Assigned to the end-use consumer sector CEEII reported by sector and aggregated over sectors: All sectors Value added sectors only 7
Summary of the CEEII Framework - background Decomposition Analysis The CEEII framework uses index analyses (Divisia and Laspeyres) to decompose the change in carbon emissions intensity, at the aggregate and individual sectoral level, in terms of: structural change (across sectors) Energy efficiency Fuel mix The decomposition analysis is important in assessing the effect of government policies and programs on carbon emissions intensity 8
Insights from CEEII Corollary Analyses: CEEI and State Performance Using historical data from the CEEII framework and controlling for factors that influence CEEII and/or economic performance (that is per capita GSP) such as: structure Climate Structure of energy supply Social and demographic factors Labor and capital use Energy prices We analyze the relationship between CEEI and per capita GSP 9
How Did and per Capita GSP Change for a State? Massachusetts and US US GSP per capita and CEEI CEEI Change 1980 2000 MA 49% US 36% Per capita GSP Change 1980 2000 MA 93.5% US 52.3% MA GSP per capita and CEEI 10
Insights from CEEII Corollary Analyses: CEEI and State Performance We econometrically analyzed four questions: How do changes in aggregate and decomposed CEEI affect economic performance? How do changes in economic performance affect CEEI? How do changes in CEEI by sector affect economic performance? How do changes in sector specific economic performance affect sector specific CEEI? 11
Insights from CEEII Corollary Analyses: CEEI and State Performance Key Conclusions Both aggregate and decomposed CEEI have a significant negative (favorable) causal relationship with per capita GSP A decline in CEEI is expected to result in an improvement in economic performance (an increase in per capita GSP) Per capita GSP has a significant negative (favorable) causal relationship with aggregate and decomposed CEEI An improvement in economic performance (per capita GSP ) is expected to result in a reduced CEEI The significant bi-directional causality between CEEI and state economic performance indicates that states should be able to implement programs or policies that simultaneously reduce CEEI and improve state economic performance 12
Insights from CEEII Corollary Analyses: CEEI and State Performance Key Conclusions CEEI in the residential sector and per capita GSP has a positive bidirectional relationship This indicates that an increase in CEEI in the sector is expected to enhance per capita GSP, and an increase in per capita GSP is expected to enhance residential CEEI (increase carbon intensity) CEEI in industrial, commercial and non-value added transportation has a negative (favorable) relationship to per capita GSP A reduction in CEEI in any of those three sectors is expected to result in an increase in per capita GSP State governments should be able to target programs towards the commercial, industrial and non-value added transportation sectors to achieve simultaneously: Improvement in sector specific economic performance Reduced sector specific CEEI (decrease carbon intensity) The next question is: what are the programs that can achieve such simultaneous movement? 13
Insights from CEEII Corollary Analyses: Peer Group Analysis Effort led to development of peer groups of states for use in analyzing effectiveness of state-level policies and programs, and in other comparative performance analyses Accounted for baseline endowment factors that influence carbon emissions intensity and that aren t controllable by state policy in the near-term: Per capita income intensive industry concentration Climate Share of energy from non carbon emitting sources Population density Enables comparison of states that have similar endowment characteristics - avoids apples to oranges comparison between states Enables more meaningful lessons learned support from one state to another 14
How do States compare? Example of Benchmark Group E DE,MDhighest relative to group Differences within peer groups contain important information regarding program performance and untapped state potential for change NJ downward trend:large relative decline RI least decline NY, CT lowest relative to group MA downward trend: large relative decline 15
Insights from State Specific CEEII Analysis Preliminary analysis of selected states:connecticut and Massachusetts so far, more to follow: Some key early conclusions: Some states have achieved substantial reductions in carbon emissions intensity, partly as a result of external economic factors, but also as a result of policy interventions Movement in economic activity and carbon emissions does not occur in lock-step Beneficial lessons can be learned from the leader states e.g., Massachusetts energy efficiency and renewable energy programs appear to have substantially reduced carbon emissions intensity performance in several sectors emissions intensity and, more importantly, the change in carbon emissions intensity varies substantially across states 16
How Did Change for a State? Example of Massachusetts: Total and GSP 30,000 25,000 Total carbon emissions all sectors includes imported electricity Primary carbon emissions all sectors 300,000 250,000 Thousand Metric Tons 20,000 15,000 10,000 GSP declines early 1990s 200,000 150,000 100,000 Gross State Product, Million (1996 US$) 5,000 End-use carbon emissions VA sectors Primary carbon emissions VA sectors 50,000 0 0 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 Year Total - Primary use - all sectors Total - End use - all sectors Total Gross State Product Total - Primary use - VA sectors Total - End use - VA sectors 17
How Did Change for a State? Massachusetts and US Primary CEEI US carbon intensity Change 1980 2000 MA 49% US 36% MA intensity lower and declines faster 18
How Did Change for a State? Massachusetts: A Closer Look at Primary CEEI 1.2 Mix Change 1980 2000 1.0 All -49.5% Due to (% share): CEEEI (1980 = 1) 0.8 0.6 0.4 Efficiency Structure All Structure 44.5% Efficiency 45.5% Fuel Mix 10.0% Switch towards natural gas drives mix impact 0.2 0.0 Increase in growth of commercial sector drives structure impact 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 Year Vary All Vary Structure only Vary Efficiency only Vary Fuel Mix only 19
How Did Change for a State? Massachusetts Primary by Sector 10,000 9,000 Transportation 8,000 Thousand Metric Tons 7,000 6,000 5,000 4,000 3,000 Residential Electric Power Commercial Change 1980-2000 Residential: 8.5% Commercial: -19.2% Transportation: 26.4% Industrial: 44.6% Electric: -8.3% 2,000 1,000 Industrial 0 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 Year Industrial Residential Commercial Transportation Electric Power 20
How Did Change for a State? Massachusetts Change in Activity by Sector 2.3 Normalized Activity by Sector (1980=1) 2.2 2.1 2.0 1.9 1.8 1.7 1.6 1.5 1.4 1.3 1.2 1.1 1.0 0.9 0.8 0.7 Electric power; large fluctuations Commercial grows fastest, accounts for 77% of GSP Industrial; large decline in early 1990s Residential growing most slowly 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 Year Residential Industrial Transportation, value added Total Gross State Product Commercial Electric Power Transportation, non-value added All sectors but residential and NVA transportation based on real value added. Residential based on population, NVA transportation on vehicle miles traveled. 21
How Did Change for a State? Massachusetts Primary CEEI by Sector 1.00 4.00 CEEEI (Thousand Metric Tons /Millions 1996$ or Thousand Metric Tons /Individual) 0.90 0.80 0.70 0.60 0.50 0.40 0.30 0.20 0.10 Residential: overall least decline but visible impact of Energy Conservation Program in early 1980s All sectors trending downward, but at different rates Large fluctuations in electric power: why? 3.70 3.40 3.10 2.80 2.50 2.20 1.90 1.60 1.30 1.00 0.70 0.40 0.10 Change 1980-2000 Residential: -1.9% Commercial: -63.6% VA Transport: -40.2% NVA Trans.: -17.5% Industrial: -25.0% Electric: -40.4% 0.00-0.20 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 Power Sector CEEEI (Thousand Metric Tons /Million 1996$) Year Industrial Commercial Transportation Residential Electric Power 22
How Did Change for a State? Massachusetts: A Closer Look at Electricity Generation 1.4 1.2 1.0 Reduced efficiency early 1980s Change 1980 2000 All: -40.4% Due to (% share): Efficiency 75.0% CEEEI (1980 = 1) 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.0 Mix:increases and reduces CEEII coal and natural gas replacing petroleum Large efficiency improvements early 1990s advanced combined cycle plants Deregulation of electricity sector Fuel Mix 25.0% Can we link those shifts to specific policy or economic events? Can we draw any lessons of MA s experience for its peer states? 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 Year Vary All Vary Efficiency only Vary Fuel Mix only 23
How Did Change for a State? Massachusetts: Fuel Switching in Electric Generation Share of Primary Fuel Use by Electric Power Sector (%) 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Petroleum: share declines - high prices - policy change Coal: 1981-1984 negotiated increase Natural gas: 1988 onwards, increase due to deregulation of natural gas markets 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 Year Nuclear Petroleum Coal Natural Gas Renewables 24
How Did Change for a State? Massachusetts: Commercial Primary and End-Use CEEI 0.08 Thousand Metric Tons / Millions (1996$) 0.07 0.06 0.05 0.04 0.03 0.02 0.01 Primary CEEII End-use CEEII higher: includes emissions from electricity consumption Change 1980 2000 Primary: -63.6% End-Use: -51.5% Reason for change? 0.00 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 Year Commercial - End Use Commercial - Primary Use 25
How Did Change for a State? Massachusetts: A Closer Look at Commercial Sector 1.4 Change 1980 2000 1.2 1.0 Fuel Mix All -63.6% Due to (% share): Efficiency 87.4% CEEEI (1980 = 1) 0.8 0.6 0.4 Efficiency All Fuel Mix 12.6% Efficiency Impact Strong building codes and appliance standards Structural shifts 0.2 0.0 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 Year 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 Can we draw any lessons of MA s experience for its peer states? Vary All Vary Efficiency only Vary Fuel Mix only 26
How Did Change for a State? Massachusetts: Fuel Switching in Commercial Sector Share of End Use of Energy by Fuel Type for Commercial Sector (%) 50% 45% 40% 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% Petroleum: share declining Natural Gas: increasing early 1990s replacing petroleum Electricity: increasing late 1990s replacing Natural Gas 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 Year Coal Natural Gas Petroleum Renewables Electricity 27
Main Findings for Massachusetts MA on average achieved significant reduction in CEEI between 1980-2000 Decomposed results indicate that the change is due to: Structural changes (45% primary use, 44% end-use) Efficiency change (45% primary use, 42% end-use) Fuel mix change (10% primary use, 14% end-use) Substantial number of programs seem to have contributed to reduced CEEI Energy Conservation Services Program Building codes Deregulation and facilitated fuel switching Impact of programs is visible in sector specific CEEII metric Results indicate differing relative importance of sectors in achieving state-level reductions in CEEII and total carbon emissions and differing reasons for change within sectors 28
Summary The CEEI captures changes in carbon intensity at the state and sector level Change in carbon emissions intensity varies substantially across states Some states show significant reduction in CEEI due to external economic factors and as a result of state policy interventions Peer groups enable comparison of states that have similar endowment characteristics Avoids apples to oranges comparisons Reduction in CEEI correlate with economic performance State governments should be able to target programs towards the commercial, industrial and non-value added transportation sectors to achieve simultaneously: Improvement in sector specific economic performance Reduced sector specific CEEI Seek to understand effects of state-specific policies and programs on CEEI 29
Potential Value to State and Local Governments Use the State-level CEEII framework to better understand trends and changes in CEEI as it relates to state specific programs and policies State level analyses used as lessons learned and applied to: Assess effectiveness of already implemented programs and policies Assess alternative trajectories for change in CEEI drawing on past experience within a state Assess alternative trajectories for change in CEEI drawing on experience within peer groups Assess related co-benefits such as health effects, energy security and enhanced economic performance, of alternative trajectories of change in CEEI 30
Potential Value to State and Local Governments Use econometric findings to support efforts that reduce CEEI, in particular focus on the potential favorable relationship between programs that reduce CEEI and enhanced economic performance Other potential interesting areas of use or alternative next steps? 31
Potential Next Steps Continue to develop the framework and distribute to interested states Add additional years of data as they become available from EIA Analyze state-specific policies and programs High priority for near-term work Add a forward looking scenario analysis component and analyze policy alternatives Econometrically assess the relationship between state economic performance and specific policies and programs that affect the CEEI 32