ctcost--eeff tiffectiveness analysis of ab 32analysis of ... filecap‐and‐trade system

12
C t C t ff ti ff ti Cost Cost-effectiveness effectiveness Analysis of AB 32 Analysis of AB 32 Analysis of AB 32 Analysis of AB 32 Measures Measures Measures Measures Professor James (Jim) Sweeney Precourt Institute for Energy Efficiency Precourt Institute for Energy Efficiency Stanford University

Upload: trinhkhue

Post on 24-Apr-2019

213 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

C tC t ff tiff tiCostCost--effectiveness effectiveness Analysis of AB 32Analysis of AB 32Analysis of AB 32 Analysis of AB 32

MeasuresMeasuresMeasures Measures

Professor James (Jim) SweeneyPrecourt Institute for Energy EfficiencyPrecourt Institute for Energy Efficiency

Stanford University

The Challenge Under ABThe Challenge Under AB--3232

600

700

ear

Reduction Required

(175 MMT)Business

2020 AB32 Target

400

500

Tons

per

Ye

uiva

lent

)

Business As Usual

200

300

n M

etric

To

(CO

2E

qu

100

200

Mill

ion

01990 2000 2010 2020

CA Greenhouse Gas Emissions, 2002CA Greenhouse Gas Emissions, 2002--2004 Average: 2004 Average: (CO(CO22E Million E Million TonnesTonnes) Total: 469 MM ) Total: 469 MM TonneTonne

CA Greenhouse Gas Emissions, 2020 Projection: CA Greenhouse Gas Emissions, 2020 Projection: (CO(CO22E Million E Million TonnesTonnes) Total: 596 MM ) Total: 596 MM TonneTonne

Scoping Plan Estimated  2020 CO2E ReductionsTotal 169 MM Tonnes

33% RPS , 21.2 Low Carbon Fuel Standard , 16.5

High GWP Gas Measures , 16.2

Sustainable Forests 5Building, Appliance, CHP, Solar Water Heating, 26.4

Sustainable Forests , 5

Water Sector Measures , 4.8

Vehicle Efficiency 4 8Vehicle Efficiency, 4.8

Goods Movement: System Efficiency, 3.7

Heavy/Medium Duty Vehicles, 2.5

Pavley I & II, 31.7 Million Solar Roofs, 2.1

State Government, 1

Local Government , 2High Speed Rail , 1

Landfill Methane, 1

Methane Capture,Dairies , 1

Additional Emissions Reduction from Capped 

Sectors , 35.2

Cost Effectiveness RequirementThe California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (AB32) made California the first state to limit statewide global warming pollution.

Specifically, AB 32 stipulates:

• CARB must adopt rules and regulations to achieve “the maximum technologically feasible and cost‐effective greenhouse gas emission reductions.”

Cost‐effectiveness

A set of greenhouse gas mitigation measures is t ff ti d i t t i icost‐effective under a given target emission 

reduction if and only if the set of measures t th i th i i t t i ttogether imposes the minimum cost  to society (among all feasible measures) of meeting the t t i i d titarget emission reduction– This is defined in relation to a particular target

– We are referring to the social cost here

– Cost must include ancillary costs/benefits, e.g. non h i l igreenhouse gas environmental impacts

Measures vs Instruments

• I use “measures” to mean physical or process change to be undertaken e g adoption of plug inchange to be undertaken, e.g. adoption of plug‐in hybrid vehicles.

“i ” i• I use “instrument” to mean system to motivate the measures, e.g. minimum sales mandate or 

d dcap‐and‐trade system

• Whether some cost‐effective measures can be implemented may depend on the instrument used.  

owth)

s TC)

orage

r el Switching

150CO2 Reduction Supply Curve

rucks

al Ene

rgy Bill

ers

d gas system

nt ial (aggressive

 gr o

wth)

n on Non

 CO2 gases

rds ‐Pavley Bill

incentives and

 PT

duction

e Capture

bon Capture & Sto

eothermal pow

e

nt Produ

ction Fue

100

res for LD

Vng m

edium/heavy t

mercial EE

ty EE

dential EE

nergy Efficien

cy

tand

ards ‐Fede

ra

utionfor Cem

ent

planning

 and

 othe

ng/leaks in oil and

orest m

anagem

en

tial and

 Com

merc

P (aggressive grow

tillage

ng EE

on/ R

eforestation

cipal U

tility RP

S

very & Destructio

ommercial

 econo

my standa

ustrial CHP (price i

oleu

m Refining

oleu

m & Gas Prod

ogas

Land

fill Methane

Indu

strial Carb G

plug

‐in hybrids

Small hydro

l

Cemen

50e

Fuel efficient tir

Diesel anti‐idlin

Fuel econo

my ‐

Other IO

U Com

mMun

icipal Utilit

Other IO

U Resid

IOU Indu

strial En

EE Policy

Ethano

l

Fuel econo

my st

Fly Ash Sub

stitu

Smart G

rowth p

Redu

ced ventin

Conservation

 fo

CHP Re

side

nt

Indu

strial CHP

Conservation

 IOU Emergin

Afforestatio

Mun

ic

Recov

esiden

tial and

 Co

Fuel

Indu

Petro

Petr Bio

Wind

Light duty p S

Solar The

rmal

0US$ per Ton

 CO2e

00 50 100

150

Cellu

osic 

CHP Re

ls Produ

ction

k hybridization

0

Other Material

dium

/heavy truck

‐50

Least Uncertain More Uncertain Uncertain Very Uncertain

Med

‐100Total CO2 Reductions (Million Metric Tons CO2 Equivalent)

• Some measures will not be implemented absent economic instruments such as carbonabsent economic instruments such as carbon price or cap‐and‐trade system

S• Suggest:

– implement measures with cost below $35/tonne

–More fully analyze those with estimated y ycost below $70/tonne

–Reject any with higher cost.Reject any with higher cost.

CARB h bli h i i f i l• CARB has yet to publish its estimates of social costs of the various measures.

grow

th)

es l PTC)

Storage

wer uel Switching

150CO2 Reduction Supply Curve

y trucks

y eral Ene

rgy Bill

t hers

nd gas system

men

t

ercial (aggressive g

rowth)

on tion

 Non

 CO2 gas

dards ‐Pavley Bill

ce incentives and

 P

g rodu

ction

ne Capture

arbo

n Capture & S

Geo

thermal pow

ent Produ

ction Fu

100

tires for LD

Vlin

gy ‐m

edium/heavy

mmercial EE

lity EE

side

ntial EE

l Ene

rgy Efficien

cy

y standards ‐Fed

e

tution

for Cem

ent

h planning

 and

 oth

ting/leaks in oil a

n forest managem

ential and

 Com

me

HP (aggressive gr

on tillage

ging

 EE

tion

/ Reforestatio

nicipal U

tility RP

S

covery & Destruct

Commercial

uel econo

my stand

dustrial CHP (pric

troleu

m Refining

etroleum

 & Gas Pr

Biogas

Land

fill Metha

Indu

strial Ca

y plug

‐in hybrids

Small hydro

mal

Cem

50

O2e

Fuel efficient 

Diesel anti‐idl

Fuel econo

my

Other IO

U Com

Mun

icipal Uti

Other IO

U Res

IOU Indu

strial

EE Policy

ic Ethanol

Fuel econo

my

Fly Ash Sub

sti

Smart G

rowth

Redu

ced vent

Conservation

CHP Re

side

Indu

strial C

Conservatio

IOU Emerg

Afforesta

Mun Rec

P Re

side

ntial and

 C

Fu Ind

Pe PeB

Wind

Light duty

Solar The

rm

0US$ per Ton

 CO

00 50 100

150

Cellu

os

CHP

ials Produ

ction

uck hybridization

50

Other Mater

Med

ium/heavy tru‐50

M‐100Total CO2 Reductions (Million Metric Tons CO2 Equivalent)

Least Uncertain More Uncertain Uncertain Very Uncertain