Greenhouse Gas Emissions Data for Policy Development and Implementation

Bill Irving

Climate Change DivisionFebruary 3, 2011

2

Outline

• Overview of GHG Reporting Program– Applicability– Monitoring– Data System/Reporting Tool– Verification/ Compliance– Data Publication

• U.S. Greenhouse Gas Inventory• NAS Study / Utrecht / Cancun

Outcomes• Measurement needs for AFOLU• EPA analysis of Cap and Trade

proposals• Additional resources

Facility-level GHG Reporting Program (85-90%)

Aggregate-level National GHG Inventory “100%” - UNFCCC

Unit-level CO2 data from Acid Rain Program (35-40%)

Overview of Existing EPA GHG Data Programs

Total GHG fluxes, natural and anthropogenic

4

Overview: U.S. EPA GHG Reporting Program (GHGRP)• In the 2008 Appropriations Act, Congress directed EPA to

issue a reporting rule on greenhouse gas emissions in all sectors of the economy under the Clean Air Act.

Goal of GHGRP is to collect accurate and timely data on GHG emissions to inform future policy

decisions.• Generally requires facilities across certain sectors of the

economy emitting ≥ 25,000 mtCO2e annually to report to EPA GHG emissions and other related data.

• Measurement began in 2010 for most categories with first reports due by March 31, 2011.

• EPA estimates that over 13,000 facilities will be reporting, accounting for 85-90% of U.S. GHG emissions.

• Reporting only, no control requirement.– Control measures already in place often required to be

reported

5

What GHGs are Reported?

• CO2

• CH4 (methane)• N2O (nitrous oxide)• Fluorinated GHGs

– HFCs (hydrofluorocarbons)– PFCs (perfluorocarbons)– SF6 (sulfur hexafluoride)– Other fluorinated gases (except CFC and

HCFC and gases <1 mm Hg @25o C)

6

Key Elements of Part 98• Annual reporting by:

– Direct emitting source categories– Suppliers of certain products that would result in

GHG emissions if released, combusted or oxidized– Facilities that inject CO2 underground for geologic

sequestration– Facilities that inject CO2 underground for any

purpose other than geologic sequestration

• 25,000 metric tons CO2e or more per year reporting threshold for most sources; capacity-based thresholds where feasible

• Direct reporting to EPA electronically

• EPA verification of emissions data

7

More Than 13,000 U.S. Facilities Covered

What is not reported?

• Primarily, agriculture & LULUCF sector sources and sinks– Natural CO2 fluxes – Primarily forest CO2 uptake– Agricultural soil management – N2O– Enteric fermentation – CH4

– Rice cultivation – CH4

– Composting – CH4 and N2O– Field burning of agricultural residues – CH4 and N2O

• Why are these sources excluded?– Available methods to estimate facility-level emissions

for some of these sources yield uncertain results– Large number of small emitters 8

How much is 25,000 Metric Tons of CO2e?

• 25,000 mtCO2e are equivalent to:– Emissions from annual energy use of about

2,200 homes. – 58,000 barrels of oil.– 131 railcars’ worth of coal.

9

10

General Monitoring Approaches

• Continuous emission monitoring systems (CEMS)– Required if already used (e.g., NSPS, Acid Rain Program)

and meet specified criteria– Optional for other sources

• Source category-specific GHG calculation methods– Monitor process parameters, fuel use– Calculate GHG emissions using equations in applicable

subparts– Example approaches (varies by source category)

• Mass balance calculation• Site-specific emission factors• Default emission factors

11

Electronic Reporting System• All reporting under the GHG Reporting Program

will be electronic.• Web-based system for facility/supplier reporting to

EPA– Web-forms will guide reporters through data entry and

submission.– Will include a mechanism to submit file directly using

Extensible Markup Language (XML) format.– XML schema is available on the EPA website.

12

How Will Emissions Be Verified?

• Self certification– Designated representative certifies and submits report– Rule allows one designated representative for each

facility and supplier• EPA verification

– Reports submitted through an electronic system– Built-in calculation and completeness checks for

reporters– Electronic QA and consistency checks– On-site audits

Data Publication & Academia

NAS Study (2010) suggests: Inventories should be “gridded” Emphasis on measurements from “urban domes”

Our tool can aid in these efforts

13

Inventory Reporting under the UNFCCC

• All Annex I countries (i.e., developed countries) are required to report annual emissions and sinks of greenhouse gases to the UNFCCC Secretariat– 40 Annex I countries (+ European

Commission)• Anthropogenic sources and sinks• CO2, CH4, N2O, HFCs, PFCs, SF6

– Include “indirect GHGs” for informational purposes: ozone precursors (CO, NOx, NMVOCs) & SO2

• Calculated using consistent and comparable methodologies 14

IPCC Methodologies• IPCC guidelines/guidance provide

calculation methods:– List of emission source types and factors for the

estimation of emissions– Step-by-step directions for national inventory

development• Assists in development of inventories that

are transparent, documented, consistent over time, complete, comparable, assessed for uncertainties, subject to quality control and quality assurance,

• Various data collection methods allowed– Apply default emission factor to aggregate data– Specific measurements can be made at the

emission source– Measurements can be made for specific activity

conditions and then modeled

UNFCCC Reporting – Developed Countries

• Annual electronic report of emissions and extensive supporting data (1990 – present year), accompanied by a National Inventory Report with narrative explanation, uncertainty estimates

• Submissions reviewed annually by accredited international specialists

• Transparency: National submissions and review reports posted on UNFCCC website

• Europe, Japan, Canada, Australia have strong systems; issues of data continuity and quality in some EITs

UNFCCC Reporting - Developing Countries

• No requirement for annual submission of inventories– This situation is more political than technical– Most countries have qualified technical expertise, and

could – with additional support – produce better and regular inventories

• Challenges– Infrequent reporting results in lack of institutional

capacity. – In some cases, key economic statistics on which

inventories rely (fuel use, industrial and agricultural production) are weak

– Limited resources for basic research to improve key sources (e.g., refined emission factors, country-specific models)

– Deforestation and agriculture represent a greater share of emissions in many developing countries, and they are the most challenging to monitor

Inventory Review Phases

• Domestic reviews occur after preparation of draft U.S. National Inventory Report– Expert Review (December)

• Targeted at technical experts familiar with inventory calculations

– Public Review (February/March)• Open to all US citizens; opportunity to communicate report’s

findings• UNFCCC review after annual inventory submission

(April)– Initial checks

• Assures Submission Complete/Proper Format– Synthesis & Assessment

• Part I – Compiles basic inventory information• Part II – Preliminary automated assessment on potential issues

– Individual Review• International team of experts examines data, methodology and

procedures.• Can be a in-country review or centralized review at

Secretariat’s offices

U.S. Greenhouse Gas Inventory Basics• Annual GHG inventory required under the

UNFCCC since 1994– This is the official U.S. government GHG Inventory– Impartial and policy-neutral

• Interagency effort led by EPA– Data and input provided by DOE, USDA, DOT, DOD,

and others• Open for 30 day public review and

comment period– As well as “peer review” targeted at technical

audience– International peer review through the UNFCCC

• Submitted to UNFCCC on time by April 15th each year

19

The National GHG Inventory

• Dominated by CO2 from fossil fuels• Significant CH4 and N2O from

agriculture• Different economic sectors have very

different fuel consumption profiles

U.S. GHG Emissions by Gas

Taken from: Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2008 (April 2010)

Emissions are expected to decline from 2008 to 2009 as wellFirst draft of 90-09 report will be available on EPA’s climate change site in mid-February

6,127 6,089 6,192 6,312 6,413 6,489 6,704 6,753 6,795 6,856 7,044 6,924 6,967 6,994 7,095 7,133 7,060 7,168 6,957

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

8,000

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Tg C

O2

Eq.

HFCs, PFCs, & SFNitrous OxideMethaneCarbon Dioxide

6

National Academies Study

• Verifying Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Methods to Support International Climate Agreements– Released by NRC, March, 2010

• Policy relevant conclusions:– “Each country could estimate fossil-fuel CO2 emissions

accurately enough to support monitoring of a climate treaty”

• Study recommends strengthening inventories – particularly in the developing world

– Global land use / land cover change maps (every 2 years)• Also suggests expanding global C-14 sampling (LULUCF)

– Establish interagency group to review existing information and design a research program to improve emissions estimates from agriculture, forestry and other-land use sources

22

IPCC Meeting – Utrecht

• IPCC Task Force on National Greenhouse Gas Inventories – Expert Meeting on Uncertainty and Validation of Emission Inventories– March 23-25, 2010 in Utrecht, the Netherlands– Participants included scientists & inventory compilers

• Agreement that while remote sensing, ambient measurement and inverse modeling techniques have been successfully demonstrated they are currently not sufficiently developed to provide comprehensive verification of emissions reported in inventories.

• Direct measurementtechniques could help quantify emissions from:– Forest fires, biomass burning and other land disturbances– Land use and land-use change (maps)– Agricultural soils (N2O)– Coastal fluxes– Peatlands – Permafrost melting (CH4)

23

24

COP-16 (Cancun)• International negotiators agreed at COP-16 on

“Cancun Decisions”– Countries agreed to ramp up work on approaches

to assess mitigation• Established work programs to further develop elements for

countries to measure, report and verify mitigation actions– Developed countries will continue to build upon

their existing agreements with the UNFCCC• Further elaboration of their reduction commitments and

actions– Developing countries will increase their mitigation

actions and obligations to report on them to the UNFCCC• More frequent information to be provided on emissions

sources• Further guidance being developed on how to institute

measurement, reporting and verification for these actions

Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions (NAMAs)• NAMAs can be broad policy changes and/or programs that

aggregate results of specific actions (regionally, nationally) • Sample NAMAs:

– Brazil: reduced deforestation, energy efficiency, biological N fixation, no-till agriculture

– Indonesia: sustainable peat land management, shifting to low-emission transportation modes

– Sierra Leone: expanded clean energy utilization, waste incineration, composting, recycling

– Mongolia: portable wind generation for nomadic herders, coal briquetting

• Intensity targets (e.g., NAMAs expressed as “tons of emissions per unit of economic output”) will increase complexity, because both the emissions and the economic metric should be MRV’d

Cancun & LULUCFDeveloping Countries• Agreed to a broad scope for developing country mitigation

actions in the forest sector (REDD+)– MRV systems would need to address not only deforestation but forest

degradation and enhancement of C stocks• Established core elements a Party should develop to participate

in REDD (national strategy/action plan, reference level and monitoring system )

• Called for a 1 year REDD+ technical work program to develop modalities/procedures for (1)reference levels, (2) monitoring systems, and (3)MRV of emissions/removals

Developed Countries• Workshops and review processes called for, including the role

of LULUCF, in meeting reduction targets• Kyoto Parties continued to consider key technical questions for

LULUCF accounting for their 2nd commitment period (e.g., harvested wood product carbon, natural disturbances, reference levels for forest management)

26

Terrestrial-based Offsets & monitoring issues

• Ensuring permanence of reductions– Ongoing monitoring required to assess whether

stored carbon is re-released• Leakage-prone activities

– Leakage may negate the emission reduction benefits achieved and outside of ownership boundaries would be difficult to directly monitor

• Extensive sampling may be required for sufficiently accurate measurements– Emission reductions or sequestration achieved

at a site will vary based on soil type, climate, etc. 27

Measuring Ag / LULUCF GHG Emissions• Agriculture and LULUCF are more challenging

– Soil N2O –Biological processes are inherently variable; ability to estimate incomplete

– Sequestration of CO2 in soils/forests – Sampling and modeling by USFS and NRCS. Data are good, but room for integration of additional approaches

• Developing countries tend to have a greater fraction of their total emissions in these sectors

• How to improve?– Inventory capacity building efforts (NAS Study)– Inventory software tools for developing countries– Land-use / land-use change maps (NAS Study)– Land classification by IPCC definition (NAS Study)– C-14 sampling (NAS Study)– Carbon stock monitoring (NAS Study)

28

Specific LULUCF Challenges• Partitioning “natural” and “human-induced” GHG emissions/

sinks– UNFCCC inventories require reporting of anthropogenic

emissions and removals– Provision to minimize risk from natural disturbances is a

key element in ongoing LULUCF negotiations • Reliable, predictive understanding of soil C stocks and fluxes at

small-to-intermediate spatial scales– Such as stand-level, state-level

• GHG emissions/ removals from wetland management– Specific activity type considered for inclusion in LULUCF

sector– Examples: draining/ rewetting of peatlands, other flooded

lands• Interior Alaska

– Potentially important area, few data are available– Now classified as “unmanaged” so not included in EPA Inventory

29

H.R. 2454 – Bill Summary

• Title III of the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 (H.R. 2454) establishes a cap & trade system for greenhouse gas emissions– The cap gradually reduces covered greenhouse gas emissions to 17 percent below

2005 levels by 2020, and 83 percent below 2005 levels by 2050– Offsets are limited to 2,000 million metric tons CO2 equivalent (MtCO2e) per year– Supplemental emissions reductions from reduced deforestation through allowance

set-asides

• Titles I & II of H.R. 2454 deal with clean energy and energy efficiency, and among other things establish a renewable electricity standard, and energy efficiency programs and standards for buildings, lighting and appliances– Not all provisions in Titles I & II are explicitly modeled in this analysis

• Title IV addresses competitiveness issues– Creates an output-based allowance allocation mechanism based on H.R. 7146

(Inslee-Doyle bill)– The output-based allowance allocation mechanism is included in this analysis, but

not in all scenarios. The rest of Title IV is not included in this analysis

30

EPA Analysis – Major Findings

• H.R. 2454 transforms the structure of energy production and consumption.– Energy consumption levels that would be reached in 2015 are not reached

until 2040– Electric power supply and use and offsets are the largest sources of emissions

abatement• Allowance prices are $13 per tCO2e in 2015, $16/tCO2e in 2020

– Across all scenarios modeled without constraints on international offsets, the allowance price ranges from $13 to $15 per tCO2e in 2015 and from $16 to $19 / tCO2e in 2020

– Across all scenarios modeled that vary constraints on international offsets, the allowance price ranges from $13 to $24 per tCO2e in 2015 and from $16 to $30 / tCO2e in 2020

• Offsets have a strong impact on cost containment.– The annual limit on domestic offsets is never reached.– While the limits on the usage of international offsets (accounting for the extra

international offsets allowed when the domestic limit is not met) are not reached, the usage of international offsets averages over 1 billion tCO2e each year

– Without international offsets, the allowance price would increase 89 percent relative to the core policy scenario. If international offsets were not available for only the first 10 years, the allowance price would increase by just 3%. If extra international offsets could not be used when the domestic offset usage was below one billion tCO2e, then the allowance price would increase 11%.

31

HR 2454 - Total US GHG Emissions and Sources of Abatement

Covered GHG Emissions (Net of Offsets)

HR 2454 Cap

AEO 2009 Reference Case

HistoricalEmissions

AEO 2006 Reference Case

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050

MtCO2e

CO2 - ElectricityCO2 - TransportationCO2 - Energy Int. ManufacturingCO2 - OtherNonCO2 - CoveredOffsets - DomesticOffsets - InternationalInt'l Forest Set-AsidesDiscounted OffsetsNSPS - CH4HFCs (separate cap)

• Reference case based on AEO 2009

• International forest set-asides, discounted offsets, NSPS provisions for landfill and coal mine methane, and the HFC cap all provide additional abatement that does not help to meet the main cap

Key Uncertainties

• There are many uncertainties that affect the economic impacts of H.R. 2454

• This analysis contains a set of scenarios that cover some of the important uncertainties including:– The availability of international offset projects– The degree to which new nuclear power is technically and politically feasible.– The amount of GHG emissions reductions achieved by energy efficiency

provisions

• Additional uncertainties include but are not limited to:– The extent and stringency of international actions to reduce GHG emissions by

developed and developing countries.– The availability and cost of domestic offset projects.– The availability and cost of carbon capture and storage technology– The pace of economic and emissions growth in the absence of climate policy– The impact of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 33