subgroup 6 membership

Subgroup 6:Indirect Effects of Other Fuels

Draft Recommendationsand Issues for Consideration

Presented to the LCFS Expert WorkgroupIndirect Effects

October 15, 2010

15-OCT-2010 INTERIM WORKING DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION WITH THE EWG -- DO NOT QUOTE OR CITE --

1

Subgroup 6 Membership

• Blake Simmons, Sandia (Subgroup Co-Chair)• Bob Larson, U.S. EPA (Subgroup Co-Chair)• Phil Heirigs, Chevron• Jesper Kløverpris, Novozymes• Seth Meyer, University of Missouri• Wally Tyner, Purdue University• Paul Wuebben, SCAQMD

Invited External Experts• Brooke Coleman, New Fuels Alliance• Bjorn Pieprzyk, Energy Research Architecture

215-OCT-2010 INTERIM WORKING DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION WITH THE EWG

-- DO NOT QUOTE OR CITE --

Presentation Outline

• Review of workplan and SWG status update• SWG has refined the view of indirect effects as those

effects caused by changes in economic markets• This presentation will focus on draft

recommendations and differing perspectives for:– Petroleum– Military effects– Electricity

• Q&A


A Note on Perspective Management

• Many of the topics presented do not have unanimous agreement among all members of the SWG, and some are deeply contested

• In order to retain a balanced, professional perspective that recognizes these disagreements they are presented as “Perspective #1” and “Perspective #2”

• The final recommendations in the SWG report may take the “Supreme Court Approach” – e.g., majority and minority opinions – request CARB input on how to best handle this issue


4

Proposed SWG Principles Under Review

➢ There are direct and indirect effects for all fuels.

➢ It is essential that a common framework and “level playing field” is established for the definition of metrics and attribution of CI values for fuels in the LCFS.

➢ There are significant data gaps in the publically available databases relevant to the attribution of indirect effects of fuels that CARB should try to address over time.

15-OCT-2010 INTERIM WORKING DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION WITH THE EWG -- DO NOT QUOTE OR CITE -- 5

Subgroup 6 Milestones: Update

Goal Deadline

Task 1 Establish Criteria for Defining Indirect Effects of Other Fuels May 2010 ✔

Task 2 Develop a List of Indirect Effects to be Assessed June 2010 ✔

Task 3 Identify Significant Gaps in Current Indirect Effect Analyses July 2010 ✔

Task 4 Identify Available Data Sets and Models for Indirect Effects as a Function of Fuel Type

September 2010 ✔

Task 5 Develop a Long-Term Work Plan for the ARB and LCFS October 2010


SWG Criteria for Defining “Indirect Effects of Other Fuels”

Effects influencing GHG emissions and the carbon intensity (CI) of fuels:

1. Direct effects: All significant effects within the primary production chain or life cycle (cradle to grave)

2. Co-product effects: Significant effects caused by co-products from the production chain (handled by the system expansion – or displacement – methodology)

3. Other market-mediated effects: Significant effects caused by changes in economic markets, e.g. ILUC or changes affecting marginal electricity or petroleum supply, This also includes ‘carbon leakage’ as a function of and increased production/consumption and/or conversion technology.

For this work group’s assessments, indirect effects were considered‘market-mediated effects other than co-product effects’ (3)

It is also recommended to consider carefully if direct and co-product effects (1 and 2) have been overlooked for some fuels


Current CA LCFS Approach in Determining CI Values


8

Fuel Type Method of Deriving CI Value Type of Data Used Assessed for Impact on the Margin?

Petroleum Direct, Attributional Average CA No

Natural Gas Direct, Attributional Average by fuel type/region No

Biofuels Combination of Direct, Attributional & Indirect, Consequential

Average by fuel type/region; worldwide marginal for land use impact

Yes. Included by substituting indirect/consequential/marginal land impact in place of direct/ attributional land use impact

Electricity Combination of Direct, Attributional & Indirect, Consequential

Average CA for one pathway; marginal CA for another pathway

Marginal CA pathway gets credit for assumed renewable energy and high efficiency NG on margin of electricity sector

Hydrogen Direct, Attributional Average by fuel type No

SWG Proposed Approach to Determining CI Values


9

Category A – Direct/Attributional LCADirect Effects Attributional LCA

All significant effects within the primary production chain or life cycle (cradle to grave)

All significant carbon emissions attributable to producing and using the fuel

Uses average data Uses average data

Category B – Indirect/Consequential LCAIndirect Effects Consequential LCA

Market-mediated or other emissions occurring outside of the supply chain of the fuel as a consequence of a change in the system

Predicts the market-mediated or other effects of a change in behavior within a predetermined economic or resource system

Uses data that reflect the expected effect of changes on the margin of the system

Uses data that reflect the expected effect of changes on the margin of the system

Note: The common focus on the margin in Category B should not be construed as a limitation of consequential LCA, as consequential modeling often goes far beyond marginal data into complex economic relationships

Petroleum


10

Substitution of Petroleum with Biofuels

• As petroleum resources become constrained, globally there may be a shift to higher carbon intensive crude oils. There is a mechanism built into the LCFS regulations that accounts for high carbon intensity crude oil (HCICO), and there is another EWG for CARB working on a screening method to identify HCICO

• It is uncertain which of these crude oils will be replaced with biofuels in the future.

• According to economic theory biofuels would displace the crude with the lowest economic value to the refiner.

• But due to market distortions the replacement of crude through biofuels depends on many factors which influence operational and investment decisions in the short-, medium- and long-term.

• In the short-term the crude oil extraction is mainly influenced by OPEC production cuts. Therefore a higher biofuel supply would result in OPEC production cuts in the short term.


11

EIA Global Projections by Fuel Type, in Three Cases

World production of unconventionalliquid fuels in three cases, 2007 and 2035 (mbd)

World liquid fuels production in threecases, 2007 and 2035 (mbd)

http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/ieo/pdf/0484(2010).pdf -- Tables 28, 30



Perspective #1: Potential Scenario for Displacement of Petroleum with Biofuels

Perspective #1: Global Supply of Hydrocarbons as a Function of Price and Emissions


14

• Indicates that fuels available in the future may have higher CI values and prices as a function of time.

• Temporal aspects are uncertain and complex, as are other elements of the LCFS.

• The interplay between alternative fuel production and displacement of these higher CI fuels should be accounted for as a marginal effect.

Brandt and Farrell, Climatic Change (2007) 84:241-263

Perspective #1: Marginal Petroleum – Subsitution of fossil fuels with biofuels

• Medium- and long-term effects depend on many factors:– Influence of OPEC market power in the future: Will the increasing

market share lead to more market power in the future ? Or will the compliance rate of OPEC members decline?

– Influence of increased biofuel supply on investment decisions– Ratio of production costs to carbon intensity: correlation with

exemptions– Development of the future oil production is uncertain: The predictions

of the future share of high carbon intensive petroleum vary widely - How many heavy and unconventional oil will be produced and when?

– Therefore the prediction of a reference scenario (no biofuel production) is very difficult

– Internalization of costs (e.g. climate protection objectives, deep water and Arctic restrictions) and therefore on political decisions


15

Perspective #2:Marginal Petroleum

• As presented in the LCFS Staff Report, carbon intensity of crude in CA has been decreasing to stable over many years.

• If the CI of crude were to increase, that would likely be addressed during a triennial review; there is already a mechanism that addresses high carbon crudes.

• EPA assessed the issue of marginal crude in the RFS2 rulemaking, and its modeling found that marginal effects were insignificant.


16

Perspective #1:Marginal Refining Effects

• Biofuels will displace gasoline and diesel that would otherwise been produced.

• The drop in demand of gasoline and diesel will reduce throughput and potentially shut down conversion units (e.g., FCCs, cokers).

• If conversion units are shut down or if throughput is reduced, there will be a drop in the carbon intensity of the gasoline/diesel produced because refining severity is reduced.

• This reduction in the marginal carbon intensity of gasoline/diesel should be assigned to biofuels as an “indirect” credit.


17

Perspective #2:Marginal Refining Effects

• Fuel providers are subject to LCFS targets in three months; the relevance of marginal refining effects is therefore not entirely clear, particularly in the short-term.

• Refiners’ response to reduced gasoline/diesel demand is unlikely to include shutting down conversion units as they represent significant investments that allow for processing of less expensive, heavier crude.

• More likely responses include:– Shift in product slate (e.g., produce more jet from gasoline boiling

range products).– Rationalization in industry, i.e., least sophisticated refineries shut

down.– Decreased imports and increased exports of finished product.


18

Perspective #2 (Continued):Marginal Refining Effects

• The refining component of LCA must accurately account for the processing steps and inputs (particularly hydrogen) required for the slate of crudes being run, but it should do so as part of a single average refining CI.

• If marginal effects were to be investigated, refinery-specific modeling would be necessary to estimate potential changes to product slate.

• If that assessment showed a decrease in gasoline/diesel CI, there is no basis for assigning that as a credit to biofuels.


19

Perspective #1:Recommendations – Marginal Refining Effects

• ARB’s current LCA methodology assigns an average refining efficiency to CA refineries to develop carbon intensity estimates for gasoline and diesel.

• Some subgroup members have suggested that an assessment of marginal GHG emissions from refining is more appropriate as a metric of indirect effects.

• This may necessitate a shift in the inclusion of these indirect effects in the LCFS.


20

Perspective #2:Recommendations - Marginal Refining Effects

• Instead of assessing marginal refining effects (which EPA has shown to be negligible), it may be more appropriate and accurate to assess refining as a single average value.

• The refining LCA must accurately account for all processing steps and inputs (e.g., hydrogen), but it should only do so as part of a single average refining CI for gasoline produced from a given slate of crude sources.


Military Effects


Perspective #1:Link and Costs/CI of Military Action for Energy Security

• Maritime and ground security is critical to the extraction and safe passage of certain crude oil resources: “[o]ur paramount national security interest in the Middle East is maintaining the unhindered flow of oil from the Persian Gulf to world markets at stable prices.” (see Crane et al. 2009. Imported Oil and US National Security. RAND Corporation, http://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/2009/RAND_MG838.pdf, p. 61.)

• The U.S. military is being used to provide this service for certain foreign oil supplies

• While oil is not the only reason for maintaining military presence in the Middle East, government documentation and testimony suggests that oil is the primary reason for military activity in the region

• While EPA and others recognize this link, these costs are not considered as part of current regulations (LCFS, RFS2) because they are considered too complex and/or controversial – but this same level of complexity and uncertainty exists in other indirect effects that are included in these same regulations - e.g., ILUC (see Liska, Adam J.; Perrin, Richard. Indirect land use emissions in the life cycle of biofuels: regulations vs science. Biofuels, Bioproducts & Biorefining (2009), 3(3), 318-328)


23

http://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/2009/RAND_MG838.pdf

Perspective #1: Estimated marginal cost of U.S. military security for Middle East oil: 1980-2010


24

• One way to attempt to measure the GHG intensity of a particular activity is to start with the marginal cost.

• For example, the 2008 ILUC paper published by Searchinger et al. in Science derived their deforestation-GHG estimates from the marginal cost estimates of more corn production calculated by Iowa State economic models. This approach has been adopted by the LCFS.

• By comparison, there is far more literature covering the marginal cost of U.S. military security for oil than studies covering the marginal cost of using more land.

A.J. Liska, R.K. Perrin, Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development (2010) 52(4), pgs. 9 - 22

Perspective #1:Recommendations for Including Military Emissions in LCFS

• The final LCFS regulation approved in April 2009 does not commit to one type of carbon LCA.

• Current LCFS utilizes both direct and indirect effects, and CARB staff have committed to including significant indirect effects.

• Two options for considering military effects that may not violate this approach under the current LCFS using the method proposed by Liska et al:– Military emissions could be considered an attributional, direct effect of

securing and transporting oil from the Middle East to the United States.

– Military emissions could be a consequential, market-mediated effect (i.e., a market response) of continuing to rely on Middle Eastern petroleum over time.


25

Perspective #2 EPA’s Assessment of Military Effects for RFS2

• “We also do not believe that emissions arising from military activities can be readily attributed to the protection of oil imports. Military activities, even in world regions that represent vital sources of oil imports, undoubtedly serve a broader range of security and foreign policy objectives than merely protecting oil supplies. In the peer review of the energy security analysis that EPA commissioned, a majority of peer reviewers believed that U.S. military costs should be excluded absent a widely agreed methodology for estimating this component of U.S. energy security.”

• “While these potential military impacts have been estimated by some researchers, there is clearly no consensus on how much if any of the GHG emissions from military operations should be attributed to an assessment of petroleum’s GHG lifecycle impact.”


26

“Renewable Fuel Standard Program (RFS2) Regulatory Impact Analysis,” U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA-420-R-10-006, February 2010. http://www.epa.gov/otaq/renewablefuels/420r10006.pdf.

Perspective #2: National Research Council – “The Hidden Costs of Energy:

Unpriced Consequences of Energy Production and Use”

• “Dependence on imported oil has well-recognized implications for foreign policy, and although we find that some of the effects can be viewed as external costs, it is currently impossible to quantify them. For example, the role of the military in safeguarding foreign supplies of oil is often identified as a relevant factor. However, the energy-related reasons for a military presence in certain areas of the world cannot readily be disentangled from the nonenergy-related reasons. Moreover, much of the military cost is likely to be fixed in nature. For example, even a 20% reduction in oil consumption, we believe, would probably have little impact on the strategic positioning of U.S. military forces throughout the world.”


27

“The Hidden Costs of Energy: Unpriced Consequences of Energy Production and Use,” Committee on Health, Environmental, and Other External Costs and Benefits of Energy Production and Consumption, National Research Council, 2010. http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=12794

Electricity

Note: Currently under development and review by the SWG and only one

perspective presented here


28

Perspective #1: Determining Effect of Marginal Electricity w/Consequential LCA

• Electricity production and demand will be market-mediated events subject to:– Increased # of electric vehicles– Increased solar, geothermal, wind sources– Increased natural gas sources– Increased coal sources

• Increased source of electricity production may have a consequential impact on the CI values on the margins that should be included as an indirect effect

• Marginal change in capacity may be included as part of the overall integrated energy system

• Installed and projected capacity trends will need to be revised as a function of time


29

Perspective #1: Impact of Plug-In and Fuel Cell Vehicles

on Marginal Electricity• Vehicle and fuel electricity demands are viewed as an

incremental demand over current system capacity

• As demand cycles, the installed capacity is also put under stress and new sources are brought online from the “margin”

• Marginal generators are defined as those most expensive to operate and least efficient1

• These marginal effects may increase or decrease as a function of time and policy incentives


30

1 R. McCarthy and C. Yang, J Power Sources (2010) 2099-2109

Perspective #1: Draft Recommendations

• Current LCFS statute:– Assumes marginal electricity in CA comes from NGCC plants (79%) and

renewable power (21%)– 104.7 gCO2-eq/MJ or 377 gCO2-eq/kWh

• Study by McCarthy and Yang1 in CEC supported activity utilized EDGE-CA model indicate that these values are substantially different near-term– Offpeak profile in CA may be a good indicator of near-term marginal

supply– NGCT plants will be a major source of marginal electricity– Marginal emissions may be 65% greater than in the current LCFS

• Recommend LCFS examine marginal electricity as a function of time and installed capacity to potentially adjust CI values


31

1R. McCarthy and C. Yang, J Power Sources (2010) 2099-2109

Summary/Next Steps

• Continue on writing up final SWG document

• Strive for SWG consensus wherever possible, acknowledge when there is not

• Natural gas section also under development and will be presented as part of the final recommendations at Nov 4 EWG meeting


32

subgroup 6 membership

Documents

significant effects

view of indirect effects

list of indirect effects

interim working draft

gravecoproduct effects

ca subgroup

swg criteria

significant gaps