1

Catherine Witherspooncwitherspoon@jps.net

Cleaning the Air and Reducing Greenhouse Gases in California

2

California: A Case Study

What drives CA air quality policies Most effective strategies to date Costs and benefits Transitioning to climate change Future challenges

3

Annual Health ImpactsFrom Air Pollution*

9,000 premature deaths1,000,000 asthma attacks 3,000,000 lost work days

CA Public Health Concerns

*California only, for exposures above state standards.

4

Particulate – Heart of the Matter

100’s of studies confirm: death rate rises as PM goes up

Opposite occurs when PM drops(steel strike, coal mine closure)

Lives shortened by 14 years

Disease rates also increase

5

Projected California ImpactsNext 100 Years

2.5 - 4 times more heat wave days14 - 22 inches of sea level rise70 - 80% loss of Sierra snow pack30% decrease in forest yields (pine)55% greater risk of forest fires

Medium Warming Range

(5.5 – 8 °F)

3 - 4 times more heat wave days22 - 30 inches of sea level rise90% loss of Sierra snow pack

Higher Warming Range

(8 – 10.5 °F)

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13°F

Our Changing Climate: Assessing the Risks to California (2006), www.climatechange.ca.gov

2 - 2.5 times more heat wave days6 - 14 inches of sea level rise30 - 60% loss of Sierra snow pack7 - 14% decrease in forest yields (pine)10 - 35% greater risk of forest fires

Lower Warming Range

(3 – 5.5 °F)

0

4

3

2

5

1

ºF

6

Hotter Days Mean More Smog

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

0.30

40 60 80 100 120

Ozo

ne

(pp

m)

Temperature (oF)

Los Angeles Ozone Levels (1995-1998))

California Ozone Standard

7

California’s Emission ControlsWhat We’ve Done So Far…

8

In Plain English ...

If it burns, the exhaust is treated If it evaporates, the gases are captured If it’s carcinogenic, it’s banned or

severely limited

9

More Precisely…

Maximum feasible emission reductions Best available control technology Constant ratcheting downward Performance-based regulations Some financial incentives, particularly

for legacy fleet No direct taxes No social controls

10

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

1963

1965

1967

1969

1971

1973

1975

1977

1979

1981

1983

1985

1987

1989

1991

1993

g/m

ile H

C +

NO

x

Positive Crankcase Ventilation

Exhaust Standards

EGR

Oxidation Catalyst

Three Way CatalystOn-Board Computer

Advanced ComputerFuel Injection

02 Sensor

Phase 1 Gas

Auto Controls 1963-1993Emissions Cut ~90 Percent

11

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

1994

1997

2000

2004

2010

g/m

ile H

C +

NO

x

Low Emission Vehicle I

Phase 2 Gasoline

Low Emission Vehicle II

Latest Phase of Auto ControlsEmissions Cut Another 90 Percent

12

1992

Eliminated lead from gasolineLimited vapor pressure

Wintertime oxygenates for carbon monoxide

“Cleaner burning gas” to achieve maximum reductions in ozone and toxics

1996 1999

Further reduce sulfur and benzene

Date Implemented

Cleaner burning diesel

1993 2006

Low sulfur diesel

Cleaner Fuel Regulations

13

Gasoline Vapor Recovery

• Early, highly successful program (1970s)• Covers storage, transfer and retail ops• 2x better than LEV or CBG (total tons)• 90+% vapor control • Very cost-effective • CA now moving to “enhanced,”

computerized diagnostic systems

14

• Best technology for new plants• Retrofits on existing sources• Limits on NOx, ROG, SOx, toxics • Heavy reliance on natural gas

Industrial Source Controls

15

• 50 categories including cleaners, personal care products, aerosol paints and coatings

Carpet and Upholstery CleanerCarpet and Upholstery Cleaner

• Regulations will cut emissions >50%

• Toxic compounds largely eliminated

Consumer Products Program

16

Toxic Air Pollutant Measures

Rural gas stations

Asbestos mining

Chrome Platers

Medical waste incinerators

Dry cleanersMetal melting Gas cans

Cooling towers

1990 2000

Asbestos/roadsDiesel Risk Reduction Plan

Asbestos roads & quarriesSterilizers and aerators

Automotive products

Auto coatings

17

• All off-road diesel engines• Motorcycles • Outboard boat engines• Lawn and garden equipment• Jet ski watercraft• Forklifts• Small generators• Agricultural equipment

Kitchen Sink Measures80-95% Emission Control

18

• Air cleaners (ozone-generating) • Biological contaminants• Building materials & furnishings• Combustion appliances• Environmental tobacco smoke• Radon

Indoor Air Pollution Sources

19

Diesel Risk Reduction Plan

• Adopted 2000– 75 percent risk reduction by 2010– 85 percent risk reduction by 2020

• Four Strategies:

– Stringent new engine standards

– Cleaner diesel fuel (<15 ppm sulfur)

– In-use compliance

– Retrofits and retirements

20

Model Year

11

10

6 6

5

2.5

5

1

4

1

2

1 0.2 0.01

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

g/b

hp

-hr

NOx

PM x 10

98+% reduction

Standards for New On-Road Diesels

21

Two primary designs

Catalyzed filter Oxidation catalyst

Both use wall-flow filters

Diesel Retrofit Technology

22

Filter System

Filter System

Sample Installations

Tractor Cab Trash Truck

23

• LA Port called “diesel death zone”

California Emission Controls: What We’re Still Working On…

24

Freeway Exposures

25

• Planes, locomotives, ships• Growing relative share of emissions• Growing absolutely with population

Hardest Nut to Crack:Federal & International Emission Sources

26

COSTS Less than 0.1 percent GDP

BENEFITSPre-1990 controls: >$10 in health benefits for each $1 spent Post 1990 controls: ~$4 in health benefits for each $1 spent

Costs & Benefits

27

On-RdMotorcycle

EnhancedVapor

Recovery

OBD 2

InboardMarine

Transit BusFuelContainer

OutboardMarine

2007HDDE

Off-RdCI

NTE & ESC Test2.4g HDDE

Off-CycleLDTMed. Duty

Truck

Off-Rd Motorcycle

Off-Rd Diesel

4-Stroke LawnLEV

2-Stroke Lawn

OBD 1

0.25 HC LDV

5g HDD

RFG 2

0.4 NOx LDV

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004

Board Hearing Year

Do

llars

pe

r P

ou

nd

of

Ozo

ne

Pre

cu

rso

r

Cost of regulations, 1986-2002Cost of regulations, 1986-2002(dollars per pound of ozone precursor (dollars per pound of ozone precursor

emissions)emissions)

Cost Effectiveness of Individual Measures

28

• Express public health goals clearly, preferably by legal mandate

• Create sufficient institutional capacity to meet those goals

• Keep science and technology current

Lessons Learned #1A Solid Foundation is Essential

29

• Californians overwhelmingly support clean air programs (>80%)

• States acting together create defacto national and/or international standards

• Interest groups support fair treatment for all – so act comprehensively

Lessons Learned #2There’s Strength in Numbers

30

• Industry will almost always innovate and comply at significantly lower costs

• Business leaders set the mark – help them by leveling up not down

• Technological solutions are much more successful than bans or deprivation

Lessons Learned #3Fortuitous Breakthroughs Happen

31

Addressing Climate Change

Newest California program, our goals:• Cut greenhouse gases to 1990 levels

by 2020 (~ 25% reduction)• Achieve 80% reduction by 2050• Inspire national, international action

32

Working Assumptions

• It’s all about the fuel you burn, the electricity you use, and where that energy comes from

• Lowest hanging fruit: energy efficiency (EE) and fuel efficiency (FE)

• End game: zero carbon energy

33

Magnitude of Reductions Needed

CAT Report Emissions

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

1990 2000 2010 2020 2050

Year

Mil

lio

n M

etri

c T

on

s

(C

O2 E

qu

ival

ent)

1990 Emission Baseline

80% Reduction~341 MMTCO2E

~174 MMTCO2E Reduction

11

11

34Source: March 2006 Climate Action Team Report

Vehicles and fuels 41 MMT 24%

Forestry 33 MMT 19%

Land Use/Transportation 27 MMT 16%

Energy Efficiency 21 MMT 12%

Other Utility Measures 19 MMT 11%

Renewable Portfolio Standard 14 MMT 8%

Waste Management 6 MMT 3%

Other, Miscellaneous 13 MMT 7%

TOTAL 174 MMT 100%

Climate Action Plan (2006)

35

Wedge AnalysisDrs. Socolow & Pacala, Princeton

36

30

18

12.511

9

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Reduction Strategy

CO

2 R

ed

uc

tio

ns

(M

MT

) ARB Motor VehicleStandards

Smart Land Use andIntelligentTransportation

Reforestation

Accleration ofRenewable PortfolioStandard to 33%

Utility Electicity SectorCarbon Policy

Annual Reductions in CO2 (million of tons) by 2020

Biggest Strategies in MMT Terms

37

California’s GHG Fleet Average Emission Standards

CO2-equivalent emission standards (g/km) Tier Year

PC/LDT1 LDT2

2009 202 274 2010 188 262 2011 167 244

Near-term

2012 146 226 2013 142 222 2014 139 219 2015 133 213

Mid-term

2016 128 208

~22% reductionin 2012

~30% reductionin 2016

38

Effect on GHG Emissions Total In-use Fleet

0

100000

200000

300000

400000

500000

600000

700000

2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035

Calendar Year

Lig

ht

Du

ty V

eh

icle

CO

2 E

qu

iva

len

t T

on

s P

er

Da

y

Without Regulation

With Regulation

Linear (WithoutRegulation)

-18% -27%

39

• Direct injection (DI) 5%• Advanced valve control 4-16%• Downsize engine with turbo 8%• Electric accessories 3%• Cylinder deactivation (>4 cyl.) 6%• Integrated starter generator 6-10%• Automatic manual transmission 7%

• Less friction, better Cd, tires, A/C 5%

CO2 Reduction

Principal Technologies to ReduceVehicle GHG Emissions

40

• Battery electrics >90% less*• Gasoline hybrids 40-50% less • Diesel 20% less • Ethanol (E85) 26% less

*Depending on electricity source

Other Low CO2 Technologies

41

CA’s Renewable Energy Goals

• 20% of total electricity by 2010• 33% by total electricity by 2020

• Plan claims 11 MMT for achieving 33% penetration

• Constraints: sunk transmission costs, expense of renewables, barriers to distributed gen

42

Overall power mix:» 41.5% natural gas » 19% large hydro» 15.7% coal» 12.9% nuclear» 10.9% renewables

In-State: 78% of supply (47 MMT CO2E)Out-of-State: 22% of supply (60 MMT CO2E)

CA Electricity Sources

43

California Efforts to ChangeUS Coal Policy

• Prohibit new long-term coal purchases

• Require natural gas equivalent emissions

• Wean CA system off existing coal plants

• Plan claims 9 MMT

44

Per Capita Electricity Sales (not including self-generation)(kWh/person) (2006 to 2008 are forecast data)

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

19

60

19

62

19

64

19

66

19

68

19

70

19

72

19

74

19

76

19

78

19

80

19

82

19

84

19

86

19

88

19

90

19

92

19

94

19

96

19

98

20

00

20

02

20

04

20

06

20

08

kW

h/p

ers

on

France

United States

California

Portugal

Spain

W. Europe

Per Capita Energy Consumption

45

Annual Energy Savings from Efficiency Programs and Standards

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

35,000

40,000

45,000

19

75

19

76

19

77

19

78

19

79

19

80

19

81

19

82

19

83

19

84

19

85

19

86

19

87

19

88

19

89

19

90

19

91

19

92

19

93

19

94

19

95

19

96

19

97

19

98

19

99

20

00

20

01

20

02

20

03

GW

h/y

ear

Appliance Standards

Building Standards

Utility Efficiency Programs at a cost of

~1% of electric bill

~15% of Annual Electricity Use in California in 2003

CA Energy Efficiency Measures

46

1) Low carbon fuel standard 20082) High GWP refrigerants 20083) High GWP consumer products 20084) Landfill methane capture 20085) SF6 in non-electricity sector 20096) Port electrification 20077) PFCs in semiconductor mfring 20088) SmartWay truck efficiency 20089) Tire inflation program 2009

Early Action Measures

26 MMT CO2-E total by 2020

47

• Many USA politicians support• Worked well for acid rain• Allowed by California law• Business friendly• If done right, fastest and cheapest path• Potential revenue generator• Creates new export markets• However, still controversial

What About Cap & Trade?

48

• Mostly industrial sources• Trading among the West plus CDMs• ~One-third of 2020 goal (~60 MMT)

By comparison: • EU ETS (1500 MMT - 8% = 120 MMT by 2012) • NE States (120 MMT - 10% = 12 MMT by 2020)

• Japan demo (2 MMT - 25% = 0.5 MMT)

Type of Market Envisioned

49

• Action plan net positive for CA economy

• 83,000 new jobs, $4B growth• Huge savings from energy efficiency and

vehicle emission standards• Remaining strategies priced at 0-$50/ton

Economic Analysis

50

8% 17% 25% 33% 42% 50% 58%

51

Challenges Ahead

Transforming energy base of economy Needed technological breakthroughs Reaching international agreement “Leakage” Sector-specific price hikes Coping with changes we can’t prevent

52

THANK YOU

FOR LISTENING

cwitherspoon@jps.net