Covenant of Mayors: Sustainable Energy and Climate Action Plans

Ryan Glancy 16th CTI WORKSHOP

24th June 2016 Berlin

Agenda

•  What is the CoM and SECAP / SEAP? – City-scale GHG inventories – Developing city climate actions (co-benefits) – City-scale MRV systems

•  The role of cities in NDCs •  How national systems can help cities

What is CoM?

•  ~ 6,500 signatories

•  Now becoming a global initiative

City GHG Inventory

Poten&al  Relevance  for  Market  Mechanisms:  –  Iden&fies  most  pollu&ng  ac&vi&es  –  Star&ng  point  for  policy  development  

City Climate Actions •  Municipal Buildings •  Tertiary Buildings •  Residential Buildings •  Public Lighting •  Industry •  Transport •  Local Electricity Production (< 20MWe) •  Local Heat (or Cold) Production •  ‘Other’ (e.g. waste, agriculture)

•  GHG savings •  Timeframes •  Finance •  Responsible body

Potential Relevance for Market Mechanisms: –  Action compilation process can lead to market mechanism

identification/development –  Market mechanisms as actions

Co-Benefits

Highly relevant and powerful in the city context:

–  Economic (energy security, low energy cost) –  Social (fuel poverty, health) –  Environmental (air quality, liveable city)

Can be a strong driver of action

Monitoring, Reporting and Verification

•  CoM requires: –  Update on actions: every 2 years –  Updated inventory: every 2 or 4 years

Potential Relevance for Market Mechanisms: –  MRV generally required to enable market mechanisms

Municipality  

Academic  Ins&tu&ons  

Private  sector  stakeholders  

U&lity  companies/ESCOs  

Other  (waste,  agriculture)  

Public  transport  orgs  

Na&onal/local  sta&s&cs  

What Paris Means for Cities

•  Cities necessarily have to reduce emissions to contribute to NDCs

•  The ‘emissions gap’ means that cities need to offer further ambition

Ambitious action is needed at the city (or local) level

International financing should be available

City Impact

•  CoM Projected Savings: ~ 200 MtCO2e 1

•  EU 2020 emissions reduction target: ~ 1,136 MtCO2e 2

~ 18% contribution towards target reduction from CoM

How Cities/Regions Can Contribute

Policy

Feedback

Scottish Case Study

ScoHsh  Government   Sco7sh  Climate  Change  Act  42%  Reduc&on  1990  -‐  2020  

Na&onal  ‘Policies  and  Proposals’  

32  Sco7sh  Local  Authori&es  •  Implemen&ng  Na&onal  

Policies  and  Proposals  •  Implemen&ng  other  local  

ac&ons  

Sustainable  Scotland  Network  

‘ScoHsh  Bodies  Climate  Change  Du&es  Repor&ng’  

The Role of National Datasets

Second  Tier  Authority Year

A.  Indu

stry  and

 Com

mercia

l  Electricity

B.  Indu

stry  and

 Com

mercia

l  Ga

s

E.  Agricu

lture

F.  Dom

estic  Electricity

G.  Dom

estic  Gas

H.  Dom

estic  'O

ther  Fuels'

I.  Ro

ad  Transpo

rt  (A

 roads)

J.  Ro

ad  Transpo

rt  

(Motorways)

K.  Road  Transport  (Minor  

roads)

L.  Diesel  Railways

M.  Transpo

rt  Other

N.  LULU

CF  Net  Emissions

Grand  Total

Popu

latio

n                                                                                            

('000

s,  mid-‐year  estimate)

Per  C

apita  Emissions  (t)

Darlington 2005 165.8 139.1 5.6 100.5 155.7 8.3 88.4 49.3 75.1 6.2 2.4 4.0 824.6 100.3 8.2Darlington 2006 177.8 118.2 5.4 105.1 149.3 8.0 86.0 49.0 73.4 6.2 2.5 3.7 808.6 101.5 8.0Darlington 2007 168.1 115.8 5.4 103.7 142.4 7.3 83.8 48.1 73.9 6.1 2.5 3.0 784.6 102.6 7.6Darlington 2008 166.2 116.6 5.1 100.2 147.1 7.8 76.4 42.9 70.8 6.2 2.4 2.8 776.9 103.7 7.5Darlington 2009 146.2 99.3 5.5 90.4 132.2 7.2 75.3 42.9 69.4 6.3 2.3 2.9 700.9 104.4 6.7Darlington 2010 143.4 130.4 5.5 92.2 145.6 7.9 74.6 42.8 67.9 6.3 2.3 2.7 744.7 105.0 7.1Darlington 2011 127.0 104.4 5.7 87.7 119.7 6.8 74.4 45.5 65.7 6.2 2.3 2.5 668.4 105.6 6.3Darlington 2012 134.1 110.8 5.3 92.5 133.2 6.7 74.6 46.6 64.1 6.2 2.3 1.9 700.3 105.2 6.7Darlington 2013 120.2 125.9 4.9 84.7 136.1 7.2 72.0 46.5 63.6 6.0 2.3 1.7 689.6 105.4 6.5Durham 2005 727.0 345.6 43.4 451.1 768.9 112.9 484.3 220.7 291.5 33.0 4.0 -‐26.8 3,940.9 497.2 7.9Durham 2006 771.7 324.0 41.7 475.4 742.7 106.3 482.0 224.5 286.6 33.2 4.7 -‐29.7 3,865.2 499.3 7.7Durham 2007 734.5 301.5 40.7 471.7 701.8 103.5 479.2 238.8 291.3 32.0 4.7 -‐30.8 3,777.3 503.0 7.5Durham 2008 729.9 292.1 39.4 452.1 721.8 112.8 457.5 214.5 280.9 32.3 4.5 -‐32.1 3,720.8 505.6 7.4Durham 2009 604.3 257.8 41.1 410.4 644.5 99.8 443.0 209.4 273.0 32.7 4.1 -‐30.3 3,357.1 507.3 6.6Durham 2010 627.8 299.1 41.2 421.0 704.6 108.2 437.8 207.4 270.6 33.0 4.3 -‐27.9 3,515.4 510.6 6.9Durham 2011 583.8 252.0 42.6 404.1 577.4 98.4 436.9 208.1 258.5 32.3 4.0 -‐28.9 3,247.7 513.0 6.3Durham 2012 611.8 276.4 40.9 425.2 638.4 96.1 434.7 217.7 248.4 32.6 3.9 -‐29.6 3,350.4 514.3 6.5Durham 2013 570.4 284.7 38.7 392.6 656.3 99.9 424.2 214.3 250.1 31.0 3.9 -‐29.1 3,269.5 516.0 6.3Gateshead 2005 348.9 192.6 1.4 177.7 319.0 12.0 225.3 29.9 218.1 3.6 2.0 0.3 1,581.5 192.9 8.2Gateshead 2006 382.3 204.2 1.4 185.6 303.4 10.7 223.9 27.3 209.6 3.5 2.2 0.1 1,604.2 193.6 8.3Gateshead 2007 369.7 194.3 1.4 183.2 282.8 10.3 221.9 27.6 211.2 3.7 2.2 -‐0.2 1,558.9 194.9 8.0Gateshead 2008 353.0 181.9 1.3 175.9 288.3 11.3 211.1 26.0 203.1 3.6 2.1 -‐0.3 1,506.2 196.1 7.7Gateshead 2009 286.6 175.2 1.4 160.0 253.1 9.6 206.1 26.5 197.6 3.6 1.9 -‐0.2 1,359.4 197.5 6.9Gateshead 2010 299.2 177.5 1.4 162.6 276.3 10.3 199.6 25.9 193.0 3.6 2.0 -‐0.3 1,391.7 198.7 7.0Gateshead 2011 271.6 142.6 1.5 155.1 224.9 9.7 199.3 25.3 188.2 3.6 1.8 -‐0.4 1,259.1 200.3 6.3Gateshead 2012 285.0 157.2 1.4 163.6 250.1 9.5 196.7 24.4 184.4 3.8 1.8 -‐0.7 1,314.5 200.2 6.6Gateshead 2013 261.3 159.7 1.3 149.8 256.3 10.5 193.1 24.9 182.0 3.7 1.8 -‐0.7 1,275.4 200.0 6.4

•  DECC ‘LA CO2’ Dataset (UK)

•  Similar data in Finland, Netherlands, others….?

TRACE

•  Historical emissions

•  Trend analysis

•  Future projections and targets

•  Engagement tool

www.aether-uk/trace

Key Messages

1.  Cities have to play a key role if Paris Agreement is to be delivered

2.  Developing city-scale inventories is key (but we can’t let them become a barrier to action)

3.  Developing actions within a common framework (e.g. CoM) helps promote cohesive action

4.  Nationally produced local data sets can promote/enable city action

Contact details

ryan.glancy@aether-uk.com +44(0)1865 261466 www.aether-uk.com