Você está na página 1de 35

The Challenge of Implementation:

the New York State 80 by 50 Plan


Gerald M. Stokes
Associate Lab Director BNL
President NY Energy Policy Institute
The New York State 80 by 50 Plan

§ Recognizing the benefits of action and the risks of


inaction, in August 2009 the Governor of New
York signed Executive Order 24, which tasks the
State to reduce GHG emissions from all sources
within the state to a level 80% below the 1990
level by 2050.

§ It establishes a Climate Action Council that is to


develop a Climate Action Plan to achieve that
goal, taking into account economic and other
considerations. The plan is to be drafted by
September 30, 2010.
Greenhouse Gas mitigation is an
active area in the states …
§ 31 states have completed climate actions plans and
planning is continuing in 4 others.

§ Historically in the United States environmental


leadership has come from the states.

§ Even with a national policy, the burden of


implementation will fall to the states – in particular
dealing with the economic consequences – both
positive and negative – will be borne at the state
level.

GHG mitigation and adaptation –
have to be regional
§ Energy demand: regional

§ Economic influences – jobs, taxes … : regional

§ Renewable Energy: Distinctly regional character

§ CO2 storage: Local resource

§ Externalities (air quality, renewable portfolio standards etc.): regional

§ Off-sets like terrestrial sequestration: regional


§ Limiting resources (like water) are regional

§ Impacts and adaptation: distinctly regional

§ Politics: always local


Some advice going forward …
§ View the issue of climate change holistically, not just as the problem of
emissions reductions.
§
§ Recognize that, for climate policymaking, institutional limits to global
sustainability are at least as important as environmental limits.
§
§ Prepare for the likelihood that social, economic, and technologic change will be more rapid and have
greater direct impacts on human populations than climate change.
§
§ Recognize the limits of rational planning.
§
§ Employ the full range of analytic perspectives and decision aids from the natural and social sciences
and the humanities in climate change policymaking.
§
§ Design policy instruments for real world conditions rather than try to
make the world conform to a particular policy model.

§ Incorporate climate concerns into other more immediate issues, such as


employment, defense, economic development, and public health.

§ Take a regional and local approach to climate policymaking and


implementation.

§ Direct resources into identifying vulnerability and promoting resilience, especially where the impacts
will be the greatest.

§ Use a pluralistic approach to decision making.


Most climate/carbon strategies are usually
constructed using the same basic approach

§ Estimate population (multiple scenarios)

§ Estimate the GDP per capita (also scenarios)

§ Estimate the energy demand and other economic activity that


generate GHG emissions (more scenarios)

§ Construct energy supplies and associated technology forecast


to meet these demands (yet another scenario – usually
referred to as “Business as Usual”)

§ Create policies and approaches that are targeted at emissions


mitigation.

§ Leads to a complicated set of combined scenarios that can be


confusing.
Range of Reference Case Fossil Fuel
Carbon Emissions

Source: IIASA

Median SRES 2100 emission = 14.4 PgC/y


Open literature 2100 emissions ~20 PgC/y
The standard approach reflects the
hazards of depending on “rational
planning”
§ An alternative is to focus on cuts from current levels.
• This is the targets and timetables approach.
• Enshrined in the Berlin Mandate, this is the basis of the
Kyoto Protocol.
• It supports early action as a demonstration of good
faith commitments.
• Provides a learning framework for subsequent actions.

§ This focus on near term change does not allow for


the long term planning for energy infrastructure
and can hide the legitimate demands for future
energy services.
Scenarios play an important role in
planning climate mitigation strategies

§ A scenario is a story that helps you think about the


future – it is not a prediction.

§ For climate and carbon the required changes are


long term

§ Goals are set for times well beyond any credible


predictions.
The New York approach has two
parts …
§ A visioning activity that frames the scale and scope of the
challenge of meeting the 80 by 50 goal.
• Answers the question – is this a plausible goal?
• Illustrates the magnitude of changes that are likely required.
• Not a proposal – but a context.

§ The mandated Council activity that provides the roadmap (the


“Plan”) for meeting the goal.
• Specific actions developed by sector specific working groups,
• And a integration team that looks at the critical interactions
among the sectors.
• Supported by a more conventional near term “abatement cost
curve” appraoch.
The “visioning” approach

§ We postulate a future distribution of CO2 among the


key economic sectors

§ We identify technology strategies that can meet the


proposed emissions allocation (scenarios)

§ This is a back-casting scenario which supports a


“future-by-choice” approach as guide to policy.

§ This approach avoids the compounding scenario


problem.
Some basic facts

§ New York State CO2 emissions are primarily due to


combustion

§ Both the current and future energy system is made up of


energy sources and energy carriers
• Sources
- Fossil Fuels: Coal (2.2)*, Oil (1.7)*, Natural
Gas (1.0)*
- Nuclear Power
- Renewable: Solar, wind, geothermal, hydro,
biomass …
• Carriers
- Electricity
- Hydrogen
* Carbon emission per unit energy relative to NG
Different initial conditions play out in
different mitigation paths
What is the NYS starting point?
Sector CO2 Emissions (MMT CO2) Notes
Current (2007) BAU (2050)
Residential 37.6 45.0 567x106 MBTU Gas
154x106 MBTU Liquid

Commercial 27.2 39.1 431x106 MBTU Gas


156x106 MBTU Liquid

Industrial 19.0 24.1 79x106 MBTU Gas


21x106 MBTU Liquid
80x10 6 MBTU
9 VMT Coal/Coke
Transportatio 88.3 126 14.8x10 HDV
209.2x109 VMT LDV
n
Electricity 49.2 83.3 271,000 GWh
R-88.2; C-140;
I-36.3; T-6.2
Other 28.8 43.0 SF6; NG
MSW; HFC
leaks;

Total 250.2 360.5

Note: 1990 emissions = 277 MMT CO2e


Making the goal 55.4 MMT CO2e
Three scenarios were developed to
illustrate possible 2050 outcomes
§ Yellow: This scenario could be called a “conventional wisdom”
scenario – efficiency and non-biomass renewables are
exploited “completely”. It gets us most of the way to the
2050 goal. It highlights the importance of the transport
sector in meeting the goal.

§ Deep Blue: This scenario approached transport using


hydrogen as an energy carrier, drives the building sectors
to complete electrification, and increases the electrification
of the industrial sector.

§ Ultraviolet: Essentially the same scenario as Deep Blue except


that the energy carrier of choice is electricity rather than
hydrogen.
Working through the CO2 producing sectors for
the Yellow scenario beginning with buildings
Sector Yellow Baseline Notes
Residential scenario
7.5 37.6/45.0 20% Efficiency
80% NG to electricity
70% NG
Liquids to electricity
Commercial 4.5 27.2/39.1 30%
10% of
efficiency
electricity
20% Liquid efficiency
&
demand increase
met through local solar
80% of balance to electricity
Industrial 19.0/24.1 10% of electricity demand increase
met through local solar
Transport 88.3/126
Electricity 49.2/83.3
Other 28.8/43.0
Total 12.0 250.2/360.5 Goal – 55.4

161, 900 GWh moved to the grid


The industrial sector is a critical
component of the economy
Sector Yellow Baseline Notes
Residential scenario
7.5 37.6/45.0
Commercial 4.5 27.2/39.1
Industrial 14.4 19.0/24.1 NG – 49% efficiency
50% to electricity
Liquids- 20% efficiency
Transport 88.3/126 Balance to the grid
Solids – all to NG
Electricity 49.2/83.3
Other 28.8/43.0
Total 26.4 250.2/360.5 Goal – 55.4

Note: 7327 GWh to electricity


-> The change in the industrial base will facilitate the fuel switching
The transport sector represents a
great challenge
Sector Yellow Baseline Notes
Residential scenario
7.5 37.6/45.0
Commercial 4.5 27.2/39.1
Industrial 14.1 19.0/24.1
Transport 51 88.3/126 HDV – 50% to intermodal 6.9
mpg for balance
LDV – 10% conservation
Electricity 49.2/83.3 30% CV – 37mpg
30% HEV – 50 mpg
Other 28.8/43.0 40% PHEV – 95% electric
Aviation – 30% efficiency in 90%
Total 77.4 250.2/360.5 Goal – 55.4
of fleet

21,500 GWh to electricity


Aviation is 12.4 MMT of total
We have been pushing things to the
electric sector -
Sector Yellow Baseline Notes
Residential scenario
7.5 37.6/45.0
Commercial 4.5 27.2/39.1
Industrial 14.1 19.0/24.1
Transport 51 88.3/126
Electricity 24 49.2/83.3 All from CCS
Other 28.8/43.0 capture losses
Total 101.7 250.2/360.5 Goal – 55.4

Efficiency - 25% in buildings; 10% in Industrial ;


add 182,000 GWh from switching + 4% T&D losses (50% improvement)
= 408, 000 GWh demand
And how would we meet that
demand?

Source Current GWh New GWh


Wind 873 42,000
Nuclear 42,450 0
Hydro 25,500 10,300
Solar * 0 100,000
IGCC w/ CCS 0 140,000
NGCC w/ CCS 0 50,000

* Over and above the local solar


As the other sectors become more carbon
efficient “other” becomes more important

Sector Yellow Baseline Notes


Residential scenario
7.5 37.6/45.0
Commercial 4.5 27.2/39.1
Industrial 14.1 19.0/24.1
Transport 51 88.3/126
Electricity 24 49.2/83.3
Other 12.3 28.8/43.0
Total 113.4 250.2/360.5 Goal – 55.4

Well shy of the goal –


but a greater than 65% reduction from BAU
and 50% from current emissions
Yellow Scenario – bottom line

§ Does not meet goal

§ Eliminates all current fossil combustion for electricity

§ Does not use biofuels/biomass or nuclear


§
§ Calls for massive deployment of wind and solar

§ Places large (doubles) demand on the grid


Deep Blue is our first goal reaching scenario

Sector Deep Blue Yellow Baseline Notes


Residential 0 7.5 37.6/45.0 108, 000
Commercial 0 4.5 27.2/39.1 GWh to
Industrial 14.1 19.0/24.1 Grid
Transport 51 88.3/126
Electricity 24 49.2/83.3
Other 12.3 12.3 28.8/43.0
Total 12.3 113.4 250.2/360.5 Goal – 55.4
Residential – 20% efficiency
50 % to electricity (30% met with local solar);
50 % to biofuels for both gas and liquid
Commercial – 30% efficiency
All NG and liquids to electricity w/ 30% met by local solar
Deep Blue pushes more industrial energy
demand to the grid

Sector Deep Blue Yellow Baseline Notes


Residential 0 7.5 37.6/45.0
Commercial 0 4.5 27.2/39.1
Industrial 12.7 14.1 19.0/24.1 All NG and liquids to
the grid
Transport 51 88.3/126
Electricity 24 49.2/83.3
Other 12.3 12.3 28.8/43.0
Total 25.0 113.4 250.2/360.5 Goal – 55.4

All NG and liquids to the grid


Solid fuel to NG the same as Yellow Scenario
Asphalt and Petrochem ~70% of total emissions
15,150 GWh to the grid
But Deep Blue uses hydrogen and biofuels in
the transport sector rather than electricity

Sector Deep Blue Yellow Baseline Notes


Residential 0 7.5 37.6/45.0
Commercial 0 4.5 27.2/39.1
Industrial 12.7 14.1 19.0/24.1 All NG and liquids to
the grid
Transport 20.1 51 88.3/126
Electricity 24 49.2/83.3
Other 12.3 12.3 28.8/43.0
Total 45.1 113.4 250.2/360.5 Goal – 55.4
HDV – 45% biofuel 55% diesel
Aviation 45% of total from BioJet
LDV – 100% Hydrogen vehicles @ 65 mpg equivalent
Hydrogen prouction 50,000 GWh equivalent
0 GWh to the grid
Deep Blue uses hydrogen and biofuels in the
transport sector

Sector Deep Blue Yellow Baseline Notes


Residential 0 7.5 37.6/45.0
Commercial 0 4.5 27.2/39.1
Industrial 12.7 14.1 19.0/24.1
Transport 20.1 51 88.3/126
Electricity 13 24 49.2/83.3
Other 12.3 12.3 28.8/43.0
Total 58.1 113.4 250.2/360.5 Goal – 55.4

Total electric demand is 410,000 GWh


And satisfying that demand moves
from coal to NG and nuclear

Source Current GWh New GWh


Wind 873 42,000
Nuclear 42,450 25,000
Hydro 25,500 10,300
Solar * 0 100,000
IGCC w/ CCS 0 0
NGCC w/ CCS 0 170,000

* Over and above the local solar assumed in buildings sector


The Deep Blue scenario essentially
meets the goal
§ Commercial and Residential structures have been taken to
zero emissions – efficiency, electrification, local generation
and biofuel

§ Industrial production is further electrified

§ The transport sector is hydrogen for light duty vehicles and


biofuel is a major component of heavy duty vehicle fuels

§ Modest nuclear has been added and coal has been eliminated
in favor of natural gas
The Ultraviolet Scenario attacks
transport through electrification
Sector Ultraviolet Deep Blue Yellow Baseline Notes
Residential
0 0 7.5 37.6/45.0
Commercial
0 0 4.5 27.2/39.1
Industrial
12.7 12.7 14.1 19.0/24.1
Transport
20.1 20.1 51 88.3/126
Electricity
24 49.2/83.3
Other
12.3 12.3 12.3 28.8/43.0
Total
45.1 58.1 113.4 250.2/360.5 Goal –
55.4
The HDV an Aviation sectors are the same as Deep Blue
LDV is 100% PHEV – 95% electric with balance met with ethanol
38, 500 GWh to the grid
And the electricity sector reduces
emissions with a move to nuclear
Sector Ultraviolet Deep Blue Yellow Baseline Notes
Residential
0 0 7.5 37.6/45.0
Commercial
0 0 4.5 27.2/39.1
Industrial
12.7 12.7 14.1 19.0/24.1
Transport
20.1 20.1 51 88.3/126
Electricity
10 13 24 49.2/83.3
Other
12.3 12.3 12.3 28.8/43.0
Total
55.1 58.1 113.4 250.2/360.5 Goal –
55.4
And satisfying that demand moves
from coal to NG and nuclear

Source Current GWh New GWh


Wind 873 42,000
Nuclear 42,450 118,000
Hydro 25,500 10,300
Solar * 0 100,000
IGCC w/ CCS 0 70,000
NGCC w/ CCS 0 0

* Over and above the local solar


The Ultraviolet Scenario meets the
goal
§ Light Duty transportation has moved to plug-in
hybrids with liquid fuel needs met by ethanol

§ Nuclear is a major player in the electricity sector


Reflecting on the results
Sector Ultraviolet Deep Blue Yellow Baseline Notes
Residential
0 0 7.5 37.6/45.0
Commercial
0 0 4.5 27.2/39.1
Industrial
12.7 12.7 14.1 19.0/24.1
Transport
20.1 20.1 51 88.3/126
Electricity
10 13 24 49.2/83.3
Other
12.3 12.3 12.3 28.8/43.0
Total
55.1 58.1 113.4 250.2/360.5 Goal –
55.4
Transport and Industrial (most of other) emissions get the largest share
CCS and nuclear are key to reductions in the electric sector
While presented as zero existing structures will be a major challenge
We have assumed biofuels are carbon neutral
Some further observations
§ The 80x50 goal is ambitious, and achieving it will require investments in new
energy systems and infrastructure that have very low or no net carbon
emissions. Patterns of energy use will also need to change.

§ Energy efficiency is an essential, but not sufficient, strategy that can be


aggressively pursued today.

§ A broad shift from reliance on burning fossil fuels to electricity generated from low-
or no-carbon sources, or widespread use of carbon capture and sequestration,
will be needed.

§ Transportation and buildings (residential and commercial) will have to move away
from reliance on combustion of fossil fuels to alternate sources with
significantly lower carbon or no carbon emissions.

§ Development and redevelopment based on smart growth principles, as well as the


building design practices, building technologies, and construction methods
can significantly reduce the energy demand for buildings, as well as
transportation.

§ Incremental, short-term planning cannot achieve the goal. Near-term decisions –


both those taken and not taken – can preclude longer-term options, such as
infrastructure projects requiring long lead times. Key climate strategies must
reflect this reality.
Looking ahead …
§ There are clearly big decisions necessary to achieve goal – many
probably need to made sooner rather than later – infrastructure,
fuel sources.
• The role of nuclear and CCS
• The reliability and capacity of the grid
• The role for biomass

§ The baseline scenario is for a very robust economy with a growing


industrial base – not the contraction seen since 1990 - and the
move to electrification, is consistent with a 21st Century economy
(info, bio and nano).

§ All renewable energy is from within the state resources, adding a


significant sector to the state economy.
• How the state cooperates with its neighbors will be important (generation, grid)
is important.
• Achievement of renewable goals is a critical success factor for the strategy.