New Berkeley Lab model finds state will meet 2020 reduction goals
A new model of the impact of California’s existing and proposed policies on its greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction goals suggests that the state is on track to meet 2020 goals, and could achieve greater emission reductions by 2030, but the state will need to do more to reach its 2050 climate goals.
“The big news here is that not only will California meet its 2020 reduction goals under AB 32, but it could achieve reductions of at least 40 percent below that level in the 2030 time frame,” said Jeffery Greenblatt, author of the study and a scientist at the Department of Energy’s Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab). The paper, “Modeling California policy impact on greenhouse gas emissions,” has been published in Energy Policy.
Greenblatt’s research, which was funded in part by the California Air Resources Board (CARB), is the first attempt to comprehensively model all relevant policies in order to assess their combined effect on reducing California GHG emissions, especially through 2030. The research is intended to inform ongoing policy discussions in California by developing scenarios of GHG reductions that result from the aggregation of various policies. Scenario analysis can suggest which combinations of actual and proposed policies result in the largest emission reduction. The study also quantifies the reduction impact of individual policies.
The state’s AB 32 legislation, the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, requires a reduction in state GHG emissions by 2020 to its 1990 level of 431 million metric tons carbon dioxide equivalent per year (MtCO2e/year). Additionally, California Executive Order S-3-05 sets a target of reducing state GHG emissions to 80 percent below this level by 2050. Other state legislation governs specific areas such as transportation, electricity, and fuels.
Greenblatt’s new model, dubbed CALGAPS (California LBNL GHG Analysis of Policies Spreadsheet), indicates that GHG emissions through 2020 could range from 317 to 415 MtCO2e/year, all still below the AB 32 target, “indicating that existing state policies will likely allow California to meet its target,” he said.
By 2030, emissions could range from 211 to 428 MtCO2e/year. “Even if all modeled policies are not implemented, reductions could be sufficient to reduce emissions 40 percent below the 1990 level,” Greenblatt said.
Although CALGAPS did not generally simulate policies that might be put in place after 2030, it did account for emissions through 2050, to understand the lasting impact of existing and potential policies that might be implemented over the next several years.
Accordingly, all of the scenarios Greenblatt modeled fall well short of the state’s 80 percent reduction goal by 2050. However, various combinations of policies could allow California’s cumulative emissions to remain very low through 2050, consistent with U.S. targets promulgated by the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to keep global warming below 2 degrees Celsius. While additional analysis and policymaking will certainly be needed to meet 2050 goals, Greenblatt’s study highlights the importance and potential of near-term action to work towards global climate stabilization targets.
Forty-nine policies in the CALGAPS model
CALGAPS is an energy model that simulates California’s GHG and criteria pollutant emissions from 2010 to 2050. It uses historical and projected future trends in energy consumption, GHG fuel intensities, GHG emissions apart from energy, and policy-based assumptions to calculate how much GHG the state emits under different combinations of policies. The model incorporates 49 individual policies.
“The model divides policies into three types,” Greenblatt said. “Committed policies (S1) are those that have the force of law and are being implemented, such as AB 1493, which mandates efficiency improvements in light-duty vehicles, building energy efficiency standards like Title 24, and the renewable portfolio standard (RPS), which mandates 33 percent renewable electricity generation use by 2020.”
Federal policies such as the Clean Water Act also have a direct impact on state GHG emissions.
Uncommitted policies (S2), the second type, may lack detailed implementation plans or firm financial support, but have all been proposed, such as new efficient and zero net energy building targets, construction of the high-speed rail system, and initiatives by various agencies to, for example, increase biofuels use and continue progress in improving vehicle efficiency.
The third group, potential policies and technologies (S3), include more speculative changes, including several that extend policy initiatives in the committed and uncommitted groups. These policies include more aggressive vehicle efficiency improvements, building electrification, higher RPS targets, and expanded carbon sequestration activities, among others.
“One of the most important results of this study is that the GHG impact of each individual policy is quantified for the first time,” Greenblatt said. “This allows policymakers to compare policies in different sectors and evaluate trade-offs.”
Among the most impactful policies, the study finds–those with reductions in excess of 20 MtCO2e each in some years–are the AB 1493 vehicle efficiency standards, the 33 percent RPS target, building efficiency targets, phasing out imported coal electricity and phasing out hydrofluorocarbon gases.
Another important insight was the idea of looking at cumulative emissions. As the paper states: “Due to early emissions reductions, S3 achieves lower cumulative emissions in 2050 than a pathway that linearly reduces emissions between 2020 and 2050 policy targets.”
The less ambitious S2 pathway achieves lower cumulative emissions through 2040. Greenblatt concluded: “Additional policies beyond those in S3 would be needed to continue reduction beyond 2050, but focusing on cumulative reductions may offer a more flexible policy framework.”
###
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
To the average California resident, the only tangible result of this policy will be skyrocketing electricity and gas prices. We are already seeing it.
I live in neighboring Nevada, and California’s policies have a big effect on this state.
The number one problems is the economic refuges who flee east to escape California’s repressive regime. While these people are generally welcome, they have the nasty habit of wanting to bring California’s culture — including it’s regulatory zeal, political correctness and love of big government, with them. What the hell is wrong with those people? Why do they want to recreate the same mess they’re fleeing?
In the past, California lobbied to keep the Mojave power station in Laughlin running full steam ahead so southern California wouldn’t experience rolling power blackouts (or at least fewer of them). The Mojave station, long since closed, was an old coal-fired plant that would have been too dirty to operate in California. California didn’t care how dirty the power was. It didn’t pollute their air.
California still does not have enough generating capacity to supply the high summer demand for electricity. They suck power away from the neighboring states and help make our electricity more expensive to boot. At least we get some jobs out of it.
Can these refugees be legitimately called “climate refugees” ?
Greenblatt – say no more.
Johanus – see my comment at “Wayne Delbeke January 26, 2015 at 10:22 am”. Totally agree with you. Also Gentle Tramp – I posted that link on another thread. Very interesting and actually something I learned nearly 50 years ago when I took “The Philosophy of Science” as a requisite in my engineering courses in order to make sure we understood that the “science” always needed to be questioned and updated. Always ask why? Children drive us crazy with that question, but they have it right.
What is a good text for Philosophy of Science?
It was 50 years ago but here is a wiki ref on Kuhn and paradigm shifts:
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Kuhn
See also:
http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/3500/
The goals are nonsensical, unnecessary and very expensive. It is already too late for common sense to influence the outcome, chaos will ensue enabling a future California the chance to start from scratch, unless Jerry “governor for life” Brown I still in office.
The 80% emissions reduction target is not stringent enough – and even the most extreme model gets a 70% reduction by 2050. The 80% reduction would still have (based on 50 million population) 1.6t/CO2 per capita in 2050. The IPCC AR5 synthesis report stated that globally there needs to be 40% to 70% reduction in 2011 emissions. That implies 1.1 to 2.2t/CO2 per capita. As the rich countries are responsible for most of the accumulated emissions so far, they should be aiming at less than the minimum to atone for this.
Commitment to such low levels of fossil fuel emissions is the aim of COP21 in Paris later this year.
The lower level of 1.1t/CO2 is the emissions of the average African today. The upper level is the emissions of the average Indian.
Well the USA is certainly NOT responsible for “most of the accumulated emissions so far” or any significant part of it.
The USA is a NET carbon sink; and we are the ONLY land based one of any size on this planet.
The abstract says less than the summary given by AW above , but I have no reason to think that the study is not the culmination of detailed and careful research.
However what appears to be missing is the human aspect , what , in similar detail , will be the effect on the quality of life of the residents of California .Is that covered?
You might argue that the hardships of Californians is of little consequence in the greater global scheme of things , and it is difficult to envisage the inhabitants of , say, Orange County , experiencing anything other than a passing irritation if you believe the TV documentaries about their lifestyles.
The consequences of the ongoing state policies , especially the projected enhancement of the renewables program will be watched closely by legislators elsewhere , particularly in UK and the “Real Housewives of Manchester” are in a far worse state already to overcome the effects of Green policies than their “Real” counterparts in Orange County.
I think the biggest reduction in California GHGs will occur after the expansion of the Panama Canal is complete. Considering the considerable reductions in other CA manufacturing since the mid-60s, I expect the petroleum refineries to shut down in my lifetime. CA is a great place to live if you already have a lot of money or are making a lot of money out of state, but I don’t think it is much of a place any more for the aspiring non-rich.
And the magic computer model 8 ball say …
Sure, they can cut their green house gas emissions by killing off jobs and industry…… until the impoverished and unemployed burn down Watts… and Compton… and a lot more of the LA basin, in the economic riots of 2021!
There is little doubt California will meet its 2020 and 2030 emissions goals. As the legislature continues to enhance California’s reputation as the state with the worst business climate, business and industry will leave, and California’s so-called green house gas emissions will likely exceed the goal of 80% of 1990 emissions. It’s easy. Drive out business. Kill agriculture. Terminate mining. Cali is doing all that and more.
Europe has embraced that by having economic stagnation and high unemployment. How the mighty Euro has fallen.
@ur momisugly Mac if they burn down Watts etc., they won’t meet the goals (all that co2) . Gosh!!! Whoa, they could outlaw rioting as an environmental crime.
California Dreamin’
Too many old hippies are now in office…and not just in CA.
Does anyone remember a couple weeks ago about the satellite that measures co2? Ok, seems no one is refuting NASA’s claim that they can’t tell where the co2 came from, while just a few years ago they could. Now the problem here is, that if they can’t tell, what are they going to do about the California wildfires? One produces as much co2 as the entire state does in a year. Some study a few years back, from Berkeley I believe.
Under the California regulations, do they count emissions in neighboring states that produce energy for the California grid?
I remember how upset California was at Arizona and New Mexico during the “rolling brownouts” years ago, even though they hadn’t bothered to built a new power plant in decades.
If they can use out-of-state electricity “emission-free”, then trying to reduce statewide emissions is a farce.
Do they count emissions floating across from China?
Researchers have known for a long while that some of the pollution found in California comes from other parts of the world, particularly China as pollution and dust becomes swept across the Pacific.
Ha ha ha ha. YA SURE YOU BETCHA that goal will happen! /sarc
This study was paid for (in part) by the Lung-Nazis (aka California Air Resources Board) that somehow got the authority to stop people from using wood fires, BBQs, special gas that raises the price in CA by 30-40 cents per gallon and who knows what else.
I wonder if the conclusion was a foregone one….or what would have happened the the ‘researchers’ next grant had they come up with a ‘we are way ahead of the curve’ scenario? OR worse yet, this is all BULLSH*T!!!
ooops….change to ‘had the ‘researchers’