Between the Poles

China plans to introduce a carbon tax

According to Xinhua, China intends to introduce a tax on carbon dioxide emissions.  The local taxation authority rather than the environmental protection department will collect the taxes.  The government is also looking into taxing energy-intensive products such as batteries, as well as luxury goods such as aircraft that are not used for public transportation.  The government is also planning a tax reforms to tax coal based on prices instead of sales volume, as well as raising coal taxes. A resource tax will also be levied on water.

Australia's carbon tax came into effect July 1, 2012.  Much of Australia's coal production is exported to China. If China introduces a carbon tax, it will mean that emissions from virtually all of Australian coal will be taxed.  It will be interesting to see how China's tax rate will compare to Australia's.

The difference between energy conservation and energy efficiency

There's a fascinating post on the Sustainable Buildings Centre blog that outlines how the world energy community has tended to stop using "energy conservation" and to use "energy efficiency" instead.

According to the blog post, after the 1970s oil crisis, in the framework of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) the International Energy Agency (IEA) was established by the International Energy Program agreement, which was amended in September 2008. Neither the original agreement or the later revison  mention “energy efficiency”, but fo refer to “energy conservation” and the goal of reducing the growth of energy consumption:

exchange of national experiences and information on energy conservation; ways and means for reducing the growth of energy consumption through conservation.

The author of the post then did some research on Google and compiled some fascinating statistics on the number of mentions of the two terms in books indexed by Google.  The results showed that the use of "energy conservation" in books increased exponentially in the 1970s, but then dramatically dropped in the early 1980s. "Energy efficiency" on the other hand had a much slower rise in the 1970s, but surpassed "energy conservation" by the middle of the 1980s.

After further research, it turned up that the Shared Goals of the IEA adopted at the IEA Ministers meeting in Paris in June 1993, was the first official mention of “energy efficiency” in the context of the IEA.

Improved energy efficiency can promote both environmental protection and energy security in a cost-effective manner. There are significant opportunities for greater energy efficiency at all stages of the energy cycle from production to consumption. Strong efforts by governments and all energy users are needed to realise these opportunities.

The author of the post notes that ”reducing the growth of energy consumption” disappeared along with "energy conservation".  Apparently, the energy community decided to replace the concept of “energy conservation” with “energy efficiency” which as the the author of the post points out is not the same thing.  Energy efficiency is the ratio between the energy service delivered and the energy consumed to deliver said service. In other words, doing the same with less.  Energy conservation involves reducing overall energy consumption in addition to improving energy efficiency.

This may have to do with the different emissions goals of the developed world and the developing world, principally China, but also India, Brazil, and others, in reducing emissons.  China's goal is to reduce its energy intensity, the amount of energy required to produce a unit of GDP, because China will not agree to halt its economic development (China's per capita emissions are much less than the United States) and so its emissions will continue to grow, but not as rapidly. The developed world, especially the EU, has tended to set goals to reduce the absolute level of emissions.

Distributech 2013: Smart grid becomes mainstream

If there was one consistent message at Distributech this year, it was that smart grid has become mainstream - every utilty is doing something related to smart grid.

A very good example of some the things that utilities are abe to do because of their investment in smart grid technology is the keynote given by Michael Niggli, COO and President of San Diego Gas and Electric Company (SDGE).  SDG&E is a regulated public utility with 3.4 million customers and 1.4 million electric meters and more than 840,000 natural gas meters in San Diego and southern Orange counties.

Smart grid

According to Mr. Niggli smart grid is accelerating like never before.  SDG&E has deployed 2.3 million smart meters to electric and gas consumers. And there are other smart-grid related initiatives that SDG&E has undertaken including distributed generation, primarily solar photvoltaic (PV), plug-in electric vehicles (PEVs), and a new outage management system that leverages real-time data from smart meters..

Social networking and customer engagement

Having smart meters has helped in a way that SDG&E probably didn't originally project.  When SDG&E had to take the San Onofre nuclear plant, which represents 20% of their generation capacity, off-line in January 2012, they had to look for ways to dramatically reduce load.  SDG&E leveraged their smart meter network to help reduce power demand.  I have blogged before about utilities using social networking to communicate with the public.  In this case one of the ways that SDG&E took advantage of their AMI network was to use social networking to help reduce load.  The smart meter network (AMI) allowed them to  compare different schools' power usage so they used social gaming to create a competition among schools to see who could reduce their energy usage the most.

Green button

Another area where SDGE and a number of other utilities are helping consumers become more energy consciousus is the Green Button program, originally modeled on Veteran Affairs' Blue Button program.  SDGE's Green Button program not only allows users to access their own usage data, but also to make it available to 3rd parties, typically companies who analyze consumers' historical usage to help them reduce their power usage.  Across the country about 16 million consumers have access to their electric usage data via a Green Button program and another 30 mllion are exptected to get access soon.

Distributed generation

California is leading the country in clean energy.  California has mandated 33% renewable energy by 2020, and has also mandated reducing emissions to 1990 levels, by about 30% from current levels, in the same timeframe.  In addition new federal regulations targeting 54.5 miles per gallon in all new vehicles by 2025 is dramatically changing the energy landscape in California.  And as Mr. Niggli and other speakers emphasized, what is happening to utilities in Califiornia will happen to utilities in the rest of the country.

Distributed generation is an important source of renewable energy for SDGE.  According to Mr. Niggli In SDG&E's service territory there are 21'000 rooftop PV installations with a capacity of 160 MW.  New rooftop PV installations  are increasing at a rate of 3% per month.

Plug-in electric vehicles

Presently there are 2'500 plug-in electric vehicles in San Diego currently and SDGE is projecting that this could rise to 200'000 by 2020.  SDGE has used time of use pricing to motivate PEV owners to charge at super off peak when electricity is at a very low rate.  As a result 84% of vehicle charging is occuring between 12 midnight and 5am.

Wind and solar intermittent energy sources changes the daily demand profile

When intermiitent sources like wind and solar generation contribute more than about 20%, they begin to significantly impact the daily generation profile.  On the demand side, plug-in electric vehicles and increasing customer awareness of electric usage are changing daily load profiles.  The difference between the two is critically important to SDGE because they need to provide generation capacity to fill the gap.   Mr. Niggli gave two examples from the Californi ISO where generation dropped by 4'500 MW in 2 hrs, and then ramped up by 12'500 MW in 2.5 hrs, as a result of wind and solar generation.

SDG&E expects to start seeing the impact of the new daily power profile in 2015 and is working now to find dispatchable energy sources that can ramp up and down rapidly.  To put this in context, it takes months to ramp up nuclear, weeks for coal-fired plants, minutes for hyroelectric and natural-gas turbines, and microseconds for batteries.

Wild fires

Wild fires are a big problem for SDG&E because that makes SDGE liable for damage caused by fires started by SDGE equipment, for example, by poles being blown over. 

SDGE has implemented 144 weather stations to monitor local weather conditions in their service territory.  If winds get too high in an area increasign the risk of dmage to poles and other equipment, SDG&E will proactively shut down part of the network.  They have also put cameras on transmission lines and nstalled software that can automatically detect fires on transmission lines.

Outage management leveraging smart meters

SDG&E has installed a new outage management system that leverages their 2.3 million smart meters.  The major advantage that the new system provides is that they can detect an outage before the first customer calls in.  They can also differentiate without rolling a truck between outages due to customer problems and those caused by their own network.  The net effect is that it reduces the number of outages that SDG&E needs to respond to and reduces the average outage time (CAIDI and SAIDI).

IEA projects that current energy trends will lead to a 3.6 °C rise in Earth's temperature

The World Energy Outlook 2012 just released by the IEA makes for fascinating reading.

Primary energy demand

First of all the IEA projects global energy demand to increases by over one‐third between now an 2035 driven by emerging economies. There are projected to be dramatic shifts in the energy mix as collective share of oil and coal drop by fifteen percentage points to 42%.  However, because of increased use of natural gas fossil fuels remain the principal source of energy worldwide.  Unconventional gas (shale gas) is projected to surposs coal in the primary energy supply mix by 2035.

The United States, which imports about 20% of its total energy supply, is projected to become nearly  self‐sufficient in net terms by 2035, primarily because of unconventional oil and gas, bioenergy, and improved fuel efficiency in transport.

Large‐scale investment in energy‐supply infrastructure is required.  It is estimated to amount to about $37 trillion over 2012‐2035, which is equivalent to 1.5% of global GDP.   Of this the oil and gas supply infrastructure will require $19 trillion; while $17 trillion will be required by the power sector for generation, transmission and distribution.

Electricity

Demand for electricity is projected to grow by over 70% to almost 32 000 TWh by 2035.  Over half of the increase is projected to come from China and India alone.  Generation from renewables globally is projected to grow  from 20% to 31% of total generation.

Water and energy

Global freshwater use for energy production in 2010 totalled 583 billion cubic metres (bcm), or some 15% of the world’s total water use. Of that, water consumption – the amount used but not returned to its source – was 66 bcm.  It is projected that water use will increase by 20% over 2010‐2035 (compared to 70%  more energy production), while consumption will increase by 85%.   These trends are the result of more efficient power plants with advanced cooling systems that reduce overall water use but increase consumption.

Energy efficiency

Several major energy‐consuming countries (China, United States, the European Union and Japan) have adopted new energy efficiency measures over the last year.  Implementation of these programs is projected to reduce global energy intensity (energy consumption per unit of GDP) by1.8% a year through to 2035.  This is a major improvement compared with only 0.5% per year over the last decade.

The buildings sector is singled out as having tremendous potential for energy efficiency gains (one third of the world's total energy consumption is by buildngs), but four‐fifths of this are not projected to be realized, primarily due to non-technical barriers.

Emissions

The IEA projects that energy‐related CO₂ emissions will rise from an estimated 31.2 Gt in 2011 to 37.0 Gt in 2035.  It is estimated that this would result in a long‐term average temperature increase of 3.6 °C at the Earth's surface.

The IEA has investigated an alternative scenario which if implemented could result in a lower estimated temperature rise at the Earth's surface.  The "Efficient World Scenario" assumes a more efficient allocation of resources which will increase global economic output by $18 trillion by 2035.  It requires an added investment of $11.8 trillion in efficient end‐use technologies.   This investment is projected to be  more than offset by a $17.5 trillion reduction in fuel bills and a $5.9 trillion cut to supply‐side investment.

In this scenario global primary energy demand growth is halved compared to the most probable scenario.  Energy intensity is assumed to improve at 2.6 times the rate over the last 25 years.  It is projected that oil demand will peak before 2020 and decline through 2035,  Coal demand in 2025 is projected to be lower than today. Natural gas demand is projected to continue to increase but at a lower rate than currently projected in the most probable scenario.

As a result, energy‐related CO₂ emissions are projected to peak before 2020 and decline to
30.5 Gt in 2035.  The IEA estimates that this would result in a long‐term average temperature increase of 3 °C.

California's first carbon auction judged to have been a success

California held its first carbon auction Nov 14 and it seems to have been a success.  According The California Air Resources Board the first auction attracted lots of participants, all the greenhouse gas allowances available (23 million allowances) were sold in about three hours and were sold for slightly more than the opening price of $10 per ton of carbon.  And the state has raised $233 million.  

AB32 is the legislation that mandated carbon trading for about 350 companies in California.  In the first two years 90 percent of the credits will be free. In other words, based on their emssions history companies will get 90% of their emission allowances for free from the state.  But by 2016, all allowances will be sold.

Québec plans cap-and-trade carbon market to link to California's

Under current legislation, Québec must reduce its greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 20 percent below 1990 levels by 2020.  The new government is expected at the very least to respect that goal or even increase it to 25% below 1990 emissions.

Québec's carbon market

On December 14, 2011 the Government of Québec adopted the Regulation respecting a cap-and-trade system for greenhouse gas emission allowances.   On June 8, 2012 the Government of Québec published in the Gazette officielle du Québec a draft regulation amending the Regulation respecting a cap-and-trade system for greenhouse gas emission allowances. The purpose of the amendment is to harmonize Québec’s system with California’s, as well as with those of future partners like Ontario and British Columbia. It also sets out the rules under which Québec will issue offset credits, whose purpose is to recognize GHG emission reductions by companies operating in sectors not covered by the cap-and-trade system.

To achieve its emissions reduction goal Québec plans to launch a carbon market.  The market would operate similarly to other cap-and-trade systems such as the EU's which was initiated in 2005 and Calfornia's which is scheduled to begin with its first auction tomorrow (Nov 14).  Initially,  the Québec Government will set a cap on GHG emissions for those emitters that are to be regulated.  Each year the cap will be lowered.  Each year, regulated companies will receive a free  allowance which allows them to emit a certain amount of GHG, based on their historical emissions.  Starting in 2015 the number of free units allocated to each comany site will be reduced by between 1% and 2%.  Companies whose GHG emissions are higher than the number of units allocated will have to modernize by adopting clean technologies, or else buy emission allowances at government auctions or on the carbon market.  Companies whose GHG emissions are below their allocation will be able to sell excess carbon credits on the carbon market.

Implementation

The Québec cap and trade system for GHG emission allowances will begin on January 1, 2013.  About 75 companies, primarily in the industrial and electricity sectors, whose annual GHG emissions equal or exceed an annual threshold of 25  thousand tonnes CO₂e, will be regulated under the cap-and-trade system.

Starting on January 1, 2015 businesses that distribute fuel in Québec will also be regulated.

Link to California's carbon market

The Québec Government also has said that it intends to link to California's cap-and-trade system next year.  California has not yet officially approved the link with Québec.  The addition of Québec would increase the size of the carbon market by over 20 percent, increasing liquidity and giving California and Québec businesses more opportunities to reduce emissions.

Study finds under-investment in energy efficiency compared to energy supply

According to a major new study [Nature Climate Change 2, 780–788 (2012)] the EU, the U.S. and the major developing countries allocate two thirds of their public R&D budget to energy-supply technologies, but as was identified in a recent review of US energy research and developmen [Department of Energy Quadrennial Technology Review (DOE, 2011)], there is a persistent under-investment in building, industrial and vehicle end-use efficiency compared with investment in clean electricity supply.

Directed innovation efforts (innovation targeted on a specific problem or need, in this case climate change mitigation) not only involve public R&D investments but the entire system of innovation for new energy technologies. This article assesses the balance between directed innovation efforts for energy supply and energy efficiency end-use technologies in response to the challenge of climate change mitigation. 

The study finds that directed innovation efforts in energy technology have reinforced the dominance of the energy-supply industry over energy efficient end-use.  It concludes that energy-efficiency in end-use is marginalized in directed innovation efforts.  For example, since the  late nineteenth  century, for every dollar in US  Federal  subsidies  to efficient end-use  technologies, 35 dollars have  gone to energy-supply technologies.  As another example, since 1974 more public funding in developed countries have been invested into nuclear fusion than on all effcient end-use technologies combined.

The analysis concludes that there is a pronounced and pervasive asymmetry in the innovation system for energy technologies. As a recent example [Galiana, I. & Green, C. Let the global technology race begin. Nature 462, 570–571 (2009)], proponents of  R&D-led climate change mitigation identified six technology options that deserved R&D  support. Of the six, five relate to energy supply.  

The study also finds that directed innovation efforts are misaligned with their required outcomes. Inputs to the innovation systems fall into categories of analysis and modelling; technology roadmaps, collaborations, portfolios and programmes; public research, development and demonstration (RD&D) investments; and niche market investments.  Outputs from the innovation system includes market diffusion, learning and social returns on investment, and mitigation potentials of energy technologies for climate stabilization.  The study finds that whereas the outputs of innovation emphasize the importance of efficient end-use technologies, inputs focus on energy-supply technologies.  For example, the magnitude of the subsidies for fossil-fuel consumption is estimated at about $500 billion, much larger than the estimated $160 billion invested in a post-fossil-fuel energy supply. As another example, renewable electricity supply (wind and solar PV) and smart grid technologies dominate public support for R&D. Directed innovation efforts are focussed on energy-supply technologies to mitigate climate change in an aready heavily subsidized energy supply  market, effectively marginalizing effcient end-use technologies.

The overall conclusion is that directed innovation efforts are "strikingly misaligned" with the needs of an emissions-constrained world and that much greater R&D effort is needed to develop the full potential of efficient end-use technologies.

California's cap-and-trade program starts next week

In 2006, the California Legislature passed and Governor Schwarzenegger signed AB 32, the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006.   Among other measures it

• Set California's greenhouse gas emissions objective for 2020 to reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels.
• Made reporting of GHG emissions mandatory for the largest industrial GHG sources.
• Establishes a system of market-based declining annual aggregate emission limits for sources that emit greenhouse gases.  In 2011, the California Air Resources Board adopted a cap-and-trade regulation.  The cap-and-trade program covers major sources of GHG emissions in the State such as refineries, power plants, industrial facilities, and transportation fuels.  The cap-and-trade program includes an enforceable emissions cap that will decline over time. 

California's cap-and-trade system

On Nov. 14 next week, California will launch its market-based "cap-and-trade" program of selling pollution credits at auction.  The objective is to reduce California's greenhouse gas emissions by 2020 by about 17% compared to current levels.

Initially big polluters will be required to buy pollution credits if they plan to emit greenhouse gases above their allotted levels.  In the first year about 350 industrial businesses including cement plants, steel mills, food processors, electric utilities and refineries have been issued free credits worth 90% of their current emissions.  To make up the difference they must either cut emissions or buy credits.  Companies that have more credits than they need can sell them at an auction, and the state will also sell  credits.  Beginning in 2015, the program will be extended to distributors of natural gas and other fuels.

Each credit permits the release of one metric tonne of greenhouse gases.  The California Air Resources Board is responsible for the quarterly auctions and has set a minimum bid of $10 per credit.  It is predicted that the price could rise to as much as $50 over the next eight years.

Other carbon reductions schemes

The European Union already implemented a cap-and-trade system starting in 2005.  There is also a Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI)  which includes electric power plants in the Northeast.  The RGGI was the first market-based regulatory program in the United States to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The states of Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Rhode Island, and Vermont have capped and will reduce CO₂ emissions from the power sector 10 percent by 2018.  This year Australia introduced a carbon tax, and is moving toward a cap-and-trade system.  British Columbia introduced a carbon tax in 2008.

Will US coal exports to Asia grow as domestic demand for coal drops as a result of EPA emissions standards ?

In December 2011 the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS), the first national standards for mercury, arsenic, acid gas, nickel, selenium, and cyanide emissions from power plants under the Clean Air Act Amendments, signed by President Bush in 1990.  The EPA says that MATS and the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR), issued earlier in 2011 and vacated by a court in 2012, are the most significant steps to clean up pollution from power plant smokestacks since the Acid Rain Program of the 1990s.

In March 2012 the EPA proposed the first carbon pollution standard for new power plants.  New natural gas combined cycle (NGCC) power plant units are expected to be able to meet the proposed standard without add‐on controls.  But new power plants that are designed to use coal or petroleum coke would have to incorporate technology such as carbon capture and storage (CCS) to reduce carbon dioxide emissions to meet the standard. The U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington has ruled that the EPA has the legal responsibility to control carbon dioxide emissions because CO2 is a  pollutant that endangers human health.

As  a result of EPA's rule-making, many utilities are planning no new coal-fired plants and are looking at natural gas plants instead.  Many are also planning to shut down existing coal-fired plants and to replace them with gas-fired plants. The result is a significant drop in domestic demand for coal.  Exports to Europe are already at a record high.

But the real opportunity for the US coal industry may be Asia.  According to a recent New Scientist article, some 40% of US coal burned by US power plants comes from the Powder River Basin coal field in Montana and Wyoming.  Currently about 7 million tonnes of Power River Basin coal is exported to Asia.  But as domestic demand declines as result of the EPA rules, much of this coal could end up being shipped to Asia.  Proposals to build three new ports have already been submitted to the US Corps of Engineers and proposals for two more ports are in process.  It is estimated that exports to Asia through these ports could reach 100 to 135 million tonnes annually.  The CO₂ emissions resulting from shipping and burning this much coal is estimated to be 194 to 266 million tonnes of CO₂ annually.  To put this in perspective, if Keystone XL bitumen flows at maximum capacity it would result in 212 million tonnes of CO₂ emissions annually.

Analytical tools help China's municipalities reduce greenhouse gas emissions

According to the OECD, over half of the world’s population lives in urban areas and this share is projected to reach 60% by 2030.  Cities consume between 60 and 80% of energy production worldwide and account for an equivalent share of global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.   In OECD cities GHG emissions are increasingly driven less by industrial activities and more by the energy services required for buildings (lighting, heating and cooling, electronics use) and transportation.  In China in contrast, industry still plays a major role in Chinese cities’ GHG emissions.

China's carbon intensity reduction goals

In 2009, China announced that it will cut its carbon intensity - greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions per unit of gross domestic product (GDP) - by 40 to 45 percent below 2005 levels by 2020.   China’s Twelfth Five-Year Plan set a goal to reduce the country’s carbon intensity by 17 % by 2015.   Municipalities and provinces have been assigned a significant level of responsibility for achieving portions of this target.

China’s national carbon intensity target is being assigned to provinces and then to cities.  Already in November 2009, several cities began to develop low carbon action plans in line with the announced national goals.   The National Pilot Program on Low-Carbon Provinces and Cities by the National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC) was launched in July 2010 and selected five provinces (Guangdong, Liaoning, Hubei, Shaanxi and Yunnan) and eight cities (Tianjin, Chongqing, Shenzhen, Xiamen, Hangzhou, Nanchang, Guiyang and Baoding) to participate in the pilot program.  In particular the cities were directed to establish a statistics and information management system for GHG emissions and to take measures to reduce GHG emissions.

The areas were chosen to be geographically and economically diverse, so that what is learned from the pilot will be applicable to the country as a whole.

Challenges facing municipalities in low carbon planning

These most serious challenges facing municipalities in planning to meet national low carbon goals are  how low-carbon city planning realted to other municipal planning processes, how to measure and report greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions at a city level, and how to account for GHG emissions from imported electricity, power that is generated outside the municipalities.

City-level GHG inventories are the foundation  for municipal low-carbon planning processes, but these are missing from most current low-carbon development plans in Chinese cities.  While city-level GHG accounting methodologies have been developed by ICLEI,  these have been found to be difficult to apply in China.

Most Chinese cities get their electricity from generation plants outside municipal boundaries, and most municipal low-carbon plans have so far failed to account for these indirect GHG emissions.  The proportion of a city's emissions due to imported power is typically significant.  A GHG inventory In Guiyang found that GHG emissions from imported power were responsible for over a quarter of Guiyang’s total emissions in 2009.   If muncipal GHG accounting does not include emissions from externally generated power generation, local governments will not be incented to include electricity efficiency in their low carbon plans.

In additon there are several challenges that are unique to China because of the difference between Chinese and Western cities and because China's goal is carbon intensity reduction, as opposed to emissions reduction.

While Western cities typically set an absolute emissions reduction target, most Chinese cities represent rapidly developing economies that need to maintain high economic growth rates.  Chinese cities have to look at energy intensity, emissions per unity of GDP.  For example, moving to  higher value industry that may produce the same level or even a higher level of emissions, may be a wise energy intensity reduction strategy for a city.

As mentioned above, Chinese cities’ emission reduction efforts over the next several years will focus on industry, due to the high proportion of GHG emissions from the industrial sector, whereas in Western cities the focus tends to be on buildings.

Another major challenge is that China’s current statistical system focuses only on industrial energy use, and data on the other GHG sources, transportation and building sectors, are not readily available. Setting specific emission reduction goals for these sectors in China is harder than in Western cities.

Standardized carbon accounting and reporting

In China the lack of a standards for carbon acccounting and reporting makes it difficult to compare carbon accounts between cities.  Apparently some of China’s municipal low-carbon plans have adopted the IPCC inventory methodology, which was designed for entire countries, while others have employed foreign methodologies that may not be appropriate for Chinese cities.  To address this challenge the Program of Energy and Climate Economics (PECE) at Renmin University in China has developed a simplified city level energy-related CO2 inventory methodology which is suitable for Chinese cities.  The PECE analytical tools have already been deployed in Guiyang, Qingdao, and other Chinese cities.

The PECE approach to estimating city-level Greenhouse Gas (GHG) accounting is a simplified city-level GHG accounting methodology to calculate energy-related CO2 emissions that takes into account the data availability and statistical capabilities of Chinese cities.  It involves four steps and includes estimating GHG emissions for imported electric power.  The end result is a city -specific GHG inventory of total CO2 emissions, as well as sector-specific and technology-specific CO2 emissions.

Cost and benefot analysis for low carbin policies

PECE has also adapted the Long-range Energy Alternatives Planning System (LEAP)  to make it suitable for municipal low-carbon scenario analysis in China.  The model is designed to simulate a city-level energy system.  It estmates the energy demand and CO2 emissions of a city as well as the emissions reduction potential of different technical solutions under different assumptions of population, economic growth, economic structure, and energy services demand.

Prioritizing carbon-reduction options

To assist with the development of technology roadmaps, and to promote new technology in municipal low-carbon development planning, PECE has also developed a method for low-carbon technology identification and prioritization called the marginal abatement cost curve (MAC).  GHG reduction potentials and mitigation costs are estimated using the LEAP model. From this data, the MAC curve can be used to prioritize technologies according to net costs or benefits.

Taken together the PECE tools are intended to provide Chinese municipalities with a practical, standardized way for city-level carbon accounting and reporting, estimating the costs and benefits of alternative low carbon policies, and prioritizing mitigation measures.