Baseline emission projections for the EU-27 Results from the EC4MACS project and work plan for the TSAP revision Markus Amann International Institute for.

Baseline emission projections for the EU-27

Results from the EC4MACS project and

work plan for the TSAP revision

Markus AmannInternational Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA)

2nd meeting of the DG-ENV SEG Stakeholder Group

Brussels, January 19-20, 2012

The EC4MACS baseline emission projection

PRIMES REF 2010 + CAPRI 2010 scenarios

• EC4MACS employs recent EU-wide consistent activity projections (i.e., PRIMES 2010, CAPRI)

• EC4MACS assumes compliance with EU climate and renewable targets (i.e., PRIMES 2010), and current air pollution control legislation

• -13% GHGs in 2020, -17% GHGs in 2030 relative to 2005

• NH3 would increase by ~7%

• Other air pollutants decrease, even after 2020

• In 2020, the baseline would meet TSAP targets for PM, ozone and acidification, but not for eutrophication

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030

Emis

sion

s re

lativ

e to

200

5

SO2NOxPM2.5NH3VOCAll GHGs

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030

Mt V

OC

PRIMES 2010

National scenarios0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030

Mt N

H3

PRIMES 2010

National scenarios0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030

Mt P

M2.

5

PRIMES 2010

National scenarios0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030

Mt S

O2

PRIMES 2009

PRIMES 2010

PRIMES -25% GHG

National scenarios0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030

Mt N

Ox

PRIMES 2009

PRIMES 2010

PRIMES -25% GHG

National scenarios

Uncertainties of baseline emission projections:

Comparison with national scenarios provided in 2010 to CLRTAP

Main reason for differences:• Assumptions on activity projections• Assumed efficiency of emission controls• Changes in official emission inventories

SO2 NOx

NH3

VOCPM2.5

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030

Mt S

O2

PRIMES 2009

PRIMES 2010

PRIMES -25% GHG

National scenarios0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030

Mt N

Ox

PRIMES 2009

PRIMES 2010

PRIMES -25% GHG

National scenarios

Different assumptions on climate and energy policies

result in different SO2 and NOx emissions

• National scenarios with higher SO2 and NOx assume also higher GHG emissions (+4% in 2020 relative to 2005)

• PRIMES 2010 CLE: -13% GHGs rel. to 2005, compliant with EU E&C package

• PRIMES -25% CLE: -18% GHGs in 2020, even lower SO2 and NOx

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030

Mt C

O2e

q

PRIMES 2010PRIMES -25% GHGNational scenarios

GHGs SO2 NOx

National activity scenarios build on different assumptionsGDP and oil price assumptions of the national scenarios provided to IIASA for the Gothenburg negotiations

The national activity scenarios provided to IIASA in 2010 employ internationally inconsistent assumptions on

• economic growth,

• oil prices,

• carbon prices/climate policies

• import/export of electricity,

• etc..

These differences will influence baseline emissions and the cost-effective allocation of further emission control measures across countries

0%

50%

100%

150%

200%

250%

AU

ST

BELG

BU

LG

CYPR

CZ

RE

DEN

M

ES

TO

FIN

L

FRA

N

GER

M

GR

EE

HU

NG

IREL

ITA

L

LATV

LITH

LUX

E

MA

LT

NETH

NO

R

PO

LA

PO

RT

RO

MA

SK

RE

SLO

V

SPA

I

SW

ED

SW

IT

UN

KI

GD

P2

02

0 r

ela

tive t

o 2

00

5

National PRIMES2009

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

CZ DK FI GR IE IT NL NO PT ES SE CH UK

Oil p

rice a

ssu

med

for

20

20

(U

S-$

/b

arr

el)

Assumed GDP development to 2020

World oil prices assumed for 2020 in the national scenarios

Different assumptions on agricultural activities

result in different NH3 emissions

• EC4MACS sensitivity analysis for ‘healthy diet’:– Original assumption:

-75% meat consumption, no change in milk demand

– Coupled milk-meat production and feedback from lower meat prices lead to:

• -25% chicken• -75% pigs• -10% cattle• Total meat consumption: -33%

• Emission changes in 2030 (relative to baseline):– -17% NH3

– -9% CH4

– -6% N2O• Larger emission reductions would require

changes in milk consumption0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

Baseline 2030 Healthy diet

Mt N

H3

Pigs and chickenCattleOther animalsOther sources

Sensitivity analysis for transport emissions

Implications of hypothetical non-delivery of Euro-5 and Euro-6

EC4MACS sensitivity analyses for implementation failure of Euro 5/6:

In 2020, • (observed) real-life Euro-5 emission

factors would increase total NOx by 16% compared to EC4MACS baseline,

• failure of Euro-6 could increase total NOx emissions by up to 50%.

Some countries assume failure of Euro-6 in their Gothenburg pledges

For comparison, a 50% lower diesel fraction of passenger cars would reduce total NOx emissions by 2-7 %.

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

2005

EC4MACS Baseline 2020,Euro5/V and 6/VI as foreseen

2020 with real-lifeEuro-5/V emission factors,

Euro-6/VI as foreseen

2020 with Euro-6/VIas real-life Euro-5/V

Mt NOx

All other NOx sources Other road transport

Diesel heavy duty trucks Diesel light duty trucks

Diesel passenger

Uncertainties from emission inventories

Difference in 2005 emissions reported by MS in 2012 (CION) and 2011 (EMEP)

-50%

-40%

-30%

-20%

-10%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%Au

stria

Belg

ium

Bulg

aria

Cypr

us

Czec

h Re

p.

Den

mar

k

Esto

nia

Finl

and

Fran

ce

Ger

man

y

Gre

ece

Hun

gary

Irela

nd

Italy

Latv

ia

Lith

uani

a

Luxe

mbo

urg

Mal

ta

Net

herla

nds

Pola

nd

Port

ugal

Rom

ania

Slov

akia

Slov

enia

Spai

n

Swed

en UK

Diff

eren

ce e

mis

sion

s rep

orte

d fo

r 200

5 in

201

2 co

mpa

red

to th

e to

the

2011

repo

rts

to E

MEP

SO2

NOx

PM2.5

NH3

VOC

The way forward to reduce discrepancies between national

and EU-wide estimates: Bilateral consultations on baselines

• February:– Report and on-line access to Final EC4MACS baseline emission scenario

• March-September: – Bilateral consultations with MS experts on GAINS emission calculations

(but not on energy scenarios!) to improve the EC4MACS Final Assessment – For appointments: contact IIASA– Submission of national energy/agricultural scenarios to IIASA for implementation

in GAINS. GAINS data templates with PRIMES data will be provided by IIASA.

• March-September:– New PRIMES 2012 baseline, with consultations of DG-ENER/PRIMES with

MS energy experts

• June: – Draft TSAP baseline (including first MS comments) presented to ESG– Further feedbacks to IIASA up to September

• December 2012: – Final TSAP baseline(s)

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

2020 2030 2020 2030 2020 2030 2020 2030 2020 2030

Emis

sion

s rel

ative

to 2

005

Residual emissions Additional scope from healthy diet

Scope for additional climate measures Scope for additional technical measures

Change in EC4MACS baseline relative to 2005

Scope for further emission reductions

Maximum Control Efforts scenario

SO2 NOx PM2.5 NH3 VOC

Forthcoming reports under the Service contract

to explore sectorial emission reduction potentials

Reports:1. Draft emission baseline up to 2030 and Maximum Control Efforts scenario2. Comparison of NEC assumptions in 2000 with actual developments, reasons for

differences3. Contribution to EU air quality from non-EU countries4. Further emission reduction potentials from small emission sources5. Further emission reduction potentials from agricultural sources6. Further emission reduction potentials from ships7. Further emission reduction potentials from road traffic8. Compliance with air quality limit values (downscaling methodology – see next talk)

Time table:• June:

– Presentation of draft reports to SEG• September:

– Deadline for feedbacks• December:

– Final version of reports– Incorporation into the Final TSAP baseline

Conclusions

• The EC4MACS baseline, based on PRIMES/CAPRI 2010, suggests increases of NH3 and

declines of SO2, NOx, PM2.5 and VOC. TSAP targets would be met, with the exception

for eutrophication

• National energy scenarios highlight important uncertainties related to

– different assumptions on energy and climate policies (national projections not necessarily internationally consistent),

– different expectations about effectiveness of current emission control policies (e.g., transport),

– recent changes in historic emission inventories (validation?).

• The work plan for the TSAP revision foresees bilateral consultations of MS and IIASA/DG-ENER to resolve key discrepancies. Final baseline scenarios are planned for end of 2012.