State greenhouse gas emissions projections and pathways to

State greenhouse gas emissions projections and pathways to meet statewide goals: CALGAPS results Jeffery B. Greenblatt, Ph. D. Staff Scientist Presentation to Silicon Valley Leadership Group Sun. Power Headquarters, San Jose, CA April 21, 2016

Background • CARB funded study in summer 2013 • LBNL report published November 2013 • Energy Policy paper published January 2015 • Being adapted for new work with BAAQMD, CEC Footer 2

What we did: CALGAPS Comprehensive CA energy and GHG model Four scenarios modeled (49 policies in all): • Committed Policies (S 1) – All policies underway or extremely likely by 2020 • Uncommitted Policies (S 2) - Existing policies and targets lacking detailed implementation or financial plans • Potential Policy and Technology Futures (S 3) - Speculative policies (includes extensions of S 1/S 2) • “If We Do Nothing” Scenario (S 0) Footer Disables all policies in S 1 3

Statewide annual GHG emissions Governor’s 2030 target (40% below 1990) (Uncertainty driven primarily by population, GDP, building efficiency assumptions) Footer Greenblatt, J. B. , 2015. “Modeling California policy impacts on greenhouse gas emissions, ” Energy Policy, 78, 158– 172, 14 January. DOI: 10. 1016/j. enpol. 2014. 12. 024. 4

Cumulative GHG emissions Same pathway as “straight line” in previous figure Footer Greenblatt, J. B. , 2015. “Modeling California policy impacts on greenhouse gas emissions, ” Energy Policy, 78, 158– 172, 14 January. DOI: 10. 1016/j. enpol. 2014. 12. 024. 5

Policy GHG sensitivities: S 1 • Removed single policies and observed change in GHG emissions (usually positive) by decade Top 3 GHG policies Footer Greenblatt, J. B. , 2015. “Modeling California policy impacts on greenhouse gas emissions, ” Energy Policy, 78, 158– 172, 14 January. DOI: 10. 1016/j. enpol. 2014. 12. 024. 6

Policy GHG sensitivities: S 2 Next 3 most important GHG policies Footer Greenblatt, J. B. , 2015. “Modeling California policy impacts on greenhouse gas emissions, ” Energy Policy, 78, 158– 172, 14 January. DOI: 10. 1016/j. enpol. 2014. 12. 024. 7

Governor Brown’s Inaugural Policies Policy area 50% Renewable Electricity SB 350 50% Reduced Petroleum Use Doubled Building Efficiency Cleaner Heating Fuels Reduced Methane Emissions Reduced Other Potent Emissions Boosted Land CO 2 Sequestration Footer 8 Greenblatt, J. B. , W. R. Morrow III, S. M. Donovan, “Modeling impacts of California Governor’s policy actions on 2030 greenhouse gas emissions, ” in preparation. Collective reductions may be significant relative to S 1

Conclusions and Ongoing Work • California is on track to meet 2020 GHG target • Potential for much greater 2030 emissions reductions • Existing policies are insufficient to meet 2050 target— even the most aggressive scenario (S 3) is 2 x too high – Must explore additional policy & technology options • Developing updated demand forecasts and SB 350 impacts for new CEC project • Parallel work in progress using CALGAPS for Bay Area emissions inventory and policy analysis Footer 9

Extra materials Footer 10

Research Questions and Policy Gaps Transportation Fuel supply Buildings Electricity Industry Beyond energy Footer Can we accelerate ZEV adoption, higher vehicle efficiencies? Assess automation, ride-sharing trends, VMT reduction strategies More focus on heavy truck GHG reduction, airplane GHG policy? How can we improve LCFS to maximize low-carbon biofuels? Can low-carbon hydrogen play a significant role in California? Monitor AB 758 implementation for research and policy gaps Policies needed for electrification/solar-assisted heating Get renewable integration right at lowest cost & GHG emissions Long-term role for CO 2 capture/sequestration in electricity (fuels)? Explore industrial efficiency, fuel switching, CCS opportunities? Consider GHG policies for refinery emissions, imported goods? Need to assess methane, HCFC reduction potentials Need to understand land-use carbon management opportunities Criteria pollutant impacts of transportation, electricity policies? 11

Policy GHG sensitivities: S 3 Footer Greenblatt, J. B. , 2015. “Modeling California policy impacts on greenhouse gas emissions, ” Energy Policy, 78, 158– 172, 14 January. DOI: 10. 1016/j. enpol. 2014. 12. 024. 12

CALGAPS model overview Footer Greenblatt, J. B. , 2015. “Modeling California policy impacts on greenhouse gas emissions, ” Energy Policy, 78, 158– 172, 14 January. DOI: 10. 1016/j. enpol. 2014. 12. 024. 13

GHG breakdown by sector S 0 S 1 S 2 S 3 Footer Greenblatt, J. B. , 2015. “Modeling California policy impacts on greenhouse gas emissions, ” Energy Policy, 78, 158– 172, 14 January. DOI: 10. 1016/j. enpol. 2014. 12. 024. 14

Criteria air pollutants • Emissions modeled for transportation and electricity • Regionally disaggregated into SCAB, SJV, rest of CA • Found that NOx levels are ~2 x higher than 2023 and 2032 targets even in most aggressive scenario (S 3), resulting in unacceptable ground-level ozone levels Footer Greenblatt, J. B. , 2015. “Modeling California policy impacts on greenhouse gas emissions, ” Energy Policy, 78, 158– 172, 14 January. DOI: 10. 1016/j. enpol. 2014. 12. 024. 15

Uncertainty analysis • Estimated 95% confidence levels on 10 parameters • Calculated GHG sensitivities to each parameter • Ran 1, 000 -iteration Monte Carlo simulation to estimate total scenario uncertainties Footer Greenblatt, J. B. , 2015. “Modeling California policy impacts on greenhouse gas emissions, ” Energy Policy, 78, 158– 172, 14 January. DOI: 10. 1016/j. enpol. 2014. 12. 024. 16

Model comparison to inventory data Footer Greenblatt, J. B. , 2015. “Modeling California policy impacts on greenhouse gas emissions, ” Energy Policy, 78, 158– 172, 14 January. DOI: 10. 1016/j. enpol. 2014. 12. 024. 17

Electricity sector Sector GHG variability Footer Greenblatt, J. B. , 2015. “Modeling California policy impacts on greenhouse gas emissions, ” Energy Policy, 78, 158– 172, 14 January. DOI: 10. 1016/j. enpol. 2014. 12. 024. Hydropower variability 18

UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA