Designing a Low-Carbon Fuel Standard for the Northeast

Similar documents
The Northeast / Mid-Atlantic Low-Carbon Fuels Initiative Matt Solomon

The California Low Carbon Fuel Standard. John D. Courtis August 10-12, 2009

California Environmental Protection Agency. Air Resources Board. Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) Update 2015 CRC LCA of Transportation Fuels Workshop

GHG Emissions Reductions due to the RFS2

Propane Education and Research Council LCA C.2011, 16 Nov REVIEW OF LIFE CYCLE GHG EMISSIONS FROM LPG RIDING MOWERS

GHG Emissions Reductions due to the RFS2: A 2018 Update

Fuel Standard. Supporting Information

How Carbon Intense Is Your Fuel?

POLICIES THAT REDUCE OUR DEPENDENCE ON OIL. Carol Lee Rawn Ceres November 2013

Your Fuel Can Pay You: Maximize the Carbon Value of Your Fuel Purchases. Sean H. Turner October 18, 2017

Life-Cycle Energy and Greenhouse Gas Results of Fischer-Tropsch Diesel Produced from Natural Gas, Coal, and Biomass

Appendix F: Compliance Scenario Documentation

The Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA): Proposed Changes to the Renewable Fuel Standard Program (RFS2)

Legislative and Regulatory Developments Likely to Affect the U.S. Refining Sector in the Next Decade

Low Carbon Fuel Standard i LUC Status

California Low Carbon Fuel Standard Status Report. John D. Courtis October 17, 2011

Reducing the Green House Gas Emissions from the Transportation Sector

California s Low Carbon Fuel Standard

Renewable Fuel Standard Program (RFS2) 2010 and Beyond

California s Low Carbon Fuel Standard: Compliance Outlook for 2020

Driving Sustainability with Technology, Information, and Tools

Carbon Intensity Records under the Renewable and Low Carbon Fuel Requirements Regulation

2018 GHG Emissions Report

Model Differences and Variability CRC E-102. Don O Connor 2013 CRC Life Cycle Analysis of Transportation Fuels Workshop October 16, 2013

CALIFORNIA S LOW CARBON FUEL STANDARD (LCFS) REVIEW OF COMPLIANCE TRENDS

Comparison of California Low Carbon Fuel Standard with Bush s 20 in 10 Alternative Fuel Standard

Addressing Indirect Land Use Change in the NEMA LCFS

Creating a Large, Guaranteed Market for Advanced Biofuels Through a Low Carbon Fuel Standard

UC DAVIS SUSTAINABLE TRANSPORTATION ENERGY PATHWAYS

Renewable and Low Carbon Fuel Requirements Regulation Summary:

LOW CARBON FUELS IN BRITISH COLUMBIA

GHGENIUS LCA Model for Transportation Fuels

California Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) Electric Pathway On-Road and Off-Road

EU Renewable Energy Legislation and Greenhouse Gas Methodology RSPO RT10, Ilmari Lastikka, Neste Oil

Renewable and Low Carbon Fuel Requirements Regulation Summary:

Ethanol, DME and Renewable Diesel for large scale displacement of fossil diesel in HD applications

Developing Profitable Biogas Projects: Key Policy Drivers

INDIRECT LAND USE CHANGE, LOW CARBON FUEL STANDARDS, & CAP AND TRADE: The Role of Biofuels in Greenhouse Gas Regulation

California Greenhouse Gas Vehicle and Fuel Programs

Biodiesel: A High Performance Renewable Fuel

Renewable Fuels: Overview of market developments in the US and a focus on California

State of the States NATIONAL BIODIESEL BOARD. Jacobsen Conference. Shelby Neal. May 24, 2018 Chicago, IL

Reducing GHG Emissions Through National Renewable Fuel Standards

Why California's Low Carbon Fuel Standard Matters To You

U.S. Fuel Economy and Fuels Regulations and Outlook

What you might have missed Bioenergy Situation & Outlook

New Engines and Fuels for U.S. Cars and Light Trucks Ryan Keefe* Jay Griffin* John D. Graham**

Evaluating opportunities for soot-free, low-carbon bus fleets in Brazil: São Paulo case study

Status Review of California's Low Carbon Fuel Standard

The Renewable Fuels Standard Deja Vu

Biomethane comparison with other biofuels. Dominic Scholfield. Global Biomethane Congress October 2012

A Transportation Perspective on Biodiesel and Advanced Biomass Conversion Fuels. California Energy Commission Sacramento, CA March 1, 2005

Legal Quick Hit: Top Five Issues when Complying with California s Low Carbon Fuel Standard

Please note: This guideline has been updated according to the BPP extension requirements.

GHG Mitigation Potential of Biofuels in Canada

The New Alternative Fuel of Choice Renewable Diesel

Introducing a Low Carbon Fuel Standard in the Northeast Technical and Policy Considerations

Ethanol Supply Chain and Industry Overview: More Harm Than Good?

A pathway for the evolution of the refining industry and liquid fuels in Europe

Public Meeting Point of Regulation for the Sources of Fuel Combustion Included in the Second Compliance Period in a California Cap-and-Trade Program

CRC Report No. E-88-3b

Status Review of California s Low Carbon Fuel Standard. July 2014 Issue

ZEVs Role in Meeting Air Quality and Climate Targets. July 22, 2015 Karen Magliano, Chief Air Quality Planning and Science Division

Wallace E. Tyner, Professor In collaboration with Farzad Taheripour Purdue University Michael Wang Argonne National Lab

Energy Independence. tcbiomass 2013 The Path to Commercialization of Drop-in Cellulosic Transportation Fuels. Rural America Revitalization

Impacts of Weakening the Existing EPA Phase 2 GHG Standards. April 2018

Treatment of Co-Products in Fuel System LCAs. D. O Connor (S&T) 2 Consultants Inc. CRC Workshop October 18, 2011

Abstract Process Economics Program Report 222 PETROLEUM INDUSTRY OUTLOOK (July 1999)

Update: Estimated GHG Increase from Obama Administration Inaction on the 2014 RFS

We re Going Global ETHANOL

Energy. on this world and elsewhere. Instructor: Gordon D. Cates Office: Physics 106a, Phone: (434)

RICanada Comments on the British Columbia Greenhouse Gas Reduction (Renewable and Low Carbon Fuel Requirements) Act and the Renewable and Low Carbon

Renewable Fuel Standard Potential Economic and Environmental Effects of U.S. Biofuel Policy. Public Release October 4, 2011

Renewable Fuel Standard

The Clean Energy Biofuels Act of 2008: Promoting Advanced Biofuels in Massachusetts

Calculation of Upstream CO 2 for Electrified Vehicles. EVE-9 Meeting UNECE GRPE 18-Feb 14

CNG as an Alternative to Diesel

Electric Vehicle Cost-Benefit Analyses

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO TRANSPORTATION BIOFUELS PLANNING STUDY

Fuels are materials that are used to create energy. They may be

Oil Refining in a CO 2 Constrained World Implications for Gasoline & Diesel Fuels

California LCFS and the Long Road to ZEV TRB Environment & Energy Conference June 8, 2010

Biofuels: Considerations and Potential

RNG Production for Vehicle Fuel. April 4, 2018

RFS2: Where Are We Now And Where Are We Heading? Paul N. Argyropoulos

Website: LAE.MIT.EDU

U.S. Alternative Fuels Policies Lessons Learned and Future Directions

Bioenergy Producer Program Guideline Life Cycle Emission Assessment

US Biofuels Exports to Asia and Sustainability Requirements Steffen Mueller, PhD, University of Illinois at Chicago Energy Resources Center

Gaseous Fuels for Transportation

Electric vehicles a one-size-fits-all solution for emission reduction from transportation?

U.S. Biofuels Policy at the Federal and State Levels

Sapphire Energy. Creating the Potential for Fuels from Algae. Presented by Cynthia J Warner, President

GROWING YOUR BUSINESS WITH BIODIESEL. Copyright 2016 Renewable Energy Group, Inc.

The Outlook for Energy: A View to 2040

Ph: October 27, 2017

RFS Implementation. Governors Biofuels Coalition February 24, 2009

NYC s GREEN Fuel Supplier... March 2010

Overview Air Qualit ir Qualit Impacts of

Graham Noyes Stoel Rives LLP

Transcription:

Designing a Low-Carbon Fuel Standard for the Northeast Matt Solomon msolomon@nescaum.org Northeast LCFS Workshop Yale University October 14, 2008

What s carbon intensity again? A measure of the total CO 2 -equivalent emissions produced throughout a fuel s lifecycle (Source: Guihua Wang and Mark Delucchi, 2005. Pathway Diagrams. Appendix X to the Report A Lifecycle Emissions Model (LEM): Lifecycle Emissions from Transportation Fuels, Motor Vehicles, Transportation Modes, Electricity Use, Heating and Cooking Fuels, and Materials. http://www.its.ucdavis.edu/publications/2003/ucd-its-rr-03-17x.pdf) Measured in grams of CO2-equivalent GHG emissions per energyunit of fuel gco 2 e/mj

Why CO 2 -equivalent? to account for all relevant GHG emissions:»co 2 (GWP = 1)»CH 4 (GWP = 25)»N 2 0 (GWP = 298)

Why megajoules instead of gallons? To enable apples-to-apples comparisons of different fuels based on the utility each fuel provides Different fuels may have different energy densities (megajoules per gallon) For example: Gasoline contains 120 MJ per gallon Ethanol contains 80 MJ per gallon Therefore it takes 120/80 = 1.5 gallons of ethanol to achieve the same utility as one gallon of gasoline. 1 MJ = 948 Btu

Analytical Methods: Overview Carbon intensity for each fuel type Total energy consumption for each fuel type Average Fuel Carbon Intensity (AFCI)

Analytical Methods: Overview Lifecycle Fuel Analysis Production pathway Land use effects (direct & indirect) Transport modes Storage, delivery LCA Model (GREET) Carbon intensity for each fuel type Scenarios AFCI Calculator AFCI Transportation fleet mix Annual VMT per vehicle Fuel economy Transportation Energy Demand Model (VISION-NE) Total energy consumption for each fuel type #2 HHO demand Other fuel?

AFCI Calculator Lifecycle Fuel Analysis Baseline Fuel CI Low-C Fuel 1 CI Low-C Fuel 2 CI AFCI Calculator AFCI Sales Data or Scenario Projections Baseline Fuel Sales Low-C Fuel 1 Sales Low-C Fuel 2 Sales

AFCI Calculator AFCI is a weighted average of the CI values of every fuel in the mix. Example: 100 MJ of gasoline at 95 g/mj 20 MJ of low-c substitute at 50 g/mj: ( 100* 95) + ( 20* 50) AFCI = = 88 100 + 20 g/mj

Analytical Methods: Overview Lifecycle Fuel Analysis Production pathway Land use effects (direct & indirect) Transport modes Storage, delivery LCA Model (GREET) Carbon Intensity for each fuel type

GREET Lifecycle Model Greenhouse Gases, Regulated Emissions and Energy Use in Transportation* Excel spreadsheet model Calculates CO 2 -equivalent GHG and criteria emission factors (g/mmbtu) for numerous fuel pathways Developed and maintained by Argonne National Laboratory (US DOE) Basis for CARB and USEPA lifecycle carbon intensity determination GREET is both a calculation methodology and a large set of input data Methodology is valid for any region Many default inputs are national averages; user can substitute state- or region-specific data *http://www.transportation.anl.gov/modeling_simulation/greet/index.html

GREET Interface Tool GREET is very complicated to use, but: an LCFS program requires modification of only a (relatively) small number of inputs and only one key output for each fuel pathway. Life Cycle Associates, LLC has developed a GREET interface tool to poke the key input parameters into GREET and peek at the results. This tool can be used as-is to assist states and other stakeholders in assessing CI values for selected fuel pathways. Could be developed further for use as a compliance calculator for regulatory purposes.

Lifecycle Fuel Analysis GREET INTERFACE TOOL Production pathway Land use effects (direct & indirect) Transport modes Storage, delivery LCA Model (GREET) Carbon Intensity for each fuel type

CI Values for Selected NE Fuel Pathways (Draft Results): Pathway Denatured Corn Ethanol Soy Biodiesel Forest Residue EtOH: (Fermentation) Forest Residue EtOH: (Gasification) Conventional Gasoline Reformulated gasoline blendstock (RBOB) Oilsand RBOB Ultra-Low-Sulfur Diesel (ULSD) Oilsand ULSD Carbon Intensity (gco2e/mj) 72.5 * 35 * 1.8 15 92.7 96.7 107 93 104 * Does not include effects of land-use change

CI Values for Selected NE Fuel Pathways (Draft Results): Pathway Compressed Natural Gas Liquefied Natural Gas Liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPG) Natural gas for heating ULSD for heating Forest-Residue Pellets Electricity for EVs (100% NG) Electricity for EVs (100% Coal) Electricity for EVs (100% Renewables) Carbon Intensity (gco2e/mj) 73.4 * 78 * 86.9 71.4 * 91.2 24.2 * 180.4 * 344 * 0 * Values not adjusted for end-use efficiency.

Meeting a Low-Carbon Fuel Standard: Gasoline Baseline Potential compliance options might include: Low-carbon ethanol Production: cellulosic fermentation, gasification, conventional, other? Feedstocks: Forest products and residues, corn, sugar, switchgrass, MSW, other? Natural gas Pipeline, imported LNG, landfill gas, other? Electricity in battery-electric or plug-in hybrid vehicles? Light-duty diesel? Hydrogen? Other?

Effect of Ethanol CI on Gasoline AFCI: E10 Region-wide (Draft Results) "Pessimistic" LUC "Optimistic" LUC Gasoline (CI = 96.6) GREET Default FR Gasification FR Fermentation 84 86 88 90 92 94 96 98 100 102 104 AFCI (gco2e/mj) CI values for ethanol under each scenario: Pessimistic LUC: 190 Optimistic LUC: 110 Gasoline-equivalent 97 GREET Default 73 FR Gasification 15 FR Fermentation 1.8 Assumes 10% ethanol by volume in all gasoline, and no other fuels contribute to gasoline AFCI "Optimistic" and "Pessimistic" estimates of land-use change based on "Draft Calculation of Land Use Change for Bio-fuels production utilized GTAP model (Global Trade Analysis Project)" presented 6-30-08 to ARB by University of California - Berkeley (http://www.arb.ca.gov/fuels/lcfs/lcfs.htm). The study considered four scenarios. We reference the 'best' and 'worst' of the four cases, which do not necessarily represent upper and lower bounds.

Effect of Grid Resource Mix on Electricity CI (Draft Results) EV energy consumption = 313 Wh/mi; Baseline vehicle fuel economy = 41.37mpg 100% Coal 100% Oil US Mix 100% NG NE Mix CA Mix 100% Biomass 100% Nuclear Gasoline Baseline = 96.6 g/mj 100% Renewables 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 Carbon Intensity of Electricity (gco2e/mj) GREET-default grid profiles: US Mix: 2.7% oil, 18.9% NG, 50.7% coal, 18.7% nuclear, 1.3% biomass, 7.7% other (hydro & renewables) NE Mix: 6.6% oil, 20.9% NG, 32.2% coal, 31.0% nuclear, 3.6% biomass, 5.7% other CA Mix: 0.7% oil, 41.5% NG, 14.6% coal, 18.9% nuclear, 1.7% biomass, 22.6% other

Meeting a Low-Carbon Fuel Standard: Diesel Baseline Potential compliance options might include: Vehicle fuels: Low-carbon biodiesel Renewable diesel Natural gas vehicles Electricity in battery-electric or plug-in hybrid vehicles Hydrogen E-diesel Other? Heating fuels: Wood/biomass Natural gas Other?

Effect of Biodiesel CI on Diesel AFCI: B20 in all Highway Fuel (Draft Results) "Pessimistic" LUC "Optimistic" LUC Diesel (CI = 93.0) EISA GREET Default Advanced (CI = 20) 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 Diesel AFCI (gco2e/mj) CI values for biodiesel under each scenario: Pessimistic LUC: 390 Optimistic LUC: 150 Diesel-equivalent 93 EISA 47 GREET Default 35 Advanced 20 Assumes 20% biodiesel in all highway diesel fuel, and no other fuels contribute to diesel AFCI. Total biodiesel demand is 820 mgal. Non-highway fuels not counted toward baseline AFCI. Advanced biodiesel CI chosen arbitrarily and shown for illustration. "Optimistic" and "Pessimistic" estimates of land-use change based on "Draft Calculation of Land Use Change for Bio-fuels production utilized GTAP model (Global Trade Analysis Project)" presented 6-30-08 to ARB by University of California - Berkeley (http://www.arb.ca.gov/fuels/lcfs/lcfs.htm). The study considered four scenarios for corn ethanol production. We reference the 'best' and 'worst' of the four cases, and we assume that the LUC impacts for biodiesel are four times greater than for ethanol, reflecting an average energy yield per acre for soybeans of roughly one fourth that for corn. Examples are shown for illustrative purposes only. Values do not necessarily represent upper and lower bounds.

Example Compliance Scenarios: The following scenarios are examples only. Provided to illustrate the AFCI impacts of various sets of assumptions NESCAUM / NESCCAF is not advocating for any one or group of fuels or fuel pathways.

Gasoline AFCI (gco2e/mj) 98 96 94 92 90 88 86 84 82 Example Compliance Scenario (Draft Results): 100% Renewables for EV and PHEV 2005 2020 EISA 2007 RFS 4% EV in Fleet 4% PHEV in Fleet 4% CNGV in Fleet 0.6 Bgal FR-F Etoh 10% from Baseline 10% from EISA Example scenario for discussion only. NESCAUM/NESCCAF make no claim as to the feasibility or desirability of the volumes shown. Assumptions: BEV and PHEV electric energy consumption = 313 Wh/mi Baseline vehicle fuel economy = 41.37 mpg. 4% fleet penetration in 2020; new vehicle sales increase linearly from 1.2% in 2011 to 12% in 2020. FR-F Etoh = Ethanol produced from forest residue via cellulosic fermentation. CI values (gco2e/mj): Electricity for BEVs and PHEVs: 0; CNG: 73.4; FR-F EtOH = 1.8

Gasoline AFCI (gco2e/mj) Example Compliance Scenario (Draft Results): 100% NG Electricity Generation for EV and PHEV 98 96 94 92 90 88 86 84 82 2005 2020 EISA 2007 RFS 4% EV in Fleet 4% PHEV in Fleet 4% CNGV in Fleet 1.2 bgal FR-F Etoh 10% from Baseline 10% from EISA Example scenarios for discussion only. NESCAUM/NESCCAF make no claim as to the feasibility or desirability of the volumes shown. Assumptions: BEV and PHEV electric energy consumption = 313 Wh/mi Baseline vehicle fuel economy = 41.37 mpg. 4% fleet penetration in 2020; new vehicle sales increase linearly from 1.2% in 2011 to 12% in 2020. FR-F Etoh = Ethanol produced from forest residue via cellulosic fermentation. CI values (gco2e/mj): Electricity for BEVs and PHEVs: 0; CNG: 73.4; FR-F EtOH = 1.8

Gasoline AFCI (gco2e/mj) Example Compliance Scenario (Draft Results): 100% NG Electricity Generation for EV and PHEV 98 96 94 92 90 88 86 84 82 2005 2020 EISA 2007 RFS 4% EV in Fleet 4% PHEV in Fleet 4% CNGV in Fleet 1.2 bgal FR-F Etoh 0.8 bgal FR-F Etoh 10% from Baseline 10% from EISA Example scenarios for discussion only. NESCAUM/NESCCAF make no claim as to the feasibility or desirability of the volumes shown. Assumptions: BEV and PHEV electric energy consumption = 313 Wh/mi Baseline vehicle fuel economy = 41.37 mpg. 4% fleet penetration in 2020; new vehicle sales increase linearly from 1.2% in 2011 to 12% in 2020. FR-F Etoh = Ethanol produced from forest residue via cellulosic fermentation. CI values (gco2e/mj): Electricity for BEVs and PHEVs: 0; CNG: 73.4; FR-F EtOH = 1.8

Gasoline AFCI (gco2e/mj) Example Compliance Scenario (Draft Results): 100% NG Electricity Generation for EV and PHEV 98 96 94 92 90 88 86 84 82 2005 2020 EISA 2007 RFS 4% EV in Fleet 4% PHEV in Fleet 4% CNGV in Fleet 1.2 bgal FR-F Etoh 0.8 bgal FR-F Etoh 10% from Baseline 10% from EISA Example scenarios for discussion only. NESCAUM/NESCCAF make no claim as to the feasibility or desirability of the volumes shown. Assumptions: BEV energy consumption = 167 Wh/mi; PHEV electric energy consumption = 250 Wh/mi. Baseline vehicle fuel economy = 41.37 mpg. 4% fleet penetration in 2020; new vehicle sales increase linearly from 1.2% in 2011 to 12% in 2020. FR-F Etoh = Ethanol produced from forest residue via cellulosic fermentation. CI values (gco2e/mj): Electricity for BEVs and PHEVs: 0; CNG: 73.4; FR-F EtOH = 1.8

Gasoline AFCI (gco2e/mj) 100 98 96 94 92 90 88 86 Effect of Oilsands on Gasoline AFCI (Draft Results) 2005 2020 20% oilsands 10% oilsands 5% oilsands Baseline Example scenarios for discussion only. NESCAUM/NESCCAF make no claim as to the feasibility or desirability of the volumes shown. Oilsand Gasoline CI = 105 gco2e/mj -10% from Baseline

Example Compliance Scenario (Draft Results): Diesel AFCI Advanced Biodiesel (CI = 20) and Wood Pellets for Home Heating 94 92 BAU Diesel AFCI (gco2e/mj) 90 88 86 84 82 10% BD in HWY 10% BD in non-trans 12% pellets 80 78 2005 2020 10% from Baseline Example scenarios for discussion only. NESCAUM/NESCCAF make no claim as to the feasibility or desirability of the volumes shown. BAU decline in AFCI due to lower CI of #2 HHO compared to ULSD 10% BD in highway fuel = 408 Mgal in 2020; 10% BD in non-trans = 470 Mgal in 2020; 12% pellets = 43.6 quadrillion BTU; 3.2 million tons of pellets; enough for 530,000 homes; 55% of potential regional biomass supply. AFCI reduction based on FR Pellet CI of 24.2 gco2e/mj. Actual pellet production is likely to use mill-residue or new-growth feedstocks, each resulting in lower pellet CI, and thus greater AFCI reductions than shown.

Example Compliance Scenario: Diesel AFCI (Draft Results) Baseline = Highway Diesel Only Diesel AFCI (gco2e/mj) 94 92 90 88 86 84 82 2005 2020 Heating fuels not counted towards baseline but allowed to generate credits. 5% BD Iin highway fuel = 200 Mgal in 2020; Assume 50% CI reduction compared to ULSD. 10% CNG in highway diesel = 54.2 quadrillion btu, displacing 420 Mgal in 2020 10% pellets = 36.3 quadrillion BTU; 2.7 million tons of pellets; enough for 440,000 homes; 46% of total potential regional biomass supply. AFCI reduction based on FR Pellet CI of 24.2 gco2e/mj. Actual pellet production is likely to use mill-residue or new-growth feedstocks, each resulting in lower pellet CI, and thus greater AFCI reductions than shown. B5 (EISA) 10% CNG Hwy 10% Pellets in HHO 15% NG in HHO -10% from Baseline Example scenarios for discussion only. NESCAUM/NESCCAF make no claim as to the feasibility or desirability of the volumes shown.

Example Compliance Scenario: Diesel AFCI Baseline Includes All Distillate (Highway, Nonroad and HHO) 94 BAU Diesel AFCI (gco2e/mj) 92 90 88 86 84 82 2005 2020 BAU decline in AFCI due to inclusion of thermal at lower CI 5% BD Iin highway fuel = 200 Mgal in 2020; 5% BD in non-trans = 220 Mgal in 2020; 19% pellets = 78.6 quadrillion BTU; 5.7 million tons of pellets; enough for 960,000 homes; ~100% of potential regional biomass supply. AFCI reduction based on FR Pellet CI of 24.2 gco2e/mj. Actual pellet production is likely to use mill-residue or new-growth feedstocks, each resulting in lower pellet CI, and thus greater AFCI reductions than shown. B5 Hwy (EISA) 10% CNG Hwy 10% Pellets in HHO 15% NG in HHO B5 in Nonroad Distillate 10% CNG Nonroad Add'l 9% Pellets in HH0-10% from Baseline Example scenarios for discussion only. NESCAUM/NESCCAF make no claim as to the feasibility or desirability of the volumes shown.

Thank you! Questions or comments please contact Matt Solomon msolomon@nescaum.org

Backup Slides

Analytical Methods: Overview Scenarios Transportation fleet mix Annual VMT per vehicle Fuel economy Transportation Energy Demand Model (VISION-NE) Total energy consumption for each fuel type #2 heating oil demand Nonroad fuels

VISION-NE Energy Demand Model Based on VISION* transportation fleet turnover model developed and maintained by Argonne National Lab (US DOE) National data, highway vehicles only Excel spreadsheet model Enables demand projections for various fleet and fuel penetration scenarios VISION-NE includes non-transportation demand for northeast Home heating oil Nonroad gasoline and diesel Capable of modeling individual state or region Registry data for NESCAUM region Placeholder data (weighted by population) for other 42 states. Integrated with AFCI calculator Future versions could be linked to GREET Interface Tool *http://www.transportation.anl.gov/modeling_simulation/vision/

Including Non-Highway Fuels in Baseline (Draft Results) 9% 8% Reduction from AFCI Baseline 7% 6% 5% 4% 3% 2% 1% 0% B20 in Hwy Diesel: (CI = 47) Pellets displace 10% of HHO BAU Hwy diesel only in baseline AFCI Non-highway included in basline AFCI Example scenarios for discussion only. NESCCAF/NESCAUM make no claim as to the feasibility or desirability of the volumes shown.

Fuel for thought: Mandatory inclusion or opt-in for non-highway fuel? Nonroad diesel Home-heating oil How to calculate credits for opt-in suppliers? Define baseline AFCI as single fuel or reflect actual mix? How to deal with current-generation biofuels (e.g. corn ethanol)? Allow light-duty diesel as compliance option toward gasoline AFCI?

Lifecycle CI Determination: Vehicle Efficiency Adjustments Carbon Intensity is defined per energy unit of fuel... but what if one MJ of a substitute fuel is more (or less) useful than a MJ of the baseline fuel? Need to adjust for the efficiency of use, e.g. the number of additional (or fewer) miles a vehicle will travel per energy unit of new fuel versus baseline. Depends both on baseline and substitute vehicle or fuel

Lifecycle CI Determination: The special case of Electricity (EVs and PHEVs) Significant efficiency adjustment Example: A PHEV might consume 313 Wh/mi (when on battery power), equivalent to 107 mpg in terms of energy delivered at the plug. New baseline vehicle in 2020 might get 42 mpg. Then the AFCI efficiency adjustment would be: 42/107 = 0.39 Note this is only part of the story: Electricity CI depends on vehicle efficiency AND grid emissions