Approaches for Cost-effective Reductions of Population Exposure to Fine Particulate Matter in Europe M. Amann, I. Bertok, R. Cabala, J. Cofala, F. Gyarfas, C. Heyes, Z. Klimont, F. Wagner, W. Schöpp

General assumptions All calculations for 2020 CAFE baseline scenario “with climate measures” Maximum technically feasible emission reductions (MTFR) as presented to WGTS in November Impact assessment for 1997 meteorology Assumptions on health impact assessment as presented earlier

New elements Validation of PM source-receptor relationships Provisional City-Delta results are included, but could be improved Analysis with illustrative assumptions on Euro-V and Euro- VI Baseline costs corrected – no influence on optimization results.

Functional relationships for PM PM2.5 j Annual mean concentration of PM2.5 at receptor point j ISet of emission sources (countries) JSet of receptors (grid cells) p i Primary emissions of PM2.5 in country i s i SO 2 emissions in country i ni NO x emissions in country i a i NH 3 emissions in country i α S,W ij, ν S,W,A ij, σ W,A ij, π A ij Linear transfer matrices for reduced and oxidized nitrogen, sulfur and primary PM2.5, for winter, summer and annual

Validation of PM CAFE baseline 2020 [μg/m 3 ]

City-Delta estimates for 2000 (1) PM2.5, annual mean [μg/m 3 ] *) this initial estimate includes too high PM emissions from ships

City-Delta estimates for 2000 (2) PM2.5, annual mean [μg/m 3 ] *) this initial estimate includes too high PM emissions from ships

City-Delta estimates for 2000 (3) PM2.5, annual mean [μg/m 3 ] *) this initial estimate includes too high PM emissions from ships

City-Delta estimates for 2000 (4) PM2.5, annual mean [μg/m 3 ] *) this initial estimate includes too high PM emissions from ships

Euro-V and Euro-VI Illustrative assumptions Assumed emission factors: Assumed implementation dates: Euro-V:2010 Euro-VI:2014 NO x PM HDV – Euro-V1.47 g/kWh0.015 g/kWh - Euro-VI0.4 g/kWh0.01 g/kWh LDV – Euro-IV0.305 g/km0.027 g/km - Euro-V0.06 g/km0.004 g/km

Euro-V and Euro-VI Impacts on EU-25 emissions in 2020 NO x PM HDV CLE1079 kt12.1 kt Euro-VI724 kt (-33 %)10.3 kt (-15 %) LDV CLE508 kt39.8 kt Euro-V245 kt (-52 %)18.1 kt (-55 %) Total emissions CLE 5889 kt965 kt Euro-V/VI5271 kt (-10 %)941 kt (-2.4 %)

Costs of current legislation for baseline 2020 Corrected estimates

Caveats Limited quality control of the initial results New functional relationships not yet formally documented; validation not fully completed Provisional City-Delta results are included, but could be improved! Uncertainty analysis not yet performed

Optimization analyses

Uniform limit value for air quality: Bring down PM2.5 everywhere below a AQ limit value Gap closure concept: Reduce PM2.5 levels everywhere by same percentage Maximize total health benefits in Europe for a given European budget constraint, disregarding the location of the benefit Three concepts for target setting

Option 1: Uniform limit value on air quality EMEP/RAINS quantify: –Primary anthropogenic PM –Secondary inorganic aerosols (including water) EMEP/RAINS miss: –Mineral and Sea-salt from natural sources –Primary organic matter from natural sources –Secondary organic aerosols from natural and anthropogenic sources RAINS + City-Delta address urban background, but not hot spots in street canyons Thus, model can only explain part of observed PM

Scope for uniform limit value (1) excl. unknown contributions of SOA + natural primary organic matter *) this initial estimate includes too high PM emissions from ships

Scope for uniform limit value (2) excl. unknown contributions of SOA + primary natural organic matter *) this initial estimate includes too high PM emissions from ships

Scope for uniform limit value (3) excl. unknown contributions of SOA + primary natural organic matter *) this initial estimate includes too high PM emissions from ships

Scope for uniform limit value (4) excl. unknown contributions of SOA + primary natural organic matter *) this initial estimate includes too high PM emissions from ships

Uniform limit value on air quality Ambition levels explored Bring annual mean PM2.5 in urban background below –19 / 17 / 16.5 / 16 / 15.5 / 15 μg/m 3 This level includes the fraction modelled by RAINS + assumption on mineral (1/2/3 μg/m 3 ) It does not include unknown contributions of primary natural organic matter + secondary organic aerosols To relate this value to potential hot-spot AQ limit value, add ~ 5 μg/m 3 ? No targets for harbor cities considered for this round of analysis (mistake in dispersion calculations)

Costs of the limit value scenarios [billion €/year]

Costs of the limit value scenarios assuming implementation of Euro-V/VI

Costs of the limit value scenarios assuming NO implementation of Euro-V/VI 15 μg/m 3 is infeasible

Option 2: Gap closure Reduce modelled PM2.5 everywhere by the same percentage For these round of calculations: –Explore the range between the impacts from CLE and MTFR including Euro-V/VI 25% / 40% / 50% / 60% / 70% / 75% reductions analyzed With and without Euro-V/VI

Effect indicator MTFR from EU25 excluding EURO5/6 Base year exposure (2000/1990) Baseline 2020 (Current legislation) MTFR from EU25 MTFR from EU-25 + shipping MTFR from Europe + shipping No-effect level (critical load/level) Zero exposure Gap concept used for NEC Range of exploratory ambition levels NEC 2010 Definition of “gap closure” used for this round of calculations

Costs of the “gap closure” scenarios [billion €/yr]

Costs of the “gap closure” scenarios assuming Euro-V/VI, [billion €/yr] 100% is the range between CLE and MTFR incl. Euro-V/VI

Costs of the “gap closure” scenarios without Euro-V/VI, [billion €/yr] 100% is the range between CLE and MTFR incl. Euro-V/VI

Option 3: Maximize total European health benefits for a given budget Dual optimization problem: Instead of –Minimize total European costs for achieving place-specific environmental targets: optimize for: –Maximize total European health benefits (i.e., gains in life expectancy) for a given budget. No consideration of the place/country where the improvement occurs. Maximal cost-effectiveness, equity needs to be explored Illustrative analysis with pseudo-life expectancy data (calculations include population younger than 30 years) No difference of whether Euro-V/VI is taken or not, but a final analysis should include Euro-V/VI (with cost data) in the optimization

Emission control costs vs. years of life lost Illustrative calculations [billion €/yr]

Per-capita emission control costs for three selected ambition levels [€/person/yr]

Gains in statistical life expectancy for three selected ambition levels [months]

Costs for a gained month of life expectancy Illustrative results [€/person/year]

Cost-effectiveness of the target setting approaches Emission control costs [billion €/yr] vs. YOLL

Conclusions Different target setting rules lead to different distributions of costs and benefits Obvious problems for AQ limit values and for gap closure approaches For PM, a Europe-wide maximization of benefits does not seem to compromise equity in terms of health effects (does probably not hold for ecosystems!) Cost-effectiveness of Euro-V/VI is comparable to that of the more expensive measures for stationary sources, but depends on the chosen ambition level Which further analyses will yield maximum information from the last available round of CAFE?

Priorities for further work Sensitivity analysis with national energy projections Analysis of joint optimizations / or co-benefits of PM? Ship emissions Calculations for 2015 ???