1. M. Amann, W. Asman, I. Bertok, J. Cofala, C. Heyes,
Z. Klimont, W. Schöpp, F. Wagner
Policy scenarios that meet the environmental objectives of the Thematic Strategy on Air Pollution Part 1: Changes since the CAFE analysis
Presentation for the meeting of the NECPI working group Brussels, December 18-19, 2006

2. Contents Changes since CAFE Translation of TSAP targets
Methodology
Input data
Translation of TSAP targets
Optimized emission reductions
Further work

3. Methodological changes since CAFE (1)
Adjusted model structures for
Road transport (mileage, COPERT-IV emission factors, etc.)
Combustion in small-scale domestic sources
VOC emitting sectors (e.g., coil coating!)
Agricultural emissions (influence of productivity increases on emission factors)
Atmospheric dispersion
Functional relationships derived from marginal perturbations of emissions around the TSAP emission levels

4. Methodological changes since CAFE (2)
Urban increments from City-delta-III
Higher estimates than used for CAFE
Ecosystem-specific deposition for eutrophication:
Ecosystems with nitrogen deposition exceeding critical loads in 2000:
CAFE with grid-average deposition: km2
NEC with ecosystem-specific deposition: km2
GAINS instead of RAINS optimization

5. The GAINS model: The RAINS multi-pollutant/ multi-effect framework extended to GHGs
Economic synergies between emission control measures PM
SO2
NOx
VOC
NH3
CO2
CH4
N2O
CFCs HFCs SF6
Health impacts: PM  O3
Vegetation damage: O3
Acidification
Eutrophication
Radiative forcing: direct
- via aerosols
- via OH PM
SO2
NOx
VOC
NH3
Health impacts: PM  O3
Vegetation damage: O3
Acidification
Eutrophication
Physical interactions
Multiple benefits

6. Differences between RAINS and GAINS in the optimization (technology representation)
RAINS optimization:
Input: Cost curves for each pollutant
RAINS cost curves exclude multi-pollutant technologies
Optimization decides how far to move up on each cost curve (keeping underlying activity fixed!)
GAINS optimization:
Input: Costs of individual measures and their emission reduction potentials (for all affected pollutants)
Optimization decides which measures to use
GAINS in “RAINS” mode:
Considers only measures that do not change activity patterns
Full GAINS optimization:
All measures considered, also those that change the underlying activity (through, e.g., efficiency improvements)

7. Validation of RAINS cost curves with the GAINS optimization

8. Potential for emission controls Max. RAINS measures (MRR) vs. max
Potential for emission controls Max. RAINS measures (MRR) vs. max. GAINS measures
MRR
The NEC analysis in this report uses the GAINS model in “RAINS mode” only!
DE, 2020, PRIMES00

9. Revisions of input data since CAFE
Updated emission inventories
National projections of energy and agricultural activities
Assumptions on “Current legislation”
Critical loads data
Population data
Ship emissions

10. Emissions reported for the year 2000 in 2004 (blue bars) and 2005 (red line)

11. Emissions reported for the year 2000 in 2004 (blue bars) and 2005 (red line)

12. Comparison of GAINS emission estimates for 2000 with the latest national inventories

13. PM emissions for 2000 estimated by GAINS (red line) and reported by countries (bars)

14. Input data: Energy consumption projected for 2020

15. CO2 projections up to 2020 implied by the energy projections

16. Assumptions on current legislation
Euro-5/6 for light duty vehicles form part of NEC baseline
Inconsistencies between data on fuel consumption, mileage and vehicle numbers
Costs will be reported a.s.a.p.
IPPC for pigs and poultry farm
Transposition into national laws follows examples of countries that have already done so
Number of pigs kept on large farms according to ALTERRA study
Additional requirements for complying with air quality daughter directives and NEC 2010 directive not considered
Variants of GHG policies as sensitivity cases

17. Scope for emission reductions in 2020

18. Access to all input data and detailed optimization results
for each country and sector
available at

19. M. Amann, W. Asman, I. Bertok, J. Cofala, C. Heyes,
Z. Klimont, W. Schöpp, F. Wagner
Policy scenarios that meet the environmental objectives of the Thematic Strategy on Air Pollution Part 2: Scenario results
Presentation for the meeting of the NECPI working group Brussels, December 18-19, 2006

20. The first round of NEC policy scenarios
Optimization for the TSAP environmental targets applied to NEC projections
For three activity projections
National projections
PRIMES €20 projection
For EU-25
Inclusion of BG and ROM (and N and CH) in next round
Analysis of EU-wide measures (Euro-VI for HDT, IPPC, etc.) in next round
“RAINS mode” optimization – no changes in activity patterns allowed

21. Translation of the TSAP environmental targets for the NEC analysis

22. Translation of the TSAP environmental targets for the NEC analysis

23. Environmental targets of the Thematic Strategy

24. Costs for achieving the TSAP targets (additional to baseline costs)

25. Costs for achieving the TSAP environmental targets (costs on top of NEC-baseline, excluding costs of Euro5/6)

26. Optimized emission reductions for 2020 in relation to the 2020 baseline projections

27. Optimized SO2 emission reductions for 2020 in relation to 2000

28. Optimized NOx emission reductions for 2020 in relation to 2000

29. Optimized PM2.5 emission reductions for 2020 in relation to 2000

30. Optimized NH3 emission reductions for 2020 in relation to 2000

31. Optimized VOC emission reductions for 2020 in relation to 2000

32. Further work Inclusions of national energy projections for Greece
Costs of baseline scenario (including transport measures)
Inclusion of Bulgaria and Romania, as well as Norway and Switzerland
Sensitivity analysis

33. Possible sensitivity analyses for the next round
Inter-annual meteorological variability
Scope for EU-wide Euro-VI standards for heavy duty vehicles
Scope for EU-wide measures (IPPC, etc.)
Cost-effectiveness of reductions in other countries
Cost-effectiveness of reductions of ship emissions
Interaction with climate policies (GAINS optimization)
Sensitivity towards city-delta estimates

34. Summary and points for discussion
Optimization for translated TSAP targets results in costs of 4.1, 2.3 and 1.1 billion €/yr on top of NEC-BL, depending on the climate strategy (excl. costs for Euro5/6)
Achievement of eutrophication targets is most costly
Associated emission ceilings depend on climate targets
Short list for sensitivity analyses?
How to handle the range of emission ceilings?