1. State of model development: RAINS/GAINS International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA) M. Amann, W. Asman, I. Bertok, A. Chambers, J. Cofala, F. Gyarfas, C. Heyes, L. Hoglund, Z. Klimont, M. Makowski, P. Rafaj, M. Posch, R. Sandler, P. Tramberend, F. Wagner, W. Winiwarter

2. Current/recent activities Completed: Revised web interface Bilateral consultations with 21 EU-MS, N, CH, RUS, UKR Ongoing: Development of NEC/CLTRAP baseline Update of agricultural module Improved methodologies and estimates and for ship emissions EC4MACS proposal for LIFE+ funding (2006-2011): –Consortium of modelling teams including IIASA, MSC-W, CCE, NTUA, UniBonn, LAUTh, AEAT, for CAFE+ECCP reviews in 2011

3. The GAINS model: The RAINS multi-pollutant/ multi-effect framework extended to GHGs PMSO 2 NO x VOCNH 3 Health impacts: PM  O 3  Vegetation damage: O 3  Acidification  Eutrophication  Economic synergies between emission control measures Multiple benefits PMSO 2 NO x VOCNH 3 CO 2 CH 4 N2ON2O PFCs HFCs SF 6 Health impacts: PM  O 3  Vegetation damage: O 3  Acidification  Eutrophication  Radiative forcing: - direct  - via aerosols  - via OH  Physical interactions

4. Progress with GAINS(-Europe) Approach: Baseline case without carbon price Potential and costs for structural changes (fuel switching, energy conservation, etc.) derived from scenarios with carbon prices Input: PRIMES scenarios with 0, 20, 50 and 90 €/t CO 2 Current status: Co-evaluation of emission changes and AQ impacts completed First provisional results from optimization module: –EU-25, 2020 –Based on PRIMES calculations for CAFE (30 $ oil price) –Some important measures not yet implemented in GAINS (co-generation, IGCC+CC, biofuel gasification, etc.), thus all results might change

5. Some provisional general findings The RAINS definition of MTFR is much more restrictive than PRIMES. To reproduce the measures of the PRIMES 90 €/t CO 2 scenario, additional potentials had to be introduced in GAINS (e.g., premature scrapping) Most “non-technical” measures come – for AQ targets – before or after the traditional RAINS cost curves Conceptual problem with treatment of negative costs: –Interpretation of negative cost measures (or of the costing concept) has crucial impacts on results of cost-effectiveness analysis –“Benchmark case” (with all zero cost measures adopted) taken as reference point.

6. Provisional optimization results 1.Allocation of GHG mitigation to different gases 2.Changes in AP emissions with GHG mitigation 3.Co-benefits on air quality from GHG mitigation 4.CLE costs as a function of GHG mitigation 5.Costs for tightened AP and/or GHG targets –Additional costs for AP targets –Additional costs for GHG targets –Cost savings from an integrated approach

7. Cost-effective GHG reductions, EU10, 2020 GAINS interpolations between PRIMES scenarios for 0 and 90 €/t CO 2

8. Air pollutant emissions (with fixed AP legislation) as a function of CO 2 mitigation (EU-25, 2020)

9. Co-benefits of GHG mitigation on AQ impacts Provisional GAINS estimates, EU-25, 2020

10. AP control costs ( for current legislation CLE) (SO 2, NO x, PM) as a function of CO 2 mitigation (EU-25, 2020)

11. Costs of GHG mitigation and CLE AP control relative to benchmark. Provisional GAINS results (EU25, 2020) 20 €/t CO 2 50 €/t CO 2

12. Costs for further GHG and/or AP controls Provisional GAINS results (EU25, 2020)

13. Costs for AQ improvements at different GHG levels “Air pollution-centric” perspective (AQ improvements after GHG measures)

14. AP control costs relative to benchmark case “Air pollution-centric” perspective (AQ improvements after GHG measures) Provisional GAINS estimates, EU-25, 2020

15. AP control costs relative to benchmark case Integrated perspective (solid lines) vs. AP only perspective (dashed) Provisional GAINS estimates, EU-25, 2020

16. Cost savings from an integrated approach Provisional GAINS estimates, EU-25, 2020

17. Costs for GHG mitigation for different AQ targets The “climate-centric” perspective (GHG mitigation after AQ policy)

18. Additional GHG mitigation costs for different AQ targets Provisional GAINS estimates

19. Further work and outlook Inclusions of further measures for co-control (CHP, IGCC, gasification of biomass, etc.) Improved treatment of “negative cost measures” Link to recent PRIMES calculations Documentation As of end 2006, GAINS will be operational for EU-25: –AP only mode – the traditional “RAINS” approach –AP including structural measures (“extended RAINS”) –Targets for GHGs only –Joint targets for AP and GHGs For policy application of GAINS, review of national substitution potentials and costs necessary

20. Conclusions All quantitative results are provisional There are physical and economic interactions between the control of air pollution emissions and GHG mitigation If these problems are considered separately: –From the an air pollution perspective: Baseline AP emissions, impacts and control costs (for fixed AP legislation) depend on the level of GHG mitigation Costs of strengthened AQ policies depend on the level of GHG mitigation Further AP control strategies have co-benefits on GHG mitigation costs. –From a climate perspective: GHG mitigation costs depend on the level of AP control GHG mitigation costs have co-benefits on AQ impacts An integrated approach could reduce total GHG and AP control costs