1. RECYCLING AND THE ENVIRONMENT - BIGGEST “BANGS”: Do Recycling Programs Perform Better than Energy Efficiency Programs for GHG and Jobs Creation? Lisa A. Skumatz, Ph.D. Skumatz Economic Research Associates, Inc. The Econservation Institute 762 Eldorado Drive, Superior, CO 80027 303/494-1178 email: skumatz@serainc.comskumatz@serainc.com May be used only with permission of Author - ©SERA2009 Internally funded

2. SERA US GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS (2005) - CONVENTIONAL Source: USEPA

3. SERA GOAL – REDUCE MTCE…  Historic takeaways – Prioritized actions in energy efficiency (EE), transportation  BUT – if an MTCE is an MTCE*, all reductions are great… …and a CHEAPER one may be even greater…! What is the cost hierarchy? And are there other factors to consider? **And an MTCE may not be an MTCE – methane (from solid waste) Has a more intense effect over 20 years – front-loaded. Multiplier May be 23 times worse … or with the time element, 70 times worse.

4. CONSIDER… Analyze Delivery of GHG Reductions – Energy vs. Diversion…

5. SERA WASTE PROGRAMS ANALYZED Curbside Recycling (CS Recy) Pay As You Throw (PAYT) Curbside Yard Waste (CS YW)

6. SERA ENERGY PROGRAMS ANALYZED Residential Weatherization (Res EE) Commercial Lighting (Coml EE) Solar Wind

7. SERA PROGRAMS MODELED  Solid waste: Pay as you throw (PAYT) incentive – 3 effects Residential curbside recycling Residential organics composting collection (yard and food waste )  Energy Efficiency: Commercial lighting retrofit Residential weatherization Wind Photovoltaics / solar  Computation Steps - Estimated program costs: per MSW ton diverted (solid waste) per kWh for energy programs Used in-house SERA, “NEB- It”© model, and external data  Modeled GHG impacts  Computed $/MTCO2e for each program  “Normalized”

8. SERA RELATIVE COST PER MTCO2e FOR SOLID WASTE, ENERGY PROGRAMS Results show key MSW programs cheaper to reduce CO2 than EE. PV, Wind high cost per MTCO2e. Source: Skumatz Economic Research Associates, Inc. SERA, Superior, CO All rights reserved, Draft. May be used with permission of author, 7x 18x 1x 3x 0.6x 0.3x 0.5x * *Organics figures Vary based on model used

9. SERA UPSTREAM PRODUCTION SAVINGS - LONG-HAUL BREAK-EVEN FIGURES MaterialProd’n Sav. (MMBTU/ ton coll’n) Break even- Truck Break even- Rail Break even - Freighter Aluminum 177 121,000 475,000538,000 LDPE 6141,000162,000184,000 PET 5940,000157,000178,000 Steel 1913,00052,00059,000 Newspaper 1611,00043,00049,000 Corrugated129,00033,00038,000 Office pap 107,00027,00031,000 Boxboard 6.54,40017,40019,800 Glass (to bottles) 1.91,3005,1005,800 Break even: transport energy = energy saved displacing virgin feedstock Source: Allaway, Oregon DEQ, draft) It is not about the landfill savings – embedded energy as driver… Methane also important (front-loaded, high impact)

10. SERA US GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS (REVISED) Source: USEPA (Prelim); from Allaway (ORDEQ)

11. AUXILIARY IMPACTS AND POLICY ISSUES Or how all kWh (or MTCE) may not be created equal…

12. SERA JOB MULTIPLIERS FOR ENERGY AND RECYCLING PROGRAMS More local & national job impacts in weatherization because labor intensive pgm; Appliance replacement programs more limited impact (appliances not made in US) Sources: Energy Job Multipliers - Skumatz Economic Research Associates, Inc. (SERA) Superior, CO All rights reserved. May be used with permission of author; Solid waste job mult from Institute of Local Self Reliance, Washington DC. ENERGY JOBS (per $1 million investment) SOLID WASTE JOBS (per 10,000 tons)

13. SERA MULTIPLIERS – GHG, JOBS, AND $ FOR DIVERSION & EE Source: DRAFT figures, Skumatz Economic Research Associates, Inc. (SERA) Superior, CO. All rights reserved. May be used with permission of author.  Diversion cheaper per MTCE than EE or renewables. EE labor intensive per MTCE, but diversion compar- able in jobs/$1M 18x

14. OTHER PROGRAM / POLICY CONSIDERATIONS Dollars aren’t the whole picture either…

15. SERA SPEED / COVERAGE / AUTHORITY – COMPARISONS  Speed to implement Stroke of a pen…  Coverage All households vs. slow buildup  Authority Cities / counties often no authority over energy…. But states have regulatory authority over both…  Retention… Studied in energy, not solid waste (PAYT exception)  Advantage, solid waste on these issues…

16. SERA RELATIVE COST (PER MTCO2E) AND COVERAGE – “RECYCLING” VS ENERGY EFFICIENCY Normalized Multiplier for Cost per MTCO2E (SERA) Speed to implement and full scale implementation coverage Commercial Energy Efficiency 1.0 – baseline 1-3 years; fraction of customer base Residential Energy Efficiency 3 times as expensive as com’l EE 1-3 years; fraction of customer households Wind 7-8 times as expensive as com’l EE TBD, Phase 2 PhotoVoltaic (PV) 18-25 times com’l EE TBD, Phase 2 Curbside Recycling 0.6-0.7 times the cost of com’l EE 0.5- 2 years; covers all households (HH) in area Pay As You Throw (PAYT) 0.2-0.3 times cost of com’l EE 3-9 months after political approval; covers all single family HH Prevention & reuse 0 cost No lag; education Yard Waste program 0.5 +/- times cost of com’l EE (Phase 2) 1-2 years, Phase 2 NOTE: Conservative estimates (Source: Skumatz Economic Research Associates SERA 2007-2008; DRAFT); may be used with permission of author

17. PROGRAM SELECTION / DELIVERY IMPLICATIONS Integrated planning…

18. SERA SUPPLY CURVE - PORTFOLIO FOR GHG STRATEGY– YEAR 1… YEAR N Quantity (tons, kwh  MTCE) Cost $/MTCE R1 R2 EE1 EE2 R3 T1 Etc… Local, state, federal… Other criteria – risk, reliability, Control, etc for portfolio… Technical potential issue; Also RETENTION a factor….

19. SERA AVOIDED GHG SUPPLY CURVE: RAMP UP MORE QUICKLY & CHEAPLY Hypothetical / template program assumptions…Illustrative Purposes Only

20. SERA CONCLUSIONS & IMPLICATIONS  Measurable impacts from GHG reductions Millions in savings and premiums per ton diverted.  Cost to achieve GHG reductions from strategies Some “recycling” cheaper than energy conservation Faster to implement / greater coverage / have authority – early “big bang” programs (phase 2)  Broader context… “making the case” for diversion beyond economics… Comparisons on other factors – jobs, stimulus implications Not 3% - Solid waste is faster / cheaper… Near term – Solid waste should be at the table for climate change… policy / programs local, state, federal.

21. SERA CONTACT INFORMATION Lisa A. Skumatz, Ph.D. SERA, Inc. 762 Eldorado Drive, Superior, CO 80027 Phone: 303/494-1178 Email: skumatz@serainc.comskumatz@serainc.com Web www.serainc.comwww.serainc.com Thanks to communities that fill out surveys on www.serainc.com – helps us with these statistical surveys!!www.serainc.com Happy to provide slides – leave business card or send email