Transportation and State Climate Action Plans: What You Need to Know

1. Transportation and State Climate Action Plans: What You Need to Know FHWA Webinar March 25, 2010

2. Presentation Roadmap • Overview of State Climate Action Plans • Transportation Mitigation Strategies – Quantification Methods and Uncertainties • Impacts and Adaptation • Key Opportunities for Involvement

3. What is a Climate Action Plan? • Provides Distinct Strategies to Reduce GHG Emissions from Multiple Sectors • Typical Components • Emission inventory and forecast (baseline) • Description of GHG mitigation strategies • GHG impacts, costs, and cost-effectiveness of strategies • Implementation steps • Net impact of strategies, compared to baseline (BAU) forecast

4. The Climate Action Plan in Context • State Climate Action Plans Typically ARE: • Strategy scoping documents • Sketch-level emissions analyses • State Climate Action Plans Typically ARE NOT: • Fiscally constrained • Constrained by current limits on implementation authority • Developed by agencies that would implement the plans • Analogous to LRTPs

5. Arkansas Arizona California Colorado Connecticut Florida Hawaii Iowa Maine Maryland Michigan Minnesota Montana New Hampshire New Mexico North Carolina Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina Vermont Washington Wisconsin Alabama Georgia Indiana Louisiana Mississippi North Dakota Nebraska Ohio Oklahoma South Dakota Tennessee Texas West Virginia Wyoming Illinois Massachusetts Nevada New Jersey Utah Virginia Status of State Climate Action Plans No CAP 14 states CAP with quantified strategies 23 states EPA-funded CAP research papers, 2 states Delaware Missouri CAP in progress, 5 states ~ 17 with assistance from Center for Climate Strategies (CCS) Alaska Idaho Kansas Kentucky New York CAP w/out quantified strategies, 6 states

6. Total Forecast State GHG Emissions (BAU) 596 12

7. Transportation Contribution to Total State GHG Emissions 52% 19%

8. GHG Reductions from Plan 26% reduction 57% 41% 12% 43% 46% 44% 43% 28% 25% 78% 49% 51% 67% 14% 18% 29% 10% 88%

9. Mitigation Strategies in 30 CAPs

10. Effectiveness of Individual Mitigation Strategies Avg Max Min LDV New Vehicle Emissions Stds. Alt. Fuels/Low Carbon Fuel Std. Combined Smart Growth/Transit Pay as You Drive Insurance Smart Growth LDV Clean Vehicle Purchase Incentives Transit and Alt. Modes Commuter Benefits/Trip Reduction Freight systems strategies HDV Retrofit or Replacement HDV anti-idling measures Non-road Measures Traffic Speed/Flow Measures LDV and HDV Fleet-based Measures 10% 15% 20% 0% 5% Percent Reduction from Transportation Baseline

11. Steps in Climate Action Plan Development (typical) Create Emission Inventory and Forecast (baseline) By sector; may be done in advance Form Stakeholder Groups Plenary group + 4-5 technical working groups Review “Catalog” of Potential Strategies Select Short List of Strategies for Evaluation Typically 6-12 Analyze GHG Impacts and Costs of Select Strategies Formulate Strategy Implementation Steps Calculate Combined Impact of All Plan Strategies Final Report

12. Questions?

13. Part 2: Transportation Mitigation Strategies – Quantification Methods and Uncertainties

14. Real Impacts of CAP Strategies • Actual GHG Reductions Will Depend On: • Enactment of strategies (Hurdle #1) • Implementation of strategies (Hurdle #2) • Variables that determine impact (Hurdle #3) • Sources of Uncertainty Arise at Each Hurdle

15. Requirements for Enactment (Hurdle #1) • Public funding • Legislation or rulemaking • Major public agency initiative • Private industry collaboration

16. Requirements for Enactment (Hurdle #1)

17. External Factors Affecting Implementation (Hurdle #2)

18. Variables that Determine Impact (Hurdle #3)

19. Quantification Techniques • Apply empirical results from studies of similar measures • Set a reduction goal, supported by a local feasibility study • Set a reduction goal, not supported by a local feasibility study Less certainty

20. Smart Growth Strategies in CAPs Key questions • Will envisioned land use changes occur in the projected timeframe? • Will travel patterns change with land use as predicted? Quantification approaches in sample states • Apply local results from regional land use scenario modeling • Apply non-local results from regional land use scenario modeling • Establish goals without a supporting feasibility analysis Estimated reduction in VMT in sample states: 2% to 9% Less certainty

21. Traffic Speed/Flow Strategies in CAPs Traffic Smoothing • Primary uncertainties are the specific changes to the system and how they affect traffic flow • Quantified based on an emissions goal • Estimated transportation GHG reductions in sample states: 0.1% to 0.2% Speed Limits • Key question: How will changes in speed limit or enforcement change travel speeds? • Quantified using rule-of-thumb on speed vs. fuel economy • Estimated transportation GHG reductions in sample states: 0.3% to 1.0%

22. Alternative Fuel Strategies in CAPs Low Carbon Fuel Standards – mandated reduction in amount of carbon per unit of energy • Primary uncertainty is adoption into state law • Market penetration, effectiveness, and timing are mandated • Estimated GHG reductions in sample states: 6% to 19% Individual Alternative Fuels – goals for market share • Typical policies increase market share of ethanol and/or biodiesel • Primary uncertainty is lifecycle GHG impacts of fuels and feedstocks • Estimated GHG reductions in sample states: 0.2% to 2.3%

23. Questions?

24. Part 3: Impacts and Adaptation

25. State Climate Change Adaptation Plans Source: Pew Center on Global Climate Change, “Adaptation Planning – What U.S. States and Localities are Doing”, August 2009

26. Adaptation Working Groups • Public Health • Biodiversity and Habitat • Ocean and Coastal Resources • Water Management • Agriculture • Forestry • Transportation and Energy Infrastructure * • Built Environment, Infrastructure and Communities * • Human Health and Security • Ecosystems, Species, Habitats • Natural Resources • Existing Built Environment and Infrastructure • Future Built Environment and Infrastructure • Resource and Resource-based Industries • Human Health, Safety and Welfare • Public Infrastructure * • Health & Culture • Natural Systems • Economic Activities • * Includes state DOT

27. Impact and Adaptation – Approaches • Vulnerability Assessment • Identifies existing stressors facing transportation systems and projects how climate change will introduce new stressors in the future • Risk Assessment • Evaluates the likelihood and consequence of climate-related impacts on transportation • Adaptation • Transportation management options available for effectively adapting to climate change impacts Most state plans have not advanced beyond vulnerability

28. Adopted Strategies – Examples Alaska • PI-1: Create a Coordinated and Accessible Statewide System for Key Data Collection, Analysis, and Monitoring • PI-2: Promote Improvements that Use the Current Best Practice • PI-3: Build to Last; Build Resiliency into Alaska’s Public Infrastructure California • Develop a detailed climate vulnerability assessment and adaptation plan for California’s transportation infrastructure • Incorporate climate change vulnerability assessment planning tools, policies, and strategies into existing transportation and investment decisions. • Develop transportation design and engineering standards to minimize climate change risks to vulnerable transportation infrastructure. • Assess environmental impacts from climate change in rehabilitating the transportation system and siting of new transportation projects • Incorporate climate change impact considerations into disaster preparedness planning for all transportation modes.

29. Questions?

30. Part 4: Key Opportunities for Involvement

31. 6 Points Where Involvement is Important • Formation of Stakeholder Groups • Inventory and Forecast (Baseline) • Selection of Strategies • Strategy “Design” • Quantification of Strategy Impacts • Identification of Implementation Steps

32. 1. Formation of Stakeholder Groups • Working groups make recommendations to a plenary group (CAT, CAG, etc.) • Transportation TWG usually includes the DOT and/or MPO • Plenary group does not usually include DOT or MPO

33. 2. Inventory and Forecast (Baseline) • Pay attention to growth factors for forecast years • On-road gasoline and diesel forecast based on VMT projections • DOT vs. MPO projections High uncertainty Little or no uncertainty

34. 3. Selection of Strategies Catalog of Policy Options (30-50 options) High Priority List (8-10 options) analysis Balloting Vehicle technology Vehicle operation Alternative fuels Smart growth Demand management System efficiency Non-road • Multiple options may be “bundled” during or after balloting • Details on individual strategies may be lost • Backtracking discouraged • Decisions are made on which strategies to include before analysis is done

35. 4. Strategy “Design” • Numeric goals for strategy effectiveness • Examples: • Reduce light-duty VMT by 2% statewide by 2020 • Reduce fuel consumption from extended (overnight) idling of heavy-duty vehicles 50% by year 2012 and 95% 2020 • By 2010, all employers covered by a transportation authority with more than 100 employees will offer a commuter benefits program • By 2010, ensure that 50% of employers who provide leased parking spaces to employees will offer parking cash-out. • By 2020, 20% of drivers will be covered by mileage-based automobile insurance • Increase the bicycle and walking mode share (all trips) in urban growth areas to 15% by 2020 • Quantification of GHG impacts often directly tied to design goal • Make sure Design Goals are realistic

36. 5. Quantification of Strategy Impacts • Questions to consider when reviewing quantification • Is impact quantified based on strategy goal? If so, is the goal supported by research? • What segments of travel are affected? (e.g., light-duty vehicles only, urban VMT only) • Are offsetting emissions quantified? (e.g., increase in transit emissions) • Are strategy overlaps accounted for?

37. 6. Identification of Implementation Steps • Recommendations for policy changes, new programs, etc. • Examples: • The legislature would adopt the per capita VMT reduction goals and standards outlined in the Mitigation Option Design in the 2008 legislative session • Adopt Complete Streets as a policy for state roads • Fund State Bicycle and Pedestrian Programs at $150 million in the first year, expanding to meet the needs identified • Provide funding for state and local government conversions of standard hybrids to plug-in through the Energy Freedom Fund • Include strategy in next TIP/LRTP • Recommendations for implementation steps often overlooked • Opportunity for FHWA involvement

38. Questions?

39. For more information: • Diane Turchetta, FHWA • (202) 493-0158 • Diane.Turchetta@dot.gov