1 / 13

Climate Change: A Northwest Perspective Peggy Duxbury Seattle City Lig

Climate Change: A Northwest Perspective Peggy Duxbury Seattle City Light February 20, 2008. Climate Change: A Northwest perspective. Most hydro-dependent region = most affected by climate change impacts Allocation Matters!

drew
Download Presentation

Climate Change: A Northwest Perspective Peggy Duxbury Seattle City Lig

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Climate Change: A Northwest Perspective Peggy Duxbury Seattle City Light February 20, 2008

  2. Climate Change: A Northwest perspective • Most hydro-dependent region = most affected by climate change impacts • Allocation Matters! • NW Leadership on conservation and renewables should be recognized • NW utilities spend billions on salmon recovery, habitat protection, FERC relicensing to keep hydro operating

  3. Seattle Times, Nov 1, 2006

  4. Power plant CO2 emissions Power plants in the Northwest generate 1% of national power plant CO2 emissions U.S. Power Plants The size of each circle represents the quantity of emissions in 2002 24 million tons 15 million tons 4.0 million tons And 4% of national power output Primary Fuel Type Coal = Black Oil or Diesel = Blue Natural Gas = Red

  5. 2,000 lbs/MWh 1,500 lbs/MWh 1,000 lbs/MWh LOWEST EMISSION RATES IN US (lbs of CO2 per mwh of electricity produced)

  6. Northwest Efficiency Achievements1978 – 2005 Since 1978 Utility & BPA Programs, Energy Codes & Federal Efficiency Standards Have Produced Over 3100 aMW of Savings. SOURCE: NW Power and Conservation Council, 2007

  7. Allocation Comparison: Output vs. Emission Source: EIA 2004 & 2005 Difference between emission and performance/output approach @ $5/ton = $479 million @ $7/ton = $671 million @ $10/ton = $959 million Avoided Emissions from NW conservation (compared to coal) *CO2 allowance allocation based on total electricity output, including fossil, renewable, and incremental nuclear output (relative to 1990).

  8. Many still do little / no conservation: “In most of the11 state where AEP operates, it’s under no obligation to hold down demand. On the contrary, it makes more money the more electricity people use.” Source: “Inside the Messy Reality of Cutting Power Plant’s CO2 Output” Wall Street Journal, Thursday, July 12, 2007

  9. Comparison of Emission-Based Allocation To Top Ten Emitting Utilities v NW States CO2 levels had 3,100 MW of conservation been coal-fired generation Tons *Utility allowance allocation based on 2004 data reported in Ceres, Natural Resource Defense Council, and Public Service Enterprise Group, Benchmarking Air Emissions of the 100 Largest Electric Power Producers in the United States 2004, (April 2006). State allowance allocation based on 2004 and 2005 EIA data.

  10. Emission-Based Give Many Allowances to Few Source: “Benchmarking Air Emissions of the 100 Largest Electric Generation Owners -2004” Tons *CO2 allowance allocation based on total electricity output, including fossil, renewable, and incremental nuclear output (relative to 1990).

  11. Energy Efficiency ScorecardHighest ranking states: VT, CT, CA, MA, OR, WA, NY, NJ, RI 6 21 50 9 5 25 48 12 33 49 13 35 27 18 26 41 Maine 15 New Hampshire 18 Vermont 1 Massachusetts 4 Rhode Island 9 Connecticut 1 New York 7 Pennsylvania 14 New Jersey 8 Delaware 30 Maryland 20 Dist. Columbia 22 27 35 15 38 1 46 34 35 30 43 44 45 30 23 24 46 38 49 40 11 41 15 29 Lowest ranking states (number higher due to ties):ND, WY, MS, SD, AL, MO, AR, OK, TN, AK, IN, LA, GA, VA, KY, WV, NE Source: The State Energy Efficiency Scorecard for 2006, ACEEE, June, 2007

  12. Regional and State Climate Initiatives Western Regional Climate Action Initiative Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative             Maine New Hampshire Vermont Massachusetts Rhode Island Connecticut New York Pennsylvania New Jersey Delaware Maryland District of Columbia           AB 32             California motor vehicle CO2 emissions standards        RPS requirement or goal Florida GHG target   

  13. CONCLUSION • Hydro most impacted power system from climate change • Allocation matters! • Emission-based allocation: • Disadvantages the NW • Rewards behavior we should discourage • NW leadership should be recognized

More Related