Wood Smoke Study: RTF Report Technical Subcommittee Meeting

1. Wood Smoke Study: RTF ReportTechnical Subcommittee Meeting September 26th, 2014

2. Seeking subcommittee feedback on whether the report: Accurately capture the RTF's understanding of the relevant issues and fairly reflects the assessment of the reliability of quantification? Can the effect be quantifiable and directly attributable (with uncertainty levels comparable to our existing products)?   Focusing on the content: Are there gaps in the report that we need to better address to meet the objectives above? Objectives for Today

3. We are not seeking subcommittee feedback or discussion on the following: Developing a a policy recommendation as to whether the RTF should consider health benefits in its work Debating the science behind the quantification or monetization of health effects Focusing on format or wordsmithing Out of Scope for Today

4. We burn a lot of wood in the Pacific Northwest • RTF work on ductless heat pumps (DHP) and weatherization found that these measures displace some wood heat in some residential homes • RTF used this analysis to account for the reduction in wood purchasing in the costs • Back of the envelope analysis showed the health benefits from avoided wood smoke to be significant, larger than value of electric savings Context of Current Analysis

5. RTF commissioned a screening level study that showed wood smoke benefits could be significant (approx. $0.70 to $1.60/ kWh wood heat displaced) • This study focused on large, uniform reductions in wood use across the PNW • RTF requested an in-depth study to understand: • Can the health benefits from reduced wood smoke be directly attributable to programs? • Can the health benefits from reduced wood smoke can be quantified and monetized? Context (cont.)

6. Total DHP Savings potential = 1,900 GWh • Total Wood Heat Displaced = 330 GWh • Total Health Effect (High) = $ 339 Million • High mortality * VSL high end • Total Health Effect (Low) = $ 50 Million • Low mortality * VSL Low End • Possible range of one year of health impacts: • Programmatic savings: 3 cents/ kWh to 18 cents/ kWh • Wood heat displaced: 15 cents/ kWh to $1.03/ kWh DHP Example with Approximate Estimates:

7. Monetary Value of Reduced Wood Smoke: Four Step Process using DHP Program Example

8. Monetary Value of Reduced Wood Smoke: Four Step Process (Uncertainty Summary)

9. How much wood heat is displaced by EE programs? • Weatherization • Weatherized homes have lower heating load so they should use less wood heat. • But we need additional research to say how much less • DHP • A fairy clear picture of wood heat displacement here. • Billing data shows DHPs save much less electricity in homes with wood heat than in homes without. • Conclusion: When you install a DHP in a home, they use less wood for heating. Emission Quantification: Wood Savings per Measure

10. Have electric billing for 3400 DHP program homes. Homes divided into wood-heat/ no-wood-heat groups. Compare groups to estimate fraction of load met with wood Do separately pre- and post-DHP Emission Quantification: DHP Wood-Savings Estimates

11. …Then use calibrated heat load estimates to get wood savings. Emission Quantification: DHP Wood-Savings Estimates

12. In the subcommittee’s opinion, can this step be quantified with reliability comparable to energy savings estimates? Have we adequately addressed questions of: inputs required, uncertainty around those inputs, and potential costs of reducing uncertainty? Emission Quantification: Subcommittee Feedback

13. Once released as wood smoke through a chimney, where do pollutants end up? • Wood smoke contains many pollutants. Main pollutant of interest are PM2.5 particles. • Apart from being present in wood smoke, PM2.5 are also formed downstream due to chemical reactions. • Dispersion modeling mathematically estimates the concentration of PM2.5 after accounting for environmental effects, and downstream chemical reactions. Dispersion Modeling

14. Dispersion modeling currently conducted using COBRA. • EPA recommended screening tool. • More sophisticated dispersion modeling tools exist. • Model atmospheric chemistry in more detail. • Give greater precision at the county level • Don’t know if they give better results at a regional level. • Critical to estimate post dispersion concentration of PM2.5 relative to high population density areas. • More sophisticated models required for this purpose. Dispersion Modeling (contd.)

15. In the subcommittee’s opinion, can this step be quantified with reliability comparable to energy savings estimates? Does the report adequately address the important issues related to quantification here? Dispersion Modeling: Subcommittee Feedback

16. Burn less wood  inhale less PM2.5 • Two types of health impact: • Changes in risk of treatable illnesses • Changes in risk of premature death • Changes in mortality risk are the biggest cost contributor. • Report references two studies that quantify mortality effect • Harvard Six Cities Cohort (Lepeulle, 2012) • American Cancer Society Cohort (Krewski, 2006) • Studies published with conclusions from extensive formal review Quantification of Health Effects

17. Does the report adequately address the important issues related to quantification here? In the subcommittee’s opinion, can this step be quantified with reliability comparable to energy savings estimates? Quantification of Health Effects: Subcommittee Feedback

18. What is the economic value of the health impact caused by decreased PM2.5 concentration? • Majority of the health impact (~99%) due to mortality. • Mortality characterized by VSL (Value of Statistical Life) Monetization of Health Effects

19. Value per Statistical Life (VSL) is… • A WTP estimate normalized by the magnitude of mortality risk reduction, i.e. VSL = WTP/Risk Reduction • Not the value of preventing a certain death of a given person • Society’s order of magnitude estimate for risk reduction. • EPA VSL is $9.4 Million (2010$ at 2017 income level) • Based on a synthesis of 26 WTP studies that have been identified in the Clean Air Act Section 812 Reports to Congress as “applicable to policy analysis.” • VSL estimate usually between $ 1 and $ 12 million. Monetization (contd.)

20. It’s how much we are willing to pay for sunscreen, not for protection against a ….. LIGHTSABER!!! Conceptualizing VSL

21. Does the report adequately address the important issues related to quantification here? In the subcommittee’s opinion, can this step be quantified (bounded) with reliability comparable to energy savings estimates? Monetization: Subcommittee Feedback

22. Does the report accurately reflect our understanding of these issues? • Are there any other content additions? Overarching Question