Comparison of low-carbon pathways for California

Morrison, Geoffrey M.; Yeh, Sonia; Eggert, Anthony; Yang, Christopher; Nelson, James H.; Greenblatt, Jeffery B.; Isaac, Raphael; Jacobson, Mark Z.; Johnston, Josiah; Kammen, Daniel M.; Mileva, Ana; Moore, Jack; Roland‐Holst, David; Wei, Max; Weyant, John P.; Williams, James H.; Williams, R.D.; Zapata, Christina

doi:10.1007/s10584-015-1403-5

Cited by 30 publications

(26 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…These baseline scenarios also include a decrease in NG use, yielding a minimal total energy consumption decrease of 0–1% for Scenario 1 and a decrease of 14–18% for Scenario 2, indicating that without increases in efficiency. These increases are comparable to previous energy forecasts for LAC10.…”

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 86%

Energy efficiency to reduce residential electricity and natural gas use under climate change

2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Climate change could significantly affect consumer demand for energy in buildings, as changing temperatures may alter heating and cooling loads. Warming climates could also lead to the increased adoption and use of cooling technologies in buildings. We assess residential electricity and natural gas demand in Los Angeles, California under multiple climate change projections and investigate the potential for energy efficiency to offset increased demand. We calibrate residential energy use against metered data, accounting for differences in building materials and appliances. Under temperature increases, we find that without policy intervention, residential electricity demand could increase by as much as 41–87% between 2020 and 2060. However, aggressive policies aimed at upgrading heating/cooling systems and appliances could result in electricity use increases as low as 28%, potentially avoiding the installation of new generation capacity. We therefore recommend aggressive energy efficiency, in combination with low-carbon generation sources, to offset projected increases in residential energy demand.

show abstract

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 86%

Energy efficiency to reduce residential electricity and natural gas use under climate change

2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Only a few California energy models are available that attempt to calculate costs across the entire economy (Morrison et al, 2014(Morrison et al, , 2015. Analyses produced by the E3 PATHWAYS model Energy+Environmental Economics (E3), 2015) suggest that meeting an intermediate target (40 % reduction in GHG emissions by the year 2030) using a non-optimized energy portfolio scenario would reduce personal income by USD 4.95 billion yr −1 (−0.15 %) and lower overall state gross domestic product by USD 16.1 billion yr −1 (−0.45 %).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Low-carbon energy generates public health savings in California

et al. 2018

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. California's goal to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to a level that is 80 % below 1990 levels by the year 2050 will require adoption of low-carbon energy sources across all economic sectors. In addition to reducing GHG emissions, shifting to fuels with lower carbon intensity will change concentrations of short-lived conventional air pollutants, including airborne particles with a diameter of less than 2.5 µm (PM 2.5 ) and ozone (O 3 ). Here we evaluate how business-as-usual (BAU) air pollution and public health in California will be transformed in the year 2050 through the adoption of low-carbon technologies, expanded electrification, and modified activity patterns within a low-carbon energy scenario (GHG-Step). Both the BAU and GHG-Step statewide emission scenarios were constructed using the energy-economic optimization model, CA-TIMES, that calculates the multi-sector energy portfolio that meets projected energy supply and demand at the lowest cost, while also satisfying scenario-specific GHG emissions constraints. Corresponding criteria pollutant emissions for each scenario were then spatially allocated at 4 km resolution to support air quality analysis in different regions of the state. Meteorological inputs for the year 2054 were generated under a Representative Concentration Pathway (RCP) 8.5 future climate. Annual-average PM 2.5 and O 3 concentrations were predicted using the modified emissions and meteorology inputs with a regional chemical transport model. In the final phase of the analysis, mortality (total deaths) and mortality rate (deaths per 100 000) were calculated using established exposure-response relationships from air pollution epidemiology combined with simulated annual-average PM 2.5 and O 3 exposure. Net emissions reductions across all sectors are −36 % for PM 0.1 mass, −3.6 % for PM 2.5 mass, −10.6 % for PM 2.5 elemental carbon, −13.3 % for PM 2.5 organic carbon, −13.7 % for NO x , and −27.5 % for NH 3 . Predicted deaths associated with air pollution in 2050 dropped by 24-26 % in California (1537-2758 avoided deaths yr −1 ) in the "climatefriendly" 2050 GHG-Step scenario, which is equivalent to a 54-56 % reduction in the air pollution mortality rate (deaths per 100 000) relative to 2010 levels. These avoided deaths have an estimated value of USD 11.4-20.4 billion yr −1 based on the present-day value of a statistical life (VSL) equal to USD 7.6 million. The costs for reducing California GHG emissions 80 % below 1990 levels by the year 2050 depend strongly on numerous external factors such as the global price of oil. Best estimates suggest that meeting an intermediate target (40 % reduction in GHG emissions by the year 2030) using a non-optimized scenario would reduce personal income by USD 4.95 billion yr −1 (−0.15 %) and lower overall state gross domestic product by USD 16.1 billion yr −1 (−0.45 %). The public health benefits described here are comparable to these cost estimates, making a compelling argument for the adoption of low-carbon energy in California, with implic...

show abstract

“…36 Finally, many of the models are limited in geographical and temporal scope; few existing model time horizons extend beyond 2035, [25][26][27]33 masking the difficulties of achieving necessary longerterm reductions in CO 2 , and many models focus only on a portion of the country or building stock. [28][29][30]35,[37][38][39] Given these limitations of previous work, there is a strong need for a transparent and reproducible model of technology change and CO 2 reduction pathways to meet the MCS goals in the buildings sector that leverages the best available data and is subject to annual review and updates.…”

Section: Context and Scalementioning

confidence: 99%

Assessing the Potential to Reduce U.S. Building CO2 Emissions 80% by 2050

Langevin

Harris

Reyna

2019

Joule

121

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Buildings are responsible for 36% of CO 2 emissions in the U.S. and will thus be integral to climate change mitigation. We use Scout, a reproducible model of U.S. building energy use, to assess whether buildings can reduce CO 2 emissions 80% by 2050, finding that aggressive efficiency measures and low-carbon electrification can reduce emissions 72%-78%. The analysis establishes a basis for periodic reassessment of building technology development pathways that can drive longterm reductions in U.S. CO 2 emissions.

show abstract

Comparison of low-carbon pathways for California

Cited by 30 publications

References 22 publications

Energy efficiency to reduce residential electricity and natural gas use under climate change

Energy efficiency to reduce residential electricity and natural gas use under climate change

Low-carbon energy generates public health savings in California

Assessing the Potential to Reduce U.S. Building CO2 Emissions 80% by 2050

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About