Emission control scenarios for EU and non-EU countries M. Amann, W. Asman, I. Bertok, J. Cofala, C. Heyes, Z. Klimont, W. Schöpp, F. Wagner Meeting of the Task Force on Integrated Assessment Modelling Prague, May 2-4, 2007

Recent emission scenarios Scenarios for EU Member States Scenarios for non-EU countries Ship emissions

Changes in the GAINS databases for EU MS since December 2006 For energy-related aspects: National energy scenarios for Greece, Lithuania and Switzerland implemented Revised emission factors, control strategies and other inputs for Belgium, Czech Rep., Germany, Greece, Hungary, Finland, Ireland, Lithuania, Malta, Netherlands, Switzerland, UK; Revised baseline emission control legislation on national sea traffic For VOC: Country comments from Belgium, Greece, Romania For NH 3 : Comments from Denmark, Finland, Romania, Switzerland, Bulgaria, Romania, Turkey, Malta, Switzerland

Target setting for the NEC analysis TSAP has established environmental targets for 2020 In the meantime, methodology, data and boundary conditions have changed: –Ecosystem-specific deposition for eutrophication –Multi-year meteorology –Extension to EU-27 –Extension to Norway Current NEC analysis has applied TSAP percentage improvement targets to YOLLs, acidification and ozone. For eutrophication targets have been recalculated with ecosystem-specific deposition methodology.

Summary of the environmental targets as applied in the NEC-3 report Health impacts for PM: –EU-27+N –wide reductions in YOLLs by 47% Acidification target: –EU-27+N –wide reduction in unprotected ecosystems area by 74% for forests and 39% for water. –In each Member State, a 30% gap closure of accumulated excess deposition between CLE and MRR Eutrophication target: –EU-27+N –wide reduction in unprotected ecosystems area by 31%. –In each Member State, gap closure of accumulated excess deposition between CLE and MRR accumulated by 67% (national proj.) and 61% (PRIMES/CAPRI proj.) Ozone target: –EU-27+N –wide reduction in premature mortality by 10%

Two central cases Cost-optimized emission reductions meeting the environmental TSAP objectives With Euro-VI measures in all countries (Package A of Commission proposal, from 2013/14 onwards) Assuming 2020 emissions in non-EU countries and ships For the –national activity projections and the –PRIMES €20 case

Costs of the single-objective optimization runs for the translated TSAP environmental objectives

Emission control costs by pollutant, EU-27, 2020 Costs of multi-pollutant measures for mobile sources are accounted under NO x

Emission control costs by SNAP sector for meeting the TSAP environmental objectives

Costs for air pollution and GHG mitigation in 2020 EU-25, GAINS estimates +2% CO 2 -8% CO 2 -20% CO 2

Impacts of uniform ELVs for large combustion plants How would EU-wide uniform emission limit values for large combustion plants influence total emissions? Reflecting the ranges of emission factors given in BREF notes For SO 2, NO x and PM2.5 emissions Compared to –NEC baseline (with national interpretations of IPPC) –Optimized emission levels (without Euro-VI)

National SO 2 emissions 2020 for different ELVs for LCPs

National NO x emissions 2020 w ith different ELVs for LCPs

Conclusions on scenarios for EU Member States Emission ceilings are currently under development Recent round of analysis put highest emphasis on eutrophication, and less on PM Euro-VI measures cost-effective means for achieving the environmental objectives Additional emission control costs are strongly influenced by assumptions on climate policy. Emission limit values for LCPs reflecting the emission factors indicated in the BREF-notes would lead to further emission reductions. In most cases these reductions are cost-effective.

Non-EU countries

Input data for non-EU countries National input received from Switzerland and Norway For all other countries, no new input received since EB 2006 Compared to Gothenburg Protocol, modified energy projections have been received for Russia, Ukraine and Belarus, but not through official channels. For all other countries, no change in input data since the Gothenburg Protocol Bilateral consultations with Russia, Ukraine and Belarus held in 2006, but no follow-up

Sources of energy projections for non-EU countries AlbaniaGothenburg Protocol 1996NorwayNational projection 2005/2006 BelarusGothenburg Protocol, adjusted 2006 RomaniaPRIMES baseline 2005 Bosnia-H.Gothenburg Protocol 1996RussiaNational projection 2002 BulgariaPRIMES baseline 2005Serbia-M.Gothenburg Protocol 1996 CroatiaGothenburg Protocol 1996SwitzerlandNational projection 2005/2006 T.F.Y.R.O. Macedonia Gothenburg Protocol 1996TurkeyPRIMES baseline 2005 Rep. of Moldova Gothenburg Protocol 1996UkraineNational projection 2004 No change since 2006!

Case A for “Current legislation” SO 2 : Emission standards as laid down in national legislation. For new LCPs standards of the 2 nd Sulfur Protocol NO x : Uncontrolled emissions, except for new LCPs where primary measures (combustion modifications) are assumed PM: Controls according to current practices. No enhanced replacement of boilers and stoves in the residential/ commercial sector. Successful implementation of EURO emission standards for road vehicles according to national legislation/plans Replacement of VOC-emitting products and production equipment according to historic trends/replacement rates

Case B for “Current legislation” SO 2 : Uncontrolled emissions NO x : Uncontrolled emissions, except new LCPs where primary measures (combustion modifications) are assumed PM: Controls according to current practices. Replacement of boilers and stoves in the residential/commercial sector follow a "natural' replacement rate Road vehicles: Uncontrolled emissions VOC: Uncontrolled emissions

Range of “Current legislation” emission projections Russia, Ukraine, Belarus WGSR has decided to assume Case B for the review of the Gothenburg Protocol

Cost-effectiveness of ship emission controls

Study for DG-ENV (IIASA/MSC-W/ENTEC): Updated emission projections for 2020 New gridding of emissions Distinguishing ferries/freight vessels, 6 sea regions, in/outside of the 12 mile zones, EU/non-EU flags Cost-effectiveness of four packages of measures to achieve the TSAP targets in 2020 Will be available on IIASA’s web site soon.

Packages of measures for ships (1) Baseline SO 2 Sulphur content as in the EU Marine Fuel Directive (OJ L 191/59, 2005): 1.5% S in residual oil for all ships in SECA (North Sea and Baltic Sea); 1.5% S fuel all passenger ships in other sea regions surrounding the European Union; 0.1% S fuel at berth in ports NO x MARPOL NO x standards for ships built since 2000 Ambition level 1 - all ships SO 2 As in the baseline NO x Slide valve retrofit on all slow-speed engines pre-2000 Internal engine modifications for all new engines post-2010 Ambition level 2 - all ships SO 2 0.5% S in residual oil or scrubbing equivalent (2g SO 2 /kWh) in SECA, and for passenger vessels everywhere. Cargo vessels as in the baseline NO x Slide valve retrofit on all slow-speed engines pre-2000 Humid air motors for all new engines post-2010

Packages of measures for ships (2) Ambition level 3 - all ships SO 2 Passenger and cargo ships: SECA - 1.0% S in residual oil from 2010, 0.5% or scrubbing equivalent from Other sea regions - as in the baseline but 0.5% or scrubbing equivalent from 2020 NO x Pre-2010 vessels: 15% reduction above baseline level through available retrofit measures. Post-2010 vessels: 50% reduction above baseline level. Ambition level 4 - all ships SO 2 As ambition level 3 NO x Pre-2010 vessels: 15% reduction above baseline level through available retrofit measures. Post-2010 vessels: Selective catalytic reduction (SCR) technology

Costs for achieving the TSAP targets (National activity projections, no Euro-VI)

Conclusions For the integrated assessment modelling activities for the review of the Gothenburg Protocol: Choice of baseline assumptions on climate strategy and agricultural policy are most crucial for EU Member States. For non-EU countries, very sparse validated national information available. Assumptions on the implementation of existing regulations have strongest impact on results. WGSR has decided to assume Case B for the Gothenburg review. Control of international ship emissions appears as cost- effective.