Approaches for

Cost-effective Reductions

of Population Exposure

to Fine Particulate Matter

in Europe

M. Amann, I. Bertok, R. Cabala, J. Cofala, F. Gyarfas, C. Heyes,

Z. Klimont, F. Wagner, W. Schöpp

General assumptions

• All calculations for 2020

• CAFE baseline scenario “with climate measures”

• Maximum technically feasible emission reductions (MTFR) as presented to WGTS in November

• Impact assessment for 1997 meteorology

• Assumptions on health impact assessment as presented earlier

New elements

• Validation of PM source-receptor relationships

• Provisional City-Delta results are included, but could be improved

• Analysis with illustrative assumptions on Euro-V and Euro-VI

• Baseline costs corrected – no influence on optimization results.

Functional relationships for PM

PM2.5j Annual mean concentration of PM2.5 at receptor point j

I Set of emission sources (countries)

J Set of receptors (grid cells)

pi Primary emissions of PM2.5 in country i

si SO2 emissions in country i

ni NOx emissions in country i

ai NH3 emissions in country i

αS,Wij, νS,W,A

ij, σW,Aij, πA

ij Linear transfer matrices for reduced and oxidized nitrogen, sulfur and primary PM2.5, for winter, summer and annual

)2**2),1**32

14*1**1,0min(max(*5.0

)**(*5.0

**5.2

jiIi

Wijji

Ii

Wiji

Ii

Wij

iIi

Siji

Ii

Sij

iIi

Aij

Iii

Aijj

knckscac

na

spPM

Validation of PMCAFE baseline 2020 [μg/m3]

0

5

10

15

20

25

0 5 10 15 20 25

EMEP model

RA

INS

ap

pro

xim

ati

on

City-Delta estimates for 2000 (1)PM2.5, annual mean [μg/m3]

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Gra

z

Wie

n

Ant

wer

pen

Bru

xelle

s

Brn

o

Ost

rava

Plz

en

Pra

ha

Kø

benh

avn

Tal

linn

Hel

sink

i

Tam

pere

Van

taa

Bor

deau

x

Lille

Lyon

Mar

seill

e *)

Mon

tpel

lier

Nan

tes

Nic

e

Par

is

Rei

ms

Ren

nes

Str

asbo

urg

Tou

lous

e

Mineral Secondary incl H2O Primary-50*50km estimate Urban increment Observation ~2000

*) this initial estimate includes too high PM emissions from ships

City-Delta estimates for 2000 (2)PM2.5, annual mean [μg/m3]

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Ber

lin

Düs

seld

orf

Fra

nkfu

rt a

m M

ain

Ham

burg

Koe

ln

Man

nhei

m

Mün

chen

Nür

nber

g

Stu

ttgar

t

Ath

ina

The

ssal

onik

i *)

The

ssal

onik

i

Bud

apes

t

Deb

rece

n

Mis

kolc

Dub

lin

Bar

i

Bol

ogna

Mod

ena

Bre

scia

Cag

liari

Cat

ania

Fire

nze/

Livo

rno

*)

Fire

nze

Gen

ova

Gen

ova

Gen

ova

Livo

rno

Mes

sina

Mila

no

Nap

oli

Pal

erm

o

Par

ma

Reg

gio

di C

alab

ria

Rom

a

Tar

anto

Tor

ino

Trie

ste*

)

Trie

ste

Ven

ezia

Ver

ona

Mineral Secondary incl H2O Primary-50*50km estimate Urban increment Observation ~2000

*) this initial estimate includes too high PM emissions from ships

City-Delta estimates for 2000 (3)PM2.5, annual mean [μg/m3]

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Am

ster

dam

Rot

terd

am

Kat

owic

e

Lodz

War

szaw

a

Lisb

oa

Por

to

Bra

tisla

va

Kos

ice

Ljub

ljana

Ljub

ljana

Alm

eria

Bar

celo

na

Bilb

ao

Car

tage

na

Cor

doba

Elc

he

Gijo

n

Gra

nada

Jere

z de

la F

ront

era

Mad

rid

Mal

aga

Mur

cia

Ovi

edo

Pal

ma

de M

allo

rca

Pam

plon

a

Sab

adel

l

San

tand

er

Sev

illa

Val

enci

a

Val

lado

lid

Vig

o

Vito

ria-G

aste

iz

Zar

agoz

a

Mineral Secondary incl H2O Primary-50*50km estimate Urban increment Observation ~2000

*) this initial estimate includes too high PM emissions from ships

City-Delta estimates for 2000 (4)PM2.5, annual mean [μg/m3]

0

5

10

15

20

25

Rig

a

Kau

nas

Kla

iped

a

Viln

ius

Göt

ebor

g

Mal

moe

Sto

ckho

lm

Upp

sala

Abe

rdee

n

Bel

fast

Birm

ingh

am, C

oven

try

Birm

ingh

am, D

erby

Bra

dfor

d, L

eeds

Bris

tol

Der

by, S

heffi

eld

Edi

nbur

gh

Gla

sgow

Kin

gsto

n up

on H

ull

Live

rpoo

l

Lond

on

Man

ches

ter

New

cast

le-u

pon-

Tyn

e

Nor

tham

pton

Nor

wic

h

Not

tingh

am, D

erby

Ply

mou

th

Por

tsm

outh

Pre

ston

Sou

tham

pton

Sto

ke-o

n-T

rent

Sw

anse

a

Mineral Secondary incl H2O Primary-50*50km estimate Urban increment Observation ~2000

*) this initial estimate includes too high PM emissions from ships

Euro-V and Euro-VIIllustrative assumptions

Assumed emission factors:

Assumed implementation dates:

Euro-V: 2010

Euro-VI : 2014

NOx PM

HDV – Euro-V 1.47 g/kWh 0.015 g/kWh

- Euro-VI 0.4 g/kWh 0.01 g/kWh

LDV – Euro-IV 0.305 g/km 0.027 g/km

- Euro-V 0.06 g/km 0.004 g/km

Euro-V and Euro-VIImpacts on EU-25 emissions in 2020

NOx PM

HDV

CLE 1079 kt 12.1 kt

Euro-VI 724 kt (-33 %) 10.3 kt (-15 %)

LDV

CLE 508 kt 39.8 kt

Euro-V 245 kt (-52 %) 18.1 kt (-55 %)

Total emissions CLE 5889 kt 965 kt

Euro-V/VI 5271 kt (-10 %) 941 kt (-2.4 %)

Costs of current legislation for baseline 2020Corrected estimates

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

Aus

tria

Bel

gium

Cyp

rus

Cze

ch R

ep.

Den

mar

k

Est

onia

Fin

land

Fra

nce

Ger

man

y

Gre

ece

Hun

gary

Irel

and

Ital

y

Latv

ia

Lith

uani

a

Luxe

mbo

urg

Mal

ta

Net

herla

nds

Pol

and

Por

tuga

l

Slo

vaki

a

Slo

veni

a

Spa

in

Sw

eden UK

EU

-25

Costs Baseline (Euro/person/yr) Mobile SO2 NOx NH3 VOC PM

Caveats

• Limited quality control of the initial results

• New functional relationships not yet formally documented; validation not fully completed

• Provisional City-Delta results are included, but could be improved!

• Uncertainty analysis not yet performed

Optimization analyses

• Uniform limit value for air quality:Bring down PM2.5 everywhere below a AQ limit value

• Gap closure concept:Reduce PM2.5 levels everywhere by same percentage

• Maximize total health benefits in Europe for a given European budget constraint, disregarding the location of the benefit

Three concepts for target setting

Option 1: Uniform limit value on air quality

• EMEP/RAINS quantify: – Primary anthropogenic PM– Secondary inorganic aerosols (including water)

• EMEP/RAINS miss: – Mineral and Sea-salt from natural sources– Primary organic matter from natural sources– Secondary organic aerosols from natural and anthropogenic sources

• RAINS + City-Delta address urban background, but not hot spots in street canyons

• Thus, model can only explain part of observed PM

Scope for uniform limit value (1)excl. unknown contributions of SOA + natural primary organic matter

*) this initial estimate includes too high PM emissions from ships

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Ber

lin

Düs

seld

orf

Fra

nkfu

rt a

m M

ain

Ham

burg

Koe

ln

Man

nhei

m

Mün

chen

Nür

nber

g

Stu

ttgar

t

Ath

ina

The

ssal

onik

i

Bud

apes

t

Deb

rece

n

Mis

kolc

Dub

lin

Bar

i

Bol

ogna

Mod

ena

Bre

scia

Cag

liari

Cat

ania

Fire

nze

Livo

rno

Mes

sina

Mila

no

Nap

oli

Pal

erm

o

Par

ma

Reg

gio

di C

alab

ria

Rom

a

Tar

anto

Tor

ino

Trie

ste

Ver

ona

Feasible range for limit value Mineral MTFR MTFR - CLE CLE - 2000 Observation ~2000

Scope for uniform limit value (2)excl. unknown contributions of SOA + primary natural organic matter

*) this initial estimate includes too high PM emissions from ships

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Am

ster

dam

Rot

terd

am

Kat

owic

e

Lodz

War

szaw

a

Lisb

oa

Por

to

Bra

tisla

va

Kos

ice

Ljub

ljana

Bar

celo

na

Bilb

ao

Car

tage

na

Cor

doba

Elc

he

Gijo

n

Gra

nada

Jere

z de

la F

ront

era

Mad

rid

Mal

aga

Mur

cia

Ovi

edo

Pal

ma

de M

allo

rca

Pam

plon

a

Sab

adel

l

San

tand

er

Sev

illa

Val

enci

a

Val

lado

lid

Vig

o

Vito

ria-G

aste

iz

Zar

agoz

a

Feasible range for limit value Mineral MTFR MTFR - CLE CLE - 2000 Observation ~2000

Scope for uniform limit value (3)excl. unknown contributions of SOA + primary natural organic matter

*) this initial estimate includes too high PM emissions from ships

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Gra

z

Wie

n

Ant

wer

pen

Bru

xelle

s

Brn

o

Ost

rava

Plz

en

Pra

ha

Kø

benh

avn

Tal

linn

Hel

sink

i

Tam

pere

Van

taa

Bor

deau

x

Lille

Lyon

Mar

seill

e *)

Mon

tpel

lier

Nan

tes

Nic

e

Par

is

Rei

ms

Ren

nes

Str

asbo

urg

Tou

lous

e

"Feasible range for limit value" Mineral MTFR MTFR - CLE CLE - 2000 Observation ~2000

Scope for uniform limit value (4)excl. unknown contributions of SOA + primary natural organic matter

*) this initial estimate includes too high PM emissions from ships

0

5

10

15

20

25

Rig

a

Kau

nas

Kla

iped

a

Viln

ius

Göt

ebor

g

Mal

moe

Sto

ckho

lm

Upp

sala

Abe

rdee

n

Bel

fast

Birm

ingh

am, C

oven

try

Birm

ingh

am, D

erby

Bra

dfor

d, L

eeds

Bris

tol

Der

by, S

heffi

eld

Edi

nbur

gh

Gla

sgow

Kin

gsto

n up

on H

ull

Live

rpoo

l

Lond

on

Man

ches

ter

New

cast

le-u

pon-

Tyn

e

Nor

tham

pton

Nor

wic

h

Not

tingh

am, D

erby

Ply

mou

th

Por

tsm

outh

Pre

ston

Sou

tham

pton

Sto

ke-o

n-T

rent

Sw

anse

a

Feasible range for limit value Mineral MTFR MTFR - CLE CLE - 2000 Observation ~2000

Uniform limit value on air quality Ambition levels explored

• Bring annual mean PM2.5 in urban background below

– 19 / 17 / 16.5 / 16 / 15.5 / 15 μg/m3

• This level includes the fraction modelled by RAINS + assumption on mineral (1/2/3 μg/m3)

• It does not include unknown contributions of primary natural organic matter + secondary organic aerosols

• To relate this value to potential hot-spot AQ limit value, add ~ 5 μg/m3 ?

• No targets for harbor cities considered for this round of analysis (mistake in dispersion calculations)

Costs of the limit value scenarios[billion €/year]

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

Limit on PM2.5 in urban background [microgram/m3]

without Euro-V/VI with Euro-V/VI

Costs of the limit value scenarios assuming implementation of Euro-V/VI

0

20

40

60

80

100

Aus

tria

Bel

gium

Cyp

rus

Cze

ch R

ep.

Den

mar

k

Est

onia

Fin

land

Fra

nce

Ger

man

y

Gre

ece

Hun

gary

Irel

and

Ital

y

Latv

ia

Lith

uani

a

Luxe

mbo

urg

Mal

ta

Net

herla

nds

Pol

and

Por

tuga

l

Slo

vaki

a

Slo

veni

a

Spa

in

Sw

eden UK

EU

-25

Total Costs (Euro/person/yr) 16.5 μg 16 μg 15.5 μg

Costs of the limit value scenarios assuming NO implementation of Euro-V/VI

15 μg/m3 is infeasible

0

20

40

60

80

100

Aus

tria

Bel

gium

Cyp

rus

Cze

ch R

ep.

Den

mar

k

Est

onia

Fin

land

Fra

nce

Ger

man

y

Gre

ece

Hun

gary

Irel

and

Ital

y

Latv

ia

Lith

uani

a

Luxe

mbo

urg

Mal

ta

Net

herla

nds

Pol

and

Por

tuga

l

Slo

vaki

a

Slo

veni

a

Spa

in

Sw

eden UK

EU

-25

Total Costs (Euro/person/yr) 16.5 μg 16 μg 15.5 μg

Option 2: Gap closure

• Reduce modelled PM2.5 everywhere by the same percentage

• For these round of calculations: – Explore the range between the impacts from

CLE and MTFR including Euro-V/VI

• 25% / 40% / 50% / 60% / 70% / 75% reductions analyzed

• With and without Euro-V/VI

Effect indicator

MTFR from EU25 excluding EURO5/6

Base year exposure (2000/1990)

Baseline 2020 (Current legislation)

MTFR from EU25MTFR from EU-25 + shipping

MTFR from Europe + shipping

No-effect level (critical load/level)

Zero exposure

Gap concept used for NEC

Range of exploratory ambition levels

NEC 2010

Definition of “gap closure”used for this round of calculations

Costs of the “gap closure” scenarios[billion €/yr]

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

-100% -90% -80% -70% -60% -50% -40% -30% -20% -10% 0%

Reduction of the difference between CLE and MFTR incl Euro5/6

Without Euro-V/VI With Euro-V/VI

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Aus

tria

Bel

gium

Cyp

rus

Cze

ch R

ep.

Den

mar

k

Est

onia

Fin

land

Fra

nce

Ger

man

y

Gre

ece

Hun

gary

Irel

and

Ital

y

Latv

ia

Lith

uani

a

Luxe

mbo

urg

Mal

ta

Net

herla

nds

Pol

and

Por

tuga

l

Slo

vaki

a

Slo

veni

a

Spa

in

Sw

eden UK

EU

-25

Total Costs (Euro/person/yr) 40% GC 60% GC 70% GC

Costs of the “gap closure” scenariosassuming Euro-V/VI, [billion €/yr]

100% is the range between CLE and MTFR incl. Euro-V/VI

Costs of the “gap closure” scenarioswithout Euro-V/VI, [billion €/yr]

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Aus

tria

Bel

gium

Cyp

rus

Cze

ch R

ep.

Den

mar

k

Est

onia

Fin

land

Fra

nce

Ger

man

y

Gre

ece

Hun

gary

Irel

and

Ital

y

Latv

ia

Lith

uani

a

Luxe

mbo

urg

Mal

ta

Net

herla

nds

Pol

and

Por

tuga

l

Slo

vaki

a

Slo

veni

a

Spa

in

Sw

eden UK

EU

-25

Total Costs (Euro/person/yr) 40% GC 60% GC 70% GC

100% is the range between CLE and MTFR incl. Euro-V/VI

Option 3: Maximize total European health benefits for a given budget

• Dual optimization problem: Instead of – Minimize total European costs for achieving place-specific environmental

targets:

optimize for:

– Maximize total European health benefits (i.e., gains in life expectancy) for a given budget. No consideration of the place/country where the improvement occurs.

• Maximal cost-effectiveness, equity needs to be explored

• Illustrative analysis with pseudo-life expectancy data (calculations include population younger than 30 years)

• No difference of whether Euro-V/VI is taken or not, but a final analysis should include Euro-V/VI (with cost data) in the optimization

Emission control costs vs. years of life lost Illustrative calculations [billion €/yr]

0

10

20

30

40

130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200 210 220

Years of life lost (million years)

Per-capita emission control costs for three selected ambition levels [€/person/yr]

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Aus

tria

Bel

gium

Cyp

rus

Cze

ch R

ep.

Den

mar

k

Est

onia

Fin

land

Fra

nce

Ger

man

y

Gre

ece

Hun

gary

Irel

and

Italy

Latv

ia

Lith

uani

a

Luxe

mbo

urg

Mal

ta

Net

herla

nds

Pol

and

Por

tuga

l

Slo

vaki

a

Slo

veni

a

Spa

in

Sw

eden UK

EU

-25

Budget constraint:Total Costs (Euro/person/yr)

2.1 billion € 6.6 billion € 12.2 billion €

Gains in statistical life expectancyfor three selected ambition levels [months]

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

Au

stri

a

Be

lgiu

m

Cyp

rus

Cze

ch

De

nm

ark

Est

on

ia

Fin

lan

d

Fra

nce

Ge

rma

ny

Gre

ece

Hu

ng

ary

Ire

lan

d

Ita

ly

La

tvia

Lith

ua

nia

Lu

xem

bo

urg

Ma

lta

Ne

the

rla

nd

s

Po

lan

d

Po

rtu

ga

l

Slo

vaki

a

Slo

ven

ia

Sp

ain

Sw

ed

en

UK

EU

25

Budget constraint:

2.1 billion € 6.6 billion € 12.2 billion €

Costs for a gained month of life expectancyIllustrative results [€/person/year]

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Au

stri

a

Be

lgiu

m

Cyp

rus

Cze

ch

De

nm

ark

Est

on

ia

Fin

lan

d

Fra

nce

Ge

rma

ny

Gre

ece

Hu

ng

ary

Ire

lan

d

Ita

ly

La

tvia

Lith

ua

nia

Lu

xem

bo

urg

Ma

lta

Ne

the

rla

nd

s

Po

lan

d

Po

rtu

ga

l

Slo

vaki

a

Slo

ven

ia

Sp

ain

Sw

ed

en

UK

EU

25

European budget constraint

2.1 billion € 6.6 billion € 12.2 billion €

Cost-effectiveness of the target setting approachesEmission control costs [billion €/yr] vs. YOLL

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

150 160 170 180 190 200 210 220 230

European targets Gap closure approach Limit value

Conclusions

• Different target setting rules lead to different distributions of costs and benefits

• Obvious problems for AQ limit values and for gap closure approaches

• For PM, a Europe-wide maximization of benefits does not seem to compromise equity in terms of health effects (does probably not hold for ecosystems!)

• Cost-effectiveness of Euro-V/VI is comparable to that of the more expensive measures for stationary sources, but depends on the chosen ambition level

• Which further analyses will yield maximum information from the last available round of CAFE?

Priorities for further work

• Sensitivity analysis with national energy projections• Analysis of joint optimizations / or co-benefits of PM?• Ship emissions• Calculations for 2015• ???