PECHAN

Development of a Regional Greenhouse Gas Inventory and Forecast Including Direct and y g

Consumption-Based/Energy-Cycle Emissions

Holly Lindquist, Stephen M. Roe, Jim Wilson, Maureen Mullen, Brad Strode, Jackson Schreiber

E H Pechan & AssociatesE.H. Pechan & Associates

Hillel Hammer, Jelena Matic, Teresa Lin

AKRF IAKRF, Inc.

Jeffrey Perlman

11

North Jersey Transportation Planning Authority

Outline

• Objective

• Inventory Approach

• Sample Methods and ResultsSample Methods and Results

– Solid Waste Management

– Onroad Transportation

2

Objective

• Create region-wide Inventory & Forecast for North Jersey Transportation PlanningNorth Jersey Transportation Planning Authority

13 ti d 350 i i liti• 13 counties and over 350 municipalities

• Allow counties and municipalities to begin GHG mitigation planning

• Clearly inform planners of relative merits ofClearly inform planners of relative merits of mitigation actions

3

NJTPA Region

4

Inventory Approach: Accounting Methods

• Direct and Consumption-Based GHG emissionsemissions– Direct: emissions at the source (e.g., of fuel

combustion process etc )combustion, process, etc.)

– Consumption-Based: emissions attributed to the point of some GHG emitting activity (e.g., trip p g y ( g , porigin/destination, waste or wastewater generation)

• Energy-cycle emissions– Emissions from upstream fuel cycle (extraction, p y (

transport, processing/refining, distribution)5

Inventory Approach: Accounting Methods – Pros and ConsAccounting Methods – Pros and Cons

• Direct emissions are only basis for addingDirect emissions are only basis for adding emissions cumulatively without double-counting

• National State and other local inventories• National, State, and other local inventories primarily developed on direct emissions basis

C ti b d l l i i• Consumption-based plus energy-cycle emissions may best fit needs of mitigation planners

6

Example of Direct vs. Energy-cycle Emissions

New Jersey 2005 Inventory & Forecast

50.0

60.0

70.0

tCO2e)

Direct Emissions

Lifecycle Emissions

20.0

30.0

40.0

G Emissions (M

Mt

0.0

10.0GHG

77

Solid Waste Management Inventory• Includes solid waste landfills, composting,

recycling, and residential open burning

• Direct Emissions– Landfill and composting facility data provided by p g y p y

NJDEP– Residential open burning based on per capita burning

raterate– No direct recycling emissions

8

Solid Waste Management Inventory• Consumption-based Emissions

– Solid waste management profile developed for each countyW t t d i t th t i t t l dfill– Waste generated in county that is sent to landfill or composting facility regardless of facility location

– WARM transportation emission factor used for landfilling, li d tirecycling, and composting

• Energy-cycle EmissionsEnergy cycle Emissions– Emissions factors for embedded emissions from WARM– Process energy, non-energy process emissions,

transportation of raw materials and manufactured goodstransportation of raw materials and manufactured goods– Dependent on waste composition

9

Ocean County Waste Management Profile

12%

MSW Landfil l  Disposal  atCounty Landfil ls

MSW Disposal  Export to

57%

27%

Landfil ls

MSW Disposal  ‐Residential  Open Burning

MSW R li57% MSW Recycling

MSW Composting

2%

2%

10

Solid Waste Management Forecast• Direct Emissions

– Assumed constant waste emplacement at landfills until anticipated year of closureanticipated year of closure

– Composting based on state annual average growth rate for 2000-2006O b i f t b d l ti th– Open burning forecast based on population growth

• Consumption and Energy-Cycle Emissions– Based on each county’s per-capita waste generation growthBased on each county s per capita waste generation growth

rate for 1995-2006

11

Sample Draft Results

0.35

Ocean County Municipal Solid Waste Management Direct GHG Emissions

0.25

0.30

0.15

0.20

CO

2e

0.05

0.10MM

tC

0.00

1212

MSW Landfill - Disposal Composting - CH4 and N2O Residential Open Burning

Sample Draft Results

0.40

Ocean County Municipal Solid Waste Management Consumption-based GHG Emissions

0 25

0.30

0.35

0.15

0.20

0.25

MM

tCO

2e

0.05

0.10

M

0.00

Residential Open Burning Composting - Transportation

1313

Composting - CH4 and N2O Recycling - TransportationMSW Landfill - Transportation MSW Landfill - Disposal

Example of Direct vs. Consumption-based/Energy-cycle Emissions

3.00

Municipal Solid Waste Sector Emissions by Accounting Method

2.50

1.50

2.00

tCO

2e

0.50

1.00MM

t

0.00

2006

2008

2010

2012

2014

2016

2018

2020

2022

2024

2026

2028

2030

2032

2034

2036

2038

2040

2042

2044

2046

2048

2050

1414

Energy-Cycle Emissions Consumption Emissions Direct Emissions

Highway Transportation

• Includes all onroad vehiclesA ti it d t f NJTPA• Activity data from NJTPA Transportation Model

Li k d l l t t ti d t• Link and zone level transportation data

• Emission factors calculated using EPA’s MOVES2010 d lMOVES2010 model– CO2, CH4, N2O

• Emissions calculated within customized software (PPSUITE)

15

Highway Transportation

• Direct Emissions– Includes emissions for travel occurring withinIncludes emissions for travel occurring within

municipality/county– Excludes portion of trip occurring outside region– EPA’s MOVES modelEPA s MOVES model

• Consumption-based Emissions– Includes half of emissions from any trip originating or y p g g

ending within the municipality– Trips over which the county or municipality has some

controlcontrol

16

Direct versus Consumption-Based VMT

MCD

DD

Internal Trip: Direct VMT = Consumption VMT

O Through Trip: Direct VMT = portion in MCD; Consumption VMT = 0

Origin Trip: Direct VMT = portion within MCD;

O

Origin Trip: Direct VMT = portion within MCD; Consumption VMT = 50% of total trip VMT

O

D

17

Example of Direct vs. Consumption-based Emissions

North Jersey Highway Vehicle Emissions

5

6

Direct Estimate

3

4

5

tCO

2e

1

2

3

MM

t

Consumption Estimate

02006 2020 2035 2050

1818

Example of Direct vs. Consumption-based Emissions

Municipal Highway Vehicle Emissions

300,000

350,000

O2e

Direct Estimate

150,000

200,000

250,000

met

ric to

ns C

O

Consumption Estimate

50,000

100,000

Estimate

0East

RutherfordHackensack Paramus Fort Lee

1919

Summary

• Pros and cons to different accounting th dmethods.

– Direct emissions can be added cumulatively without double counting and are used by most other Nationaldouble-counting and are used by most other National, State, and local inventories

– Consumption-based plus energy-cycle emissions may p p gy y ybetter inform planners for some sectors

• Estimating emissions for direct, consumption-g , pbased, and energy-cycle emissions provides more flexibility to mitigation plannersmore flexibility to mitigation planners

20