WRI Report: "Can The U.S. Get There From Here?"

Can the U.S. Get There from Here? Summary for Policymakers 1

WR I Report POLICYMAKERS
SUMMARY FOR

Can The U.S. Get There From Here?
Using Existing Federal Laws
and State Action to
Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions

NICHOLAS M. BIANCO
FRANZ T. LITZ
KRISTIN IGUSKY MEEK
REBECCA GASPER

About the Authors
Nicholas Bianco leads WRI’s efforts with U.S. states Franz Litz is the Executive Director of the Pace Energy
and U.S. federal agencies as they work together and & Climate Center, a legal and policy think tank, and
in parallel to develop programs to reduce greenhouse Professor of Energy and Climate Change Law in Pace
gas emissions. His areas of research include the role of Law School’s top-ranked environmental law program.
states in future federal climate programs; the regulation Franz leads his Center’s work at the state, regional,
of greenhouse gas emissions via existing regulatory national, and international levels on climate change,
authorities; market-based pollution control programs; energy efficiency, renewable energy, transportation,
and stacking of payments for ecosystem services (e.g., and community energy. Franz is an expert on the
greenhouse gas offsets). Nicholas previously worked federal Clean Air Act, state-level climate and energy
with the Massachusetts Department of Environmental policies, and emissions trading. Franz actively convenes
Protection on climate change and air quality programs. officials from U.S. states and Canadian provinces
While there, he worked on several market-based air cooperating on energy and climate change policy
quality and climate change programs, including the issues. He also frequently brings stakeholders from
Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI), a regional diverse viewpoints together to engage policy makers
carbon dioxide cap-and-trade program for the power on difficult energy and climate policy issues. Before
sector. Contact: nbianco@wri.org. assuming his leadership role at the Pace Energy &
Climate Center in 2011, Franz was a senior fellow at the
Kristin Meek is an Associate in the Climate and Energy World Resources Institute in Washington, DC. He led
Program at the World Resources Institute. She supports WRI’s state and regional climate change initiatives, as
WRI’s efforts with U.S. states and U.S. federal agencies well as WRI’s engagement with the U.S. EPA. Contact:
as they work together and in parallel to develop programs flitz@law.pace.edu.
to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Prior to joining
WRI, Kristin worked with SAIC’s climate change
services team, where she focused on a wide range of
GHG management projects for federal government
agencies, local governments, and private sector entities.
Projects included supporting the U.S. Energy Information
Administration’s national inventory of greenhouse gases,
EPA’s Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program and Climate
Leaders Program, researching issues related to new
and existing carbon offset project types, and developing
community-level GHG inventories for cities and counties
across the country. Contact: kmeek@wri.org.

Rebecca Gasper is a Research Assistant in WRI’s
Climate and Energy Program. She supports WRI’s Table of Contents
efforts with U.S. states and U.S. federal agencies as
they work together and in parallel to develop programs I. Introduction 1
to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Before joining II. Charting a Path Forward in the U.S.:
WRI, Rebecca worked at the Center for Integrative Summary of Key Findings 3
Research (CIER) at the University of Maryland. She III. The Road the U.S. is on Now: Business as Usual 10
worked primarily on climate change mitigation and IV. Understanding the Federal Reduction Pathways 13
adaptation at the regional and international levels. She V. Understanding the State Reduction Pathways 20
also has experience supporting state efforts to develop VI. Conclusion:
water quality markets. Contact: rgasper@wri.org. Finding Our Way to a Low-Carbon Future 25

Can the U.S. Get There from Here? Summary for Policymakers


Summary for Policymakers
I. Introduction

C
limate change impacts in the United OO Which legal and policy tools at the state and
States are increasingly evident and come with federal levels offer the greatest potential for
steep economic and social costs. The frequency and achieving emissions reductions in the near-
intensity of extreme weather events has increased in recent and mid-term?
years, bringing record-breaking heat, heavy precipitation,
coastal flooding, severe droughts, and damaging wildfires.1 OO Can the U.S. meet its international commitment
According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric to reduce emissions 17 percent below 2005 levels
Administration (NOAA), weather-related damages in the by 2020 without new federal legislation?
United States were $60 billion in 2011, and are expected
to be significantly greater in 2012.2 OO Can the U.S. put itself on a trajectory to meet
or exceed its long-term commitment of reducing
The mounting costs convey an unmistakable urgency emissions by more than 80 percent below 2005 levels
to address climate change by reducing greenhouse gas by 2050, without new legislation from Congress?
emissions (GHGs). This report examines pathways for
GHG reductions in the United States through actions The answers to these questions are set out in detail in
taken at the federal and state levels without the need the body of this report. Two significant findings stand
for new legislation from the U.S. Congress. out. First, it is clear the U.S. is not currently on track
to meet its 2020 reduction pledge, however, this
This report answers a number of key questions: target is achievable through implementation of strong
OO What are current U.S. GHG emissions? Without new federal measures to reduce emissions using
further action to reduce emissions, what are they existing legal authorities. Second, the mid-century goal
projected to be in 2020 and 2035? of reducing emissions by 80 percent or more appears
unattainable using existing authorities. New legislation
OO What legal and policy tools exist under current will eventually be needed.
federal law to achieve emissions reductions? What
additional actions can states pursue to contribute
to emissions reductions?

Box 1 Key Conclusions and Recommendations

1. ithout new action by the U.S. Administration, greenhouse
W process and under its independent Clean Air Act authority.
gas (GHG) emissions will increase over time. The U.S. Eliminating HFCs represents the biggest opportunity for
will fail to make the deep emissions reductions needed GHG emissions reductions behind power plants.
in coming decades, and will not meet its international
commitment to reduce GHG emissions by 17 percent 4. .S. states should complement federal actions to reduce
U
below 2005 levels by 2020. emissions through state energy efficiency, renewables,
transportation, and other actions. States can augment
2. he U.S. EPA should immediately pursue “go-getter”
T federal reductions.
emissions reductions from power plants and natural gas
systems using its authority under the Clean Air Act. 5. New federal legislation will eventually be needed, because
These two sectors represent two of the top opportunities even go-getter action by federal and state governments
for substantial GHG reductions between now and 2035. will probably fail to achieve the more than 80 percent
GHG emissions reductions necessary to fend off the most
3. he U.S. Administration should pursue hydrofluorocarbon
T deleterious impacts of climate change.
(HFC) reductions through both the Montreal Protocol

Potential reductions in the United Stated were that total U.S. emissions will experience relatively
assessed in a 2010 WRI Report entitled Reducing modest growth over the coming decades.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions in the United States Using
Existing Federal Authorities and State Action.3 This At the 2009 Conference of the Parties of the United
updated report revisits these questions, taking into Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
account the latest GHG emissions information and in Copenhagen, Denmark, President Obama made a
recent actions taken at the federal and state levels. commitment to reduce U.S. greenhouse gas emissions
Since the publication of the last report, notable factors in the range of 17 percent below 2005 levels by 2020.
influencing U.S. GHG emissions include: Despite the inability of Congress to pass comprehensive
� Reduced global economic growth, including slower climate change legislation, the Administration has re-
growth of economic output in the United States; committed to the Copenhagen pledge and taken some
steps to reduce emissions using authority under existing
� Increased fuel switching from coal to natural gas laws.4 While the Administration has reaffirmed its
in the generation of electricity; and commitment to this target, it has not yet matched that
commitment with adequate action. Though significant
� Reduced demand for transportation fuel, partly progress has been made in some areas since our 2010
as a result of higher petroleum prices, lower miles analysis, most notably with the vehicle rules, key
traveled, and more efficient vehicles. opportunities, such as reductions from power plants,
remain untapped. The fact that the U.S. remains far from
These factors and others, including the issuance of new the “go-getter” emissions trajectory laid out in our 2010
motor vehicle emissions and fuel efficiency standards report reinforces the urgency for taking strong action now.
for cars and trucks, will reduce greenhouse gas
emissions. However, even with these factors, we project Although the U.S. emissions reduction commitment
for 2020 represents an important step toward
reducing GHG emissions, much greater reductions
are necessary. According to the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change, industrialized countries
Box 2 Ambition Matters
need to collectively reduce emissions between
25 and 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2020 and
Within the bounds of what is legally and technically possible, 80 to 95 percent below 1990 levels by 2050 in order
the single most important factor influencing emissions to keep global average temperatures from increasing
reductions is political and policy ambition. This analysis more than 2 degrees Celsius above preindustrial
considers three levels of ambition: levels. This report evaluates the potential for meeting
the 17 percent commitment and the deeper longer-
� L ackluster. This is low ambition and represents the
term reduction pathway necessary to avoid the worst
results of actions of lowest cost or least optimistic
impacts of climate change.
technical achievement.

� iddle-of-the-Road.
M This is mid-level ambition and
represents the results of actions of moderate cost and
moderately optimistic technical achievement. America’s Climate Choices: Panel on Advancing the Science of Climate
1.
Change. National Research Council, 2010.ISBN 978-0-309-14588-6.
� o-Getter.
G This is the highest ambition achievable Accessible at: http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=12782.
without new congressional action. It represents the results Preliminary Info on 2012 U.S. Billion-Dollar Extreme Weather/
2.
Climate Events. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
of actions of higher cost or most optimistic technical Accessible at: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/news/preliminary-info-
achievement. 2012-us-billion-dollar-extreme-weatherclimate-events. (Last
accessed January 15, 2013)
The term “go-getter” is not meant to suggest the actions are 3.
Accessible at: http://www.wri.org/publication/reducing-ghg-emissions-
using-existing-federal-authorities-and-state-action.
adequate to achieve U.S. reduction targets or reductions the
4. ost recently, the U.S. delegation to the Conference of the Parties of
M
science suggests are necessary to ward off the worst effects the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change in Doha, Qatar, made
of climate change. it clear that the 17 percent pledge is not contingent on new legislation
from Congress.

2 Can the U.S. Get There from Here? Summary for Policymakers


Attaining even the 17 percent reduction goal will A Federal GHG Reductions Possible
.
require new and ambitious action from the U.S. without New Legislation
Administration—ambitious action that must survive OO Only with “go-getter” ambition by the U.S.
court challenges. Real progress depends on numerous Administration can the United States achieve
actions not yet taken by the U.S. Administration— emissions reductions using current law that meet
especially for stationary emissions sources like power or exceed the Copenhagen commitment to reduce
plants, natural gas systems, and industry. U.S. states global warming pollution by at least 17 percent
may also need to take action to fill any emissions gaps below 2005 levels by 2020.6 With middle-of-
left by the federal government. Achieving the necessary the-road ambition, the United States will fall
mid-century reductions will almost certainly require the well short of its 17 percent commitment, unless
U.S. Congress to act to achieve the needed reductions. supplemented by go-getter actions by the states.

Section II summarizes the report’s key findings, OO Even with go-getter ambition, long-term emissions
including the range of reductions that are possible reductions fall short of the level of reductions
and a brief description of the analytical approach. An necessary to put the United States on pace to
examination of current emissions in the United States reach its long-term reduction goal of reducing
and projected emissions without new actions follows emissions 83 percent below 2005 levels by
in Section III. Section IV summarizes the sector-by- 2050. New congressional legislation is therefore
sector actions the federal government might take under necessary to achieve reductions in line with what
existing laws. Section V summarizes potential state the international scientific community agrees is
actions. Section VI sets out summary conclusions. necessary by mid-century in order to stabilize
Two detailed appendixes set out the assumptions and global average temperatures and avert the worst
methodologies for the federal and state analyses. impacts of climate change.
The picture revealed is one of significant potential
greenhouse gas emissions reductions, provided there OO After taking action to significantly improve motor
is sufficient political will to take strong action. vehicle fuel efficiency, the U.S. Administration should
now apply similar ambition to reducing emissions
from a wider range of sources, such as existing power
plants, if it is to achieve the needed reductions.
II. Charting a Path Forward in the U.S.:
Summary of Key Findings OO The greatest projected emissions reduction
This report identifies significant potential for GHG opportunities by 2020 and beyond come from four
emissions reductions by the U.S. Administration under federal policy measures. The Administration will
current laws and through state-level actions, as well as need to pursue these opportunities if the United
the limitations of current tools. The reductions actually States is to achieve the 17 percent reduction
achieved will depend on the level of ambition brought target. Those policies are:
to the effort by the U.S. Administration, including
executive agencies such as the U.S. Environmental OO standards to reduce carbon pollution from
Protection Agency. At the state level, outcomes existing power plants (48 percent of total
will depend on the number of states that choose to emissions gap between business-as-usual
support renewable energy, energy efficiency, and (BAU) and 2020 target);
transportation measures, and to pursue policies that
the federal government opts not to pursue or that go
beyond the minimum stringency set by the federal
government. Key findings are set out below for federal 5. or data sources and an explanation of how expected emissions trends
F
were compiled, please consult the appendixes. For the sake of clarity and
and state actions.5 brevity, sources are not provided in this summary.
6.
The U.S. commitment in Copenhagen calls for reductions in 2020 “in the
range of 17 percent [below 2005 levels], in conformity with anticipated
U.S. energy and climate legislation.” The U.S. submission notes that the
ultimate goal of legislation pending at the time was to reduce emissions
by 83 percent below 2005 levels in 2050.

figur e 1 Projected U.S. Emissions under Different Federal Regulatory Scenarios

8,000
Business-as-Usual
7,000
M I L L I O N M E T R I C T O N S O F C O 2e

Lackluster
6,000

5,000 Middle-of-the-Road

4,000 % B e l o w 2 0 0 5 Emissi o ns 2020 2035 Go-Getter

Lackluster 8% 10% 17% and 83%
3,000
Middle-of-the-Road 12% 26% Reduction Pathway
2,000
Go-Getter 17% 40%

1,000 Reductions Necessary to Reach 450 ppm CO2e 36-49% 60-72%

0
2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035
Y Ear

Note: The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC’s) Fourth Assessment Report (2007) indicates that industrialized countries need to collectively reduce emissions
between 25 and 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2020 and 80 to 95 percent below 1990 levels by 2050 to keep atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases from exceeding 450
parts per million of CO2e and to keep global average temperatures from increasing more than 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels. This target does not necessarily represent
any particular country’s share. Due to modeling limitations, this figure depicts HFC consumption, which is generally thought to be equivalent to life-cycle emissions. For this and all
other figures, we use the global warming potentials provided in IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report. There are some limited exceptions. See Appendix I for more details.

OO requirements to phase out the use of certain and help the United States reach its goal of reducing
hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) (23 percent of total emissions 17 percent below 2005 levels by 2020.
emissions gap between BAU and 2020 target);
OO If the federal government pursues a lackluster
OO standards to reduce methane emissions from effort, even a go-getter effort by states is unlikely
natural gas systems (11 percent of total emissions to achieve the U.S. Administration’s 2020
gap between BAU and 2020 target);7 and reduction goal.

OO actions to improve energy efficiency in the OO Beyond 2020, go-getter state action combined
residential, commercial, and industrial sectors with middle-of-the-road federal action falls short of
(8 percent of total emissions gap between putting the United States on track to make the mid-
BAU and 2020 target). century reduction target. This suggests that strong
new federal legislative action will be needed.

B.
S tate Action Could Help the U.S. Meet C. The Study in Brief
Near-Term Pledge This updated report represents the authors’
OO States can be important contributors to efforts to projections of the range of greenhouse gas
reduce GHG emissions. If the U.S. Administration emissions reductions possible if federal agencies
were to pursue policies with middle-of-the-road and certain states implement measures to reduce
ambition, for example, states could pick up the slack GHG emissions. The report projects the range of
reductions possible under current federal law based
on a review of published analyses of technical
7. here is considerable uncertainty with regard to emissions for natural gas
T feasibility. The report characterizes three emissions
systems. The absolute magnitude of abatement opportunities is thus also
uncertain. Nevertheless, our analysis suggests that there are important scenarios based on different levels of effort by
opportunities to reduce emissions from this sector. Those reductions are federal and state actors: “lackluster,” “middle-of-
some of the lowest cost opportunities identified in this analysis.
the-road,” and “go-getter.”


figur e 2 Projected U.S Emissions with State Action Coupled with Middle-of-the-Road Federal Action

8,000
Business-as-Usual
7,000

6,000
Federal Middle-of-the-Road
5,000 with State Middle-of-the-Road

4,000 % B e l o w 2 0 0 5 Emissi o ns 2020 2035
with State Go-Getter

Federal Middle-of-the-Road 12% 26% 17% and 83%
3,000
with State Middle-of-the-Road 14% 31% Reduction Pathway
2,000
with State Go-Getter 19% 41%
1,000 Reductions Necessary to Reach 450 ppm CO2e 36-49% 60-72%

0
2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035
Y Ear

Note: Due to modeling limitations, this figure depicts HFC consumption, which is generally thought to be equivalent to life-cycle emissions.

1. Analysis of Federal Actions Lackluster emissions reductions from all sectors and
The analysis of federal actions is based on a legal subsectors analyzed were aggregated to determine the
assessment of the measures the U.S. Administration, lackluster emissions pathway through 2035. The same
including key federal agencies like EPA, may take under approach was taken for middle-of-the-road and go-
existing federal laws. The federal analysis assumes no getter reductions.
new legislation is adopted. Technical studies were used
to identify the range of reductions possible within a 2. Analysis of State Actions
given sector or subsector. The legally and technically The state analysis has two components: the first
feasible range of reductions was then evaluated based considers the impact of states taking action in the
on the level of ambition necessary to achieve a particular absence of federal action; the second considers the
point in the range. Where available, we relied more impact of states taking action in the presence of varying
heavily on studies that provided a consideration of the levels of federal action. In both components we examine
costs needed to achieve a particular outcome to provide the implication of states implementing the same types of
a sense of the federal regulatory resolve necessary to policies modeled for the federal government, as well as
achieve those reductions. complementary state-level actions in the transportation,
energy efficiency, and renewables areas.
Where only a low level of ambition is necessary to achieve
a particular technically and legally feasible outcome For transportation, the state scenarios consider measures
within a specific sector or subsector, the outcome was to encourage low carbon fuels and reduce vehicle
judged to be “lackluster.” If a high level of ambition is miles traveled. In the energy efficiency area, measures
necessary to achieve a particular reduction outcome examined include increased electric end-use energy
deemed technically and legally possible, the effort efficiency, improved building performance, and increased
necessary was deemed “go-getter” in our scenarios. deployment of combined heat and power. For renewables,
“Middle-of-the-road” outcomes were those judged the analysis adds new and additional renewable energy
possible with moderate ambition and usually at the middle policies across a certain number of states.
of the range deemed technically and legally possible.

figur e 3 P
rojected U.S. Emissions in 2020 by Sector under Different Federal Regulatory Scenarios

2043

1883

1710

2,000
1468

978 980 980 986
M illi o n M e tric T o ns o f C O 2 e

1,500

526
509 510
496
1,000
388 388 378
381
458
279
276 Power Plants
264
235 248 Light-Duty Vehicles
231 226
223 Manufacturing
232
Medium- Heavy-Duty
295 186 181 181
500 185 Refineries
182
167 Off-Highway
202 152 145
139 HFCs
145 138
130 Aircraft
Landfills
73 73
55 Natural Gas Systems
31 50
27 44 Coal Mining
a l 14
0 su er 8 Nitric Adipic Acid
-U st
- as lu a d r
ss ck - Ro e tte
s ine La he -G
Bu -t Go
of
le-
dd
Mi

Note: Figure 3 depicts the emissions under the three federal regulatory scenarios by sector or category of sources in 2020. The bars on the left represent business-as-usual
emissions. Emissions under the lackluster, middle-of-the-road, and go-getter scenarios are then shown moving from left to right of the business-as-usual emissions. Light-duty
vehicle emissions initially increase in our scenarios due to assumptions about vehicle electrification and crediting rates. As shown in Figure 4, these trends reverse in later years.
See Appendix I for more information. Due to modeling limitations, this figure depicts HFC consumption, which is generally thought to be equivalent to life-cycle emissions.



figur e 4 Projected U.S. Emissions in 2035 by Sector under Different Federal Regulatory Scenarios

2302

2143

2,000

1237
M illi o n M e tric T o ns o f C O 2 e

1,500

773
714
666
523
623

417
1,000 398
406
547 371 340
319
323 331
306 273 Power Plants
305 281
275 248 Light-Duty Vehicles
246 Manufacturing
220
Medium- Heavy-Duty
198 191 Refineries
500 75 182
38 Off-Highway
209 152 129 38 HFCs
144
138 135
143 Aircraft
118
87 69
Landfills
66 Natural Gas Systems
59
38 53
33 Coal Mining
l 16
ua er 9
0 Us st Nitric Adipic Acid
a s- lu o ad r
s s- ck -R e tte
ine La e
-G
s f -th Go
Bu le -o
dd
Mi

Note: Figure 4 depicts the emissions under the three federal regulatory scenarios by sector or category of sources in 2035. The bars on the left represent the business-as-usual
emissions. Emissions under the lackluster, middle-of-the-road, and go-getter scenarios are then shown moving from left to right of the business-as-usual emissions. Due to
modeling limitations, this figure depicts HFC consumption, which is generally thought to be equivalent to life-cycle emissions.

U.S. Emissions by Sector and Corresponding Federal Authorities (2010)

figur e 5U
.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions by Sector and Corresponding Federal Authorities, 2010
U.S. Emissions by Sector and Corresponding Federal Authorities (2010)
7% Agriculture
■ Agricultural policies (USDA)
■ Land 7% Agriculture (DOI)
management policies
■ Federal forest lands management (USDA, USFS, DOI)
n Agricultural policies (USDA)
n 7% Agriculture
Land management policies (DOI)
2% HFCs
Agricultural policies (USDA)
■ ■ Elimination of HFCs (EPA)
n Federal forest lands management (USDA, USFS, DOI)
■ Land management policies (DOI)
0.2% Other
■ Federal forest lands management (USDA, USFS, DOI)
4% Natural Gas Systems
2% HFCs
■ New Source Performance Standards(EPA)
■ Energy efficiency (DOE/States)
n Elimination of 2% HFCs
HFCs (EPA)
■ Elimination of HFCs (EPA)
2% Landfills
■ New Source Performance Standards (EPA)
n New Source Performance Standards(EPA)
■ New Source Performance Standards(EPA) Mining
1% Coal
■■ Energy efficiency (DOE/States)
n Energy efficiency (DOE/States) (EPA)
New Source Performance Standards
2% Nitric
0.3% AdipicLandfills Acid Manufacturing
2% Landfills
■ New Source Performance Standards (EPA) Standards (EPA)
■ New Source Performance
New Source Performance Coal Mining4% Other Industrial
n
1% Standards (EPA)
■ New
■ NewMining Source Performance Standards (EPA)
Source Performance Standards and pre-construction permits (EPA)
1% Coal
n New Source Performance Standards0.3% Adipic0.3% Adipic Nitric
(EPA) Nitric Acid Manufacturing
■ New Source Performance Standards (EPA)
Acid Manufacturing
4% Other Industrial
n New Source Performance Standards (EPA)
■ New Source Performance Standards and pre-construction permits (EPA)

4% Other Industrial Industrial Combustion
9%
n New Source Performance Standards
■ Energy efficiency standards (DOE)
and pre-construction permits (EPA)

9% Industrial Combustion
9% Industrial Combustion
n New Source Performance Standards
and pre-construction permits (EPA)
n Energy efficiency standards (DOE)

7% Commercial Residential Heating Fuel
■ Building energy codes (States)
7% Commercial Residential Heating Fuel
n Energy efficiency standards (DOE)

7% Commercial energy codes (States)
n Building Residential Heating Fuel 2% Other Transportation
■ Building energy codes (States)
3% Off-Highway Vehicles
■ Vehicle emissions standards (EPA)
■ Fuel standards (EPA)
2% Other Transportation
2% Other Transportation 2% Aircraft
■ Aircraft emissions standards (EPA)
3% Off-Highway Vehicles ■ Operational changes to save fuel (FAA)
3% Off-Highway Vehicles
n Vehicle emissions standards (EPA)
■ Vehicle emissions standards (EPA) 6% Medium- Heavy
■ FuelFuel standards (EPA)
n standards (EPA) ■ Same as ligh
2% Aircraft
■ Aircraft emissions standards (EPA)
■ Operational changes to save fuel (FAA)
2% Aircraft 6% Medium-
nAircraft emissions standards (EPA) Heavy-Duty Vehicles
6% Medium- Heavy-DutyVehicles
n Operational changes to save fuel (FAA) n SameSame as light-duty vehicles
■ as light-duty vehicles



0.2% Other

0.2% Other

26% Coal-Fired Power Plants
n New Source Performance Standards and pre-construction permits (EPA)

n Energy efficiency standards (DOE/States)
26% Coal-Fired Power Plants
n Ash disposal regulations (EPA)
■ Energy efficiency standards (DOE/States)
Traditional pollution regulations (EPA)
n■ Ash disposal regulations (EPA)
■ Traditional air regulations (EPA)

6% Natural Gas Power Plants
nNew Source Performance Standards and pre-construction
permits (EPA)
n Energy efficiency standards (DOE/States)

n Traditional pollution regulations (EPA/States)

1% Other Power Plants
1% Other Power Plants

16% Light-Duty Vehicles
Vehicle Corporate Average Fuel Efficiency (CAFE) standards (DOT)
n

n Vehicle emissions standards under Clean Air Act (EPA)
16% Light-Duty Vehicles
n ■ Vehicle Corporate Averagecarbon fuel standards (EPA)
Renewable and/or low Fuel Efficiency (CAFE) standards (DOT)
■ Vehicle emissions standards under Clean Air Act (EPA)
n Vehicle miles traveled policies (States, Metropolitan Planning Organizations, Cities)
■ Renewable and/or low carbon fuel standards (EPA)
■ Vehicle miles traveled policies (States, MPOs, Cities
DutyVehicles
duty vehicles Source: Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990–2010. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, April 2012. Accessible at: http://www.epa.gov/
climatechange/emissions/usinventoryreport.html; Clearing the Air on Shale Gas Emissions: Assessing and Reducing the Carbon Footprint of Natural Gas. James Bradbury,
Michael Obeiter, Laura Draucker, Wen Wang, and Amanda Stevens. World Resources Institute, Working Paper, forthcoming.
Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990–2010, 430-R-12-001,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Atmospheric Programs, 15 Apr. 2012,
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/Downloads/ghgemissions/US-GHG-Inventory-2012-Main-Tex

Unlike the federal analysis, many of the state measures figur e 6 P rojected U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions if

modeled would require new legislation at the state no New State or Federal Action is Taken
level. Also unlike the federal scenario, whether state
action is “lackluster”, “middle-of-the-road” or “go- 8,000 Historical Projected
Emissions Emissions
getter” is a function of how many states adopt the
7,000

MILLION METRIC TONS OF CO2
measures modeled, and in some cases the ambition
of the policies pursued. 6,000 Non-CO2 Emissions
Non-energy CO2 Emissions
5,000
3. Analysis of Federal and State Actions Together
Given that it is unlikely that federal action will occur 4,000
without state action or that state action will occur 3,000
without federal action, we analyzed emissions scenarios
2,000
with both federal and state action. States can be
expected to continue to be active in areas of traditional 1,000
Energy-related CO2 Emissions
state purview such as energy resource planning and
0
energy efficiency, while also compensating for weak 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035
federal action. To capture this dynamic, we modeled Y Ear
varying levels of action for federal and state action. Source: See sources listed under Figures 7 and 8 below.

III. he Road the U.S. is on Now:
T B. What Happens with No New Policies?
Business as Usual Understanding Current
The reduction pathways presented in this report are
U.S. Emissions Trends
best considered in light of current U.S. emissions, along
with recent and future emissions trends. A snapshot Before discussing the reduction pathways projected
of U.S. emissions using the most recent data available for this report, it is important to describe the major
is presented below, together with a summary of U.S. emissions trends that are part of the business-as-usual
emissions by key sectors and recent actions to reduce projections. Business-as-usual emissions trends have
them by federal agencies. shifted downward since the 2010 version of this report.
While energy-related CO2 emissions are projected to
rise slowly but remain below 2010 levels through 2035,
A. Current U.S. Emissions
non-CO2 emissions are projected to steadily increase
In 2010 the United States emitted almost 7 billion
over the same time period. The primary trends are
metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents (CO2e),
noted here:
which represents a decrease of about 6 percent
OO Current Energy-related Carbon Dioxide Emissions
below 2005 levels and a 10 percent increase over
Down from 2005 Levels. In 2011 carbon dioxide
1990 levels. Fossil-fuel combustion was responsible
emissions from energy sources, which account
for nearly 80 percent of U.S. emissions, with power
for nearly 80 percent of U.S. GHG emissions,
plants accounting for about 40 percent of combustion
were 8.7 percent below 2005 levels. Nearly half
emissions, or one-third of the total U.S. GHG inventory,
of those reductions (48 percent) came from the
according to EPA. The second largest contributor to
power sector. The rest of the reductions came from
total GHG emissions is the transportation sector, with
transportation (28 percent), industry (18 percent),
approximately 30 percent of U.S. emissions. Non-CO2
and buildings (6 percent).8
emissions and CO2 emissions that result from industrial
processes (as opposed to combustion) represented
OO Future Energy-CO 2 Emissions Expected to be
approximately 22 percent of U.S. total GHG emissions.
Relatively Flat. Our projections suggest that if no
future policy actions are taken, then energy-CO2
Figure 5 shows the 2010 U.S. emissions inventory by
emissions will remain approximately 10 percent
sector and subsector, together with the corresponding
federal regulatory tools available to achieve reductions
in the sector. 8. loser than You Think: Latest U.S. CO2 Pollution Data and Forecasts
C
Show Target Within Reach. NRDC Issue Brief. Dan Lashof. July 2012.



below 2005 levels in 2020, and will increase figur e 7 P rojected U.S. Energy-Related Carbon

slightly through 2035 to levels that are about Dioxide Emissions if no New State or
8 percent below 2005 levels (Figure 7). Federal Action is Taken

OO Those trends are driven by a number of factors, including:
7,000
Historical Projected
OO Falling Energy Demand. The economic Emissions Emissions
6,000

MILLION METRIC TONS OF CO2
slowdown experienced by the United States
and other parts of the world over the period 5,000
from 2008 to 2012 has led to decreased
demand for goods and services and reduced 4,000
Power Plants
energy consumption.9 Over time, this trend
is expected to reverse as economic growth 3,000

picks up. In addition, the industrial sector
2,000 Transportation
was affected significantly by the recent
economic turndown and saw a decrease in
1,000
both production and emissions. This decline Industry
is projected to be temporary. Manufacturing Residential Commercial
0
output is expected to accelerate from 2010 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035
through 2020, and emissions are projected Y Ear
to increase by 4 percent over this time.10 Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration, Annual Energy Review Years
(
2005-2011); U.S. Energy Information Administration, Annual Energy Outlook (Years

2012-2035)
OO Rise of Natural Gas and Renewables. The power
sector is shifting from coal-fired generation
toward natural gas-fired and renewable
generation. This trend is driven in part by
increases in natural gas extraction, low standards covering light-, medium- and heavy-
natural gas prices, increasing coal prices, duty vehicles. These gains will be partially offset
and new (non-GHG) regulations for the power by continued increases in vehicle miles traveled.12
sector. Increases in renewable generation are Transportation emissions are projected to
driven by state renewable standards, voluntary increase 1 percent below 2011 levels by 2035.
purchases of “green” energy, and decreasing
renewable energy costs. However, gas prices OO Non-Energy Emissions on the Rise. Trends for non-
are expected to slowly rise from current levels energy and non-CO2 emissions, such as natural
and demand for electricity is expected to rise gas systems, refrigerants, and landfills, show
18 percent by 2035 from 2010 levels.11 a likely rise. In 2010, non-energy and non-CO2
sources accounted for about 22 percent of total
OO New Vehicle Rules. The transportation sector U.S. emissions. We project that these emissions
is expected to become less carbon-intensive, will increase roughly 18 percent above 2005 levels
due in large part to high petroleum prices and by 2020 and 36 percent above 2005 levels by
new federal GHG emissions and fuel efficiency 2035, even after accounting for 2012 regulations
that affect portions of natural gas systems and
HFCs from vehicles. Those trends are driven by
Annual Energy Review 2012. Figure 1.1, Primary Energy Overview
9. several factors, including:
(Consumption). EIA, September 2012. Accessible at: http://www.eia.
gov/totalenergy/data/annual/pdf/aer.pdf.
10. nnual Energy Outlook 2012 with Projections to 2035. EIA,
A OO CFCs Phased Out, HFCs Phased In. HFC
June 2012. Accessible at: http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/
emissions are increasing due to the phaseout
pdf/0383(2012).pdf.
A of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and other
June 2012. Accessible at: http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/ ozone-depleting substances under the
pdf/0383(2012).pdf.
A Montreal Protocol, which is intended to
June 2012.

protect and restore the ozone layer in the
Box 3 Recent Federal Action 2010–12
upper atmosphere, and the Clean Air Act. This
trend is expected to continue as the interim
Since the 2010 report, federal agencies have taken a number substitutes, HCFCs, are also phased out as
of actions that are reducing GHG emissions. The most they are currently being replaced with gases
significant actions from a GHG reduction perspective are that have a high global warming potential.
summarized below. These are all incorporated into our new
business-as-usual projections. OO With the Natural Gas Boon, More Methane
Leaks. Extraction of natural gas in the
� assenger
P cars and light-duty trucks. In August 2012
United States has increased by over 25
EPA and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
percent over the period of 2005 to 2011 due
(NHTSA) finalized new fuel economy and GHG standards
to rapid development of shale gas resources.13
for passenger cars and light-duty trucks for model years
Increases in natural gas extraction lead
2017–2025. These standards equate to a fleet-wide
to larger fugitive methane emissions from
average of 54.5 mpg (101 g CO2e/km) if they are met
natural gas systems. Fugitive methane
solely through fuel economy improvements (as opposed to
emissions are expected to fall significantly,
reductions in HFC emissions from air conditioners). This is
however, due to 2012 EPA regulations
approximately double the fuel economy of vehicles sold in
that reduce emissions of volatile organic
2010. EPA estimates that the rule will save nearly 2 billion
tons of CO2e over the life of the program. This is in addition
to the estimated 960 million tons of CO2e over the life of the 13. onthly Energy Review. Table 1.2, Primary Energy Production by
M
prior regulations for model years 2012–2016. Source. EIA, December 2012. Accessible at: http://www.eia.gov/
totalenergy/data/monthly/pdf/sec1_5.pdf.

� eavy-duty
H vehicles. In August 2011 EPA and NHTSA
finalized the first-ever fuel efficiency and GHG emission
figur e 8 P rojected U.S. Non-CO 2 and Non-Energy

standards for model year 2014 through 2018 medium- and
Emissions if no New State or Federal Action
heavy-duty vehicles. EPA estimates that this rule will reduce
is Taken
CO2 emissions by approximately 270 million metric tons over
the life of vehicles sold during the 2014–2018 model years.
2,000 Historical Projected
� atural
Emissions Emissions
N gas systems. In April 2012 EPA finalized four 1,800
regulations that will reduce emissions of volatile organic
M I L L I O N M E T R I C2 T O N S O F C O 2

1,600 HFCs
compounds, sulfur dioxide (SO2), and air toxics from oil
1,400
and natural gas systems. EPA estimates that the new
Agricultural Soils
standards will have the co-benefit of reducing annual 1,200
MMTC0 e

methane emissions by an estimated 19–33 million metric 1,000 Natural Gas and Petroleum Systems
tons of CO2e. Coal Mines
800
Landfills
� nergy
E efficiency standards for new appliances. 600 Enteric Fermentation
Between 2009 and 2011, the Department of Energy 400 Adipic Nitric Acid
established 17 new standards. According to analysis C02 Process Emissions from Manufacturing
200
by the Appliance Standards Awareness Project and the Other
American Council for an Energy-Efficiency Economy, these 0
2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035
standards are expected to save 126.2 TWh in 2025 and
146.8 TWh in 2035. Y Ear

� on-GHG
N regulations for power plants. EPA has also Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse
Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2010 (Years 2005-2010); U.S. Environmental
finalized several other non-GHG-related environmental Protection Agency, Draft Global Non-CO2 Emissions Projections Report
regulations for power plants, most notably those for 1990-2030 (Non-CO2 Years 2011-2035); RTI, Applied Dynamic Analysis of
mercury and other air toxics. Some modeling has the Global Economy Model (Non-energy CO2 Years 2011-2035); Clearing the
Air on Shale Gas Emissions: Assessing and Reducing the Carbon Footprint
suggested that these rules could lead to the retirement of Natural Gas. World Resources Institute. Working Paper. James Bradbury,
of old, inefficient, coal-fired power plants. Michael Obeiter, Laura Draucker, Wen Wang, and Amanda Stevens.



compounds, sulfur dioxide, and air toxics from figur e 9 P
ower Plant Emissions
natural gas systems. Actions to reduce those
emissions will also reduce methane emissions
(see Box 3 for more details).

26% Coal-Fired
Power Plants
iv. nderstanding the Federal
U
Reduction Pathways 6% Natural Gas-Fired

A.
About the Sector-by-Sector Approach Power Plants
This analysis is a bottom-up assessment of the 1% Other Power Plants
policies and regulatory tools available to the U.S.
Administration, through the federal executive agencies
tasked with implementing such regulations—to As a Share of U.S. Emissions in 2010
reduce GHG emissions. The analysis began with
an examination of the makeup of U.S. emissions
in 2010, followed by research and analysis into
existing laws on authority to reduce emissions. We B. Electric Power
reviewed available literature to determine the range The electric sector is the largest single source of
of emissions reductions technically feasible for each GHG emissions in the United States. In 2010 it made
sector or subsector. Lastly, we considered legal up 33 percent of total U.S. GHG emissions, and about
authority, technical feasibility, cost and political will 40 percent of all carbon pollution from the combustion
in constructing lackluster, middle-of-the-road, and of fossil fuels. This sector also represents the single
go-getter scenarios for each sector or subsector. biggest opportunity for emissions reductions using
We briefly describe the scenarios for each sector or existing legal and regulatory tools.
subsector below, beginning with the sectors that our
analysis indicates offer the greatest potential for 1. Power plants
reductions. A more detailed discussion of our federal Carbon pollution from power plants can be reduced
methods is provided in Appendix I. through the following federal regulatory authorities:

tabl e 1 Projecting New Source Performance Standards for Power Plants

L acklust e r M iddl e - o f -th e - R o ad G o - G e tt e r

Existing plants Emissions reductions consistent with Aggregate emissions reductions Aggregate emissions reduction across
a 5 percent improvement in efficiency across all electric generators equal to all electric generators equal to a
starting in 2018. an 18 percent reduction in emissions 38 percent reduction in emissions
in 2021 compared to 2012 emission in 2021 compared to 2012 emission
levels, and a 33 percent reduction levels, and a 74 percent reduction
in 2035. in 2035.
New plants Standards initially consistent with Standards initially consistent with Standards initially consistent with
EPA’s proposal (1,000 pounds of the lackluster scenario. Beginning in the lackluster scenario. Beginning in
CO2 per megawatt-hour of output). 2028, new units achieve emissions 2020, new units achieve emissions
Beginning in 2020, new unit rates equivalent to carbon capture rates equivalent to CCS with a
performance improves to 570 pounds and storage (CCS) with a 90 percent 90 percent capture rate.
of CO2 per megawatt-hour by 2030. capture rate.

tabl e 2 Appliance and Equipment Efficiency Standards (Electric)


192 TWh savings in 2025 from the 212 TWh savings in 2025 and 306 TWh 364 TWh savings in 2025 and 525 TWh
residential and commercial sectors, plus savings in 2035 from the residential and savings in 2035 from the residential and
additional savings from the industrial commercial sectors, plus additional savings commercial sectors, plus additional savings
sector. Annual savings remain constant from the industrial sector. from the industrial sector.
through 2035.

a. Performance standards for new and existing sources b. Appliance and equipment efficiency standards
under section 111 of the federal Clean Air Act under Department of Energy authority
Under section 111 of the Clean Air Act, EPA The Department of Energy (DOE) may
may prescribe emissions limitations based on promulgate efficiency standards for consumer
the “best system of emission reduction” for appliances and non-consumer equipment under
new and modified existing sources within source authority already granted DOE in current law.
categories EPA determines cause or contribute Based on available studies, the three scenarios
significantly to air pollution that may reasonably analyzed assume progressively greater reductions
be anticipated to endanger human health or through appliance and equipment standards,
welfare.14 To determine the “best system of ranging up to 364 TWh of annual savings from
emission reduction,” EPA considers technological residential and commercial consumers in 2025
feasibility, cost, lead time, and energy and non-air and 525 TWh annual savings in 2035, with
environmental impacts.15 In the spring of 2012 additional savings from industrial consumers.
EPA proposed new source performance standards
(NSPS) for new power plants. figur e 1 0 H
FC Emissions

In addition, for any source category EPA regulates
2% HFCs
on the federal level, EPA must also promulgate
guidelines to states to use in developing
requirements for existing sources under section
111(d). In regulating existing sources, states must
determine the “best system of emission reduction”
for existing sources while taking into account
the same factors EPA uses to set limitations for
new sources, and also the remaining useful life of
existing sources.16 The form of regulations imposed
on existing sources is not tightly prescribed in the
statute, and EPA has previously taken the position As a Share of U.S. Emissions in 2010

that states could implement flexible, market-based
approaches in setting standards from existing C. Hydrofluorocarbons
sources. Table I specifies our three scenarios for Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), used primarily for
new and existing power plants under section 111. refrigeration and air conditioning, represented only
2 percent of all U.S. global warming pollution in
2010. Despite their relatively small share of the U.S.
14. 2 U.S.C. §§ 7411(a)(1) 7411(b)(1)(A).). U.S. Environmental
4
emissions picture today, our analysis finds HFCs can
Protection Agency. “Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings
for Greenhouse Gases Under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act.” provide some of the greatest reductions by 2020
Accessible at: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2009-12-15/pdf/ and through 2035. EPA has existing authority to
E9-29537.pdf.
15. 42 U.S.C. §§ 7411(a)(1). regulate HFC consumption under Title VI of the Clean
16. 42 U.S.C. §§ 7411(d)(1)(B). Air Act. EPA can phase down the use of HFCs under



tabl e 3 Emissions Reduction Schedule for Hydrofluorocarbons


Consumption ramp-down occurs three years Consumption is ramped-down in a manner Consumption is ramped-down more rapidly
later than the schedule detailed in the joint consistent with the joint North American than in the joint North American Proposal,
North American Proposal. Proposal, which calls for an 85 percent achieving the 85 percent reduction target in
reduction below 2005–2008 levels by 2033. 2028, five years earlier than detailed in the
joint North American Proposal.

its Significant New Alternatives Program (SNAP),
figur e 1 1 E
missions from Natural Gas Systems
implementing section 612 of the Clean Air Act. The
U.S. Administration has proposed an international
4% Natural Gas
ramp-down schedule to achieve reductions worldwide Systems
under the Montreal Protocol. Our middle-of-the-road
scenarios for HFCs assume this proposed ramp-down
schedule is met in the United States. The lackluster
scenario assumes that the same ramp-down schedule
is implemented, but on a delayed timeline, commencing
in 2019 instead of 2016. Meanwhile, the go-getter
scenario assumes a more ambitious reduction schedule.17

As a Share of U.S. Emissions in 2010
D. Natural Gas Systems
Global warming pollution from natural gas systems
accounts for approximately 4 percent of U.S.
natural gas systems may be among the top emissions
emissions. Yet like HFCs, our analysis suggests that
reduction opportunities in the near term. Similar to
power plants, EPA can regulate natural gas systems
by implementing emissions performance standards for
17. Due to modeling limitations, our analysis examines changes in HFC

consumption. In the United States, HFC consumption is roughly methane under section 111 of the Clean Air Act for
equivalent to life-cycle emissions due to low rates of capture and new and existing natural gas systems. They may also
destruction. See Appendix I for a more detailed discussion.
be able to achieve additional GHG emissions reductions

tabl e 4 Performance Standards to Reduce Emissions from Natural Gas Systems


Emissions reductions of 26 percent from Emissions reductions of 37 percent from Emissions reductions of 67 percent from
business-as-usual starting in 2019. business-as-usual starting in 2019. business-as-usual starting in 2019.
Assumes implementation of plunger lift Assumes implementation of measures Assumes implementation of measures
systems to reduce emissions from liquids in lackluster scenario and conversion of in middle-of-the-road scenario, as well
unloading at new and existing wells, and existing high-bleed pneumatic controllers as desiccant dehydrators to reduce
leak monitoring and repair to reduce fugitive to low-bleed or no-bleed controllers emissions during dehydration of wet gas;
emissions from production, processing, and to reduce emissions from production, improved compressor maintenance to
compressor stations. processing, and transmission. reduce emissions during processing; hot
taps in maintenance of pipelines during
transmission; and vapor recovery units to
reduce emissions during storage.

by tightening standards for other air pollutants, in two consecutive rulemakings covering vehicles sold
such as volatile organic compounds and air toxics, as through model year 2025. In conjunction with EPA’s
they recently did with respect to new equipment in rulemaking, the Department of Transportation’s National
the U.S. oil and gas sector. Through one or more of Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) may
these regulatory paths, EPA could require equipment promulgate corporate average fuel economy (CAFE)
changes, upgrades, changes to operational practices, standards regulating the average fuel efficiency of new
and inspection and leak prevention. Table 4 details the vehicles. Because standards have already been issued
three scenarios analyzed. However, there is a great covering light-duty vehicles through model year 2025, our
deal of uncertainty with regard to emissions for natural analysis focuses on the time period after 2025. Table 5
gas systems. This means that the absolute magnitude outlines the three scenarios, with the lackluster scenario
of abatement opportunities is uncertain. Nevertheless, projecting improvements at half the rate of the previous
our analysis identifies important opportunities to standards, middle-of-the-road projecting continuation of
reduce emissions from this sector. Those reductions the same rate of improvement, and go-getter increasing
are some of the lowest cost opportunities identified the rate of improvement significantly.
in this analysis. See the appendix for a more detailed
discussion of uncertainties and opportunities. 2. Medium- and heavy-duty vehicles
For medium- and heavy-duty vehicles, EPA has
established emissions standards and NHTSA has
figur e 1 2 T
ransportation Emissions established fuel economy standards for model years
2014 through 2018. These standards are included
in our business-as-usual emissions trajectory. Our
emissions reduction scenarios pick up in model year
2020 using the same legal authority, but making
different assumptions about the stringency of the next
set of standards. As shown in Table 5, our lackluster
scenario assumes a rate of improvement that is just
half that of the current standards through 2035,
2% Other
16% Light-Duty middle-of-the-road projects a continuation of the
Transportation
Vehicles current standards through 2035, and the go-getter
3% Off-Highway scenario considerably increases new standards to meet
Vehicles 6% Medium- Heavy-DutyVehicles
the maximum level of efficiency currently thought to
2% Aircraft As a Share of U.S. Emissions in 2010
be technically achievable in that time frame.

E. Transport Vehicles 3. Off-Highway engines
Transportation is one of the largest sources of global EPA may also regulate off-highway sources of global
warming pollution in the United States, accounting warming pollution under Title II of the Clean Air Act.
for 30 percent of the 2010 inventory. Improving For the lackluster, middle-of-the-road, and go-getter
the efficiency of motor vehicles has been a priority scenarios, respectively, the analysis assumes new
for the Obama Administration, which promulgated standards can achieve 0.9 percent, 1.8 percent, and
new standards to reduce emissions and raise the 2.4 percent annual improvement in the emissions rate
fuel efficiency of light-, medium- and heavy-duty for new equipment and engines from 2018 to 2035.
vehicles. Our analysis finds that it is possible to achieve
additional reductions from light-, medium-, and heavy- 4. Aviation and aircraft
duty vehicles. In addition, there are opportunities to The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) may make
reduce emissions of global warming pollution from operational improvements in the air traffic control
aircraft and off-highway vehicles. system that could achieve significant carbon pollution
reductions over time. We draw our assumptions about
1. Passenger vehicles operational improvements from an EPA analysis of the
Under Title II of the Clean Air Act, EPA has the reductions possible and the FAA’s comments on that
authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from analysis. Our scenarios, shown in Table 5, bound the
new light-duty cars and trucks, and has done so already range of reductions estimated by EPA and FAA.



tabl e 5 Vehicle Emissions Standards, Efficiency Standards, and Operational Improvements


Light-duty Vehicle standards continue to improve Vehicle standards continue to improve Vehicle standards continue to improve
vehicles from 2026–2035 at roughly half the from 2026–2035 at roughly the same from 2026–2035 at 6 percent
rate of the 2017–2025 standards rate as the 2017–2025 standards annually. This results in a 81 grams
(2 percent per year). This results (4 percent per year). This results per mile and a 92 mpg CAFE standard
in a 131 grams per mile emissions in a 104 gram per mile emissions in 2035.
standard and a 61 mpg CAFE standard and a 75 mpg CAFE
standard in 2035. standard in 2035.
Medium- Standards continue to improve Standards continue to improve By 2020–2022, the medium- and
heavy-duty through 2035 at half the rate of the through 2035 at the same rate as heavy-duty fleet reduces its
vehicles 2013–2018 standards by vehicle the 2013–2018 standards by vehicle emissions rate by an average 26
category—about a 1.3 percent category—about a 2.6 percent percent and by 42 percent in 2023–
annual improvement. annual improvement. 2025 compared to 2010. Standards
continue to improve annually by 1
percent through 2035.
Off-highway From 2018 to 2035, a 0.9 percent From 2018 to 2035, a 1.8 percent From 2018 to 2035, a 2.4 percent
annual improvement in the emissions annual improvement in the emissions annual improvement in the emissions
rate for new equipment and engines. rate for new equipment and engines. rate for new equipment and engines.

Aviation Through 2035, a 0.17 percent annual Through 2035, a 0.4 percent annual Through 2035, a 1.4 percent annual
emissions reduction from operational emissions reduction from operational emissions reduction from operational
improvements via FAA’s NextGen improvements via FAA’s NextGen improvements via FAA’s NextGen
Program. Program. Program, plus a 2.3 percent annual
improvement in the performance of
new aircraft and engines.

EPA has statutory authority under Title II of the figur e 1 3 I
ndustrial Emissions
Clean Air Act to promulgate standards to reduce
emissions from new and existing aircraft engines. To
date, EPA has never exercised that authority to require 0.3% Adipic Nitric Acid

aircraft engine manufacturers to meet standards that Manufacturing
the industry association has not previously adopted 4% Other Industrial
voluntarily. Nevertheless, our go-getter scenario,
shown in Table 5, projects the emissions reductions 9% Industrial
Combustion
that could be achieved if EPA were to pursue this
regulatory course of action.

F. Industry
Emissions from industrial facilities comprised As a Share of U.S. Emissions in 2010

13 percent of U.S. global warming pollution in 2010.
Fossil fuel combustion at industrial facilities accounts
for 23 percent of total U.S. GHG emissions.
for 9 percent of U.S. emissions, while non-combustion
EPA may regulate industrial stationary sources of
industrial processes account for 4 percent of emissions.
emissions through performance standards under
When accounting for upstream, indirect CO2 emissions
section 111 of the Clean Air Act. As with power
from power plants, the industrial sector is responsible

tabl e 6 Performance Standards to Reduce Industry Emissions


Fossil-fuel Emissions reductions consistent Emissions reductions consistent Emissions reductions consistent
combustion in with a 10 percent improvement in with harnessing all cost-effective with harnessing all cost-effective
manufacturing combustion efficiency by boilers. energy efficiency across all processes energy efficiency across the entire
and cement and energy uses at manufacturing manufacturing facility. All new units
kilns facilities. Emissions standards also must meet emissions rate equivalent
drive reductions in process emissions to natural gas combustion. Emissions
from cement kilns. standards also drive reductions in
process emissions from cement kilns.
Refineries Emissions reductions consistent Emissions reductions consistent Emissions reductions consistent
with a 1 percent improvement in with a 5 percent improvement in with a 10 percent improvement in
efficiency beyond business-as-usual efficiency beyond business-as-usual efficiency beyond business-as-usual
projections. projections. projections.
Nitric and A 13 percent reduction in emissions. A 56 percent reduction in emissions. A 75 percent reduction in emissions.
adipic acid
manufacturing

plants, this is accomplished through EPA’s setting of 2. Petroleum refineries
standards for new sources and issuing regulations that EPA’s advanced notice of proposed rulemaking,
provide states with guidelines for covering existing Regulating Greenhouse Gas Emissions Under the Clean
sources. New source requirements typically take the Air Act, indicated that efficiency improvements in
form of a simple emissions rate, while regulation of refineries are possible in the range of 10 to 20 percent.
existing sources can be more flexible. Some efficiency improvements are included in our
business-as-usual projections, however. Therefore, in
1. Fossil fuel combustion in manufacturing order to generate conservative estimates of emissions
and cement kilns reductions, starting in 2018 we model lackluster, middle-
As with fossil-fuel burning power plants, reducing the of-the-road, and go-getter scenarios with reductions in
GHG emissions profile of the industrial sector can be annual GHG emissions of 1, 5, and 10 percent reductions
accomplished through improvements to the efficiency beyond business-as-usual projections, respectively.
of boilers, fuel switching, and use of renewable energy
such as biomass or geothermal, among other methods. 3. Nitric and adipic acid manufacturing
Additional reductions are possible if regulations require Nitric acid is primarily used as a feedstock for
a manufacturing facility to capture all cost-effective synthetic fertilizer, and also used to produce adipic acid
process efficiencies across an entire operation, beyond and explosives. Adipic acid is used in the production of
the boiler. Table 6 details the three scenarios analyzed nylon and is a flavor enhancer in foods. The production
for projecting possible reductions from the industrial of both compounds leads to emissions of nitrous oxide,
sector. In addition, for the middle-of-the-road and go- a potent greenhouse gas. Though nitric and adipic acid
getter scenarios for cement kilns, we assume emissions manufacturing makes up less than 0.5 percent of total
standards are used to drive reductions in process U.S. global warming pollution, there are opportunities
emissions through greater use of blended cements, to achieve dramatic reductions at low cost, making it a
and potentially carbon capture and storage, achieving good target for policy.
reductions in process emissions of 2 percent in 2020
and 13 percent in 2035. To reduce emissions from acid manufacturing, EPA can
use its authority under section 111 of the Clean Air
Act to set standards for new manufacturing plants and
issue guidelines to states to cover existing sources. Our



lackluster, middle-of-the-road and go-getter scenarios H. Commercial and Residential Heating
project reductions of annual GHG emissions of Carbon pollution from commercial and residential
13 percent, 56 percent, and 75 percent, respectively, heating, mostly through natural gas combustion,
compared to the business-as-usual projections. accounted for 7 percent of U.S. emissions in 2010.
This includes things such as home heating, cooking,
and water heating. The most effective way to
figur e 1 4 C
oal Mine Emissions decrease emissions in this sector is to improve the
building envelope—a path traditionally the province
of state and local governments in the United States.
However, the federal government can promulgate
1% oal Mining
C efficiency standards for appliances and equipment used
to heat buildings. Based on our survey of the available
literature, we conclude that efficiency standards
implemented in 2015 could reduce natural gas demand
by 126 Trillion British thermal units (TBtu) in 2025
and 235 TBtu in 2035, reducing GHG emissions by
6.7 million tons of CO2 in 2025 and 12.5 million tons
CO2 in 2035 compared to business-as-usual projections.
Due to limitations in the available literature, we project
As a Share of U.S. Emissions in 2010
the same reductions level for all three scenarios.

G. Coal Mines
Methane emissions from coal mines represented figur e 1 6 L
andfill Emissions
1 percent of total U.S. global warming pollution
in 2010. EPA may regulate coal mines as a source
category under section 111 of the Clean Air Act. As 2% L andfills
discussed above for power plants and industry, this
would entail EPA issuing performance standards for
new coal mines and regulations to guide states in their
regulation of existing coal mines. The statute does not
prescribe the specific form of regulations applied to
existing sources. For the lackluster, middle-of-the-road,
and go-getter scenarios, we projected reductions from
coal mines of 24 percent, 32 percent, and 39 percent,
respectively, compared to business-as-usual projections. As a Share of U.S. Emissions in 2010

figur e 1 5 C
ommercial Residential Heating Emissions
i. Landfills
Methane emissions from landfills represented 2 percent of
total U.S. global warming pollution in 2010. EPA already
regulates emissions of volatile organic compounds from
landfills under section 111 of the Clean Air Act. These
standards provide the co-benefit of reducing methane
emissions. EPA could either strengthen those standards or
establish new standards for GHG emissions. The statute
7% Commercial does not prescribe the form of regulations applied to
and Residential existing sources. For the lackluster, middle-of-the-road,
Heating Fuel and go-getter scenarios, we projected reductions of 5
percent, 9 percent, and 9 percent, respectively, compared
As a Share of U.S. Emissions in 2010 to our business-as-usual projections. The reductions we

project for landfills in this report are substantially smaller the federal government, such as emissions standards
than the reductions projected in the 2010 report. These for power plants and industry. This is based on the
differences are attributable to changes in the EPA data observation that the Constitution grants states
used in the analysis. broad authority to regulate their energy sources and
emissions. States thus have the ability to implement
many of the same policies as federal agencies.
V. Understanding the
State Reduction Pathways In this analysis, the difference between lackluster and
Policy action to address environmental challenges go-getter action at the state level is a function of the
frequently begins at the state level, and greenhouse number and size of the states that adopt the measures
gases are no exception. States were the first to push modeled, and in some cases the ambition of the
ambitious emissions standards for vehicles, adopt policies pursued. Unlike the federal analysis, in some
greenhouse gas regulations for the power sector, and cases state action would require new state legislation.
establish economy-wide reduction targets. Many states However, we did not attempt to determine which states
already have programs that reduce emissions from would require new legislation to implement the state
transportation, improve energy efficiency, and promote measures and which states could implement without
renewable generation. In the state scenarios, we new legislation. A detailed discussion of our state
examine what would happen if states continue to adopt methods is provided in Appendix II.
policies that reduce their GHG footprint.
In addition to the direct emission reduction opportunities
a. About the States Approach modeled here, state-level action can help trigger more
The state analysis takes a two-pronged approach. ambitious action at the federal level. In the words of Justice
First, we project the potential greenhouse gas Brandeis, states can serve as “laboratories of democracy,”
emissions reductions from transportation, end-use testing out approaches that provide possible models for
energy efficiency, and renewable electricity policies federal action. Action at the state level can also lead to
typically undertaken by states. Second, we consider the broader support for federal action, with the most ambitious
potential for state action in areas we also consider for states helping establish a floor for federal ambition.

figur e 1 7 P rojected
U.S Emissions when States Pursue the Full Range of Policies within their Authority
(No Federal Action)

8,000 Business-as-Usual
Lackluster
7,000

Middle-of-the-Road
6,000

5,000 Go-Getter

4,000 % B e l o w 2 0 0 5 Emissi o ns 2020 2035
17% and 83%
3,000 Lackluster 3% 0.2% Reduction Pathway
Middle-of-the-Road 5% 8%
2,000 Go-Getter 12% 29%

1,000 Reductions Necessary to Reach 450 ppm CO2e 36%-49% 60%-72%

0
2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035
Y Ear

Note: Due to modeling limitations, this figure depicts HFC consumption, which is generally thought to be equivalent to life-cycle emissions.



B. Transportation transportation fuels. In the middle-of-the-road and
As noted above, the transport sector is responsible go-getter scenarios, we assume that these policies
for about 30 percent of GHG emissions in the United are pursued by states accounting for 25 percent and
States, making it the second largest emitting sector 35 percent of total U.S. transportation fuel
behind power plants. State and local policies have consumption, respectively.18
traditionally played a significant role in transportation,
and as a result we project reductions that states might 2. Reducing Vehicle Miles Traveled
be able to achieve in this area, including through States play a big role in designing and implementing
policies to encourage the use of lower carbon fuels and policies that directly impact the number of vehicle
reduce vehicle miles traveled. miles traveled. These include smart growth strategies,
such as targeting new development near public
1. Lower Carbon Fuels transportation, favoring infill, limiting sprawl, mixed-
States may establish requirements for the fuels use development, and provision of smartly located
delivered in their jurisdictions to reduce the carbon affordable housing options. These strategies can be
profile of those fuels. To project potential reductions complemented by a variety of strategies, including
through state policies that reduce the life-cycle improving and expanding public transportation options,
emissions of transportation fuels, we do not select bike and pedestrian pathways, car sharing, and HOV
specific policies in specific states. Rather, we model lanes, as well as through speed limit restrictions,
percent improvements in the carbon profile of fuels intercity tolls, and strategies to limit driving within
generally. These general improvements in the carbon urban centers (e.g., parking restrictions).
profile of fuels are a proxy for what is likely to be a
diverse set of measures across numerous states. In our lackluster and middle-of-the-road scenarios,
we assume that states that implement policies and
For modeling purposes, we assume that those policies programs achieve VMT reductions of 0.5 percent
further reduce the average life-cycle carbon intensity per year beginning in 2016, leading to a 10 percent
of transportation fuels by 1 percent per year between reduction below business-as-usual projections in 2035.
2015 and 2035. In the lackluster scenario, we assume
this annual reduction is achieved by states accounting 18. ee Appendix II for context about what it would take to achieve the
S
for 15 percent of total energy consumption from U.S. state uptake in this and the other state scenarios.

tabl e 7 State Transportation Measures

P o lici e s and
A cti o n P r o grams D riving L acklust e r M iddl e - o f -th e - R o ad G o - G e tt e r
A cti o n

Reduce carbon OO Low-carbon fuel States accounting for States accounting for States accounting for
content of fuels by standard 15 percent of transportation 25 percent of transportation 35 percent of transportation
1 percent per year OO Clean fuel standard fuel consumption fuel consumption fuel consumption
from 2015 to 2035 OO Advanced biofuels implement measures to implement measures to implement measures to
standard achieve a reduction. achieve a reduction. achieve a reduction.
OO Infrastructure

incentives

Vehicle miles OO Smart growth States accounting for States accounting for States accounting for
traveled reductions OO Improved public 15 percent of GHG 25 percent of GHG 35 percent of GHG
of 0.5 or 1 percent transit emissions from light- emissions from light- emissions from light-
per year from 2016 OO Pedestrian and duty vehicles implement duty vehicles implement duty vehicles implement
to 2035 biking infrastructure measures to achieve a measures to achieve a measures to achieve a
OO Improved traffic reduction of 0.5 percent reduction of 0.5 percent reduction of 1 percent
systems operations per year. per year. per year.

This is on the conservative end of the range found in states with targets increase those targets, and that
the state programs under way. Therefore, in our some states without targets implement those targets.
go-getter scenario we assume that states reduce VMT The scenarios are shown in Table 8.
1 percent per year. We assume that these policies and
programs are implemented by states accounting for 3. Improving Building Performance
15, 25, and 35 percent of GHG emissions from light- States and municipalities are generally responsible for
duty vehicles in our lackluster, middle-of-the-road, and adopting and updating state and local building energy
go-getter scenarios, respectively. codes, which apply to new construction and major
renovations. Responsibility for enforcing these codes
C. Energy Efficiency is part of the states’ police powers. In our lackluster
Energy efficiency measures avoid the need to use fossil scenario, we assume that states accounting for 10
fuels and save consumers money, creating significant percent of the energy consumed by the building sector
economic benefits.19 States are on the front lines in implement more ambitious building codes. In our
designing and implementing programs to enhance middle-of-the-road and go-getter scenarios, we assume
energy efficiency, both for end-use electricity and that states accounting for 30 and 50 percent of the
heating fuels. Our analysis projects the emissions energy consumed by the building sector implement
reductions states may achieve implementing energy more ambitious building codes, respectively.
efficiency programs, building codes, and the increased
penetration of combined heat and power. Each type of 4. Increased Penetration of Combined Heat and Power
measure is outlined below. The U.S. electricity system is designed to
accommodate large central station power plants
1. Electricity Savings located away from the electricity customers. Fossil-
States have been the primary drivers of end-use energy fuel generating plants operate at 30 to 60 percent
efficiency within their borders. Many states have efficiency, wasting significant energy in unused heat
implemented energy efficiency portfolio standards from the combustion process. Combined heat and
and/or other ratepayer-funded programs to fund power (CHP), or cogeneration, is a form of distributed
energy efficiency investments. Other states have generation located at or very near end-use customers
sought to integrate energy efficiency into the process that captures and puts waste heat to beneficial use.
for procuring new generation resources (e.g., in the
context of long-term resource planning), so that energy States have been at the forefront in driving the
efficiency can compete as a viable alternative to more spread of CHP. They have done so through a variety
traditional generating resources. of policies, including standard interconnection rules,
reduced standby rates, net metering policies, friendly
To project potential emissions reductions from air quality regulations (such as output-based emissions
increased state-level energy efficiency policies, we regulations), technical assistance programs, and
made different assumptions about states with and various financial incentives.20 In our lackluster,
without such policies. We assume that some states middle-of-the-road, and go-getter scenarios, we
with and without existing energy efficiency targets assume that state action results in deployment of an
adopt policies and programs that lead to electricity additional 10, 20, and 40 GW of new CHP by 2025,
savings beginning in 2015. Both the rate of savings respectively, beyond business-as-usual projections.21
and the number of states covered varies across the
scenarios, as shown in Table 8.
19. he Long-Term Energy Efficiency Potential: What the Evidence
T
2. Natural Gas Savings Suggests. American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy, Research
A number of states have also begun to implement Report E121, January 2012. Accessible at: http://www.aceee.org/
research-report/e121.
energy efficiency programs targeted at natural gas 20. hallenges Facing Combined Heat and Power Today: A State-by-State
C
consumption. These programs can resemble those for Assessment. ACEEE Report Number IE111, September 2011.
electricity savings, taking the form of energy efficiency 21. n the go-getter scenario, we assume that state action results in
I
deployment of 27 GW of CHP in 2020, in addition to the 13 GW built
portfolio standards or system benefit charges. As with into our business-as-usual projections. Combined, they result in CHP
the electricity savings scenarios, we assume that some deployment consistent with the executive order target of 40 GW of new
CHP by 2020.



tabl e 8 State Energy Efficiency Measures

P o lici e s and
A cti o n P r o grams D riving L acklust e r M iddl e - o f -th e - R o ad G o - G e tt e r
A cti o n

Electricity savings States responsible for States responsible for States responsible for
from states with 75 percent of electricity 75 percent of electricity 75 percent of electricity
EE targets consumption that have consumption that have consumption that have
annual energy efficiency annual energy efficiency annual energy efficiency
OO Energy efficiency targets below 1.5 percent targets below 2 percent targets below 2.5 percent
resource standards increase their annual increase their annual increase their annual
OO System benefit charge
target to 1.5 percent from targets to 2 percent from targets to 2.5 percent from
funds or other funds 2015 to 2035. 2015 to 2035. 2015 to 2035.
OO Least-cost
Electricity savings States responsible for States responsible for States responsible for
procurement
from states without 25 percent of electricity 25 percent of electricity 50 percent of electricity
requirements
EE targets consumption achieve consumption achieve consumption achieve
electricity savings of electricity savings of electricity savings of
1 percent of total demand 1.5 percent of total 1.5 percent of total
per year from 2015 demand per year from 2015 demand per year from
to 2035. to 2035. 2015 to 2035.

Natural gas savings States responsible for States responsible for States responsible for
from states with 25 percent of natural gas 50 percent of natural gas 75 percent of natural gas
EE targets consumption that have consumption that have consumption that have
energy efficiency targets energy efficiency targets energy efficiency targets
below 1 percent achieve below 1 percent achieve below 1.5 percent achieve
OO Energy
efficiency savings of 1 percent of savings of 1 percent of savings of 1.5 percent of
resource standards total demand per year from total demand per year from total demand per year
OO System benefit charge 2015 to 2035. 2015 to 2035. from 2015 to 2035.
Natural gas savings funds or other funds States responsible for States responsible for States responsible for
from states without 10 percent of natural 25 percent of natural 50 percent of natural
EE targets gas consumption achieve gas consumption achieve gas consumption achieve
natural gas savings of natural gas savings of natural gas savings of
1 percent of total demand 1 percent of total demand 1.5 percent of total
per year from 2015 per year from 2015 demand per year from
to 2035. to 2035. 2015 to 2035.

Reduced energy OO Commercial and States accounting for States accounting for States accounting for
consumption residential building 10 percent of the energy 30 percent of the energy 50 percent of the energy
in buildings codes consumed by the building consumed by the building consumed by the building
OO Financial incentives sector implement more sector implement more sector implement more
ambitious building codes. ambitious building codes. ambitious building codes.

Increased OO Standard State action results State action results State action results
penetration of interconnection rules in deployment of an in deployment of an in deployment of an
combined heat OO Reduced standby rates additional 10 GW of new additional 20 GW of new additional 40 GW of new
and power OO Net metering policies CHP beyond business-as- CHP beyond business-as- CHP beyond business-as-
OO Output-based usual projections by 2025. usual projections by 2025. usual projections by 2025.
emissions regulations

tabl e 9 State Renewable Energy Policies


Increased States responsible for 25 percent of States responsible for 50 percent of States responsible for 75 percent of
renewables electricity consumption increase their electricity consumption increase their electricity consumption increase their
from states renewable generation by 1 percent renewable generation by 1 percent renewable generation by 1 percent
with renewables annually after the last year for which annually after the last year for which annually after the last year for which
targets a standard is set. a standard is set. a standard is set.
Increased States responsible for 10 percent of States responsible for 25 percent of States responsible for 50 percent of
renewables from electricity consumption increase their electricity consumption increase their electricity consumption increase their
states without renewable generation 0.5 percent renewable generation 0.5 percent renewable generation 0.5 percent
renewables annually beginning in 2015. annually beginning in 2015. annually beginning in 2015.
targets

D. Renewable Electricity Generation states. Other states could join them, or take alternative
Similar to energy efficiency, state policies have been approaches to reducing carbon pollution from power
major drivers of renewable electricity generation in the plants. The most significant example of this is
United States. Twenty-nine states and the District of California, which has taken an expansive approach to
Columbia have renewable energy portfolio standards reducing GHGs in its Global Warming Solutions Act of
or advanced energy standards. Numerous states also 2006 and the regulations adopted under that law.
support distributed or customer-sited renewables
as part of their RPS or through other ratepayer- Because it is hard to predict which other states, if any,
funded programs. In order to capture the reductions will pursue ambitious standards for greenhouse gases,
possible from states taking new or additional action to we modeled more broad-based action by assuming a
increase renewable generation serving their residents, portion of total national emissions within each sector
we assumed that a certain number of states without would be covered by the reduction measures analyzed
renewable energy targets add 0.5 percent renewables for the federal government in section IV above. In
per year beginning in 2015. For those states that the lackluster, middle-of-the-road, and go-getter
already have renewables targets, we assumed they scenarios, we assume these measures are adopted by
continued to add 1 percent a year to those targets states accounting for 10, 25, and 50 percent of GHG
after the target is achieved. Table 9 provides details on emissions from a given sector, respectively.
differences across the scenarios.
These approaches include state action for all sectors
E.
When States Take discussed in the federal action section, except for those
a More Expansive Tack policies that are ill-suited for state implementation. We
deemed policies that eliminate HFCs, regulate off-highway
States have broad authority to regulate energy sources
vehicles, adopt appliance and equipment efficiency
and emissions within their boundaries. They may
standards where federal standards already exist, or
therefore implement many of the same policies that
regulate aviation to be ill-suited to state implementation
we ascribe to the federal government in the federal
because they are preempted by federal law.
analysis. In determining what reductions states might
make in the future, the analysis considers not only
It is important to note that we vary both the number of
traditional state energy policies, but also scenarios in
states taking action and the level of ambition they each
which states decide to approach carbon pollution more
pursue. In all sectors, the level of ambition pursued is
expansively. For example, the states participating in
the same as the ambition defined in the federal scenario
the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic Regional Greenhouse
described in Section IV. Therefore, in our lackluster
Gas Initiative (RGGI) have chosen to design and
scenario for power plants, we assume states accounting
implement a multistate cap-and-trade program to
for 10 percent of GHG emissions from the power sector
reduce carbon pollution from power plants in their


implement policies equivalent to the lackluster scenario OO For power plants, EPA should finalize
for federal action. In our go-getter scenario, we assume its proposed greenhouse gas emissions
states accounting for 50 percent of GHG emissions from standards for new power plants and should
the power sector implement policies equivalent to the move ahead with flexible and ambitious
go-getter scenario for federal action. standards for existing power plants. States
should move ahead with measures to
reduce emissions from the power sector,
VI. onclusion: Finding Our Way
C such as increasing the use of renewable
to a Low-Carbon Future power and cogeneration and reducing
The enormous economic and social costs of climate electricity demand.
disruption are increasingly evident in the United
States. Yet the urgency conveyed by the mounting OO For natural gas systems, EPA and
evidence is not yet reflected in U.S. federal and state the states should propose rules that
actions or climate policies. The United States is not address methane as a greenhouse
currently on path to meet its international pledge to gas pollutant, which can result in
reduce GHG emissions to 17 percent below 2005 levels significant reduction of methane leakage
by 2020, though it could meet this goal with go-getter throughout the natural gas life cycle.
action by the U.S. Administration under current laws. Such rules would complement the
In order to achieve adequate mid-century reductions, volatile organic compound and air toxics
it appears almost certain that the U.S. Congress will rules established in 2012 for natural
eventually have to enact new legislation aimed at gas systems that have the co-benefit of
getting deep reductions. Ultimately, a cooperative reducing methane leakage.
approach bringing together Congress, states, and
the executive branch will be necessary for the United OO The State Department should continue to seek
States to do its part. reductions in hydrofluorocarbons through
amendments to the Montreal Protocol. But,
States can contribute to U.S. emissions reductions, in the meantime, EPA should begin reducing
both through state-level transportation, energy consumption in the United States using its
efficiency, and renewables programs, as well as authority under the Clean Air Act.
through new legislative efforts to initiate a wide array
of other policies aimed at reducing GHGs. It appears OO EPA and the states should also work to
unlikely that state actions alone will put the United improve energy efficiency in the residential,
States on the necessary course. However, they can help commercial, and industrial sectors.
complement federal action, and can enable the United
States to meet its 17 percent target if federal agencies OO Over time, we will need to see reductions from
fail to pursue go-getter-level action. all sectors, and the Administration should use
its existing authorities to achieve go-getter-level
Key Recommendations reductions across the economy.
OO In the short term, federal agencies and the states
should aggressively move forward with a “go- OO Even with go-getter-level action, however,
getter” emissions reduction scenario. This will reductions will fall short of the long-term targets
necessitate taking action in the following key areas necessary to avoid the worst impacts of climate
that present the greatest opportunities for GHG disruption. As a result, congressional action will
emissions reductions through 2020: be necessary.

OO EPA and the states should focus on achieving
significant reductions in carbon pollution from
power plants and natural gas systems.

Box 4 Risks and Uncertainties

Uncertainties associated with the methods and results of this analysis include:

n ncertainties
U inherent in the models. As with n ongressional
C action. Federal agencies depend on
any modeling analysis of this sort, there is significant the U.S. Congress for their budgets. In order to carry out
uncertainty in projecting the future. The analysis relies a series of new regulatory actions, federal agencies will
heavily on the Energy Information Administration’s Annual require sufficient resources through the annual budget
Energy Outlook 2012, which attempts to project energy process. In addition, it should be noted that existing
and emissions trends into the future based on a number authorities can be curtailed through new legislation.
of assumptions, including likely fuel costs, economic
n egal
L risk. The assumptions made in this analysis were
activity, and source turnover rates. There are also
considerable uncertainties in the estimates of fugitive informed by sound legal analysis and vetted with legal
emissions from natural gas systems. All projections are experts in the field. Nevertheless, when federal agencies
only as good as the assumptions that go into them and take new actions under existing statutes, the new actions
the quality of the data modeled. are often challenged in federal court on the grounds that
the agency has exceeded the authority originally granted
n egulatory
R impetus. As the different scenarios to it in the statute. It is impossible to predict with any
suggest, a major uncertainty in the analysis is whether precision whether the challenges will be successful.
the federal administration will carry out the regulatory
n echnological
T development. The results modeled
actions in a manner sufficient to achieve the reductions
that available studies suggest are technically feasible. depend in part on the development and deployment of
The lackluster, middle-of-the-road, and go-getter new technologies over time. Indeed, many of the regulatory
scenarios stand for different levels of regulatory ambition. policies are technology-based and must be revised by
The go-getter scenario, it should be emphasized, will federal agencies as technology progresses. If technologies
require steadfast resolve on the part of the Administration emerge rapidly, emissions reductions are more likely.
and the states. Conversely, if technologies are slow to appear, emissions
reductions will slow. This uncertainty is especially
important further out into the future.



Supplemental Figures
Box s -1 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reductions from State Action Coupled with Lackluster Federal Action

If the U.S. Administration pursues
figur e s - 1 P
rojected U.S Emissions with State Action Coupled
with Lackluster Federal Action a lackluster effort, go-getter state
action will not be sufficient to make
8,000
Business-as-Usual up the emissions gap and reduce GHG

7,000 emissions 17 percent below 2005
Federal Lackluster
6,000
with State Lackluster levels by 2020. However, as shown in
with State Middle-of-the-Road
with State Go-Getter
Figure 2, the 17 percent GHG reduction
5,000
goal can be achieved with a state go-
% B e l o w 2 0 0 5 Emissi o ns 2020 2035
4,000 getter effort along with middle-of-the-
17% and 83%
3,000
Federal Lackluster 8% 10%
Reduction Pathway road federal action. State action with
with State Lackluster 10% 13%
go-getter federal action is not shown, as
2,000 with State Middle-of-the-Road 11% 20%
it does not provide significant reductions
with State Go-Getter 15% 27%
1,000
Reductions Necessary to Reach 450 ppm CO2e 36-49% 60-72%
above and beyond other combinations
0 of state and federal action that were
2035
2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030
considered as a result of the way the
Y Ear
scenarios are defined.
Note: Figure depicts changes in consumption of HFCs.

Box s-2 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reductions from Federal Action

The majority of potential GHG benefits come from actions represent between 80 and 93 percent of potential
actions taken in the power sector, energy efficiency GHG reductions across all scenarios in 2020 and 2035, and
improvements, reducing HFC consumption, and reducing are necessary to achieve a 17 percent reduction below 2005
methane emissions from natural gas systems. These GHG emissions levels.

figur e s - 2 G
reenhouse Gas Emissions Reductions figur e s - 3 G
reenhouse Gas Emissions Reductions from
from Federal Action, in million metric tons Federal Action, as a percent of total reductions

3,500 ■ Residentialand 100%
■ Residential and ■ Residential and

100%
CommercialHeating
Commercial Heating 90% Commercial Heating
90%
3,000 ■ Nitric Adipic Acid
■ Nitric Adipic Acid
■ Nitric Adipic Acid
80% 80%
■ Coal Mining
■ Coal Mining ■ Coal Mining
2,500 70% ■ Landfills 70% ■ Landfills
■ Landfills
2,000 60% ■ HFCs ■ HFCs
■ HFCs 60%
■ Natural Gas Systems ■ Natural Gas Systems
50% ■ Natural Gas Systems 50%
1,500 ■ Refineries ■ Refineries
40% ■ Refineries
■ Manufacturing 40% ■ Manufacturing
1,000 30% ■ Manufacturing
■ Aircraft
■ Aircraft
■ Off-Highway
30%
20% ■ Aircraft ■ Off-Highway
500 ■ Medium- Heavy-Duty 20%
■ Off-Highway ■ Medium- Heavy-Duty
10% ■ Light-Duty Cars Trucks
0 ■ Medium- Heavy-Duty 10% ■ Light-Duty Cars Truc
0 ■ Power Plants
■ Light-Duty Cars Trucks 0 ■ Power Plants
Lackluster

Middle-of-the-Road

Go-Getter

Lackluster

Middle-of-the-Road

Go-Getter
Lackluster

Middle-of-the-Road

Go-Getter

Lackluster

Middle-of-the-Road

Go-Getter

■ Power Plants
Lackluster

Middle-of-the-Road

Go-Getter

Lackluster

Middle-of-the-Road

Go-Getter

2020 2035
2020 Y Ear 2035
2020 Y Ear 2035

Note: Figure depicts changes in consumption of HFCs. Note: Figure depicts changes in consumption of HFCs.

Box s-3 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reductions from State Action Only

Improvements in the power sector largely drive reductions figur e s - 4 State Actions that Affect Electricity Supply
in all of the scenarios that examine the impact of and Demand
state actions without any new federal actions. This is
accomplished through a combination of GHG performance
1,400 ■ Renewable Energy
standards, renewable and energy efficiency standards, building ■ Energy Efficiency
codes, and policies to promote combined heat and power. In 1,200 ■ Building Codes
■ Combined Heat
our scenarios those actions can alleviate the demand for up to and Power
1,000 ■ Industrial units
1,280 terra watt-hours of conventional sources of electricity in
2035. This is offset to a limited extent through increased vehicle
800
electrification, which increases demand by up to 66 terra watt-

T Wh
hours of electricity in 2035. 600

States can implement many of the same types of policies as 400

federal agencies. They can also take additional actions that
200
increase electric efficiency, renewable electricity generation,
building performance, and combined heat and power penetration. 0

Lackluster

Middle-of-the-Road

Go-Getter

Lackluster

Middle-of-the-Road

Go-Getter
However, states are less well-equipped to reduce HFC
consumption, adopt appliance and equipment efficiency
standards where federal standards already exist, and to drive
2020 Y Ear 2035
reductions in GHG emissions from off-highway vehicles and
aviation. As a result, under our scenarios, state action alone
is insufficient to achieve the near-term and long-term GHG
reduction targets.

figur e s - 5 G
reenhouse Gas Emissions Reductions figur e s - 6 G
reenhouse Gas Emissions Reductions
from State Action, in million metric tons from State Action, as a percent of total
reductions from state actions

3,000 ■ Nitric Adipic Acid
100% 100%
■ Nitric Adipic Acid ■ Nitric A
■ Coal Mining
2,500 90% ■ Coal Mining 90% ■ Coal Min
■ Landfills
80% ■ Landfills ■ Landfills
80%
■ Natural Gas Systems
■ Natural Gas Systems ■ Natural G
2,000 70% 70%
■ Refineries
■ Refineries ■ Refinerie
60% ■ Manufacturing
■ Manufacturing 60% ■ Manufac
1,500 ■ Natural Gas
50% ■ Natural Gas 50% ■ Natural G
Efficiency Programs Efficienc
Efficiency Programs 40%
1,000 40% ■ Building Codes ■ Building
30%
Building Codes
■(natural gas only)
30% (natural g
500 20% ■ VMT Reduction only)
(natural gas
■ VMT Redu
■VMT Reduction Mix
Diversity in Fuel 20%
Diversi
0 10% ■ Medium- Heavy-Duty Mix 10%
Diversity in Fuel ■ Medium-
0 ■ Light-Duty Cars Trucks
■ Medium- Heavy-Duty ■ Light-Dut
0
Lackluster

Middle-of-the-Road

Lackluster

Middle-of-the-Road

Go-Getter
Go-Getter

■ Power Plants Cars Trucks
■ Light-Duty ■ Power Pl
Lackluster

Middle-of-the-Road

Go-Getter

Lackluster

Middle-of-the-Road

Go-Getter

Lackluster

Middle-of-the-Road

Go-Getter

Lackluster

Middle-of-the-Road

Go-Getter

■ Power Plants

2020
2020 Y Ear 2035
2035 2020 2035
Y Ear


About WRI
WRI focuses on the intersection of the environment
and socio-economic development. We go beyond
research to put ideas into action, working globally
with governments, business, and civil society to build
transformative solutions that protect the earth and
improve people’s lives.

Solutions to Urgent Sustainability Challenges
WRI’s transformative ideas protect the earth, promote
development, and advance social equity because
sustainability is essential to meeting human needs
today, and fulfilling human aspirations tomorrow.

Practical Strategies for Change
WRI spurs progress by providing practical strategies
for change and effective tools to implement
them. We measure our success in the form of new
policies, products, and practices that shift the ways
governments work, businesses operate, and people act.

Global Action
We operate globally because today’s problems know
no boundaries. We are avid communicators because
people everywhere are inspired by ideas, empowered
by knowledge, and moved to change by greater
understanding. We provide innovative paths to a
sustainable planet through work that is accurate,
fair, and independent.

Acknowledgments
We would like to thank Dr. Tom Bourgeois and Daniel Welch for their contributions. We would also like to thank all of
our reviewers. External reviewers included: Lee Alter, Dale Bryk, Esq., Tomas Carbonell, Esq., Megan Ceronsky, Esq.,
Nick Chase, Dr. Rachel Cleetus, Tom Curry, David Doniger, Esq., Jamie Howland, Carrie Jenks, Esq., Brian Jones, Dr.
Dan Lashof, Laura Martin, Carl Mas, Jonas Monast, Esq., Rolf Nordstrom, Peter Shattuck, and Rebecca Stanfield,
Esq. Internal reviewers included: Nate Aden, Paul Allen, Dr. James Bradbury, Christina Deconcini, Esq., Taryn
Fransen, Dr. Kevin Kennedy, Jennifer Morgan, Michael Obeiter, Michael Oko, and Janet Ranganathan. Valuable input
was provided by: Erin Boedecker, Susanne Brooks, Dr. Dallas Burtraw, Tom Cackette, Pam Campos, Esq., Jonathan
Camuzeaux, Anna Chittum, Owen Comstock, Andrew deLaski, Jim Edelson, David Friedman, Bruce Hedman, David
Hewitt, Dr. Vignesh Gowrishankar, Peter Gross, Brendan Jordan, Ruiwen Lee, Dr. Nicholas Lutsey, Joanna Mauer,
Maggie Molina, Katrina Pielli, Jackie Roberts, Dr. Dan Rutherford, Corey Shott, Hilary Sinnamon, Anant Vyas,
Dr. Gernot Wagner, and Peter Zalzal, Esq. We would also like to thank Hyacinth Billings for her assistance in the
publication process, Robert Livernash for copy editing, Alston Taggart of Studio Red Design for the publication
design, and Wenceslao Almazan of Wenceslao Almazan Design Studio for cover design. This report was made possible
through the generous support of the Robertson Foundation and the Energy Foundation. While our reviewers were very
generous with their time and advice, the authors alone are responsible for the content of this report.

Copyright 2013 World Resources Institute and Franz T. Litz. This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivative
Works 3.0 License. To view a copy of the license, visit http:/creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/

10 G Street, NE (Suite 800)
Washington, DC 20002
USA
Tel: (1 202) 729 76 00
Fax: (1 202) 729 76 10
www.wri.org

ISBN number: 978-1-56973-800-9

WRI Report: "Can The U.S. Get There From Here?"

More Related Content

What's hot (20)

Viewers also liked (20)

Similar to WRI Report: "Can The U.S. Get There From Here?" (20)

More from climate central (17)

Recently uploaded (20)

WRI Report: "Can The U.S. Get There From Here?"