Transportation and State Climate Action Plans: What You Need to Know
FHWA Webinar March 25, 2010
Presentation Roadmap
- Overview of State Climate Action Plans
- Transportation Mitigation Strategies - Quantification Methods and Uncertainties
- Impacts and Adaptation
- Key Opportunities for Involvement
What is a Climate Action Plan?
Provides Distinct Strategies to Reduce GHG Emissions from Multiple Sectors
Typical Components
- Emission inventory and forecast (baseline)
- Description of GHG mitigation strategies
- GHG impacts, costs, and cost-effectiveness of strategies
- Implementation steps
- Net impact of strategies, compared to baseline (BAU) forecast
The Climate Action Plan in Context
State Climate Action Plans Typically ARE:
- Strategy scoping documents
- Sketch-level emissions analyses
State Climate Action Plans Typically ARE NOT:
- Fiscally constrained
- Constrained by current limits on implementation authority
- Developed by agencies that would implement the plans
- Analogous to LRTPs
Status of State Climate Action Plans
Total Forecast State GHG Emissions (BAU)
Transportation Contribution to Total State GHG Emissions
GHG Reductions from Plan
Mitigation Strategies in 30 CAPs
Effectiveness of Individual Mitigation Strategies
Steps in Climate Action Plan Development (typical)
- Create Emission Inventory and Forecast (baseline)
- By sector; may be done in advance
- Form Stakeholder Groups
- Plenary group + 4-5 technical working groups
- Review "Catalog" of Potential Strategies
- Select Short List of Strategies for Evaluation
- Analyze GHG Impacts and Costs of Select Strategies
- Formulate Strategy Implementation Steps
- Calculate Combined Impact of All Plan Strategies
- Final Report
Questions?
Part 2: Transportation Mitigation Strategies - Quantification Methods and Uncertainties
Real Impacts of CAP Strategies
Actual GHG Reductions Will Depend On:
- Enactment of strategies (Hurdle #1)
- Implementation of strategies (Hurdle #2)
- Variables that determine impact (Hurdle #3)
Sources of Uncertainty Arise at Each Hurdle
Requirements for Enactment (Hurdle #1)
- Public funding
- Legislation or rulemaking
- Major public agency initiative
- Private industry collaboration
Requirements for Enactment (Hurdle #1)
External Factors Affecting Implementation (Hurdle #2)
| Factor |
Source of Uncertainty for |
| Commercial Availability of Technology |
Alternative fuel and technology strategies |
| Local Government Action or Coordination Among Government Agencies |
Smart growth strategies, Infrastructure for bicycles, pedestrians, and transit |
| Market Forces |
Transportation pricing strategies, Transit strategies |
| Land Use Changes |
Smart growth strategies |
Variabes that Determine Impact (Hurdle #3)
| Variable |
Source of Uncertainty for |
| Affected population |
Anti-idling strategies |
| Market Penetration |
Most strategy types, except where penetration rate is mandated |
| Effectiveness |
Traffic Speed/Flow strategies, Smart growth strategies |
| Timing |
Strategies including large capital investments, such as Smart growth strategies, Transit strategies |
Quantification Techniques
|
- Apply empirical results from studies of similar measures
|
- Set a reduction goal, supported by a local feasibility study
|
- Set a reduction goal, not supported by a local feasibility study
|
Smart Growth Strategies in CAPs
Key questions
- Will envisioned land use changes occur in the projected timeframe?
- Will travel patterns change with land use as predicted?
Quantification approaches in sample states
- Apply local results from regional land use scenario modeling
- Apply non-local results from regional land use scenario modeling
- Establish goals without a supporting feasibility analysis
Estimated reduction in VMT in sample states: 2% to 9%
Traffic Speed/Flow Strategies in CAPs
Traffic Smoothing
- Primary uncertainties are the specific changes to the system and how they affect traffic flow
- Quantified based on an emissions goal
- Estimated transportation GHG reductions in sample states: 0.1% to 0.2%
Speed Limits
- Key question: How will changes in speed limit or enforcement change travel speeds?
- Quantified using rule-of-thumb on speed vs. fuel economy
- Estimated transportation GHG reductions in sample states: 0.3% to 1.0%
Alternative Fuel Strategies in CAPs
Low Carbon Fuel Standards - mandated reduction in amount of carbon per unit of energy
- Primary uncertainty is adoption into state law
- Market penetration, effectiveness, and timing are mandated
- Estimated GHG reductions in sample states: 6% to 19%
Individual Alternative Fuels - goals for market share
- Typical policies increase market share of ethanol and/or biodiesel
- Primary uncertainty is lifecycle GHG impacts of fuels and feedstocks
- Estimated GHG reductions in sample states: 0.2% to 2.3%
Questions?
Part 3: Impacts and Adaptation
State Climate Change Adaptation Plans
Source: Pew Center on Global Climate Change, "Adaptation Planning - What U.S. States and Localities are Doing", August 2009
Adaptation Working Groups
 |
- Public Health
- Biodiversity and Habitat
- Ocean and Coastal Resources
- Ocean and Coastal Resources
- Water Management
- Agriculture
- Forestry
- Transportation and Energy Infrastructure *
|
 |
- Build Environment, Infrastructure and Communities
- Human Health, Safety and Welfare
- Ecosystems, Species, Habitats
- Natural Resources
|
 |
- Public Infrastructure *
- Health & Culture
- Natural Systems
- Economic Activities
|
 |
- Existing Built Environment and Infrastructure
- Future Built Environment and Infrastructure
- Resource and Resource-based Industries
- Human Health and Security
|
* Includes state DOT
Impact and Adaptation - Approaches
Vulnerability Assessment
- Identifies existing stressors facing transportation systems and projects how climate change will introduce new stressors in the future
Risk Assessment
- Evaluates the likelihood and consequence of climate-related impacts on transportation
Adaptation
- Transportation management options available for effectively adapting to climate change impacts
Most state plans have not advanced beyond vulnerability
Adopted Strategies - Examples
Alaska
- PI-1: Create a Coordinated and Accessible Statewide System for Key Data Collection, Analysis, and Monitoring
- PI-2: Promote Improvements that Use the Current Best Practice
- PI-3: Build to Last; Build Resiliency into Alaska's Public Infrastructure
California
- Develop a detailed climate vulnerability assessment and adaptation plan for California's transportation infrastructure
- Incorporate climate change vulnerability assessment planning tools, policies, and strategies into existing transportation and investment decisions.
- Develop transportation design and engineering standards to minimize climate change risks to vulnerable transportation infrastructure.
- Assess environmental impacts from climate change in rehabilitating the transportation system and siting of new transportation projects
- Incorporate climate change impact considerations into disaster preparedness planning for all transportation modes.
Questions?
Part 4: Key Opportunities for Involvement
6 Points Where Involvement is Important
- Formation of Stakeholder Groups
- Inventory and Forecast (Baseline)
- Selection of Strategies
- Strategy "Design"
- Quantification of Strategy Impacts
- Identification of Implementation Steps
1. Formation of Stakeholder Groups
Working groups make recommendations to a plenary group (CAT, CAG, etc.)
Transportation TWG usually includes the DOT and/or MPO
Plenary group does not usually include DOT or MPO
2. Inventory and Forecast (Baseline)
Pay attention to growth factors for forecast years
On-road gasoline and diesel forecast based on VMT projections
| |
Little or no uncertainty |
High uncertainty |
| MMtCO2-eq |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Growth Factors |
| |
1990 |
1991 |
1993 |
... |
2003 |
2004 |
2005 |
|
2005-2010 |
2010-2015 |
2015-2020 |
| Motor Gasoline |
19.38 |
19.69 |
20.06 |
... |
23.83 |
24.10 |
23.74 |
1.1% |
1.2% |
0.8% |
| Onroad Distillate Fuel |
4.05 |
4.24 |
4.75 |
... |
6.94 |
7.44 |
7.48 |
3.4% |
3.4% |
7.7% |
| Rail Distillate Fuel |
0.84 |
0.72 |
0.57 |
... |
0.70 |
0.75 |
0.75 |
0.0% |
0.0% |
0.0% |
| Jet Fuel |
8.06 |
7.79 |
8.98 |
... |
6.95 |
7.64 |
7.61 |
0.8% |
0.5% |
0.4% |
| Aviation Gasoline |
0.11 |
0.09 |
0.10 |
... |
0.08 |
0.07 |
0.01 |
1.5% |
1.4% |
1.2% |
| Residual Fuel |
2.54 |
2.65 |
2.65 |
... |
2.71 |
2.87 |
3.01 |
2.1% |
2.1% |
2.1% |
| Natural Gas |
0.28 |
0.28 |
0.17 |
... |
0.37 |
0.49 |
0.47 |
16.7% |
9.9% |
5.9% |
| LPG |
0.07 |
0.05 |
0.05 |
... |
0.02 |
0.02 |
0.02 |
8.7% |
5.6% |
4.7% |
3. Selection of Strategies
Multiple options may be "bundled" during or after balloting
- Details on individual strategies may be lost
Backtracking discouraged
- Decisions are made on which strategies to include before analysis is done
4. Strategy "Design"
Numeric goals for strategy effectiveness
Examples:
- Reduce light-duty VMT by 2% statewide by 2020
- Reduce fuel consumption from extended (overnight) idling of heavy-duty vehicles 50% by year 2012 and 95% 2020
- By 2010, all employers covered by a transportation authority with more than 100 employees will offer a commuter benefits program
- By 2010, ensure that 50% of employers who provide leased parking spaces to employees will offer parking cash-out.
- By 2020, 20% of drivers will be covered by mileage-based automobile insurance
- Increase the bicycle and walking mode share (all trips) in urban growth areas to 15% by 2020
Quantification of GHG impacts often directly tied to design goal
- Make sure Design Goals are realistic
5. Quantification of Strategy Impacts
Questions to consider when reviewing quantification
- Is impact quantified based on strategy goal? If so, is the goal supported by research?
- What segments of travel are affected? (e.g., light-duty vehicles only, urban VMT only)
- Are offsetting emissions quantified? (e.g., increase in transit emissions)
- Are strategy overlaps accounted for?
6. Identification of Implementation Steps
Recommendations for policy changes, new programs, etc.
Examples:
- The legislature would adopt the per capita VMT reduction goals and standards outlined in the Mitigation Option Design in the 2008 legislative session
- Adopt Complete Streets as a policy for state roads
- Fund State Bicycle and Pedestrian Programs at $150 million in the first year, expanding to meet the needs identified
- Provide funding for state and local government conversions of standard hybrids to plug-in through the Energy Freedom Fund
- Include strategy in next TIP/LRTP
Recommendations for implementation steps often overlooked
- Opportunity for FHWA involvement
Questions?
