Greenhouse Gas Emissions Cost E Ectiveness Study
Greenhouse Gas EmissionsCost E ectiveness Study
blankpage
AcknowledgementThis document was prepared by ICF International under contract through Metro’s SustainabilityProgram administered by Metro’s Environmental Compliance and Services Department.Technical input was provided by staff in the following Metro departments: Systems Engineering,Rail Vehicle Engineering, Metro Support Services Center, Vehicle Technology & Support, RailOperations-Wayside Systems Engineering, Community Relations, Central Maintenance,Customer Communications, New Business Development, Standards & Employee Programs,Long Range Planning, and the Westside Area Team.Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation AuthorityiJune 2010
blankpageLos Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation AuthorityiiJune 2010
Table of ContentsExecutive Summary.11. Introduction .42. Methodology.53. Greenhouse Gas Impacts of Metro’s Current Operations.74. Analysis of Greenhouse Gas Reduction Strategies .84.1.Promotion of Alternative Travel Modes .8Strategy: Ridesharing and Transit Pass Programs for Los Angeles Employers. 8Strategy: Metro Employee Transit Subsidy Program. 11Strategy: Transit Oriented Development. 14Strategy: Bike-to-Transit Commuter Incentives. 16Strategy: Bicycle Paths along Transit Corridors. 184.2.Transit Service.20Strategy: Vanpools. 20Strategy: Expand Rail and BRT Systems. 214.3.Vehicle Technology .25Strategy: Gasoline-Electric Hybrid Buses. 25Strategy: 45-foot Composite Buses. 27Strategy: Hybrid Vehicles for Non-Revenue Fleets. 30Strategy: On-board Storage of Regenerative Braking Energy. 33Strategy: Wayside Energy Storage Substation (WESS). 354.4.Facility Energy Use.37Strategy: Retrofit Lighting in Red Line Tunnel . 37Strategy: Facility Lighting Upgrades. 40Strategy: Recycled Water for Bus Washing. 45Strategy: Low Water Sanitary Fixtures . 47Strategy: Solar Panels . 495. Other Strategies .53Strategy: Wind Energy in Subway Tunnel. 53Strategy: Battery Upgrade in CNG Buses . 54Strategy: Battery Electric Buses . 54Strategy: Hydrogen/CNG Blend in Buses. 566. Summary of Results .58Endnotes.60Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation AuthorityiiiJune 2010
blankpageLos Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation AuthorityivJune 2010
Evaluation of Strategies to Reduce Greenhouse Gas EmissionsExecutive SummaryAs a leader in environmental responsibility, the Los Angeles County Metropolitan TransportationAuthority (Metro) is pursuing a variety of sustainability strategies to maximize transportationefficiency, access, safety, and performance while minimizing energy use, consumption,pollution, and the generation of waste. This report evaluates current and potential future Metrosustainability strategies for their costs and impacts on greenhouse gas emissions. Strategiesinclude those focused on Metro’s vehicle fleet, buildings, and opportunities to reduce vehiclemiles traveled (VMT).The figure below shows the greenhouse gas reduction cost effectiveness of the strategies thatcould be quantified. For some strategies, the results are sensitive to a single parameter with ahigh degree of uncertainty; for these strategies, cost effectiveness is shown as a range (longbar).Summary of Greenhouse Gas Reduction Cost Effectiveness by StrategyRidesharing/Transit Programs for EmployersMetro Employee Transit SubsidyTransit Oriented DevelopmentBike‐to‐Transit Commuter IncentivesBicycle Paths along Transit CorridorsVanpool SubsidyExpand Rail and BRT SystemsGasoline‐Electric Hybrid Buses45‐foot Composite BusesHybrid Non‐Revenue CarsHybrid Non‐Revenue Light TrucksOn‐board Railcar Energy StorageWayside Energy Storage SubstationRed Line Tunnel Lighting RetrofitFacility Lighting EfficiencyRecycled Water for Bus WashingLow Water Sanitary FixturesSolar Panels‐ 1,500‐ 1,000‐ 500 0Net Savings per ton CO2 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 4,000Net Cost per ton CO2The figure shows that a variety of strategies can potentially reduce greenhouse gas emissionsfor Metro at low cost or a net savings. The most cost effective strategies appear to be: Ridesharing/transit programs for employers Transit oriented development Vanpool subsidy 45-foot composite buses Hybrid non-revenue cars On-board railcar energy storageLos Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority1June 2010
Evaluation of Strategies to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions Red Line tunnel lighting retrofits Facility lighting efficiency Recycled water for bus washing Low water sanitary fixturesNote that the cost effectiveness metric provides no information on the magnitude of thegreenhouse gas (GHG) reduction. Some cost effective strategies produce emission reductionsthat are several orders of magnitude larger than others. The table below groups the strategiesaccording to cost effectiveness and maximum emission reduction potential. From a greenhousegas reduction perspective, the most desirable strategies are those that achieve a net savingsand offer large emission reductions.Summary of Greenhouse Gas Reduction Cost Effectiveness and Maximum Annual Emission ReductionCost Savings/ Cost NeutralLarge GHG Benefit( 10,000 MtCO2e/year)Moderate Cost ( 300 - 900per ton) Ridesharing/TransitPrograms for EmployersHigh Cost ( 1,000 per ton) Expand Rail and BRT Systems Wayside Energy StorageSubstation Transit OrientedDevelopment Vanpool Subsidy On-board Railcar EnergyStorageModerate GHG Benefit(1,000-10,000MtCO2e/year) 45-foot Composite BusesSmall GHG Benefit( 1,000 MtCO2e/year) Red Line Tunnel LightingRetrofit Facility Lighting Efficiency Hybrid Non-Revenue Cars Metro Employee TransitSubsidy Bicycle Paths along TransitCorridors Gasoline-Electric Hybrid Buses Solar Panels Bike-to-Transit CommuterIncentives Hybrid Non-Revenue LightTrucks Recycled Water for BusWashing Low Water Sanitary FixturesThis study considered a number of additional strategies, but did not quantify their emissionreduction cost effectiveness due to a lack of data to reliably estimate strategy costs oremissions impacts. These strategies include subway tunnel wind energy capture, batteryupgrades in CNG buses, battery electric buses, and buses powered by a hydrogen/CNG blend.The results presented in this report can help inform Metro’s decisions about future investment insustainability strategies. As the state of California, and potentially the nation, seeks to achievegreenhouse gas reduction targets, public agencies like Metro will be expected to develop andimplement new emission reduction strategies. Moreover, if the U.S. develops a robust marketLos Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority2June 2010
Evaluation of Strategies to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissionsfor carbon trading in the future, Metro may be able to generate revenue through its greenhousegas reduction measures.It is important to view these results understanding that greenhouse gas reduction costeffectiveness is only one of a number of factors that influences Metro’s investment decisions. Allof the strategies evaluated in this report have benefits in addition to greenhouse gas reduction,such as reducing transit operating costs, increasing transit ridership, improving mobility,reducing water use, and providing employee benefits. Some strategies involve significant costs.Decisions to support any individual strategy should be made based on a compositeassessment of all these potential benefits and costs, rather than greenhouse gas impactsalone.Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority3June 2010
Evaluation of Strategies to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions1. IntroductionAs a leader in environmental responsibility, the Los Angeles County Metropolitan TransportationAuthority (Metro) is pursuing a variety of sustainability strategies to maximize transportationefficiency, access, safety, and performance while minimizing energy use, consumption,pollution, and the generation of waste. These efforts support environmental stewardship andcan result in long-term cost savings for Metro while maintaining its leadership in thetransportation industry. Sustainability strategies will also become increasingly important tocomply with regulatory processes related to AB 32 greenhouse gas reduction targets andrelated regulations under the California Environmental Quality Act, the Federal surfacetransportation re-authorization process, and potential Federal climate change legislation.This report evaluates a number of current and potential future sustainability strategies for theircosts and impacts on greenhouse gas emissions reduction. Reducing greenhouse gasemissions helps to mitigate climate change. Many strategies that reduce greenhouse gasemissions also reduce the consumption of energy, improve air quality, and provide other socialand environmental benefits. For these reasons, reducing greenhouse gas emissions is animportant component of sustainability efforts at Metro.This study evaluates promising greenhouse gas emissions reduction strategies, including thosefocused on Metro’s vehicle fleet, buildings, and opportunities to reduce vehicle miles traveled(VMT). Costs and greenhouse gas benefits are quantified for 17 strategies. An additional 4strategies could not be evaluated quantitatively, due to a lack of data, but are described in termsof what is known about their costs and potential greenhouse gas benefits. Some of thesestrategies could be evaluated quantitatively if more data becomes available in the future.The study focused only on strategies under Metro’s direct control. Metro can potentiallyinfluence greenhouse gas emissions through other regional strategies that it does not directlycontrol, such as those involving Metrolink commuter rail, goods movement, and highwayoperations. Such strategies should be considered in conjunction with partners such as Caltrans,the Southern California Association of Governments, and other county transportation agencies.The results of this study can help inform Metro’s decisions about future investment insustainability strategies. However, it is important to view these results understanding thatgreenhouse gas emissions reduction cost effectiveness is only one of a number of factors thatinfluences Metro’s investment decisions. All of the strategies evaluated in this report havebenefits in addition to greenhouse gas emissions reduction, such as reducing transit operatingcosts, increasing transit ridership, improving mobility, reducing water use, and providingemployee benefits. Decisions to support any individual strategy should be made based on acomposite assessment of all these potential benefits.Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority4June 2010
Evaluation of Strategies to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions2. MethodologyStrategies were selected based on a review of current and proposed programs and projects atMetro and based on conversations with Metro staff. Strategies for which data was readilyavailable from Metro were prioritized. In the case of existing programs, strategies are analyzedbased on current performance with a view to maintaining or expanding those programs. In thecase of proposed projects or programs, strategies are analyzed to inform these proposals.A total of 17 strategies are analyzed quantitatively. Strategies fall into four categories:1. Promotion of Alternative Travel Modes – strategies that encourage use of existing transitor promote ridesharing, bicycling, walking, and other low-emission travel modes.2. Transit Service – strategies that expand the transit service provided by Metro3. Vehicle Technology – cleaner or more fuel efficient buses, trains, or non-revenuevehicles4. Facility Energy Use – strategies that reduce energy use at Metro’s facilities or generatemore clean electricityEmissions for these strategies are estimated in terms of metric tons of carbon dioxideequivalent (MtCO2e) and include impacts on CO2, methane (CH4), and nitrous oxide (N2O).Both emissions reduced by strategies (e.g., through removing cars from the road) andemissions produced by strategies (e.g., from new vanpools) are captured. Only emissions fromvehicle tailpipes and electricity generation are included. Embodied emissions associated withthe construction of infrastructure and buildings and the manufacture of vehicles and otherequipment are not included. These embodied emissions are generally not a large portion of totalemissions for the strategies analyzed, and therefore would not significantly change the resultspresented in this report.Cost effectiveness of strategies is reported in terms of dollars of expenditure or savings per tonof greenhouse gases reduced ( /ton). Only Metro’s costs and revenues are captured in the /ton metric, although major costs and revenues that accrue to other parties are also described.For many strategies, especially those involving capital investments, the costs, revenues, andemissions impacts may occur in different years. Emissions impacts may depend on the specificyear of implementation. Some investments may continue to support emission reductions formany years in the future. In this analysis, each strategy’s cost and emissions impacts areevaluated based on the lifetime most appropriate for that strategy. To support a side-by-sidecomparison of strategies, the cost of each strategy is evaluated on a net present value (NPV)basis, with future costs discounted at 5%. A rate of 5% reflects the historic cost of borrowing forlocal governments, and use of this discount rate is consistent with many other greenhouse gasemissions reduction cost effectiveness analyses.Nearly all the data used to analyze strategies was provided by Metro. In a few cases, additionaldata to estimate costs or emission reduction effectiveness was obtained from other agencies orLos Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority5June 2010
Evaluation of Strategies to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissionsfrom other research reports. Metro has conducted energy audits for Divisions 10 and 18; theseaudits were used as the basis to analyze facility energy efficiency strategies.After a draft of the analysis was completed, a workshop was held with approximately 10representatives from various Metro departments. The purpose of the workshop was to reviewthe draft analysis and obtain feedback on the data inputs, analysis methods, and results.Following this workshop, the analysis of several strategies was revised to reflect updatedinformation from Metro staff.Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority6June 2010
Evaluation of Strategies to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions3. Greenhouse Gas Impacts of Metro’s Current OperationsMetro is already a net reducer of greenhouse gas emissions. By removing private vehicles fromthe road, reducing congestion, and facilitating compact development, the agency annuallyprevents more greenhouse gas emissions from entering the atmosphere than it produces fromits vehicles and facilities. In addition to the annual impact of its service on greenhouse gasemissions, the agency has enacted policies and made investment choices in recent years thathave helped to further reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Some of these current programs andpast investments are described as strategies in this report.In 2009, Metro emitted 483,000 MtCO2e from its buses, trains, non-revenue vehicles, andfacilities. 1 The agency’s more than 2,500 CNG buses emit greenhouse gases from theirtailpipes, as do smaller numbers of gasoline and diesel buses. Light rail and heavy rail trains areresponsible for greenhouse gases emitted in the generation of grid electricity. Metro’s nonrevenue vehicles also emit greenhouse gases from their tailpipes. Facilities use grid electricityand some natural gas, thereby contributing to greenhouse gas emissions.Metro also keeps greenhouse gases out of the atmosphere by allowing transit riders to leavetheir cars at home and supporting other forms of low emission travel options. As discussed inguidance from the American Public Transportation Association (APTA), there are three waysthat Metro’s service reduces greenhouse gas emissions:1. Mode shift – Metro reduces the amount of VMT on Los Angeles County’s roads bygetting people out of their cars and onto buses and trains.2. Congestion reduction – By reducing the number of vehicles on the road and smoothingthe flow of traffic, Metro reduces emissions from cars that operate in congested trafficconditions.3. Land use impacts – Over time, Metro’s rail stations and other major transit hubs attractdenser, pedestrian-friendly development patterns to their immediate vicinities. (Metroalso actively promotes such development patterns through its transit orienteddevelopment program; see Strategy: Transit Oriented Development.) Thesedevelopment patterns allow people that live and work in the area to travel shorterdistances and
emissions helps to mitigate climate change. Many strategies that reduce greenhouse gas emissions also reduce the consumption of energy, improve air quality, and provide other social and environmental benefits. For these reasons, reducing greenhouse gas emissions is an important component of sustainability efforts at Metro. This study evaluates .
Greenhouse gas emissions from Washington State agencies represent about 1.0 percent of total state greenhouse gas emissions. However, state government is in a unique position to demonstrate leadership in reducing greenhouse gas emissions and combating climate change. This report provides information about greenhouse gas emissions by Washington .
2008 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory Summary and Methodologies 3 0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 Community Greenhouse Gas Emissions as Emissions O2e) 1990 2008 2012 Buildings-Natural Gas .
) emissions in the UK are provisionally estimated to have fallen by 10.7% in 2020 from 2019, to 326.1 million tonnes (Mt), and total greenhouse gas emissions by 8.9% to 414.1 million tonnes carbon dioxide equivalent (MtCO. 2. e). Total greenhouse gas emissions were 48.8% lower than they were in 1990.
This study estimates the life cycle greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from the production of Marcellus shale natural gas and compares its emissions with national average US natural gas emissions produced in the year 2008, prior to any significant Marcellus shale development.
Greenhouse type based on shape: a) Lean to type greenhouse. b) Even span type greenhouse. c) Uneven span type greenhouse. d) Ridge and furrow type. e) Saw tooth type. f) Quonset greenhouse. g) Interlocking ridges and furrow type Quonset greenhouse. h) Ground to ground greenhouse.
Greenhouse Operations Management GOM6 Managing the Greenhouse Business Greenhouse Operations Management: The Greenhouse Business GOM6.2 Greenhouse Growing Schedule Make notes around the growing schedule to help you remember what each piece means and why it is important. Plant Name/ Description Container Location Planting Notes
efforts to measure and reduce statewide greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. In 2007, the State of Hawaii passed Act 234 to establish the state’s policy framework and requirements to address GHG emissions. The law aims to achieve emission levels at or below Hawaii’s 1990 GHG emissions by January 1, 2020 (excluding emissions from airplanes).
RTS performs tree risk assessment in accordance with ANSI A300 (Part 9) - Tree Risk Assessment. Not only because we must as ISA Certified Arborists who are Tree Risk Assessment Qualified (TRAQ), but also because it ensures consistency by providing a standardized and systematic process for assessing tree risk. Risk assessment via TRAQ methodology takes one of three levels, depending on the .
