2012 Kelly work example Final overview report of integrated modelling project 08-11
Integrated ModellingProject IrelandClimate Change Research Programme (CCRP) 2007-2013Report Series No. 12Environment, Community and Local GovernmentComhshaol, Pobal agus Rialtas Áitiúil
Environmental Protection AgencyThe Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) isa statutory body responsible for protectingthe environment in Ireland. We regulate andpolice activities that might otherwise causepollution. We ensure there is solidinformation on environmental trends so thatnecessary actions are taken. Our priorities areprotecting the Irish environment andensuring that development is sustainable.The EPA is an independent public bodyestablished in July 1993 under theEnvironmental Protection Agency Act, 1992.Its sponsor in Government is the Departmentof the Environment, Community and LocalGovernment.OUR RESPONSIBILITIESLICENSINGWe license the following to ensure that their emissionsdo not endanger human health or harm the environment:n waste facilities (e.g., landfills, incinerators,waste transfer stations);n large scale industrial activities (e.g., pharmaceuticalmanufacturing, cement manufacturing, powerplants);n intensive agriculture;n the contained use and controlled release ofGenetically Modified Organisms (GMOs);n large petrol storage facilities;n waste water discharges.NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL ENFORCEMENTn Conducting over 2,000 audits and inspections ofEPA licensed facilities every year.n Overseeing local authorities’ environmentalprotection responsibilities in the areas of - air,noise, waste, waste-water and water quality.n Working with local authorities and the Gardaí tostamp out illegal waste activity by co-ordinating anational enforcement network, targeting offenders,conducting investigations and overseeingremediation.n Prosecuting those who flout environmental law anddamage the environment as a result of their actions.MONITORING, ANALYSING AND REPORTING ON THEENVIRONMENTn Monitoring air quality and the quality of rivers,lakes, tidal waters and ground waters; measuringwater levels and river flows.n Independent reporting to inform decision making bynational and local government.REGULATING IRELAND’S GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONSn Quantifying Ireland’s emissions of greenhouse gasesin the context of our Kyoto commitments.n Implementing the Emissions Trading Directive,involving over 100 companies who are majorgenerators of carbon dioxide in Ireland.ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENTn Co-ordinating research on environmental issues(including air and water quality, climate change,biodiversity, environmental technologies).STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENTn Assessing the impact of plans and programmes onthe Irish environment (such as waste managementand development plans).ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING, EDUCATION ANDGUIDANCEn Providing guidance to the public and to industry onvarious environmental topics (including licenceapplications, waste prevention and environmentalregulations).n Generating greater environmental awareness(through environmental television programmes andprimary and secondary schools’ resource packs).PROACTIVE WASTE MANAGEMENTn Promoting waste prevention and minimisationprojects through the co-ordination of the NationalWaste Prevention Programme, including input intothe implementation of Producer ResponsibilityInitiatives.n Enforcing Regulations such as Waste Electrical andElectronic Equipment (WEEE) and Restriction ofHazardous Substances (RoHS) and substances thatdeplete the ozone layer.n Developing a National Hazardous Waste ManagementPlan to prevent and manage hazardous waste.MANAGEMENT AND STRUCTURE OF THE EPAThe organisation is managed by a full time Board,consisting of a Director General and four Directors.The work of the EPA is carried out across four offices:n Office of Climate, Licensing and Resource Usen Office of Environmental Enforcementn Office of Environmental Assessmentn Office of Communications and Corporate ServicesThe EPA is assisted by an Advisory Committee of twelvemembers who meet several times a year to discussissues of concern and offer advice to the Board.
EPA Climate Change Research Programme 2007–2013Integrated Modelling Project Ireland2007-CCRP-5.5.1.aCCRP ReportEnd of Project Report available for download on http://erc.epa.ie/safer/reportsPrepared for the Environmental Protection Agencyby AP EnvEcon LimitedAuthor:J. Andrew KellyENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCYAn Ghníomhaireacht um Chaomhnú ComhshaoilPO Box 3000, Johnstown Castle, Co.Wexford, IrelandTelephone: +353 53 916 0600 Fax: +353 53 916 0699Email: email@example.com Website: www.epa.ie
iiiDetails of Project PartnersAP EnvEcon LimitedNovaUCDBelfieldUniversity College DublinDublin 4IrelandTel.: + 353 1 716 3782Email: Andrew.Kelly@APEnvEcon.comUniversity College DublinRichview CampusClonskeaghDublin 14IrelandTel.: + 353 1 716 2672Email: Frank.Convery@ucd.ie
vTable of ContentsAcknowledgements iiDisclaimer iiDetails of Project Partners iiiExecutive Summary vii1 Introduction 12 The Integrated Modelling Project Ireland Models 32.1 GAINS Ireland 32.2 TREMOVE Ireland 83 Selected Applications of Integrated Modelling Project Ireland Research 133.1 Integrated Modelling Project Ireland Research – National Policy Support 133.2 Integrated Modelling Project Ireland Research – International PolicyDevelopment 173.3 Integrated Modelling Project Ireland Research – Developed Capacities andMethodological Progress 234 Conclusions and Recommendations of Integrated Modelling ProjectIreland Research 274.1 Capacity and International Engagement 274.2 National Modelling Strategy and Forum 274.3 Air Pollution – Flexible Policy Mechanisms for Transboundary Air Pollution 284.4 Climate – Non-Traded Sector Target 284.5 National Transport Model 294.6 Taxation Policy for Transport 294.7 Uncertainty Presentation and Non-Technical Measures 304.8 Policy Analysis and Evidence Sharing 31References 32Acronyms and Annotations 34Appendix I: Formal Project Outputs 35
viiofficial national submission compilations to theinternational modelling community. Furthermore, theproject team designed, developed and launched an openinternational policy resource database, PolicyMeasures(www.policymeasures.com). Throughout the IMPproject, a high value was placed on policy supportand to this end the team also participated regularly inextensive direct engagement (e.g. meetings, informaldiscussions, reporting and representation) nationallyand internationally in regard to modelling, analysis andconsideration of environmental compliance challenges.In this regard, the team informed and supported thedirection and formation of related policy and decisions.Two recent applied policy contributions from the projectin respect of the major thematic areas – (i) climateand (ii) transboundary air pollution policy – have beenselected for presentation in this Executive Summarysection. These selected research outcomes arederived products from the broader set of researchand development in regard to human capital, modeldevelopment and international engagements. Manyfurther examples are included in the body of the report.Climate – The Non-traded Sector ChallengeIreland faces a major challenge in respect of theEuropean non-traded sector (NETS) target for 2020.IMPI-developed modelling capacity was engagedto provide detailed and costed abatement-pathwayscenarios. Conclusions identify a persistent gap totarget for the latest ‘with-measures’ baseline scenarioin 2020. The first of these optimisations identifiedthe emissions reduction potential under a carbonmarket price of €50, whereas the second optimisationapplied all eligible measures in the model to determinethe maximum feasible reductions from a modelledperspective. In the former the target in 2020 is missedby 4.8Mt CO2e, whereas in the latter the gap to closeremains at 3Mt CO2e. The interim targets from 2013pose a further challenge.On a more positive note, the ‘menu’ of abatementoptions defined in the modelling system is reviewedExecutive SummaryThe Integrated Modelling Project Ireland (IMPI) focusedon the development and application of analyticalcapabilities in respect of climate and transboundary airpollution modelling and policy. The developed capacitiesinclude methodological and technical developmentsfor multisectoral emissions, costs, policy and effectsanalysis, as well as the intellectual capital, contacts andexperience necessary for effective applied use of thesetools and their derived outputs.The principal technical research outcomes includetwo nationally calibrated modelling tools – GAINSIreland and TREMOVE Ireland. The first is a techno-economic integrated assessment model for climate andair policy; the second is a specialised transport sectorpolicy model. IMPI research has carefully calibrated thesystems to be increasingly representative of the Irisheconomy. In this process, the team engaged regularlywith other national experts to exchange evidence andinsights related to the work. Furthermore, the twomodels have been respectively augmented by thedevelopment of in-house supporting systems in thecase of GAINS Ireland and extensive reprogrammingand redevelopment in the case of TREMOVE Ireland.The models now serve as nationally focused mirrors ofthe core international modelling architecture designedand operated at a European and United NationsEconomic Commission for Europe (UNECE) level askey policy development and management tools in thefields of both transboundary air pollution and Europeanclimate policy. Both models are maintained through asteady research and integration schedule.Beyond the principal defined work programme of theproject, which was model-related development andcapacity-building, the formal deliverables producedexclusively under this project include ten academicpapers (four already published in internationally peer-reviewed journals, six in process for international peerreview), seven model-focused guides, and over thirtyanalytical reports and briefs on a range of topics. Theproject team actively engaged in the formal discussionand dissemination of their work, delivering over thirtynational and international presentations and regular
Integrated Modelling Project Irelandviiiin the research, and further options are noted forfuture consideration that may help bridge the gap.Consideration is also given to the role of Land Use,Land-Use Change and Forestry (LULUCF), net socialcosts of actions, and the impact of the package ofpolicies and measures in terms of the traded sector’semissions.Transboundary Air Pollution – NationalEmissions CeilingsIreland is entering into a compliance phase in respectof the European Emissions Ceiling Directive 2001/81/EC. Analysis suggests that official final inventory NOXemissions will – despite the economic downturn – exceedthe ceiling of 65kt in 2010 by a sizeable margin, incurringthe risk of financial penalty. IMPI research has examinedand identified the reasons underpinning the seeminglyinsurmountable challenge of the 65kt NOX ceiling, aswell as offering assessments of the most cost-effectivepathways to progress towards compliance. The researchhas inter alia identified 15kt of emissions that areattributable to a failure in the European vehicle standardlegislation to deliver expected on-road abatement. Thisresearch offers strong quantified support to compliance-negotiation discussions. Furthermore, the IMPI teamhave played a leading role internationally in bringinginnovative flexible policy mechanisms onto the agendafor future (and potentially existing) legislation to mitigatetheriskofsuchoutcomesleadingtohigh-costcompliancefailure situations where exogenous and uncontrolledfactors undermine national progress on obligations. TheIMPI team have written on this topic in 2009 and 2010,leading the promotion and development of the issuesand options at an international level. They have alsorecently contributed to a 2011 report by the UNECE TaskForce on Emissions Inventory and Projections (TFEIP)in regard to the options and modalities of introducinga package of appropriate flexibility and correctionmechanisms into the transboundary air pollution policyframework.In summary, the IMPI project has developed thetools and capacity defined at the outset of the work,supplemented these with additional innovations,contributed to the academic research community, and– significantly – has engaged these developmentsdirectly to deliver sustained and applied support tonational and international policy development to goodeffect. Greater detail of the achievements, deliverablesand contributions of the IMPI project are presented inthe report that follows.
1J.A. Kelly (2007-CCRP-5.5.1.a)11 IntroductionThe modelling capacity developed as part of theIntegrated Modelling Project Ireland (IMPI) is focusedon providing effective decision support in regard tocomplex systems. The modelling systems engagedunder the IMPI project mirror those used in a Europeanand United Nations Economic Commission for Europe(UNECE) context to respectively evaluate and informthe process by which international transboundary airpollution policy and aspects of European climate policyare set, managed and reviewed.The RAINS (Regional Air Pollution Information andSimulation)/GAINS (Greenhouse Gas and Air PollutionInteractions and Synergies)1model remains the primarymodelling system used in the international communityanalyses for national emission ceilings of transboundarypollutants. Specifically, the RAINS/GAINS modelprovided the analytical and negotiating framework forthe UNECE Gothenburg Protocol2and the EuropeanNational Emissions Ceiling Directive 2001/81/EC3.The model is currently being used for the GothenburgProtocol Revision for 2020 and will almost certainlyunderpin planned work for the next round of EuropeanEmission Ceilings to 2020, 2025 or beyond.In a climate context, the GAINS model has been usedto inform the development, and potential revision, of thenon-traded sector (NETS) target across the EuropeanUnion4. The model has furthermore played a widerglobal role in international climate policy by extending itsscope to cover Europe, Asia (including China), Russia,Annex 1 countries and, on a reduced scale, othercontinents in the rest of the world. This core modellingsystem is currently the pivotal model in a European-1 The RAINS model was the precursor to the GAINS modelwhich extended the capacities of the original system toencompass greenhouse gases (GHG) and the interactionsbetween climate and air pollution policies.2 The text of the Gothenburg Protocol as well as reference tothe current ongoing review process scheduled is availableat: http://tinyurl.com/GothProtocol3 Directive available at: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2001:309:0022:0030:EN:PDF4 The non-traded sector refers to those sectors outside thescope of the European Emissions Trading Scheme. Theassociated targets in terms of emission reductions for thesesectors are covered by the EU Effort Sharing Decision:http://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/effort/index_en.htmcommissioned project5to develop a modelling suite thatcan provide the evidence base for cost-effective climateand air pollution strategies in Europe. Specifically, theproject and the GAINS modelling system will directlysupport both the European Climate Change Programmeand the European review of air quality legislation in2013, which will occur under Ireland’s chairing of thepresidency of the Council of the European Union.The IMPI research has developed the capacity to usethese tools, and has delivered national refinements andredevelopments over these core modelling systems.This affords Ireland inter alia the ability to engagewith the international policy development process andnegotiations more effectively. In parallel with theseadvantages IMPI affords Ireland an internationallycompatible means of evaluating and refocusing nationalpolicies in pursuit of existing defined objectives,using a valuable blend of internationally recognisedmethodologies and knowledge, refined by nationalexpertise and evidence. In specific terms, the GAINSIreland system offers the capacity to structure and tailora desired national scenario from scratch or via sensitivityadjustments, and to thereafter analyse in aggregateor detail the associated emissions, trends, abatementpotentials, costs and environmental impacts.Beyond these values, a unique feature of the GAINSIrelandmodelisitsintegratedapproachtosimultaneouslyevaluating techno-economic scenario assessmentsof both climate and air pollution on a national andinternational scale. This allows more comprehensivedecision support because it enables decision-makersto consider policy co-benefits and trade-offs across awider thematic area than simply climate policy or airpollution policy, and do so on a scale that can movebeyond or stay within national borders as necessary.As a complement to the GAINS Ireland work, theTREMOVE Ireland model is a redeveloped andreprogrammed version of the original TREMOVEmodel. The TREMOVE Ireland model focuses onroad transport and allows refined analyses of policy5 The EC4MACS project can be found at:http://www.ec4macs.eu/home/index.html
Integrated Modelling Project Ireland2interventions that require a specialised sectoral model.TREMOVE Ireland therefore offers an additionalanalytical capacity to the IMPI project in respect of aparticularly significant air and climate emissions sourcesector. The model delivers results to policy questionson matters such as taxation revisions or relative modalservice adjustments. Results are presented in the formof climate and air pollution emissions, vehicle stockchanges and welfare adjustments. The TREMOVEIreland model thus delivers detailed transport policymodelling on a national scale to enhance the capacitiesavailable in respect of decision-making for this complexand economically and environmentally significantsector. The system is used as an input-output linkedsupport to the GAINS Ireland system, as well as forindependent transport specific assessments.This final synthesis report of the IMPI project isstructured as follows. Section 2 provides details on thetwo core models developed and applied as part of theIMPI project. Section 3 presents selected examplesof applied use of the IMPI models and associatedIMPI research. Section 4 concludes with selectedrecommendations from the project and suggestions forthe direction of future research.
3J.A. Kelly (2007-CCRP-5.5.1.a)The European Commission and the UNECE havedirectly and indirectly supported the development of,and contracted the use of, a number of models that havenow become key analytical tools in the developmentand implementation of European environmental policy.In the past Ireland has lacked the capacity to understandsystematically the design features of these modelsand the roles of data in shaping policy outcomes. Inparticular, Ireland has been without an operationalunderstanding of the coefficients which inform centrallymodelled emissions estimates and the associatedmenu of relevant abatement options. Therefore, Irelandhas lacked the capacity to undertake independentnational analyses that can be readily linked to theseinternational decision-support frameworks that areso increasingly relevant in the context of determiningfuture environmental policy and managing existingagreements.The IMPI project has developed around two coreinternational modelling tools that have been adaptedfor Irish needs: GAINS and TREMOVE. The decision toadopt and develop existing modelling infrastructure wasan important one: it was taken firstly on the basis thatthe selected models offered the desired functionality,depth and quality for the expected demands of the IMPIproject. It remains the view of the project team that thedevelopment of independent IMPI national models denovo would entail significant additional investment andeffort, and would almost certainly fail to capture the fullbenefits of the existing state of the art internationally.Other advantages of choosing the models were thesignificant international engagement with the GAINSmodel from a broad selection of interdisciplinaryresearchers, over two decades of prior development,and an unrivalled role as a decision-support frameworkfor European climate and air policy. In regard toTREMOVE, the model offers an effectively open sourcedevelopment template from what is a broadly soundacademic structure for the analysis of transport policyinterventions on a national scale.In choosing these model frameworks, which are so firmlyrooted in European policy, Ireland has gained a solidplatform from which to conduct its own independentanalyses in relation to international policy. Internally, theaddition of this modelling capacity to the existing anddeveloping national capacities in respect of economic,energy and emissions modelling enables Ireland toformalise strategies in a manner consistent with arecognised and accepted international methodology forair- and climate-related emissions research.The advantages relating to these model choices were:● Engagement and development of existing modellingtools in an Irish context offers the potential to refinethe existing state of the art for Ireland, and tosimultaneouslyenhanceinternationalrepresentationof Ireland in these same systems;● Expertise and technical capacity in respect of theselected models affords the opportunity to rigorouslyevaluate analysis conducted internationally viathese systems which may impact upon Ireland. Thisstrengthens the capacity to negotiate, and supportsthe evolution of appropriate international policies;● Development and engagement with theseinternational systems delivers the benefit of theinternational research communities’ efforts inaddition to the contributions of the IMPI researchteam. This enhances the quality of outputs for allstakeholders;● In the case of TREMOVE, the model offered an idealbasis for further development of a detailed nationaltransport policy model. Through research andprogramming investments, the system has beenbuilt into a powerful tool that can be calibrated formany types of transport-policy-focused questions.This system can play a role in a future nationaltransport-modelling framework.The two IMPI models are discussed in more detail inSections 2.1 and 220.127.116.11 GAINS IrelandThe GAINS model is a techno-economic integratedassessment model which combines information on thesources, interactions and impacts of air pollutants andGHG emissions. The model is equipped with parameters2 The Integrated Modelling Project Ireland Models
Integrated Modelling Project Ireland4to consider a growing list of over one thousand measuresfor the control or reduction of emissions to air across allsectors of an economy.2.1.1 StructureIn simple form the GAINS model can be described asbeing structured under four segments – (i) activities,(ii) controls, (iii) emissions and (iv) effects. The‘Activities’ segment defines the activities in regard toenergy use, agricultural data and a number of otherrelevant processes such as waste treatment or cementmanufacture. These data indicate the activity in themodelled economy. The ‘Control’ segment relates to theabatement controls or emission savings options appliedor available within the economy to control emissions.These controls are detailed in terms of what is currentlyin place and what is believed feasible, with each controllinked further to available data on control costs, aswell as synergies or trade-offs with other measures.The ‘Emissions’ segment of the model combines theinformation on activities, controls and other interactionsto determine the emissions to air of a broad range ofair pollutants and GHGs. Finally, the ‘Effects’ segmentuses mapping, dispersion and other procedures toestimate the effects associated with a given scenariofor a country or region. Effects on the transboundaryside are focused upon health and ecosystem impacts,6while on the climate side impacts are principallyevaluated in terms of emission levels and developingwork on radiative forcing indicators, with integration ofthe corresponding impact of reduced air pollution in thisregard. The model can therefore be set up to integrate a6 In a transboundary context, the critical advantage is themodelling of a broad international region to capture theaggregate deposition and dispersion of pollutants fromthe wider region Examining transboundary impacts fromone country source alone is not particularly valuable asimpacts are influenced by the ‘stacking’ of emissions frommultiple international sources to levels that exceed definedthresholds.broad selection of evidence and to run a wide rangeof community, national or sectoral specific scenariosor sensitivities. A simplified schema is presented inFig. 2.1.More detailed explanations of the model methodologyand structure are available through the IMPI projectwebsites (www.impireland.ie and www.policymeasures.com) and from the host institution the InternationalInstitute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA) (http://gains.iiasa.ac.at/index.php/publications/reports-n/reports-2). These sources will offer a more in-depthperspective on the model form and function. In thecontext of additional detail, Fig. 2.2 offers a refinedperspective on the components and interactions of theGAINS modelling system.2.1.2 CalibrationCalibration of the GAINS model to establish a baselinescenario or to evaluate alternative scenarios requirescareful consideration and adjustment of the modelparameters described above. Generally, changes willbe focused upon the activity and control elements of themodel set-up. In regard to activity, the IMPI researchteam developed a series of in-house systems tomanipulate and adapt the available national data intoa structure and form that is compatible with the GAINSIreland modelling system. Thus, for agriculture, energyand process information, procedures and systems toalter, split and adjust the aggregation of national datawere developed and iteratively tested. This first stepenabled the IMPI team to integrate available nationalFigure 2.1. Simple schema for major GAINS model elements.
5J.A. Kelly (2007-CCRP-5.5.1.a)international community research in this area comesto the fore. In the work with the GAINS Ireland model,national data gaps that were identified in respect of costcould be deferred in favour of using reasonably adjustedinternational values pending further national researchand evidence. Thus, progress could be maintained, andmethodologies and values at least remain consistentwith alternate international estimations pending theavailability of alternative robust national evidence.In summary then, over the course of the project, regularresearch time was invested in determining appropriatehistoric and forecast parameters for use in the model.This work encompassed all sectors of the economy andincluded research and subsequent revisions of:● Control shares for abatement controls;● Emission factors of abatement controls;● Cost data for abatement controls;data (e.g. official energy forecasts) into a GAINS Irelandactivity pathway file.In regard to controls, evidence and expert supportwere engaged to build the profile of abatement controlsin Ireland, with further work using this base to projectexpected controls and potentials into the future. In thislatter task the absence of official ‘control’ forecastingcreates a challenging aspect of the work to be managedand improved under further work. Control work wasinitially advanced in respect of transboundary airpollution controls (often technologies), with later workfocusing on GHG-related controls, controls that requireconsideration of a somewhat different suite of potentialssuch as fuel switch potentials, energy-saving potentialsand efficiency pathways.In both cases the cost associated with controls is anarea that poses yet further challenges. However, itis also an area where the benefits of drawing on theSulphur DepositionEconomic ActivitiesPFCHFCN2OCO2CH4PMVOCNOXNH3SO2SF6EmissionsCritical LoadsAcidificationCritical LoadsEutrophicationCritical LevelsOzoneCritical LevelsHealthRadiative ForcingGlobal Warming PotentialNitrate DepositionOzone FormationSecondary AerosolsPrimary ParticlesSectoral Energy UseAgricultural SourcesProcessesControlsImplemented ControlsPotential ControlsAssociated CostsCostsAnalysisImpactsBenefitsOptimisationFigure 2.2. More detailed schema of GAINS model components and interactions.
Integrated Modelling Project Ireland18.104.22.168 Emission Comparison Briefs (e.g. GreenhouseGases)The EmissionComparison briefs(Fig. 2.5) weredelivered for a givenyear in respect ofboth GHGs (IMPTeam, 2009g) andtransboundary airpollutants (IMPTeam, 2010k).The purpose ofthese briefs wasto illustrate – fora given scenario– the outcomes ofthe GAINS Ireland model relative to the outcomes ofthe official national forecasts where common (thoughNonetheless, the guiding principle in such cases was toensure variations were acknowledged and understood.Whilst further progress on harmonisation is required,these reports set the foundations of an agreementbetween national and model methodologies and data.● Restrictions over abatement controls;● Pollutant contents of fuels;● Distribution and aggregation of scenario activitydata (e.g. energy).Details of this work are captured in various IMPI outputs(e.g. IMP Team, 2008d, 2010a, 2010l) which recordedprogress and supported expert interactions nationallyand internationally. The three main categories ofcalibration-related output were the ‘Harmonisation’report series, the ‘Sectoral Focus’ report work, and the‘Emission Comparison’ briefs. Examples and a shortsummary of each of these three categories of outputare presented in Figs 2.3–22.214.171.124.2.1 Harmonisation Report Series I, II, IIIThe Harmonisationseries (IMP Team,2009f, 2008f, 2008g)was the initial setof documents thatbuilt towards amore appropriaterepresentation ofIreland in themodelling system(see Fig. 2.3). Thesedocuments formedthe basis of the initialbilateral discussionsbetween the IMPIteam and experts in the Environmental ProtectionAgency (EPA). Through a process of iterative revisionand discussion, the IMPI team developed an improvedunderstanding of how national data and methodologiesrelated to the GAINS Ireland modelling structureand thereby iteratively ‘harmonised’ the systems asappropriate. In certain cases, distinctions were noted,and understood, and the two systems remain variedin their approach. Such outcomes were appropriatewhere constraints with perhaps the granularity of dataor methodological structures restricted reconciliation.126.96.36.199 Sectoral Focus Reports (e.g. Transport)The Sectoral Focusreport seriesdeparted from thebroader nature ofthe Harmonisationseries to a formatwhere five individualtopics of relevanceto model calibrationwere describedand investigatedin greater detail.The chosen topicsfocused initiallyon questions ofparticular significance to model outcomes and wereunder specific sectors. In the example report (IMPTeam, 2011c) shown in Fig. 2.4, transport was the focus,with specific assessments of vehicle kilometres andtyre wear, agricultural machinery controls, the impactof transport taxation on model parameters, issues withthe euro standards and expectation of electric vehiclepenetration. The format will be continued under furtherresearch to continue to develop an increasingly refinedmodelling system that reflects all available and relevantevidence for each sector in Ireland adequately.Figure 2.3. Example ofHarmonisation report series.Figure 2.4. Example ofTransport brief.Figure 2.5. Example ofEmission comparison brief.
7J.A. Kelly (2007-CCRP-5.5.1.a)Figure 2.6. Example of CO2eq emissions forecasts 2010, 2015, 2020: GAINS vs EPA with additionalmeasures (WAM) scenario.adjusted) scenario data was engaged. These briefsallowed a quantified illustration of how the internationalmodelling framework of GAINS compared with nationalapproaches. The briefs delivered a basis for furtherrevision and refinements, as well as an alternative set ofemission forecasts. Figure 2.6 illustrates an aggregateCO2e sectoral comparison from a 2009 scenario.The principal variations illustrated (i.e. agriculture)were subsequently investigated and understood incooperation with the relevant department.2.1.3 AccessibilityGAINS is an expansive and complex modelling system.Whilst it is not practical to describe the full level of detailacross the system in this report, the IMPI team focusedon improving the accessibility to model outcomes (e.g.IMP Team, 2010c, 2009c) and general understanding ofthe model (e.g. IMP Team, 2008b) so that stakeholderswould be in a better position to evaluate inputs,contribute data and understand model processes andoutcomes. These efforts were necessary to ensure thatFigure 2.7. (a) Control Strategy guide (b) Agriculture guide (c) Energy guide (d) Cost guide.
Integrated Modelling Project Ireland82.2 TREMOVE IrelandThe TREMOVE model is a multi-modal transportpolicy model designed to evaluate the impact ofdefined policies or packages of policies on the Irishtransport sector. Specifically, the model has been usedto evaluate transport pricing and taxation policies,transport technology options and relative improvementsin levels of service. An overview of the model, modeldevelopment and selected analysis with the system ispresented in this section.77 A comprehensive final report focused specifically onTREMOVE Ireland has also been provided as part of theproject deliverables.Figure 2.8. (a) Full Scenario report; (b) Executive Summary report; (c) Transboundary EmissionsComparison report; (d) Greenhouse Gas Emissions Comparison report.(Fig. 2.8a–d). Whilst various presentation structureswere tested, ultimately these settled on a choice oftwo formats. These were an extensive full-scenarioreport capturing every angle of the model analysisfor a given scenario (250 pages), and an ExecutiveSummary report format which distilled findings into amore concise format of approximately 20 pages. Thisis the favoured default format (see sample extractin Fig. 2.9). A number of briefs examining specificsectors or pollutants were also produced on request.stakeholders understood what evidence was required inthe modelling framework, what significance parametersheld in regard to final outputs, and how best to use andinterpret the model outcomes as produced by the IMPIteam and the international teams. Guidance documentswere the central pillars of this accessibility initiative.Specifically, four major documents (IMP Team, 2010d,2010f, 2009d, 2008e), building on an earlier modeloverview report by Kelly (2006), were produced inrelation to the GAINS Ireland modelling system. Thesewere detailed guides in respect of:● Controls: A guide to the role and representation ofabatement controls in the modelling system (Fig.2.7a).● Agriculture: The structure and handling ofagricultural data in the modelling system (Fig. 2.7b);● Energy: The structure and handling of energy datain the modelling system (Fig. 2.7c);● Cost: A detailed explanation of the methodologicalapproach to abatement cost (Fig. 2.7d);Beyond the guidance documents, the outputs from themodel were further managed into various reportingformats to facilitate access to the results of model runs
9J.A. Kelly (2007-CCRP-5.5.1.a)2.2.1 StructureThe road transport sector remains a highly significantsource of NOx and CO2 emissions. These two pollutantsare particularly relevant in the context of currentinternational environmental obligations. NOx emissionspresent a challenge in regard to national emissionceilings and CO2 emissions contribute significantlyto national GHG emissions. Their policy relevancetherefore creates a pressing need for further researchon emissions abatement options from the roadtransport sector. Though the GAINS model incorporatestransport and associated technical options into itsanalyses, the TREMOVE Ireland model serves as avaluable complement and offers the potential for a moredetailed analysis of the transport sector, accounting forthe emissions, costs and welfare impacts associatedwith a range of technical and non-technical policyinterventions.If used effectively, TREMOVE has the ability to modeland manipulate changes in transport demand, vehiclestock, fuel consumption, emissions, and welfare. It hasthe capacity to model the effect of fiscal policies such asthe introduction or change of a transport tax (i.e. vehicleregistration tax [VRT], annual motor tax [AMT]/vehicleownership tax, fuel value added tax [VAT], fuel excisetax), or to consider the effects of new vehicle technologiesand emission standards on vehicle purchase decisionsand emissions. The model can thereby offer considerablevalue to the management and assessment of transportpolicy in Ireland. As part of the IMP Ireland project, thestrategy was to develop TREMOVE for use in conjunctionwith the GAINS model, so that the model capacitiescould be integrated to provide improved policy analysisfor the transport sector. Similarly, the TREMOVE systemcan also play a key role in any future plans for a nationaltransport model framework initiative in Ireland.Figure 2.9. A sample summary ‘dashboard’ for a given pollutant in the Executive Summary report.
Integrated Modelling Project Ireland10TheTREMOVEIrelandmodelisdevelopedfromthecodeof the core TREMOVE model presented in Fig. 2.10.While the core modules have remained consistent, theinput data and associated functions (centre and rightcolumns) have generally been reviewed, adjusted andreprogrammed as necessary under the TREMOVEIreland research.2.2.2 DevelopmentThe TREMOVE model underwent extensivedevelopment and reprogramming as part of the IMPIresearch project. These efforts were necessary toadequately adapt the model to the research evidenceavailable and emerging in Ireland, to overcome priorconstraints in the system, and to reflect the perspectivesof the IMPI modelling team in regard to interpretationof the appropriate transport economics methodologiesto be incorporated into the model code. Four principalareas of the model were redeveloped. This requireda major restructuring of the model system, and aconsiderable degree of ex ante and ex post modelprocessing evaluations to ensure the system stillfunctioned as otherwise intended. These four areas ofredevelopment were (i) demand module, (ii) welfaremodule, (iii) transport costs, and (iv) base year.188.8.131.52 Demand ModuleThe IMPI team integrated a toggle into the model set-upmenu to allow agents in the model to perceive eitherall transport costs or only immediate costs associatedBASELINEModuleTRANSPORT DEMANDModuleVEHICLE STOCKModuleEMISSIONSModuleSOCIAL WELFAREModuleTREMOVE MODULES MAIN MODULE FUNCTIONS PRINCIPAL DATA FEEDSSale & ScrappageForecast FunctionBaseline ConditionsPurchase Discrete ChoiceCongestion FunctionUtility MaximisationTrip DecisionsGHG + AQ EmissionsWelfare IndicatorDisaggregated VKMIrish Socioeconomic DataIrish Transport DataRevised National Cost DataIrish Vehicle Fleet Data SourcesIrish Policy ScenariosRevised Elasticity DataIrish Car Purchase ParametersRegional Irish Parameters (e.gtemperature, road slopes)Fuel Consumption FactorsCOPERT Emission FactorsExternal Cost ValuationsFigure 2.10. TREMOVE Ireland schema.
11J.A. Kelly (2007-CCRP-5.5.1.a)to ensure the system was functioning correctly.This required an iterative assessment of extensivemodelling procedure calls before and after the changes,and the contrasting of outcomes with manuallyestimated results.2.2.3 CalibrationCalibration of the TREMOVE model drew upon a host ofnational and international evidence, as well as project-developed data resources. A summary list of datasources where evidence has now been incorporated inthe TREMOVE Ireland system include:● National Car Test (NCT) data obtained and analysedby the IMP team;● Review of car-sales websites in Ireland for pricedata;● Review of annual reports of transport and haulagecompanies;● Review of Economic and Social Research Institute(ESRI) economic forecasting;● Tax legislation documentation;● Data sourced via Eurostat;● Data obtained from the Irish Revenue Office;● Data sourced and requested from the CentralStatistics Office (CSO);● Data obtained from the Sustainable EnergyAuthorityIreland (SEAI);● Data obtained from Vehicle Certification Authority(VCA) UK;● The academic literature.with a trip. The latter is the favoured approach by theIMPI team for most policy questions as it is believed tobe more representative of actual transport trip decision-making. This toggle offers a valuable enhancementover the original system.184.108.40.206 Welfare ModuleThe welfare module of the model is connected tocalculations in regard to changes in taxation revenue.The IMPI team modified the approach of the model tothe use of revenue from taxation in respect of estimatedwelfare as related research indicated a more appropriateapproach.220.127.116.11 Transport CostsCosts are an important aspect of the model andinfluence decisions and choices of agents in the model.The IMPI team have modified the model approach tohandling the cost of time in response to IMPI researchon the appropriate values to use for analyses.18.104.22.168 Base YearThe base year in the model was previously a singleyear from which the model would then project basecasedemand, emissions, stock and welfare. A substantialchange to the model was to recode the model toenable a move from this single base year approach toa time series approach (e.g. using a 15-year spread asopposed to a single base year). This important revisionallowed the IMPI team to integrate historical records ofdemand, stock and emissions into the model, therebyincorporating a ‘15-year’ baseline in the model asopposed to an individual year.In each case the model needed to be carefully re-evaluated and tested subsequent to each changeFigure 2.11. (a) TREMOVE overview (b) Vehicle registration (VRT) and annual motor tax (AMT) analysis(c) TREMOVE final report.
Integrated Modelling Project Ireland12On an international scale, the IMPI project providedtechnical and troubleshooting support to thedevelopment of a generic user interface (GUI) forTREMOVE for the European Commission in cooperationwith the modelling team behind the Calculation ofEmissions from Road Transport (COPERT) system.Furthermore, as part of the European Consortiumfor Modelling of Air Pollution and Climate Strategies(EC4MACS) project8, the IMPI team provided aninternational review of the model to the EC4MACSpartners, and similarly to members of the Network forIntegrated Assessment Modelling (NIAM).8 See www.ec4macs.eu for more on this project.2.2.4 AccessibilityAs with GAINS Ireland, accessibility and understandingof results is important to ensure value from the modellingwork is carried into policy arenas. Two iterative overviewguides in respect of the TREMOVE Ireland model (IMPTeam, 2008h, 2011d) were produced and disseminatedunder the IMPI project, as well as a comprehensive finalmodel report (Fig. 2.11a–c). Furthermore, TREMOVEIreland work generated a selection of policy-focusedpapers in response to Department of Transport-specifiedresearch priorities (Fu, Ahern and Kelly, 2011; Fu, Kelly,Clinch and King, 2011; Fu and Kelly, 2011), as well assubmitting a taxation policy brief to the Department ofFinance (IMP Team, 2011b).
13J.A. Kelly (2007-CCRP-5.5.1.a)air pollution obligations may result in significant fines.10As matters stand, NOX presents the greatest risk of non-compliance for Ireland.In this context, the project investigated and identifiedthe factors underpinning the NOX ceiling challenge,in the process quantifying the impact of internationalpolicy issues on the apparent lack of national progresstowards compliance. Specifically, a major portion ofthe remaining gap to target is directly attributable to afailure of certain vehicle ‘Euro Standards’ to deliver ontheir expected level of NOX abatement. The pollutant-removal efficiencies for these European measures havebeen adjusted a number of times over the years, andthe quantified impact for Ireland on emissions fromthe affected portion of the fleet under the changingefficiencies are presented in Table 3.1. An academicpaper (Kelly et al., 2010) and numerous related briefsand reports (IMP Team, 2008a, 2009h, 2010j) wereproduced relating to this topic. The outcomes havesupported compliance negotiations and provideddecision support in respect of understanding the issuesand identifying alternative options where appropriate.10 The cost of non-compliance is dependent on the judicialinterpretation of the seriousness of the breach, and the durationfor which the infringement persists. Fine calculation parametersinclude nationally specific function values. There are two typesof fine – a lump sum fine, and a periodic/daily fine. There isprecedent for issuing a lump sum fine in parallel with a dailyfine, and in future the Commission has indicated it will favourthe imposition of both. Analysis of the updated parameters forapplication of Article 228 of the EC Treaty suggests that non-compliance with the NEC Directive 2001/81/EC could resultin a lump sum fine of between €1.5 and €4.3m for a one-yearinfringement. The daily fine cost is again dependent on theseriousness and scale of the breach, and would increase overtime as non-compliance persists. This daily cost would amountto an annual average of at least €1m up to a potential maximumcost of €40m per annum. A particular issue with reacting to thefines is the ability to ‘quickly’ bring emissions into compliance. Inpractice this is a longer-term process and thus non-compliancecould persist for a long period of time, with significant fines inaddition to the costs necessary to deliver the required emissionsabatement.This section presents selected applications of theIMPI work to policy and research progress in termsof (i) national policy support, (ii) international policydevelopment and (iii) newly developed capacitiesderived from the research project.93.1 Integrated Modelling Project IrelandResearch – National Policy SupportThe national policy support examples presentedhere have focused on providing technical andanalytical support in respect of Ireland’s internationalenvironmental commitments and challenges,considering negotiation positions in regard tocompliance, and evaluating individual options andintegrated pathways towards the requisite level ofemission reductions. These policy contributions offervalue, as both non-compliance and poor strategicdecisions will create costs for Ireland.3.1.1 National Emission Ceilings – NOx CeilingThe IMPI project provided an extensive body of formalresearch and analysis, as well as informal briefsand memos in regard to Ireland’s obligations underthe European National Emissions Ceiling Directive2001/81/EC, and the related UNECE GothenburgProtocol. This work goes beyond analysis of emissionstrends to a detailed investigation of the reasons forgiven trends in emissions – answering questions suchas: Why are emissions so different from what wasoriginally projected? Which policies and measures havesucceeded and which have failed? What are the driversof the emissions and where should efforts to deliverfurther progress be focused? These questions areimportant as any failure to comply with Irish European9 In most cases related briefs and reports are available viawww.impireland.ie or www.policymeasures.com3 Selected Applications of Integrated Modelling ProjectIreland Research
Integrated Modelling Project Ireland14Table 3.2. CO2 emission and energy consumption reductions between simulation and basecase.Scenario Carbon tax only VRT and AMT VRT, AMT and carbon taxAllcosts(%)Imm.costs(%)HighEOS (%)Allcosts(%)Imm.costs(%)HighEOS (%)Allcosts (%)Imm.costs (%)HighEOS (%)CO2 2015 -1.79 -3.46 -3.79 -0.01 -0.45 -0.44 -1.78 -3.87 -4.182020 -1.80 -3.53 -3.86 0.06 -0.65 -0.62 -1.70 -4.12 -4.422030 -1.75 -3.50 -3.82 0.06 -0.89 -0.86 -1.62 -4.29 -4.58Egy 2015 -1.81 -3.47 -3.79 -0.06 -0.51 -0.49 -1.85 -3.93 -4.242020 -1.84 -3.56 -3.89 -0.02 -0.73 -0.71 -1.81 -4.22 -4.522030 -1.79 -3.55 -3.86 -0.05 -0.99 -0.97 -1.77 -4.44 -4.72VRT=vehicle registration tax; AMT= annual motor tax; Egy = energy; EOS = elasticity of substitution; Imm. = immediate.Furthermore, the analysis has been a valuable exemplarin successfully pressing for the inclusion of flexiblemechanisms (see Section 3.2.2) in the transboundarypolicy framework.3.1.2 Transport TaxationTransport is a large multi-agent source of bothtransboundary and GHG emissions. Ireland’s capacityto control and ultimately reduce emissions from thissector is therefore important in the context of regulatingnational emissions for international agreements.Utilising the TREMOVE Ireland model and exogenousdesk-research analysis, the IMP project has conductedan independent and combined evaluation of theprojected impact of three recently introduced transportTable 3.1. Quantified impact on NOX of revisions to removal efficiencies in the GAINS model methodology,kilotonnes (kt).Vehicle category Based on 2009 Energy Data provided by the Environmental Protection AgencyModel Removalefficiencies (kt), 19982006 Model removalefficiencies(NOx emissions Kt)2010 Model removalefficiencies(NOx emissions kt)Cars(diesel)2.7 6.5 8.5Heavy-duty trucks(diesel)4.1 6.3 6.2Light-duty trucks(diesel)6.9 17.4 12.4Buses(diesel)2.7 4.1 4.8Total emissions estimate 16.4 34.2 31.9tax measures in Ireland. Specifically, these are thechanges in VRT, AMT and the carbon tax. The resultsof this analysis were compiled into an academic papercurrently in the review process with an internationaltransport journal. The findings in Table 3.2 presentthe relative impact on CO2 emissions and energyconsumption between the basecase and thesimulations. Thus, the proportional reductions arebetween the emissions level as forecast under thebasecase relative to the evaluated policy simulation.The policy simulations included three combinations ofthe interventions. These were the €15 carbon tax alone,the VRT and AMT changes as a pair, and all threepolicies together. The impacts in each case includedthree sensitivity analyses as follows:
15J.A. Kelly (2007-CCRP-5.5.1.a)● All costs: Where individuals consider all transport-related costs in their trip decision processes;● Imm. (Immediate) costs: Where individuals decidetrips on the basis of immediate (e.g. fuel, time) costsonly;● High elasticity of substitution (EOS): Where therelative attraction of alternative public transportmodes was improved.The findings highlight a synergy between the policiesbut indicate that carbon tax is by far the most effectiveintervention in this analysis. The complete analysis ispresented in the submitted paper by Fu and Kelly (2011).In a related piece of work, the IMP team responded toan invitation from the Department of Finance to submitrecommendations in respect of potential revisions tothe VRT and road tax system. The report identifiedthe expected progression of the national vehicle fleetunder the current conditions and suggested revisionsto the distribution of the tax bands to take account of ashift in the distribution of vehicle emission performance(see Fig. 3.1). The submission considered the expectedevolution of the fleet under the carbon tax alone, and0.005.01Density100 200 300 400 500 600CO2 g/km2004 2008 2009Source: Based upon VCA data 2004, 2008 and 2009. Split lines are the current tax bands in Ireland.Figure 3.1. Distribution of new cars in the international market with regards to CO2 emission factors.identified the imbalance in the incentive created by aCO2-only focus that ignores the higher external costsassociated with NOx emissions (and indeed particulates)that would arise from having more diesel vehicles onthe road.In regard to AMT, the report proposed that owners ofdiesel cars would pay for the additional external costs ofNOX from their vehicles, calculated as the external costsof diesel car NOX emissions less the correspondingexternal costs of petrol cars. Results are presented inTable 3.3. The revised and recommended VRT ratesand AMT are given in Table 3.4. This new taxationsystem would target the internalisation of the additionalexternal costs of NOX emissions by diesel cars. It isimportant to be clear that this does not internalise all ofthe NOX costs, nor any of the particulate costs (thoughthis could be evaluated). Instead, this approachwould contribute towards correcting the imbalance inthe incentive which will steer fleet development ontoa path that will yield relatively higher NOX and PMemissions into the future. Further details are providedin the submitted report, VRT and Motor Tax – ReformSubmission (IMP Team, 2011b).
Integrated Modelling Project Ireland16Table 3.3. Differences between the annual external costs of NOx emission of diesel and petrol cars.Bands A B C D E F G H I JPetrol NOX g/km N/A 0.0168 0.0200 0.0220 0.0281 0.0279 0.0280 0.0242 0.0250 0.0293Diesel NOXg/km0.224 0.1950 0.1820 0.1838 0.1837 0.1933 0.1990 0.2451 0.2896 0.3150Annual externalcosts, petrol (€)N/A 1.45 1.86 2.10 2.71 3.46 3.66 3.15 3.13 3.67Annual externalcosts, diesel (€)38.76 33.74 28.28 28.75 28.93 33.66 36.82 39.10 47.70 51.88Diesel-minuspetrol (€)37.31 32.29 26.42 26.67 26.22 30.20 33.16 35.95 44.57 48.22Table 3.4. Vehicle registration tax (VRT) rates and annual motor tax (AMT) suggested for new bands.Band A B C D E F G H I JCO2 <=95 96–120 121–135 136–145 146–155 156–170 171–190 191–225 226–255 >255Current VRTrates14% 14% 16% 16%–20% 20% 24% 28% 32% 36% 36%VRT ratessuggested0% 14% 16% 18% 20% 24% 28% 32% 36% 38%Current AMT(€)104 104 156 156–302 302 447 630 1050 2100 2100AMT suggestedPetrol & other(€)69 104 156 229 302 447 630 1050 2100 2200AMT suggestedDiesel (€)106 136 182 256 328 477 663 1086 2145 22483.1.3 Flexible Working Policy ProposalsIn this piece of research the team considered thepotential for individuals to work from home one or moredays a week, and the associated impact this mighthave on energy savings and associated emissions. Theresearch considered inter alia the nature and location ofemployment, family make-up, availability of commutingservices, the role of broadband, ‘cloud computing’and a number of other factors in its assessment ofpotential. The methodology employed POWCAR data,information from TREMOVE Ireland, and relatedgeographical information system (GIS) mapping work.The analysis indicated that on average at least 9.33Kwhnet per day can be saved where an individual convertsto work from home as opposed to travelling to the office.This research identified the priority categories of workerthat should be encouraged to at least partially work fromhome, and indicated other conditions that would supporta successful implementation of a supporting policy withthe objective of increasing the level of working fromhome. A paper detailing the methodology and results(Fu, Kelly, Clinch and King, 2011) has been submittedto an internationally peer-reviewed journal.3.1.4 Organisation for Economic and Co-operativeDevelopment Environmental PerformanceReviewAt the request of the Department of Environment,Housing and Local Government (DoEHLG), theIMP project provided a presentation and materialinput to the international Organisation for Economicand Co-operative Development (OECD) team thatvisited Ireland to conduct an updated EnvironmentalPerformance Review in November 2008. This visit fedinto the Environmental Performance Reviews: Ireland2010 book (OECD, 2010).3.1.5 Non-Emissions Trading Sector GreenhouseGas TargetThe NETS target that Ireland faces in 2020, with interimtargets from 2013, poses a significant challenge tonational policy-makers. The range of non-compliancecosts for the non-traded sector targets, based on the
17J.A. Kelly (2007-CCRP-5.5.1.a)most recent national forecast of emissions from theEPA, is estimated to lie between €90m and €600mfor the period from 2013 to 2020. The GAINS Irelandmodel mirrors the system used to inform the setting ofaspects of the non-traded sector target in Europe, andthereby offers a particularly valuable system with whichto evaluate pathways towards compliance or with whichto provide revised strategies where interim targets aremissed.The IMP project undertook a significant calibration of the‘full’ GAINS Ireland model to establish a methodologicalplatform from which to evaluate this challenge andthe potential pathways to compliance. The calibrationwork and results were described in a comprehensivereport submitted to the EPA at the close of the projectN-ETS 2020 Ireland’s non-traded sector target (IMPTeam, 2011a) and a related paper (Redmond et al.,2011) has been composed that is to be submitted to aninternational journal.Conclusions identified a persistent gap to target for the‘with measures’ baseline scenario in 2020 under boththe least-cost optimisation where the market price ofcarbon is capped at €50 per tonne, and the maximum-feasible reductions optimisation where all available andeligible measures in the model as setup are applied toachieve reductions beyond the baseline emission level.In the former, the target in 2020 is missed by 4.8MtCO2e, whereas in the latter the gap to close remainsat 3Mt CO2e. The interim targets from 2013 pose afurther challenge. On a more positive note, the ‘menu’of abatement options defined in the modelling systemis reviewed in the research, and further options arenoted for future consideration that may help bridge thegap. Consideration is also given to the role of LULUCF,the net social costs of actions, and the impact of thepackage of policies and measures in terms of the tradedsector’s emissions.3.1.6 National Submissions and SustainedScenario ResearchOver the course of the project lifetime there have been anumber of requests for information and validation by theEuropean modelling team at IIASA in respect of nationalcalibration of the GAINS Europe model. These requestscame in respect of the various policy agendas such asthe Gothenburg Protocol Review, National EmissionsCeiling Directive-related work, and the calibration of themodel in regard to a potential ‘step-up’ in the non-ETSGHG ambitions within Europe.In each case the team were required to collate a nationalsubmission, adapt it for the GAINS model system, testthe outcomes and obtain official sign-off for the finalsubmission. Furthermore, the team also attendedbilateral meetings with the Commission, conductedreviewsofthird-partyscenariosandsubmittedcommentsin respect of their being fit for purpose or otherwise (e.g.in relation to PRIMES/CAPRI-based scenarios). Eachsubmission and validation was accompanied by a coverletter and details of the methodological approach taken.3.1.7 Climate Market AnalysisOn a broader level than the NETS work, the IMP teamhave delivered a number of climate market and climatepolicy-related analysis pieces. This work includes:● A pair of annual reports (IMP Team, 2010b, 2009a)related to climate and air policy evolution on aEuropean and global scale;● A review of international marginal abatement costcurves for GHGs (IMP Team, 2009e) in advance ofthe SEAI/McKinsey report (2009) for Ireland;● Briefs relating to the history of the ETS (IMP Team,2009g) and the theory of pollution control (IMPTeam, 2008c);● Briefs relating to the GHG capacities of GAINS (IMPTeam, 2008b) and the functions of the Annex 1calculator (IMP Team, 2010e).Furthermore, two papers (Redmond 2010a, 2010b)related to climate market developments are currently insubmission with international peer-reviewed journals.3.2 Integrated Modelling Project IrelandResearch – International PolicyDevelopmentThe IMPI research project is formally engaged in anumber of key international forums. These includethe Task Force on Integrated Assessment Modelling(TFIAM), NIAM, the Expert group on Techno-economicIssues (EGTEI) and the Network of Experts on Benefitsand Economic Instruments (NEBEI). Further to theseregular engagements the IMPI project has participated in
Integrated Modelling Project Ireland18themeetingsoftheEC4MACSproject,TFEIP,theWorkingGroup on Strategies and Review (WGSR) and has madedirect submissions to the European Commission aswell as national presidency representatives (e.g. Spain,Sweden) in regard to international policy. In additionto active participation and presentation at meetings ofthese groups, below a selection of examples where IMPIhas contributed directly to shaping international policydevelopment are identified.3.2.1 Lessons from the Gothenburg ProtocolThe Gothenburg Protocol set national emissionceilings for transboundary air pollutants in 2010. Theseceilings were formulated in 1999 using the RAINSmodel and national forecast data. The process sharedmuch common ground with work to underpin thebinding European National Emissions Ceiling Directive2001/81EC. The 2010 ceiling compliance checks areimminent, as are the revision and review processeswhich are expected to lead to the setting of emissionceilings for 2020 and beyond.The IMPI team have been heavily involved in thisfield of work internationally. One example of this workwas the leading of an internationally published journalpaper (Kelly et al., 2010) considering ‘lessons’ fromthe Gothenburg Protocol. The piece was authored incollaboration with five international colleagues (Italy,Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, and Sweden). The workconsidered the original 1999 projections of each of thesix countries that were used within the RAINS modelto inform the setting of their respective GothenburgProtocol 2010 emission ceilings. The policy lessonswere identified through a quantitative ex ante and expost assessment of data, national experts and relevantunexpected outcomes. These lessons included:● Acknowledgment and quantification of a priorunderestimation of activity growth levels and arecommendation to ensure a consistent approachto growth forecasting across all parties for the future(e.g. coherent approaches to growth projections –use of optimistic or conservative forecasts);● Acknowledgment of a prior overestimation of theeffectiveness of abatement measures, with specificquantification of the euro standard issue (Section3.1.1) for each case country;● A recommendation to include, in certain cases,indicators-based comparisons as a support tonegotiations where new ceilings are proposed,for example, per capita or per gross domesticproduct (GDP) assessments of expected emissionperformance;● A recommendation for the national andinternational research communities to advance thescope of the modelling frameworks to include thecost and potential of measures that are modelled orestimated exogenously from core systems such asRAINS/GAINS;● Recommendations to more rigorously consider therole of flexible policy mechanisms or correctionmechanisms in the transboundary policy process(Section 3.2.2).3.2.2 Flexible Policy MechanismsThe IMPI team have significantly advanced theinternational research agenda in regard to flexiblecompliance mechanisms for transboundary airpollution policy. This work has involved qualitativereporting on a selection of a variety of such ‘Flexmex’concepts, including many newly developed optionsfrom the IMPI team in 2009. The work subsequentlyquantified the relevance and role of selected measuresthrough an examination of the data on emissionsprojections and associated impacts. This used deskresearch and the developed modelling capacities tosupport the analysis of how domestic and internationalFlexmex may work in practice and at what benefitto the process. The specific ‘short-listed’ flexibilitiesfrom the work were collated in a policy brief for theEuropean Commission and Spanish presidency in2010 (Kelly and Vollebergh, 2010), and are discussedin a forthcoming paper (Kelly and Vollebergh, 2011).Furthermore, the IMP project has recently made asignificant contribution to the development of an officialreport on flexibilities as a member of the ‘Ad hoc groupon Flexibility Mechanisms’. The report published bythe TFEIP (TFEIP ad hoc group, 2011) is available atthe www.policymeasures.com site and builds on manyof the recommendations and suggested mechanismsput forward under earlier IMP project work on this topicin 2009 and 2010.
19J.A. Kelly (2007-CCRP-5.5.1.a)The motivation for inclusion of flexibility in regard tocompliance is to account for the uncertain and theunknown. There is no methodology or model that canguarantee accuracy and precision in regard to historical,current or forecast emissions. The transboundary airpollution policy process is dealing with complex systemson an appropriately aggregate scale, and absolutecertainty cannot be reasonably expected. The approachis to build common methodological frameworks whichprovide a pivotal point from which negotiations anddecisions can be made, and a process by whichprogress can be measured. There are five principalreasons why flexibility and correction mechanisms arenecessary in this form of environmental regulation:1 Scenarios are illustrative. They are not predictions.Related to this, modelled sensitivities do notactually incorporate any flexibility into the process.Thus, neither of these aspects of the ceiling settingprocess addresses the potential for unforeseenevents to influence the expected outcomes.Contemporary evidence highlights the potentialfor the unexpected across a range of issues – forexample, economic crisis, ash clouds, further eurostandard issues and so forth;2 To proceed without flexibility is to place undueconfidence in long-range forecasting andassumptions. This approach may limit supportand restrict new participants. Specifically, this maydissuade engagement from developing economieswhere – in the case of the Gothenburg Protocol –ratifications could offer significant and cost-effectivebenefits to the wider community;3 Related to this point, recently joined EU memberstates, and bordering countries, including EasternEurope, Caucasus and Central Asia countries(EECCA), which are relevant to the transboundarypollution problem may lack the capacity andexpertise for the technical engagement in settingnew ceilings (indeed, many established countriesstill face this challenge). This highlights theimportance of national capacities, but also indicatesa potential source of additional uncertainty for thefuture;4 Technical solutions alone may not offer sufficientscope for future abatement plans to achievedefined targets. Thus abatement strategies mayincreasingly turn toward the use of ‘non-technical’or behavioural measures. Such measures willintroduce an added degree of uncertainty, such astemporal and spatial variability of measure effects.5 Environmental policy should be governed byprincipals of cost effectiveness. Actions haveopportunity costs and broader policy should seekeffective and rational allocations of resources.Where the future differs from the modelledprojections, the burden of cost may rise, andthe benefit may fall. Flexibility and correctionmechanisms can provide a means of appropriateresponse.3.2.3 Uncertainty PresentationNational outlooks of emission levels are importantcomponents of international environmental policy-making and associated national policy development.This is the case for both GHG emissions andtransboundary air pollutants. However, there is inherentuncertainty in the production of forecasts. In the climatecontext, the Intergovernmental Panel on ClimateChange (IPCC) guidelines have been established tosupport national teams in quantifying uncertainty withinnational inventory reporting of historic emissions. Theseare presented to indicate the potential range of deviationfrom reported values and to offer added evidence forpolicy decisions. However, the method and practice ofaccounting for uncertainty amongst emission forecastsis both less clear and less common. In this particularwork, the IMPI team posited that the role of forecasts insetting international targets and planning policy actionrenders the management of ‘forecast’ uncertainty asimportant as addressing uncertainty in the context ofinventory and compliance work (Section 3.2.2).A failure to explicitly present uncertainty in forecastingleads to an implicit and misplaced confidence in a givenfuture scenario – irrespective of parallel work on otherscenarios and sensitivities. As a result, it is necessaryto ensure that uncertainty is captured when presentingforecasts to decision-makers. A related issue is that
Integrated Modelling Project Ireland20Box 3.1. Uncertainty presentation and propagation of variance (POV) based on controls and activity.It is necessary to formally display how emissions are calculated. Eq. 3.1 is: (Eq. 1)Where: ‘act’ refers to activity, ‘AEF’ is the abated emission factor, and ‘cap’ is capacities controlled. Furthermore,this equation applies to pollutant x, in country i, for sector j, and for control technology k (where applicable). InEq. 3.2, AEFs are obtained by applying the removal efficiency to the original (unabated) emission factor (EF), i.e.:AEFx,i,j,k = EFx,i,j (1-reffx,i,j,k ) (Eq. 3.2)Where: ‘reff’ refers to the removal efficiency. The POV method (from Schöpp et al., 2005) is described as: first adeterministic model term A is considered (i.e. either a model variable or parameter). Uncertainty for this term isrepresented by an uncertainty factor x, with the expected value of 1 and the standard deviation of σx, so the uncertainterm is defined as Ax. Thus, as Eq. 3.3 shows, the coefficient of variation (CV) of the uncertain term Ax is σx:(Eq. 3.3)In order to redefine the model to include uncertain terms it is necessary to return to Eq. 3.1 and include in Eq. 3.4the uncertainty factors associated with ‘act’ and ‘cap’ (i.e. α and ε, respectively) as follows: (Eq. 3.4)There is no correlation assumed between these two uncertainty factors since the causes of uncertainty from activitydata and capacities controlled arise from different sources. Uncertainty from activity levels results from inaccuraciesin the measurement of consumed fuels, errors and biases in regard to the heat content of fuels, while uncertaintiesfrom capacities controlled result from inaccurate assumptions and incorrect estimations of penetration rates. Assuch, the expected emissions em ̅_(x,i) emerge from Eq. 3.4 as Eq. 3.5: (Eq. 3.5)It can also be assumed that the penetration rates for abatement technologies for different pollutants, regions,sectors and control technologies are independent, as penetration rates are mostly regulated and the estimatederrors of these rates can be considered as random terms following the independent distribution. However, activitydata (i.e., energy consumption) for different pollutants, regions and sectors are probably correlated because theyare economically or technologically linked. Activity data are common input for the calculation of emissions, so it islikely that covariances exist between emission estimates for different regions and pollutants covered by the model.This covariance equation in Eq. 3.6 is given by: (Eq. 3.6)Where: E[ε x,i,j,k εy,p,q,m] = 1 if x ≠ y, i ≠ p, j ≠ q, or k ≠ mBased on Eq. 3.6, the estimate for the standard deviation of Eq. 3.7 as; (Eq. 3.7)Uncertainty bands can then be estimated through the application of the POV method and applying the equationbelow to obtain the confidence intervals in Eq. 3.8: (Eq. 3.8)Where: α is the significance level. As it is assumed that the upper bound and lower bound follow different normaldistributions, Eqn 3.1 – 3.8 are calculated twice for upper bound and lower bound independently. Therefore, in eachrun of the calculation, just one side of the confidence interval in Eq. 3.8 is used. The probability component in Eq.3.8 can be rearranged to give Eq. 3.9: (Eq. 3.9)
21J.A. Kelly (2007-CCRP-5.5.1.a)approaches to uncertainty analyses within the literatureare often highly technical and the models used are bothcomputationally demanding and time intensive. Thiscan limit broader adoption where national capacitiesare limited and scenario development is frequent. Thedeliverable from this research strand of the IMPI workincluded an academic publication (King, Fu and Kelly,2011) and a functional methodology for presentinguncertainty based around a ‘propagation of variance’method. The approach is built around functionalequations detailed in Box 3.1.The objective was to strike a balance between thetechnical and temporal demands of uncertaintyestimation against the need to deliver a regular andpractical estimation and presentation of uncertaintyfor any given scenario and any given country. Thedeveloped methodology is applied in a case study ofIrish agricultural data with expert elicitation as a keysupport. This work provides the basis for an enhancedpresentation of modelled emission forecasts, suchthat the inherent uncertainty is visually apparent todecision-makers and policy negotiators, as illustrated inFig. 22.214.171.124.4 Non-Technical Measures ModellingNon-technical measures (NTM) represent an importantpart of international efforts to control and reduceemissions. These measures can have associated (andpotentiallysignificant)costsandbenefitssuchassocietalwelfare changes or administrative costs. Researchunder the IMPI project (IMP Team, 2010h) proposedthat in principle these measures should warrant thesame analytical respect as that given to technicalabatement options in the process. By accountingfor these measures in the same analytical policyframework used for technical measures in thetransboundary air pollution and climate context, theassessment can be broadened to more accuratelyreflect:1 The level of emission reductions that could beachieved;2 The net cost or benefit of actions taken.This is important for improved policy design and thedevelopment of effective legislation. There are alsofurther benefits in so far as a formal assessment and Figure 3.2. Illustration of an agricultural NH3 emission forecast with uncertainty bands.
Integrated Modelling Project Ireland22the inclusion of such measures in the modelling andpolicy framework internationally can promote furtherdebate on the true potential of such options, means toimprove them, and a generally improved awareness ofwhat can be achieved in terms of further abatement.The research has illustrated that NTMs carry withthem some challenging considerations, suggesting theywill not be modelled in the same homogenised fashionas technical measures. It is therefore recommendedthat the ‘impact’ of a given NTM or package shouldbe distilled into one or a combination of the followingparameters:● Activity factor: the influence on the level ofactivity, for example, energy use;● Control factor: the influence on the relatedcontrol parameters, for example penetration of anoption;● Switch factor: the influence on the shift betweenactivities or controls.There is also a final corresponding value for the netcost or benefit associated with the introduction of themeasure. This accounts for those direct costs andbenefits that would otherwise not be captured in thecurrent modelling process, but which are relevant toevaluating the measure fully.In this manner, it is possible to capture for a given NTMthe influence it will have on emissions and the additionalcost or benefit associated with the action. The researchsuggests a guiding structure for how to summarisethe impact of a given NTM that is consistent with theprincipal modelling tools. Ultimately, however, there isno single prescribed methodology given for assessingan NTM appropriately, because the appropriatemethodology will vary depending on the measure inquestion. For example, national taxes may be assessedwith a computable general equilibrium (CGE) macromodel whilst a modal shift in transport may be evaluatedby a regional transport planning model.A further conclusion was that member states shouldselect the NTMs they wish to assess and include in theprocess. Hundreds of measures for individual countriescannot be defined in the model as is currently the casefor technical measures. There are simply too manypossible sources of variability within NTMs for this to bein any way practical. However, if member states wereto include only those NTMs they were considering orimplementing, then independent national analysis onthe options that could provide some of the evidenceneeded to include them in the policy-framework processdescribed under the IMPI research could be carried out.As a support to this work, the IMPI team have alsoestablished the PolicyMeasures web resource(www.policymeasures.com), which serves as an openresource for discussing and evaluating all mannerof policies and measures, with a specific focus onparameters and modelling of specific measures.3.2.5 Policy Measures ResourceResearch relies upon evidence. Enhancing theaccessibility of research findings is particularly importantas this allows research to build upon experience,corroborate or question findings, and gradually progresstowards increasingly robust analysis. In the field ofenvironmental policy and research, policy demands andquestions are evolving and this requires a dynamic andcontemporary international research response.The IMPI project recognised the need for an improvedopen source international database that could offerthe means to share, edit and discuss the evidenceand concepts of environmentally focused policies andmeasures. With a focus on determining an appropriatecontent structure, an intuitive and accessible openformat, a flexible and scalable back-end system andan extremely high-quality of presentation, the IMPIteam designed and delivered the PolicyMeasuresresource (www.policymeasures.com). The website hasbeen iteratively populated with new data and evidencetowards the latter stages of the IMPI project and will befurther developed and maintained into the future whereresources allow. Ultimately, the vision is to deliversufficient content and value such that current users ofthe site are encouraged to become active contributors,thus broadening the scope of the content, enhancingthe evidence base, and increasing the value of thesystem for environmental policy, modelling and generaldecision support (see Fig. 3.3).The web resource has been successfully launched withan accompanying guidance report for contributors (IMPTeam, 2010i). Beyond IMPI contacts and colleagues, thesite has further attracted global unsolicited membership.With further content development internationally
23J.A. Kelly (2007-CCRP-5.5.1.a)3.3 Integrated Modelling Project IrelandResearch – Developed Capacities andMethodological ProgressNational capacities in the field of transboundary airpollution and climate policy modelling in Ireland weresomewhat limited at the outset of the IMPI project in2008.Intheinterveningyearsanumberofinterconnectedand complementary capacities have been developedto greatly enhance independent national analyticalcapabilities, as well as to enable effective collaborativeinternational engagement in regard to the evolution,evaluation and execution of climate and air policy acrossthe wider European region. The development of thesecapacities is important, but means little if there is a failurein the subsequent phase to sustain the developedcapacities. As Ireland enters a phase of increasinglystringent environmental policy, shadowed by an arrayof more and more complex policy choices, the countrymust ensure that it is adequately equipped to makeinformed and cost-effective national policy decisions,as well as being positioned to ensure that overarchinginternational obligations develop with robust nationalevidence and adequate national representation. Beyondthe national and international contributions of the projectand the planned delivery of a quarterly newsletter,it is believed that the resource can prove valuable tomodellers, academics, interested individuals and policy-makers. PolicyMeasures has the potential to becomean important medium for research dissemination anddiscussion with only a moderate investment of time andeffort.The NECD NOx 2010 Ceiling - Ireland (2010 Report) | Reports & Reading Resources | Policy Measureshttp://www.policymeasures.com/resources/detail/the-necd-nox-2010-ceiling-ireland-2010-report/[07/12/2011 09:42:21]Home RSS About ContactPOLICY MEASURES DATABASE REPORTS & READING RESOURCES SEARCH GET INVOLVED SUBSCRIBE CONTACTREPORTS & READINGRESOURCESSearchView AllModelsMethodologiesMeasuresAnalysisGET INVOLVEDLoginRegisterFAQsINFORMATIONAboutLinksNews & EventsSubscribe to Mailing ListContactSitemapAuthors:Topic:Category:Published:Location:The NECD NOx 2010 Ceiling - Ireland (2010Report)An updated review of Irelands current path and further optionsSummaryThis report is an update to the Spring 2009 piece by AP EnvEcon in relation to Ireland’s challengeand options with respect to meeting the NOX emission ceiling for 2010 and delivering continuedprogress into 2015 and beyond. Updates and amendments have been made throughout the piecein order to offer a revised perspective on emissions reductions in the wake of the economic crisisand some major abatement investments. In respect of NOx the report also identifies why so manycountries are struggling with one particular pollutant. The answer lies amongst a number ofidentified confounding factors that have exacerbated the challenge of compliance with the NOXceiling for all. While these have been described in some detail in a prior document focused on theIrish NOX challenge (A Disproportionate Challenge [2007 Report]), and further points have beenraised in relation to this challenge and lessons for future processes in a policy article (Kelly et al.,2010), further efforts are made in this document to specifically isolate the key factors, reviewcurrent data and quantify their impact.AP EnvEcon: Andrew Kelly, Fearghal King, Luke Redmond.AnalysisAnalysisAutumn 2010IrelandSite Entry Created by Policy Measures Admin on Sep 17, 2010Edited by J A Kelly, Fearghal KingREFERENCE THIS SOURCEPolicymeasures.com (2011). The NECD NOx 2010 Ceiling - Ireland (2010 Report). Available:www.policymeasures.com/resources/detail/the-necd-nox-2010-ceiling-ireland-2010-report Lastaccessed: 7th December 2011READER COMMENTSThere are no comments for this report yet.ADD YOUR COMMENT OR RATE THIS REPORTOnly registered users can comment on and rate material within the policy measures database.Login using the form below or click here to register on the site.UsernamePasswordAuto-login on future visitsForgot your password?Comment PrintShareSubmitFigure 3.3. Screen captures of PolicyMeasures – Example of a measure and report in the system.noted in the previous two sections, the subsequentsection identifies four examples of the newly developedcapacities derived from the IMP project research andcore model development.3.3.1 Climate and Air SynergiesA particular strength of the GAINS Ireland system isthe integrated nature of the model with regard to bothGHGs and air pollution. This system integration allowsthe model to evaluate and present the synergies ortrade-offs of actions influencing one or both of theseareas. In other words, for any given scenario focusedon examining GHG emissions and associated actions,the model can also illustrate the corresponding impactacross transboundary air pollution and vice versa.This capacity allows a broader integrated assessmentof scenarios and policy interventions and can therebyinform better decision-making at a national policy level.3.3.2 Effect MappingThe IMPI GAINS Ireland system offers the facility tomap and analyse transboundary effects for a givenscenario package. The potential exists to redevelop anentire European scenario, or to investigate the impactof a revised national scenario in respect of nationaland international impacts. The categories of impactsevaluated by the GAINS model include health effects,acidification and eutrophication. This is achieved byestimating levels of exposure and exceedance beyonddefined thresholds. Figure 3.4 presents an examplefrom the GAINS Ireland system of a variation inhealth impacts across Europe between two modelledscenarios.
Integrated Modelling Project Ireland24Figure 3.4. Baseline health effects in 2020 and months of life lost change.Figure 3.5. Illustration of GIS mapping work for road networks and slopes.
25J.A. Kelly (2007-CCRP-5.5.1.a)3.3.3 Geographical Information SystemConnection and Research ApplicationAs part of the IMPI project, and specifically theTREMOVE Ireland strand of the work, efforts wereinvested in utilising GIS and associated mapping datato enhance the analysis and understanding of policyissues, and to improve the manner in which findingsand results were communicated. One example ofthis use of GIS is the flexible working policy paperdiscussed in Section 3.1.3. A second example wasthe use of GIS in a now published paper focused onunderstanding how regional characteristics influencethe purchase decisions of consumers in respect tocar engine sizes (Fu, Ahern, Kelly, 2011). Within thatpiece of work the Irish road network was overlaidwith geographic elevation to understand the nature ofroads and road slopes in specific areas as a meansof understanding the ‘needs’ of vehicle users incertain regions. Additionally, transport services andeconomic data were mapped to regions as part of theanalysis and modelling undertaken in the piece. Suchinnovative use of GIS and linking to model systemsoffers the potential for further advanced analysis inthe future, and more rapid and effective sharing ofdeveloped knowledge and datasets (see Fig. 3.5).NOx Emissions Aggregated by Activity and Sectorhttp://gains.iiasa.ac.at/gains/RainsServlet1[07/12/2011 09:39:40]GAINS IRELAND Greenhouse Gas and Air Pollution Interactions and SynergiesNOx Emissions Aggregated by Activity and SectorPollutant: NOxScenario: Ireland WAM White 2011 (ID: IRL_White_11)Region Group: IrelandYear: 2020Unit: [kt NO2]User: JAKellySector/Activity Abbr.Browncoal/lignite,grade 1Hardcoal,grade1Derivedcoal (coke,briquettes)BiomassfuelsHeavyfueloilMediumdistillates(diesel,light fueloil)Gasoline andother lightfractions ofoil (includeskerosene)LiquefiedpetroleumgasNaturalgas(incl.othergases)NofueluseSumBC1 HC1 DC OS1 HF MD GSL LPG GAS NOF SumSum Sum 1.62 4.12 0.14 1.89 1.51 28.81 9.32 0.24 5.96 8.46 62.07Fuel production &conversion: combustion(other than in boilers)CON_COMB ... ... ... ... 0.10 0.00 0.26 0.01 ... ... 0.37Residential, commercial,services, agriculture, etc.DOM 0.17 0.21 0.14 0.33 0.13 0.83 2.12 0.13 1.94 ... 6.01Industry: combustion inboilers (heat only boilers,all sectors)IN_BO ... 0.05 ... 0.41 0.25 0.22 0.14 0.07 0.49 ... 1.62Industry: Other combustion(used in emission tables)IN_OC ... 0.05 ... 0.81 1.03 0.23 0.34 0.03 1.15 ... 3.64Power & district heat plants,existing; fired with fuelsother than browncoal/lignite and hard coalPP_EX_OTH ... 3.82 ... 0.05 0.00 0.00 ... ... 0.06 ... 3.93non-IGGC new power plants PP_NEW 1.45 ... ... 0.29 0.00 0.00 ... ... 2.32 ... 4.05Ind. Process: CementproductionPR_CEM ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 7.59 7.59Ind. Process: LimeproductionPR_LIME ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 0.22 0.22Other transport: agricultureand forestryTRA_OT_AGR ... ... ... ... ... 4.58 ... ... ... ... 4.58Other transport: air traffic -civil aviationTRA_OT_AIR ... ... ... ... ... ... 3.90 ... ... ... 3.90Other transport: inlandwaterwaysTRA_OT_INW ... ... ... ... ... 0.57 ... ... ... ... 0.57Other transport: rail TRA_OT_RAI ... ... ... ... ... 0.92 ... ... ... ... 0.92Heavy duty vehicles - buses TRA_RD_HDB ... ... ... ... ... 3.20 0.01 ... ... ... 3.21Heavy duty vehicles -trucksTRA_RD_HDT ... ... ... ... ... 4.63 ... ... ... ... 4.63Motorcycles, mopeds andcars with 2-stroke enginesTRA_RD_LD2 ... ... ... ... ... ... 0.00 ... ... ... 0.00Light duty vehicles: carsand small buses with 4-stroke enginesTRA_RD_LD4C ... ... ... ... ... 3.83 2.46 0.00 ... ... 6.29Light duty vehicles: lightcommercial trucks with 4-stroke enginesTRA_RD_LD4T ... ... ... ... ... 9.80 0.01 ... ... ... 9.80Motorcycles with 4-strokeenginesTRA_RD_M4 ... ... ... ... ... ... 0.10 ... ... ... 0.10Ind. Process: Glassproduction (flat, blown,container glass)PR_GLASS ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 0.33 0.33Ind. Process: Crude oil &other products - input toPetroleum refineriesPR_REF ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 0.31 0.31Scenario DefinitionRegion Emission Vector Control Strategy Activity Type & PathwayIreland IRL10_AK CSIRL_2011_V1 (JAKelly)AGR AG_IRL_V1_2011 (JAKelly)ENE WAM_V1_ENEMOB_2011 (JAKelly)MOB WAM_V1_ENEMOB_2011 (JAKelly)Close windowDisplay table in an export formatNOx Emissions by Control Optionhttp://gains.iiasa.ac.at/gains/RainsServlet1[07/12/2011 09:40:53]GAINS IRELAND Greenhouse Gas and Air Pollution Interactions and SynergiesNOx Emissions by Control OptionPollutant: NOxScenario: Ireland WAM White 2011 (ID: IRL_White_11)Region: IrelandYear: 2020User: JAKellySector-Activity-Technology Abbr.SectoralactivityUnabatedemissionfactorRemovalefficiencyAbatedemissionfactorCoversioncoefficientAbatedemissionfactorCapacitiescontrolledEmissions[Units]ktNOx/Unit% kt_NOx/Unit mg/m3/(g/GJ) mg/m3 % kt_NOxFuel production & conversion: combustion(other than in boilers)-Gasoline and otherlight fractions of oil (includes kerosene)-No control-[10^15 Joules]CON_COMB-GSL-NOC-[PJ]3.653 0.070 0.000 0.070 3.170 221.900 100.000 0.256Fuel production & conversion: combustion(other than in boilers)-Heavy fuel oil-Combustion modification on oil and gasindustrial boilers and furnaces-[10^15Joules]CON_COMB-HF-IOGCM-[PJ]1.228 0.170 50.000 0.085 3.170 269.450 100.000 0.104Fuel production & conversion: combustion(other than in boilers)-Liquefiedpetroleum gas-Combustion modificationon oil and gas industrial boilers andfurnaces-[10^15 Joules]CON_COMB-LPG-IOGCM-[PJ]0.154 0.070 50.000 0.035 3.170 110.950 100.000 0.005Fuel production & conversion: combustion(other than in boilers)-Medium distillates(diesel, light fuel oil)-Combustionmodification on oil and gas industrialboilers and furnaces-[10^15 Joules]CON_COMB-MD-IOGCM-[PJ]0.103 0.080 50.000 0.040 3.170 126.800 100.000 0.004Own use of energy sector and lossesduring production, transmission &distribution of final product-Natural gas(incl. other gases)-No control-[10^15Joules]CON_LOSS-GAS-NOC-[PJ]2.389 0.000 0.000 0.000 n/a n/a 100.000 0.000Own use of energy sector and lossesduring production, transmission &distribution of final product-Hard coal,grade 1-No control-[10^15 Joules]CON_LOSS-HC1-NOC-[PJ]0.206 0.000 0.000 0.000 n/a n/a 100.000 0.000Own use of energy sector and lossesduring production, transmission &distribution of final product-Heavy fueloil-No control-[10^15 Joules]CON_LOSS-HF-NOC-[PJ]0.075 0.000 0.000 0.000 n/a n/a 100.000 0.000Own use of energy sector and lossesduring production, transmission &distribution of final product-Biomassfuels-No control-[10^15 Joules]CON_LOSS-OS1-NOC-[PJ]3.699 0.000 0.000 0.000 n/a n/a 100.000 0.000Residential, commercial, services,agriculture, etc.-Brown coal/lignite, grade1-No control-[10^15 Joules]DOM-BC1-NOC-[PJ]3.442 0.050 0.000 0.050 1.490 74.500 100.000 0.172Residential, commercial, services,agriculture, etc.-Derived coal (coke,briquettes)-No control-[10^15 Joules]DOM-DC-NOC-[PJ]2.030 0.070 0.000 0.070 n/a n/a 100.000 0.142Residential, commercial, services,agriculture, etc.-Natural gas (incl. othergases)-No control-[10^15 Joules]DOM-GAS-NOC-[PJ]38.738 0.050 0.000 0.050 3.170 158.500 100.000 1.937Residential, commercial, services,agriculture, etc.-Gasoline and other lightfractions of oil (includes kerosene)-Nocontrol-[10^15 Joules]DOM-GSL-NOC-[PJ]35.362 0.060 0.000 0.060 3.170 190.200 100.000 2.122Residential, commercial, services,agriculture, etc.-Hard coal, grade 1-Nocontrol-[10^15 Joules]DOM-HC1-NOC-[PJ]2.595 0.080 0.000 0.080 1.490 119.200 100.000 0.208Residential, commercial, services,agriculture, etc.-Heavy fuel oil-Nocontrol-[10^15 Joules]DOM-HF-NOC-[PJ]1.118 0.120 0.000 0.120 3.170 380.400 100.000 0.134Residential, commercial, services,agriculture, etc.-Liquefied petroleum gas-No control-[10^15 Joules]DOM-LPG-NOC-[PJ]2.188 0.060 0.000 0.060 3.170 190.200 100.000 0.131Close windowDisplay table in an export format3.3.4 Detailed Forecasting, Disaggregated Analysisand Methodological AdvancementThe GAINS model framework incorporates acomprehensive data-structuring system whichenables the model to carry out a wide variety ofanalytical functions (see Fig. 3.6). As part of theIMP project the team have developed in-housemethodologies to facilitate the porting of officialnational data (e.g. energy and agricultural data) intothe model. The team have also developed guidelinesand process stages for the revision and verificationof other parameters (e.g. control strategies, emissionfactors). These methodologies and processesenable the IMP team to calibrate the model relativelyquickly. This allows the IMP team to generate analternative set of emissions forecasts for GHGs andtransboundary air pollutants via an internationallysupported methodology, and also to manipulateand modify the underlying scenarios for sensitivityanalyses as necessary.Figure 3.6. Example of aggregated and disaggregated emission outputs from GAINS Ireland.