Transport and Carbon Finance Part I
description
Transcript of Transport and Carbon Finance Part I
Transport and Carbon Finance Part I
Dr. Jürg M. Grü[email protected] www.transport-ghg.com
matching transport with carbon finance
Feb 11 grütter consulting 2
Company Background
Methodology development CDM: AM0031, ACM0016 (both NMs), AMS IIIT, AMS IIIU
Methodology development non-CDM: VCS bike, VCS freight, BC freight, various Switzerland
Under preparation: Rail passenger, Eco-Drive Projects CDM
4 registered (2 BRTs, cable car, plant-oil) 2 in registration (BRT, Metro) 14 in validation (4 electric vehicles, 1 metro, 9 BRTs) 4 enter validation next 1-2 months (3 metros/LRT, freight)
Projects non CDM: 1 registered VCS (gaseous HDVs) 2 VCS in validation (1 BRT, 1 metro) 1 BC validation (freight) >80 registered in Switzerland
Feb 11 grütter consulting 3
Current Carbon Finance Transport Projects of grütter consulting
Feb 11 grütter consulting 4
Problem Areas
Methodologies Validators Additionality procedure
Feb 11 grütter consulting 5
Methodologies
See discussion per methodology In general very high complexity In general far more is demanded
in the transport sector than in other sectors
Feb 11 grütter consulting 6
Validation
Problems: Most accredited DOEs for sectoral scope 7 lack
competence and experience DOEs use staff which compare transport projects to
hydro dams DOEs are afraid of UNFCCC DOEs charge for transport project 2-3x more than for
other projects DOEs take 1-3 years for validation
Proposed Solutions: Suspend incompetent DOEs Automatically suspend DOEs which take more than 1
year for validation
Feb 11 grütter consulting 7
Additionality I
Overarching Problem: Additionality has been reduced by the EB to IRR assessment
The reduction of project additionallity to one financial parameter is not only questionable per se but reduces effectively the participation of project types where the barriers are far more complex
Food for thought: Using a marginal cost approach like GEF not one HFC and most N2O projects after 6 months are no longer additional i.e. > 50% of CERs issued by EB are NON-additional using a slightly different concept
Conclusion: There is no single and objective criteria for additionality. Therefore keep in mind CO2 plus sustainable development is important and environmental additionality should get back its role
Feb 11 grütter consulting 8
Additionality II
If the UNFCCC wants transport to play a role additionality rules for transport must be adapted
UNFCCC has shown it is flexible with small scale projects or LLDCs
The sustainable development benefits of transport should be recognized. This justifies simplified additionality procedures
Simplified additionality proof is suggested for urban public transit and GHG efficient vehicles e.g.: Based on common practice Based on benchmark
Feb 11 grütter consulting 9
AM0031: BRTs in CDM
Feb 11 grütter consulting 10
Problem Areas: Summary
Leakage calculations: Costly and not necessary
Monitoring survey: Costly and could be made less frequent
Feb 11 grütter consulting 11
Leakage Load Factor
Situation today: every 3 years occupation rate measurements
Problem: Cost for surveys around 30,000 USD every
3 years Analysis:
Theoretically impact on load factor highly improbable due to market forces
Empirically no impact on load factor has been registered
Solution: Eliminate this leakage from methodology
Feb 11 grütter consulting 12
Leakage Load Factor Empirical
City Occupation rate taxis prior
project
Occupation rate taxis after
project
Occupation rate buses prior
project
Occupation rate buses after
project
Bogota 0.7 to 0.8 0.9 56% to 66% 61%
Seoul 1.3-1.5 1.4 12.1 passengers 13.5 passengers
Feb 11 grütter consulting 13
Leakage Congestion
Situation today: leakage determined ex-ante Problem:
Cost for surveys around 20,000 USD Data analysis is complex and involves another cost
Analysis: Speed and congestion impact cancel each other
out Methodologies from other sectors do NOT include
rebound effect Total impact marginal Empirically clear that overall impact negative
leakage i.e. elimination is conservative Solution: Eliminate this leakage from
methodology
Feb 11 grütter consulting 14
Congestion Impact Empirically
Project Meth Rebound tCO2/a
Speed tCO2/a
Total congestion impact tCO2/a
ER per annum
Bogota AM0031 9,000 -15,000 -6,000 247,000
Cali AM0031 11,000 -23,000 -12,000 258,000
Pereira AM0031 2,000 -1,000 1,000 35,000
Barranquilla AM0031 1,000 -2,000 -1,000 55,000
Medellin AM0031 0 -4,000 -3,000 194,000
Guatemala AM0031 -3,000 -95,000 -97,000 534,000
Guadalajara AM0031 1,000 0 1,000 51,000
Quito AM0031 1,000 -19,000 -19,000 155,000
Chongqing AM0031 -2,000 0 -2,000 218,000
Zhengzhou AM0031 -8,000 0 -8,000 205,000
Joburg AM0031 -1,000 0 -1,000 35,000
Seoul ACM0016 0 0 0 >200,000
Feb 11 grütter consulting 15
Monitoring Survey
Situation today: 6 surveys per annum Problem:
Cost for surveys around 60,000 USD per annum Analysis:
Trip behaviour does not change dramatically in the short period
Over time more people have access to private cars and use these thus conservative to take past surveys
Empirically results show little short term change Solution: Conduct surveys only every 3 years
Feb 11 grütter consulting 16
Monitoring Survey Empirical
Item Baseline Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5
Bogota trip distance car 9.0 10.7 11.5 11.9 14.2 12.3
Bogota trip distance taxis 7.0 9.7 9.3 11.1 11.8 10.8
Chongqing trip distance car 8.8 9.0 10.5 NA NA NA
Chongqing trip distance taxi 7.3 7.5 9.4 NA NA NA
Item Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5
Bogota mode share buses 89% 90% 91% 92% 92%
Bogota mode share taxis + cars 10% 8% 8% 7% 8%
Chongqing mode share buses 61% 57% NA NA NA
Chongqing mode share taxis + cars 37% 35% NA NA NA
Feb 11 grütter consulting 17
ACM0016: MRTS
Feb 11 grütter consulting 18
Problem Areas: Summary
Leakage load factor and congestion: Costly and not necessary: idem to AM0031
Monitoring survey: Costly and could be made less frequent
Additionallity: Common practice is a killer
Feb 11 grütter consulting 19
Monitoring Survey
Situation today: 1 large and 1 re-test survey per annum
Problem: Cost for surveys around 150,000 USD per annum
Analysis: Trip behaviour does not change dramatically in the
short period Over time more people have access to private cars
and use these thus conservative to take past surveys
Empirically results show little short term change Solution: Conduct surveys only every 3 years
or once per crediting period
Feb 11 grütter consulting 20
Common Practice I
Situation today: less than 50% of cities > 1 million (or 0.5-1 mio) LUZ definition
Problem: Most countries in the world only have 1 city of this size.
If this 1 city established 50 years ago a tram line covering 1% of transit trips in the city no MRTS project is additional due to common practice
Common practice procedure is ONLY adequate for countries like China and India
This sole factor has excluded dozens of projects in many Latin American, Asian and African countries
LUZ is unclear and a concept not used outside selected EU countries
Comparison criteria is number of cities instead of asking how are urban trips made
Feb 11 grütter consulting 21
Common Practice II
Solution: Common practice should indicate if something is widely and commonly used. Not the amount of cities is relevant but the share of MRTS in trips in the project city.
Comparison criteria: How are trips commonly made in the project city over time and what are the dynamics
Criteria Proposal: Share of public transit in motorized trips
Justification: if public transit looses ground then private transit is increasingly getting common practice
Share of MRTS in motorized tripsJustification: The role of MRTS in the respective city in motorized trips is considered
A project is common practice: If the share of public transit trips over total motorized trips shows an
increasing trend over the last 10 yearsand If MRTS in the city have more than 50% of motorized transit trips in the
project city
Feb 11 grütter consulting 22
Further Information
CEO grütter consulting:Dr. Jürg M. Grü[email protected]
www.transport-ghg.com