Transportation emissions scenarios for New York City under different carbon intensities of electricity and electric vehicle adoption rates
Source abstract
Abstract
Like many cities around the world, New York City is establishing policies to reduce CO2 emissions from all energy sectors by 2050. Understanding the impact of varying degrees of electric vehicle adoption and CO2 intensities on emissions reduction in the city is critical. Here, using a technology-rich, bottom-up, energy system optimization model, we analyse the cost and air emissions impacts of New York City's proposed CO2 reduction policies for the transportation sector through a scenario framework. Our analysis reveals that the electrification of light-duty vehicles at earlier periods is essential for deeper reductions in air emissions. When further combined with energy efficiency improvements, these actions contribute to CO2 reductions under the scenarios of more CO2-intense electricity. Substantial reliance on fossil fuels and a need for structural change pose challenges to cost-effective CO2 reductions in the transportation sector. Here we find that uncertainties associated with decarbonization of the electric grid have a minimum influence on the cost-effectiveness of CO2 reduction pathways for the transportation sector.
Source: europepmc · Quality: candidate unverified · Source record ↗
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Energy, Environment, and Transportation Policies · Vehicle emissions and performance · Electric Vehicles and Infrastructure
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
References (53)
Show source-provided references
1. Annual Energy Outlook 2016 with Projections to 2040 (Energy Information Administration, 2016); https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/pdf/0383(2016).pdf
2. Annual Energy Outlook 2018 with Projections to 2050 (Energy Information Administration, 2018); https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/pdf/AEO2018.pdf
3. New York City Mobility Report (New York City Department of Transportation, 2018); http://www.nyc.gov/html/dot/downloads/pdf/mobility-report-2018-print.pdf
4. NYC Green Dividend (City of New York, 2010); http://www.nyc.gov/html/dot/downloads/pdf/nyc_greendividend_april2010.pdf
5. Miller, S. 80x50 Policy White Paper Transportation (New York League of Conservation Voters, 2018); https://nylcvef.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/80X50PolicyWhitePaper_Transportation_061417_edits.pdf
6. The MTA Network: Public Transportation for the New York Region (Metropolitan Transportation Authority, 2018); http://web.mta.info/mta/network.htm
7. Moss, M. L., Sam, S. M. K., Levy, A. S. & Hernandez, J. Subway Ridership 1975–2015 (NYU Rudin Center for Transportation, 2017); https://wagner.nyu.edu/files/faculty/publications/State%20of%20Subway%20Ridership%20-%20Mar717.pdf
8. Nonattainment Areas for Criteria Pollutants (Green Book) (US Environmental Protection Agency, 2019); https://www.epa.gov/green-book
9. Why New York State Needs a Clean Transportation System (Union of Concerned Scientists, 2018); https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/why-new-york-state-needs-clean-transportation-system
10. McNeill, V. F. Addressing the global air pollution crisis: chemistry’s role. Trends Chem. 1, 5–8 (2019).10.1016/j.trechm.2019.01.005 ↗
11. Cohen, A. J. et al. Estimates and 25-year trends of the global burden of disease attributable to ambient air pollution: an analysis of data from the global burden of diseases study 2015. Lancet 389, 1907–1918 (2017).10.1016/S0140-6736(17)30505-6 ↗
12. Inventory of New York City Greenhouse Gas Emissions in 2014 (City of New York, 2016); https://www1.nyc.gov/assets/sustainability/downloads/pdf/publications/NYC_GHG_Inventory_2014.pdf
13. Inventory of New York City Greenhouse Gas Emissions in 2015 (City of New York, 2017); https://www1.nyc.gov/assets/dcas/downloads/pdf/energy/reportsandpublication/NYC_GHG_Inventory_2015_FINAL.pdf
14. New York City’s Roadmap to 80x50 (New York City, 2014); https://www1.nyc.gov/assets/sustainability/downloads/pdf/publications/New%20York%20City’s%20Roadmap%20to%2080%20x%2050.pdf
15. Yeh, S. et al. Detailed assessment of global transport-energy models’ structures and projections. Transp. Res. D Transp. Environ. 55, 294–309 (2017).10.1016/j.trd.2016.11.001 ↗
16. Edelenbosch, O. Y. et al. Transport fuel demand responses to fuel price and income projections: comparison of integrated assessment models. Transp. Res. D Transp. Environ. 55, 310–321 (2017).10.1016/j.trd.2017.03.005 ↗
17. Creutzig, F. et al. Transport: a roadblock to climate change mitigation? Urban mobility solutions foster climate mitigation. Science 350, 911–913 (2015).10.1126/science.aac8033 ↗
18. Sallis, J. F. et al. Use of science to guide city planning policy and practice: how to achieve healthy and sustainable future cities. Lancet 388, 2936–2947 (2016).10.1016/S0140-6736(16)30068-X ↗
19. Kaplan, P. O. & Isik, M. City-based Optimization Model for Energy Technologies: COMET - New York City Documentation (EPA 600/R-19/124) (US Environmental Protection Agency, 2020); https://cfpub.epa.gov/si/si_public_file_download.cfm?p_download_id=539956&Lab=CEMM
20. PlaNYC: New York City’s Pathways to Deep Carbon Reductions (City of New York, 2013); http://s-media.nyc.gov/agencies/planyc2030/pdf/nyc_pathways.pdf
21. Aligning NYC with the Paris Agreement (City of New York, 2017); http://www1.nyc.gov/assets/sustainability/downloads/pdf/publications/1point5-AligningNYCwithParisAgrmtFORWEB.pdf
22. Clean Energy Standard (New York State Energy Research and Development Authority, 2016); https://www.nyserda.ny.gov/All-Programs/Programs/Clean-Energy-Standard
23. Annual Energy Outlook 2020 with Projections to 2050 (Energy Information Administration, 2020); https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/section_appendices.php
24. Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emission Standards and Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards Final Rule RIN 2060–AP58 Washington, DC: 2010-05-07 (US Environmental Protection Agency, 2010); https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2010-05-07/pdf/2010-8159.pdf
25. 2017 and Later Model Year Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards RIN 2060–AQ54; RIN 2127–AK79 Washington, DC: 2012-10-15 (US Environmental Protection Agency, 2012); https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2012-10-15/pdf/2012-21972.pdf
26. Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emission Standards and Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards; Final Rule RIN 2127–AK50 Washington, DC: 2010-05-07 (US Environmental Protection Agency, 2010); https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2010-05-07/pdf/2010-8159.pdf
27. Light-Duty Vehicles and Light-Duty Trucks: Clean Fuel Fleet Exhaust Emission Standards EPA-420-B-16-006 (US Environmental Protection Agency, 2016); https://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/light-duty-vehicle-emissions#standards
28. Control of Air Pollution from Motor Vehicles: Tier 3 Motor Vehicle Emission and Fuel Standards RIN 2050-AQ86. Washington, DC: FR 2014-04-28 (US Environmental Protection Agency, 2014); https://www.epa.gov/regulations-emissions-vehicles-and-engines/final-rule-control-air-pollution-motor-vehicles-tier-3
29. Kaplan, P. O. & Witt, J. W. What is the role of distributed energy resources under scenarios of greenhouse gas reductions? A specific focus on combined heat and power systems in the industrial and commercial sectors. Appl. Energy 235, 83–94 (2018).10.1016/j.apenergy.2018.10.125 ↗
30. Loulou, R., Goldstein, G. & Noble, K. Documentation for the MARKAL Family of Models (International Energy Agency, 2004); http://iea-etsap.org/MrklDoc-I_StdMARKAL.pdf
31. Leighty, W., Ogden, J. M. & Yang, C. Modelling transitions in the California light-duty vehicles sector to achieve deep reductions in transportation greenhouse gas emissions. Energy Policy 44, 52–67 (2012).10.1016/j.enpol.2012.01.013 ↗
32. McCollum, D., Yang, C., Yeh, S. & Ogden, J. Deep greenhouse gas reduction scenarios for California – strategic implications from the CA-TIMES energy-economic systems model. Energy Strategy Rev. 1, 19–32 (2012).10.1016/j.esr.2011.12.003 ↗
33. Ghanadan, R. & Koomey, J. G. Using energy scenarios to explore alternative energy pathways in California. Energy Policy 33, 1117–1142 (2005).10.1016/j.enpol.2003.11.011 ↗
34. Lenox, C. & Kaplan, P. O. Role of natural gas in meeting an electric sector emissions reduction strategy and effects on greenhouse gas emissions. Energy Econ. 60, 460–468 (2016).10.1016/j.eneco.2016.06.009 ↗
35. Brown, K. E. et al. Evolution of the United States energy system and related emissions under varying social and technological development paradigms: plausible scenarios for use in robust decision making. Environ. Sci. Technol. 52, 8027–8038 (2018).10.1021/acs.est.8b00575 ↗
36. Kaplan, P. O. & Kaldunski, B. An integrated approach to water & energy infrastructure decision making using the MARKAL framework: a case study of New York City. In Proc. ACEEE Summer Study on Energy Efficiency in Buildings at Pacific Grove, CA (ACEEE, 2016).
37. EIA-860 Detailed Data (Energy Information Administration, 2018); https://www.eia.gov/electricity/data/eia860/
38. Hughes-Cromwick, M. (ed.) Public Transportation Fact Book (American Public Transportation Association, 2018); https://www.apta.com/wp-content/uploads/Resources/resources/statistics/Documents/FactBook/2018-APTA-Fact-Book.pdf
39. Lenox, C. et al. EPA U.S. Nine-Region MARKAL Database Documentation EPA/600/B-13/2013 (US Environmental Protection Agency, 2013).
40. Exhaust Emission Rates for Heavy-Duty On-Road Vehicles in MOVES2014 (US Environmental Protection Agency, 2014); https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPDF.cgi?Dockey=P100NO46.pdf
41. Exhaust Emission Rates for Light-Duty On-Road Vehicles in MOVES2014 Final Report (US Environmental Protection Agency, 2014); https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPDF.cgi?Dockey=P100NNVN.pdf
42. National Emissions Inventory (US Environmental Protection Agency, 2014); https://www.epa.gov/air-emissions-inventories/national-emissions-inventory-nei
43. PLUTO and MapPLUTO (City of New York, 2015); http://www1.nyc.gov/site/planning/data-maps/open-data/dwn-pluto-mappluto.page
44. NYC Benchmarking Law Data (City of New York, 2018); https://www1.nyc.gov/html/gbee/html/plan/ll84.shtml
45. The Growth of App-Based Ride Services and Traffic, Travel and the Future of New York City (Schaller Consulting, 2017); http://www.schallerconsult.com/rideservices/automobility.pdf
46. Erdhardt, G. D. et al. Do transportation network companies decrease or increase congestion? Sci. Adv. https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/advances/5/5/eaau2670.full.pdf (2019).10.1126/sciadv.aau2670 ↗
47. The New Automobility: Lyft, Uber and the Future of American Cities (Schaller Consulting, 2018); http://www.schallerconsult.com/rideservices/automobility.pdf
48. Mayor de Blasio Puts into Effect For-Hire Vehicle Cruising Cap and Extends License Cap (City of New York, 2019); https://www1.nyc.gov/office-of-the-mayor/news/384-19/mayor-de-blasio-puts-effect-for-hire-vehicle-cruising-cap-extends-license-cap
49. Average Vehicle Occupancy Factors for Computing Travel Time Reliability Measures and Total Peak Hour Excessive Delay Metrics (US Department of Transportation, 2018); https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/tpm/guidance/avo_factors.pdf
50. Facts and Usage Statistics about Public Transit in New York City (Moovit, 2020); https://moovitapp.com/insights/en/Moovit_Insights_Public_Transit_Index_USA_NYCNJ-121
51. OneNYC 2050: Building a Strong and Fair City – Efficient Mobility (City of New York, 2013); https://onenyc.cityofnewyork.us/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/H_OneNYC_2050_Interior_r5_v2_EfficientMobility_190422_web.pdf
52. NY Solar Map (City University of New York, 2019); https://nysolarmap.com/
53. Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Potential Study of New York State (New York State Energy Research and Development Authority, 2019); https//www.nyserda.ny.gov/-/media/Files/EDPPP/Energy-Prices/Energy-Statistics/14-19-EE-RE-Potential-Study-Vol1.pdf