Global Warming Pollution in New Jersey - Frontier Group · crease. Further warming of the planet is...

Global Warming Pollutionin New Jersey:

Key Steps to Reduce Emissions fromElectricity Generation and Transportation

Dave AlgosoEmily Rusch

NJPIRG Law & Policy Center

April 2005

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Michael Oppenheimer of Princeton University and FletcherHarper of Green Faith for providing peer review. Tony Dutzik provided invaluable editorialsupport, and developed the methodology upon which much of the report’s data is based.NJPIRG Law & Policy Center thanks the Energy Foundation for its generous support ofthis report.

The authors alone bear responsibility for any factual errors. The recommendations arethose of the NJPIRG Law & Policy Center. The views expressed in this report are those ofthe authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of our funders.

© 2005 NJPIRG Law & Policy Center

The NJPIRG Law & Policy Center is a non-partisan, non-profit 501(c)(3) organizationworking on environmental protection, consumer rights, and good government in NewJersey.

For additional copies of this report, send $10 (including shipping) to:11 N. Willow StreetTrenton, NJ 08608

For more information about the NJPIRG Law & Policy Center and New Jersey PublicInterest Research Group, please contact our office at 609-394-8155 or visit our website atwww.njpirg.org.

Table of Contents

Executive Summary 5

Introduction 7

New Jersey’s Contributions to Global Warming 9Transportation Emissions 10Electric Power Emissions 13

State and Regional Opportunities toReduce Global Warming Emissions 16

Methodology 19

Endnotes 21

4 Global Warming and New Jersey

Executive Summary 5

Executive Summary

G lobal warming poses a serious threatto the environment, public healthand overall welfare of New Jersey

and the rest of the world. In New Jersey,the major sources of carbon dioxide (theleading cause of global warming) aretransportation and electric power genera-tion. The state will have to address grow-ing emissions in both of these areas in orderto reduce its contribution to globalwarming.

The transportation sector is responsiblefor over half of New Jersey’s carbon di-oxide emissions, and emissions aregrowing. Transportation in New Jerseyproduced 62.7 million metric tons of car-bon dioxide in 2001 – 54 percent of thestate’s total.

Unfortunately, consumption of bothgasoline and diesel fuel continues to rise.Gasoline consumption in 2004 was 9.2 per-cent above 2001 levels, and diesel consump-tion has risen 16.1 percent. Steady growthin vehicle travel and stagnating vehicle fueleconomy combine to impede progress inreducing transportation emissions.

Electricity generation is the source ofone-sixth of in-state emissions, but itscurrent and potential future impact onglobal warming is far greater. In 2001,the electric power sector was responsiblefor 18.9 million metric tons of carbon di-oxide in New Jersey – 16 percent of thestate’s carbon dioxide emissions. Theseemissions came from the natural gas andcoal-fired power plants that serve about 40percent of the state’s electricity demand.However, about 20 percent of the state’selectricity is imported from neighboringstates, so New Jersey’s electricity use actu-ally contributes more carbon dioxide thanthis figure suggests.

New Jersey also receives about 40 per-cent of its electricity from four nuclearpower plants, which pose significant risksfor public health and safety that are increas-ing as the plants grow older. For example,Oyster Creek, the oldest nuclear powerplant in the country, is scheduled to retirein 2009 when its 40-year license expires.Because of the risks of catastrophic acci-dents and the unsolved problem of nuclearwaste, nuclear power should remain off the


table as a solution to global warming pol-lution. If demand continues to grow, whichit has done for the last decade, replacingnuclear power would mean huge increasesin emissions if it is done with fossil power.

Real solutions exist for New Jersey tobuild on the progress the state has al-ready made in curbing global warmingemissions. In order to tackle emissions inthe transportation sector, the state mustimplement California’s forthcoming stan-dards for tailpipe global warming emissions.In the long-term, the state will also needto develop a coherent strategy to reduce ve-hicle-miles traveled.

In the electric power sector, New Jerseyneeds to build on the success of its renew-able energy standard and Clean EnergyProgram, which provides incentives forusing renewables and energy-efficientequipment. The state must:

• Ensure that the Regional Green-house Gas Initiative produces real

emissions reductions. New Jersey isworking with eight other northeasternstates to design a regional cap-and-trade program covering global warm-ing emissions from power plants. Thestate should ensure that the resultingcap requires reductions of at least 10percent below current levels by 2010,and 25 percent below current levelsby 2020.

• Complement the carbon cap byincreasing energy efficiency andclean energy. The Board of PublicUtilities is currently considering aproposal to increase the amount ofelectricity sold in the state that mustcome from clean, renewable sources.Increasing the standard to 20 percentby 2020, from the current level of 4percent by 2008, will accelerate thestate’s shift away from dirty anddangerous electricity sources andreduce global warming emissions.

Introduction 7

Introduction

G lobal warming poses a serious threatto the future of New Jersey. By burn-ing fossil fuels, our energy consump-

tion is causing global temperatures to in-crease. Further warming of the planet isinevitable unless society significantly re-duces emissions of gases that trap heat inthe earth’s atmosphere.

Since the late 19th century, global sur-face temperatures have increased by 0.7-1.4°F.1 Should global warming pollutioncontinue unabated, global temperaturescould rise by an additional 2.5-10.4°F overthe period 1990 to 2100.2 Other projec-tions suggest that temperatures in New Jer-sey could increase by 2-8°F by 2100.3

Dramatic change in the climate, as pre-dicted by scientists, could trigger severe,adverse effects for New Jersey’s publichealth, agriculture, economy, and even realestate. The U.S. Environmental ProtectionAgency describes the following possibleimpacts on New Jersey: 4

• Warming of 2-3°F could cause afivefold increase in heat-related deathsduring a typical summer.

• Warming could expand the habitat andpopulations of disease-carrying insects,like mosquitoes and ticks.

• Increased evaporation resulting fromwarmer temperatures could decreasewaterflow in streams and rivers, fromwhich New Jersey gets half of itspotable water.

• Changing climate could threatencoastal wetlands and the forested PineBarrens, ecosystems that providecritical habitat for rare and unusualspecies.

• Projections of the impact on NewJersey’s agricultural yield are mixed,though they indicate lowered totalacres of farmland and production.

• Rising sea level could damage NewJersey’s beaches and valuable coastalreal estate.

Around the world, global warming willchange ecosystems, increase droughts andflooding, allow diseases to spread to newplaces, disrupt food production, and


potentially undermine political stability bydisrupting the livelihoods of millions ofpeople.

Global warming is a worldwide problemthat must be addressed by reducing emis-sions of carbon dioxide and other globalwarming gases. Delaying action will makeit all the harder to stop. Globally, more than100 nations have entered into an agreementto reduce their greenhouse gas emissions.Because global warming will have tremen-dous worldwide impacts, major insurancecompanies, such as Swiss Re, see warmingas a threat to their financial future and now

urge nations and companies to reduce theirglobal warming emissions.

In the United States—the world’s lead-ing source of carbon dioxide emissions—the failure of the Bush administration andCongress to implement a national plan toreduce emissions increases the importanceof regional and state-level initiatives. Thegood news is that former GovernorMcGreevey’s decision to classify carbondioxide as an air pollutant created an op-portunity for New Jersey to forge ahead inreducing its contribution to globalwarming.

New Jersey’s Contributions to Global Warming 9

Carbon dioxide emitted from fossil fueluse is the leading cause of globalwarming. In 2001, the most recent

year for which comprehensive emissionsdata are available, fossil fuel use in NewJersey resulted in the release of 115.2 mil-lion metric tons of carbon dioxide(MMTCO2E, see note on units below).New Jersey’s carbon dioxide emissions aresignificant on a global scale, greater thanthe combined global warming impact ofPeru, Ecuador and Chile and equal to 0.5

New Jersey’s Contributionsto Global Warming

percent of total global emissions.5 In fact,New Jersey’s portion of the world’s carbondioxide emissions is about four times itsportion of the world’s population.6

The major sources of emissions in NewJersey are transportation and electricitygeneration, and New Jersey will need totackle these two sectors in order to reduceits effect on global warming. (See Figure 1.)Together, they were responsible for ap-proximately 70 percent of the state’s carbondioxide emissions in 2001.

Residential, 14%

Commercial, 8%

Electric Power, 16%

Transportation, 54%

Industrial, 7%

Figure 1. The Transportation and Electric Power Sectors Are Responsible for70 Percent of New Jersey’s In-State Emissions


The transportation sector is responsiblefor over half of the state’s emissions, andgasoline consumption alone is responsiblefor nearly 30 percent. Unfortunately, fuelconsumption continues to grow. If left un-checked, emissions increases in this sectorcould overwhelm emissions reductionsmade in other sectors.

The impact of electric power is biggerthan in-state emissions suggest, and couldincrease even further as nuclear powerplants are retired. A significant portion ofNew Jersey’s electricity demand is not cur-rently met with in-state electricity genera-tion, and must be imported fromneighboring states. Because of the regionalnature of the electricity market, severalnortheastern states are working together toestablish a regional carbon dioxide cap-and-trade program for power plants, known asthe Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative.

The residential, commercial and indus-trial sectors in New Jersey also make sig-nificant contributions to global warmingpollution. Emissions from each of thesesectors come primarily from natural gas use.In the residential sector, which contributes

14 percent of New Jersey’s in-state carbondioxide, natural gas use is responsible for10 percent of total in-state emissions, andheating oil is responsible for 3.5 percent.Commercial and industrial natural gas useis responsible for 6.5 percent and 4.1 per-cent of in-state emissions, respectively.

Transportation EmissionsAny plan to reduce New Jersey’s overallemissions must address fuel consumptionin the transportation sector. The transpor-tation sector emitted 62.7 MMTCO2E ofcarbon dioxide in 2001 – 54.4 percent ofNew Jersey’s total in-state emissions.

Motor vehicle fuels were responsible forthe bulk of these emissions. Transportationgasoline and diesel together accounted for38 percent of the state’s total emissions in2001, and emissions resulting from con-sumption of these fuels were 25 percenthigher than in 1991. (See Figure 2.)

Average daily consumption of both ofthese fuels has continued to rise since 2001,

25

30

35

40

45

50

Figure 2. Transportation Gasoline and Diesel Emissions Rose 25 Percent from1991 to 2001

MM

TCO

2E

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001


indicating that emissions have continued toincrease from the 2001 level. In 2004, gaso-line consumption was 9.2 percent higherthan in 2001.7 Diesel consumption duringthese 12 months was 16.1 percent higherthan in 2001.8 The degree of this increasein diesel consumption is likely due to a tem-porary spike: consumption in fall 2003 andwinter 2004 rose drastically. In the longterm though, consumption levels for bothfuels are on the rise. (See Figures 3 and 4.)

Note on UnitsThere are several ways to communicate quantities of global warming emissions.In this report, we communicate emissions in terms of “carbon dioxide equivalent”– in other words, the amount of carbon dioxide that would be required to create asimilar global warming effect. This makes it possible to compare different quanti-ties of various global warming gases – such as carbon dioxide, methane, soot, etc.– based on their impact on the climate. Specifically, we use million metric tons ofcarbon dioxide equivalent (MMTCO2E). Other studies frequently communicateemissions in terms of “carbon equivalent.” To translate from carbon dioxide equiva-lent to carbon equivalent, one can simply multiply by 0.273.

8,000

9,000

10,000

11,000

12,000

13,000

14,000

Jan-01 Jul-01 Jan-02 Jul-02 Jan-03 Jul-03 Jan-04 Jul-04

The increase in transportation fuel useis largely due to the increase in vehicle-miles traveled (VMT), coupled with con-tinued stagnation in vehicle fuel economy.More miles are being driven each year –and not just because of population growth.Total highway VMT in New Jersey in-creased by 8.2 percent from 1998 to 2003,and VMT per capita rose 3.8 percent.9 Ifunchecked, this trend could outweigh thebenefits of per-mile emissions reductions

Figure 3. Gasoline Consumption Has Generally Risen Since 2001

Tho

usan

d G

allo

ns

per

Day


0

5

10

15

20

25

1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001

Petroleum

Natural gas

Coal

Figure 5. In-State Electric Power Emissions Rose from 1991 to 2001

Figure 4. Diesel Consumption Has Generally Risen Since 2001

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

4,000

4,500

Jan-01 Jul-01 Jan-02 Jul-02 Jan-03 Jul-03 Jan-04 Jul-04

Tho

usan

d G

allo

ns

per

Day

MM

TCO

2E


resulting from cleaner cars, as well as emis-sions reductions made in other sectors.

Electric Power EmissionsElectric power generators in New Jerseyemitted 18.9 MMTCO2E of carbon diox-ide in 2001, accounting for 16 percent oftotal in-state emissions. This is the resultof meeting increasing electricity demandwith dirty forms of generation. (See Fig-ure 5.) Therefore, reducing the electricpower sector’s impact on global warmingcan take the route of reducing emissionsfrom current power plants, reducing de-mand, or shifting to cleaner electricitysources. A comprehensive and economicalsolution will require all three.

A majority of the state’s emissions comefrom a small handful of coal and naturalgas facilities.10 (See Table 1.) However, thisdoes not tell the full story of the impactthat electricity use in New Jersey has onglobal warming and the environment. Infact, less than half of New Jersey’s electric-ity is generated in-state from fossil fuels.

In 2002, total in-state generation waslarge enough to meet only 82.7 percent of

demand; over the last decade, in-state gen-eration has ranged from 56.4 percent ofdemand (in 1996) to 83.0 percent of de-mand (in 2000).11 The rest has been im-ported from outside the state, mostly froma similarly dirty generation mix that reliesprimarily on nuclear power, natural gas, andcoal.12 (See Figure 6.)

Nuclear power, although it produces farless carbon dioxide than fossil fuel genera-tion, should remain “off the table” as a so-lution to global warming pollution. Theenvironmental and public health risks in-herent in nuclear power are too great for itto be considered an acceptable alternativeto fossil fuel generation. The state shouldadvocate for, and begin to plan for, the or-derly retirement of New Jersey’s nuclearreactors. (See box, p. 15.)

Nationwide, there has been a trend to-ward natural gas generation, but it is not asafe bet for future generation, even thoughit is much less carbon-intensive than pe-troleum or coal. Although natural gas wasrelatively cheap throughout the 1990s,prices have fluctuated wildly in recentyears.15 (See Figure 7.) The price is likelyto keep rising and could experience evengreater fluctuations if, as the U.S. Energy

Facility Name Emissions (MMTCO2E) Primary Fuel

Hudson Generating Station 2.87 Coal

Mercer Generating Station 2.38 Coal

B L England 1.53 Coal

Bergen 1.48 Natural Gas

Deepwater 1.29 Coal

Linden Cogeneration Facility 0.62 Natural Gas

AES Red Oak 0.31 Natural Gas

Sewaren Generating Station 0.24 Natural Gas

Bayonne Plant Holding, LLC 0.21 Natural Gas

Gilbert Generating Station 0.18 Natural Gas/Oil

TOTAL 11.10

Table 1. Top 10 CO2 Emitting Power Plants in New Jersey, 200313


Information Administration projects, natu-ral gas demand rises by another 54 percentfrom 2001 to 2025.16

On the demand side, electricity con-sumption has steadily risen in New Jersey:from 1993 to 2003, demand increased by15 percent.18 (See Figure 8.) This has beendriven especially by increases in the resi-dential and commercial sectors as NewJersey’s population continues to grow.Solutions like the recently passed energy

Figure 6. The Electricity Generated In-State Comes from Dirty Sources14

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004

Figure 7. Average Annual Wellhead Price of Natural Gas Has RisenDramatically in Recent Years17

efficiency standards help address this grow-ing demand, but much more can be done.

Ultimately, New Jersey must plan forand encourage a long-term shift to zero-carbon renewable energy, like wind andsolar power. Future uncertainty in naturalgas supplies and the retirement of NewJersey’s nuclear plants will make it impera-tive that the state develop its renewable re-sources, as well as reduce – or at least slowthe growth in – electricity demand.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

Nuclear Natural gas Coal Petroleum Other

Do

llars

per

Th

ous

and

Cub

ic F

eet

Mill

ion

MW

h


The Dangers of Nuclear Power

Oyster Creek, the oldest nuclear plant in the country, is located in the fastestgrowing region in New Jersey. Ignoring public health and safety, as well aspublic opinion, Exelon Corporation is applying to the Nuclear Regulatory

Commission for a 20-year extension on Oyster Creek’s original 40-year license,which expires in 2009. For environmental and public health reasons, neither therelicensing of existing nuclear reactors nor the construction of new nuclear facili-ties should be considered as a means to reduce global warming emissions.

The risk of accidents is greatly increased as plants get older, and the possibilityof a terror attack makes these risks even more unacceptable. In 2001, the Unionof Concerned Scientists identified eight instances in just the previous 17 monthsin which nuclear reactors were forced to shut down due to age-related equipmentfailures.20 Also, a 2003 report by the Government Accountability Office foundsignificant weaknesses in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s oversight of se-curity at commercial nuclear reactors.21

Furthermore, nuclear power production results in the creation of tons of spentfuel, which must be held safely for tens of thousands of years without contaminat-ing the environment or the public. Nearly all U.S. nuclear reactors store waste onsite in water-filled pools at densities approaching those in reactor cores. The costof the disaster that would occur should coolant from the spent-fuel pools be losthas been estimated at as much as 54,000-143,000 extra deaths from cancer andevacuation costs of more than $100 billion.22 Centralized waste repositories, onthe other hand, would require the transport of high-level nuclear waste acrosshighways and rail lines within proximity of populated areas.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

Commercial Residential Industrial

Figure 8. Electricity Demand Rose by 15 Percent from 1993 to 200319M

illio

n M

Wh


I n September 2004, then-GovernorMcGreevey announced that the state ofNew Jersey would define carbon diox-

ide as an air pollutant, formally recogniz-ing the harmful impacts of global warmingpollution.23 This added carbon dioxide tothe list of air pollutants that the Depart-ment of Environmental Protection is ableto regulate, and opened the door for poli-cies to tackle pollution from all sectorsacross the state.

State officials must turn primarily to thetransportation and electric power sectorsin these efforts. The transportation sectoris responsible for over half of the state’scarbon dioxide emissions, and so presentsa necessary hurdle for reducing the state’scontribution to global warming. New Jer-sey also has huge opportunities right nowto implement policies to reduce emissionsfrom the electric sector, the second largestsource of emissions, which will put our stateon a cleaner, less polluting energy path.

TransportationNew Jersey has already taken steps that willhelp put cleaner cars on the road, but also

needs to tackle the growth of vehicle-milestraveled.

In January 2004, the New Jersey Legis-lature passed the Clean Cars Act, requir-ing the sale of advanced technology vehiclessuch as hybrids starting in 2009. The lawwill bring cleaner vehicles to New Jersey –reducing soot, smog and other toxic pol-lutants while also reducing global warm-ing emissions from cars – once theDepartment of Environmental Protectionfinalizes regulations for implementing it.The state should include California’s forth-coming global warming tailpipe standardsin the clean cars program. California’s AirResources Board estimates that these stan-dards could cost-effectively reduce averageglobal warming pollution by 34 percentfrom new cars and by 25 percent from newlight-trucks by 2016.24

However, emissions reductions resultingfrom cleaner cars could be swamped if thestate does not slow the growth of vehicle-miles traveled. Public policy needs to pro-vide transportation options other thandriving and incentives to choose those op-tions. This means increased access to masstransit and the design of communities thatlet people live near shops and jobs.

State and Regional Opportunities toReduce Global Warming Emissions

State and Regional Opportunities 17

Electric Power SectorSo far, New Jersey has taken many short-term steps to increase energy efficiency andclean, renewable energy. Now is the timeto implement a long-term plan to reducecarbon dioxide emissions from power plantsand shift to cleaner, more efficient energyuse. New Jersey has a political opportunitythis year to reduce our carbon dioxide emis-sions from the electric power sector asmomentum grows for regional and in-statesolutions.

Regional Greenhouse GasInitiativeThe first step in a serious effort to reduceNew Jersey’s power plant pollution is to seta limit on the amount of carbon dioxide thatpower plants are allowed to emit. New Jer-sey is taking part in the Regional Green-house Gas Initiative (RGGI), a process todesign a multi-state cap-and-trade programcovering global warming emissions frompower plants. The model rule is scheduledto be designed this year, at which point thenine northeastern states involved wouldhave to ratify it before it would take effect.

The RGGI process is important for tworeasons. First, it can be used to drive sig-nificant reductions in emissions from powerplants in the region. Second, RGGI canprovide valuable lessons and could ulti-mately be expanded to include additionalsectors of the economy or even additionalstates.

The most important decisions RGGIparticipants will make are over the level ofthe carbon cap and the integrity of the pro-gram. The power-sector carbon capadopted under RGGI should require emis-sion reductions of at least 10 percent be-low current levels by 2010 and 25 percentbelow current levels by 2020. Such goalsare clearly achievable with a sound cleanenergy strategy that includes efforts to pro-mote energy efficiency and the use of re-newable sources of energy.

To be effective, however, the carbon cap-and-trade must also have integrity. RGGIparticipants should, at least in the earlystages of the program, resist efforts to al-low “offsets” (in which emission reductionsoutside the region or in other economicsectors are allowed to substitute for in-re-gion power sector reductions) to count to-ward compliance with the carbon cap.25

In the event that the RGGI model ruledoes not produce significant reductions inemissions, New Jersey also has the optionof enacting caps on carbon dioxide emis-sions from in-state generation.

Complements to RGGI:Renewable Energy andEnergy EfficiencyA limit on carbon dioxide from powerplants is cost effective and easier to reachwhen complemented with policies that pro-mote energy efficiency and clean, renew-able energy development. In fact, a studyby Synapse Energy Economics found thata nationwide program to aggressively pur-sue energy efficiency and clean energywould save $35.8 billion a year by 2025,while resulting in 47 percent less annualcarbon dioxide than a business-as-usualapproach.26

Energy efficiency is the cheapest way toreduce global warming pollution frompower plants, because it reduces the needto generate and deliver electricity in the firstplace. In January 2005, the New JerseyLegislature passed a law to set new mini-mum energy efficiency standards for eightcommon appliances sold in the state, butwe have barely begun to tap our potentialfor energy efficiency.

New Jersey should continue to adoptminimum energy efficiency standards fornew appliances, and update its buildingcodes so that new buildings in the state areachieving maximum levels of efficiency.This will reduce carbon dioxide pollutionby reducing electricity demand, and willalso cut emissions from the residential and


commercial sectors by reducing energy lostin heating and cooling homes and busi-nesses.

Energy efficiency must be accompaniedby increased clean energy development.Currently, New Jersey receives less than 1percent of its energy from clean, renewablesources, though that percentage will in-crease to 4 percent by 2008 due to a provi-sion adopted when the state deregulated itselectric power industry in 1999. The stateshould keep moving in this direction byrequiring that a larger percentage of thestate’s electricity come from wind, solar andother renewables. Recently, the Center forEnergy, Economic, and EnvironmentalPolicy at Rutgers University showed that

requiring clean energy to make up 20 per-cent of New Jersey’s energy mix would havebenefits including reducing global warm-ing pollution, decreasing other air and wa-ter pollution from power plants, andcreating jobs in the state; any detrimentalimpact on economic growth would be neg-ligible.27

In 2003, the Governor’s Renewable En-ergy Task Force recognized the long-termbenefits of clean energy requirements, andrecommended that the BPU adopt a 20percent clean energy requirement by 2020.The BPU should adopt a 20 percent by2020 policy without delay, a requirementthat will help to lock in carbon dioxide pol-lution reductions for years to come.

Methodology 19

This report relies primarily on informa-tion supplied by the U.S. Energy In-formation Administration (EIA). This

analysis also focused exclusively on carbondioxide emissions from energy use, anddoes not include emissions of other globalwarming gases.

Based on data on energy consumptionobtained from the EIA at www.eia.doe.gov/e m e u / s t a t e s / s e p _ f u e l / n o t e s /_fuelnotes_multistate.html, we are able tocalculate comprehensive carbon dioxideemissions through 2001. The comma-de-limited files provide consumption data byfuel category for all years 1960 through2001. The data is broken down by state,economic sector, and specific fuel.

To calculate carbon dioxide emissions,energy use for each fuel in each sector (inBTU) was multiplied by carbon coefficientsused in EIA, Emissions of Greenhouse Gasesin the United States 2002. Several additionalassumptions were made:

• Carbon dioxide emissions due toelectricity imported into New Jerseywere not included in emissionestimates.

• Combustion of wood was excludedfrom the analysis, per EIA,

Documentation for Emissions of Green-house Gases in the United States 2002,241. The exclusion is justified by EIAon the basis that wood and otherbiofuels obtain carbon through atmo-spheric uptake and that their combus-tion does not cause a net increase ordecrease in the overall carbon “budget.”

• Electricity generated from nuclear andhydroelectric sources was assumed tohave a carbon coefficient of zero.

• Carbon emissions from the non-combustion use of fossil fuels in theindustrial and transportation sectorswere derived from estimates of thenon-fuel portion of fossil energy useand the carbon storage factors fornon-fuel use presented in U.S. EPA,Comparison of EPA State InventorySummaries and State-Authored Inventories,downloaded from yosemite.epa.gov/oar/globalwarming.nsf/UniqueKeyLookup/JSIN5DTQKG/$File/pdfBcomparison1.pdf, 31 July2003. To preserve the simplicity ofanalysis and to attain consistency withfuture-year estimates, industrialconsumption of asphalt and road oil,kerosene, lubricants and other

Methodology


petroleum, and transportation con-sumption of aviation gasoline andlubricants were classified as “otherpetroleum” and assigned a carboncoefficient of 20 MMTCE per quadBTU for that portion that is consumedas fuel.

In recent years, EIA has revised its meth-ods for estimating energy consumption toreflect changes in the structure of the elec-tric industry and to improve overall dataquality. EIA’s revised estimates for state-level energy consumption were first issued

in the 2001 version of the State EnergyData reports. Where applicable, this reportuses these revised figures.

The percentages of various energy uses’contributions to 2001 emissions are basedon calculations made from EIA data.

In order to see how transportation emis-sions have changed since 2001, we look atmore recent fuel consumption data fromEIA, Transportation Fuels: Prime SupplierSales in New Jersey, downloaded fromw w w. e i a . d o e . g o v / e m e u / s t a t e s /oilsales_trans/oilsales_trans_nj.html, 28March 2005.

Endnotes 21

1. Working Group I, Intergovernmental Panelon Climate Change, IPCC Third AssessmentReport – Climate Change 2001; Summary for PolicyMakers, The Scientific Basis, 2001.

2. Ibid.

3. Office of Policy, Planning and Evaluation,U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, ClimateChange and New Jersey, September 1997.

4. Ibid.

5. United Nations, Department of Economicand Social Affairs, Millennium Indicators Database,downloaded from millenniumindicators.un.org/unsd, 3 February 2005.

6. United Nations, Department of Economicand Social Affairs, Millennium Indicators Database,downloaded from millenniumindicators.un.org/unsd, 3 February 2005; U.S. Census Bureau,2003 American Community Survey: New Jersey,downloaded from factfinder.census.gov, 7 March2005.

7. Recent gasoline and diesel consumption fromEnergy Information Administration, Transporta-tion Fuels: Prime Supplier Sales in New Jersey,downloaded from www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/states/oilsales_trans/oilsales_trans_nj.html, 28 March2005.

8. Ibid.

9. Bureau of Transportation Statistics, StateTransportation Statistics 2004, downloaded fromwww.bts.gov/publications state_transportation_profiles/state_transportation_statistics_2004, 21 January 2005.

10. Based on data from U.S. EnvironmentalProtection Agency, Emissions & GenerationResource Integrated Database (eGRID) spread-sheets, year 2000 data, downloaded fromwww.epa.gov/cleanenergy/egrid, 20 January 2005.11. In-state generation: Energy InformationAdministration, 1990-2002 Net Generation byState by Type of Producer by Energy Source (EIA-906) (spreadsheet), downloaded fromwww.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epa/generation_state.xls, 2 February 2005. Electric-ity demand: Energy Information Administration,Historical 1990 through Current Month RetailSales, Revenues, and Average Retail Price ofElectricity by State and by Sector (spreadsheet),downloaded from www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/page/sales_revenue.xls, 2 February 2005.12. U.S. Department of Energy, EnergyInformation Administration, 1990-2002 NetGeneration by State by Type of Producer by EnergySource (EIA-906) (spreadsheet), downloadedfrom www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epa/generation_state.xls, 2 February 2005.13. Based on data from U.S. EnvironmentalProtection Agency, Clean Air Markets – Data andMaps, downloaded from http://cfpub.epa.gov/gdm/index.cfm?fuseaction=iss.emissions, 7 March 2005.14. See note 12.15. U.S. Department of Energy, EnergyInformation Administration, U.S. Natural GasPrices, downloaded from tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/ng/ng_pri_sum_dcu_nus_m.htm, 7 March 2005.

Endnotes


16. U.S. Department of Energy, EnergyInformation Administration, U.S. Natural GasMarkets: Recent Trends and Prospects for the Future,May 2001.

17. See note 15.

18. Energy Information Administration,Historical 1990 through Current Month RetailSales, Revenues, and Average Retail Price ofElectricity by State and by Sector (spreadsheet),downloaded from www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/page/sales_revenue.xls, 2 February2005.

19. Ibid.

20. David Lochbaum, Union of ConcernedScientists, testimony before the Clean Air,Wetlands, Private Property and Nuclear SafetySubcommittee of the U.S. Senate Committee onEnvironment and Public Works, 8 May 2001.

21. U.S. General Accounting Office, NuclearRegulatory Commission: Oversight of Security atCommercial Nuclear Power Plants Needs to BeStrengthened, September 2003.

22. Robert Alvarez, Jan Beya, et al, “ReducingHazards from Stored Spent Power-Reactor Fuelin the United States,” Science and Global Security,2003, 11:1-51.

23. Alex Nussbaum, “Governor Classifies CO2as Pollutant,” The Record (Bergen County, NJ), 17September 2004.

24. California Environmental ProtectionAgency, Air Resources Board, Staff Report: InitialStatement of Reasons for Proposed Rulemaking,

Public Hearing to Consider Adoption of Regulationsto Control Greenhouse Gas Emissions from MotorVehicles, 6 August 2004. Earlier analysis byCARB suggested that even deeper cuts in vehicleemissions could be made more quickly. CARB’sinitial draft proposal for implementation of thestandards called for cost-effective emissionreductions of 22 percent from cars and 24percent from light trucks in the near term. Overthe medium term (2012 to 2014), cost-effectivereductions of 32 percent for cars and 30 percentfor light-trucks were deemed feasible. Inaddition, the standards were assumed to bephased in much more quickly than underCARB’s final draft proposal. See CaliforniaEnvironmental Protection Agency, Air Re-sources Board, Draft Staff Proposal Regarding theMaximum Feasible and Cost-Effective Reduction ofGreenhouse Gas Emissions from Motor Vehicles, 14June 200425. For further discussion of offsets, see TonyDutzik and Rob Sargent, National Associationof State PIRGs, Stopping Global Warming Beginsat Home: The Case Against the Use of Offsets in aRegional Power Sector Cap-and-Trade Program,September 2004.26. Bruce Biewald, et al, Synapse EnergyEconomics, A Responsible Electricity Future: AnEfficient, Cleaner and Balanced Scenario for the USElectricity System, 11 June 2004.27. Center for Energy, Economic and Environ-mental Policy, Rutgers University, EconomicImpact Analysis of New Jersey’s Proposed 20%Renewable Portfolio Standard, 8 December 2004.

Har

riet

Eck

stei

n G

raph

ic D

esig

n

Global Warming Pollution in New Jersey - Frontier Group · crease. Further warming of the planet is...

Documents

Transcript of Global Warming Pollution in New Jersey - Frontier Group · crease. Further warming of the planet is...