Technical and Economic Feasibility of Deep Decarbonization in the United States
| Author | James H. Williams, David Ismay, Ryan A. Jones, Gabe Kwok, and Ben Haley |
| Pages | 21-68 |
Page 21
I. Introduction
Scientic assessments of the eart h’s climate conclude that
limiting the anthropogenic increase in global mean sur-
face temperature to less than 2 degrees Celsius (<2°C)
will require global net greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions
to approach zero by the second half of the 21st century.1
For industrialized countries, t his implies a reduction on
Authors’ Note: e authors wish to acknowledge the other principal
co-authors of the original U.S. Deep Decarbonization Pathways
Project studies on which this chapter is based, including Fredrich
Kahrl, Jack Moore, Haewon McJeon, Andrew D. Jones, and
Margaret Torn, also contributing authors Sam Borgeson, Jamil
Farbes, Elaine Hart, Amber Mahone, Katie Pickrell, Rich Plevin,
Snuller Price, and Alexandra von Meier.
the order of 80% below 1990 levels by 2050 (the “80 x
50” target),2 the long-term target announced by the
United States in Copenhagen in 20093 and rea rmed in
1. I P C C, C C
2014: S R. C W G I, II,
III F A R I P
C C, S P M, tbl. SPM.1 (2015),
available at http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/syr/SYR_AR5_FI-
NAL_full_wcover.pdf.
2. e “80 x 50” goal is not specically described by Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change (IPCC) reports, but is based on an interpretation of IPCC
results that incorporates a number of scientic and political assumptions.
It has been adopted as a long-term goal by the G8, the European Union,
and a number of industrialized country governments, including the United
States under the Obama Administration prior to the Copenhagen climate
summit in 2009.
3. Press Release, e White House, President to Attend Copenhagen Climate
Talks (Nov. 25, 2009), available at https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/
the-press-oce/president-attend-copenhagen-climate-talks. See also John M.
Broder, Obama to Go to Copenhagen With Emissions Target,” N.Y. T, Nov.
Chapter 1
Technical and Economic Feasibility of Deep
Decarbonization in the United States
by James H. Williams, David Ismay, Ryan A. Jones, Gabe Kwok, and Ben Haley
Summary
e Deep Decarbonization Pathways Project (DDPP) is an international research collaboration that explores how
individual countries can reduce their greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions consistent with limiting global warming
to 2° Celsius (C) or less. e term “deep decarbonization” refers to dramatic reductions in carbon dioxide (CO2)
emissions from fossil fuel combustion, which is the primary global challenge in reducing GHG emissions. e
DDPP consists of independent research teams from 16 countries who do not necessarily reect the policy posi-
tions of their national governments. From the outset, the DDPP aimed to steer the focus of climate policy away
from limited incremental emissions reductions toward the complete transformation of the energy system. To this
end, the DDPP teams emphasized an analytical approach that demonstrates why near-term decisions about long-
lived infrastructure investments must be made with the ultimate emissions goals in mind. is chapter starts with
a brief background of the DDPP and its inuence on subsequent decarbonization studies and climate policy dis-
cussions. e remaining sections describe the study conducted for the United States by the U.S. DDPP research
team, including the main objectives and research questions, the modeling approach employed, the scenarios
explored, and the main ndings of the project. ese scenarios include a mixed case in which energy eciency,
renewable energy, nuclear power, and carbon capture and sequestration are used to achieve deep decarbonization.
e ndings include detailed analytical results describing the sector-by-sector transition to deep decarbonization,
along with general principles and quantitative benchmarks for deep decarbonization of energy, and mitigation of
non-energy and non-CO2 GHGs. e nal sections of the chapter identify key policy cha llenges and oer recom-
mendations for eective policymaking.
Page 22 Legal Pathways to Deep Decarbonization in the United States
Paris in 2015.4 e U.S. research team of the Deep Decar-
bonization Pathways Project (DDPP) has produced two
reports —Pathways to Deep Decarbonization in the United
States5 and Policy Implications of Deep Decarbonization in
the United States6—that assess in detail what achieving an
80 x 50 target in the United States will require, with par-
ticular emphasis on reducing carbon dioxide (CO2) from
energy use. ese reports (“the U.S. study”) were designed
to address four research questions:
1. Is achieving this target technically feasible, given
realistic constraints?
2. What changes in physical infra structure and tech-
nology are required?
3. What is the expected cost of these cha nges?
4. What are the policy and political economy implica-
tions of these changes?
is chapter summarizes the main nding s and methods
of the U.S. study, which provides the principal basis for the
scenarios whose legal and polic y challenges are explored by
the chapter authors in the present volume. In response to
the research questions above, the study nds that achiev-
ing the 80 x 50 target is technically feasible, at a net cost
for supplying and using energy equivalent to 0.8% of gross
domestic product (GDP), with an uncertainty range of
-0.2% to +1.8%. ese costs do not include non-energy
benets such as avoided damages from climate change or
air pollution. is is demonstrated for four distinct tech-
nology scenarios, in which emissions goa ls are achieved
within U.S. borders and without the use of international
osets, by replacing current infrastructure and equip-
ment at the end of its nancial lifetime with ecient and
low-carbon infrastructure and equipment, using existing
commercial and near-commercial technologies. Each of
these scenarios delivers the sa me level of economic growth,
industrial production, and energy serv ices as a business-as-
usual case ba sed on U.S. government long-term forecasts.
e detailed ndings of the study challenge a number
of common assumptions in energy and climate policy,
including the roles of natural gas as a transition strategy,
25, 2009, at https://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/26/us/politics/26climate.
html.
4. John Kerry, China, America, and our Warming Planet, N.Y. T, Nov. 11,
2014, at https://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/12/opinion/john-kerry-our-
historic-agreement-with-china-on-climate-change.html.
5. J H. W ., P D D
U S, U.S. 2050 R, V 1: T R (Deep
Decarbonization Pathways Project & Energy and Environmental Economics,
Inc., 2015), available at http://usddpp.org/downloads/2014-technical-report.
pdf [hereinafter DDPP T R].
6. V 2: P I D D
U S (Deep Decarbonization Pathways Project & Energy and
Environmental Economics, Inc., 2015), available at http://usddpp.org/
downloads/2015-report-on-policy-implications.pdf [hereinafter DDPP
P R].
fuel switching relative to energy e ciency in building s and
transportation, energy storage and hydrogen (H2) produc-
tion in low-carbon electricity system operations, carbon
pricing, a nd planning.
It is useful to understand some thi ngs that the U.S. study
is not. It shows some pathways by which an 80 x 50 target
might plausibly be achieved, but it is not an exclusive list;
other scenarios are possible, both for emissions reductions
target levels and the mea ns of achieving them. It calculates
net costs for the four scenarios considered, but does not
claim these are optima l from a cost perspective. It involves
certain al locations of resources and costs, for exa mple by
sector or end use; dierent allocations are possible. It does
not explore major changes in industrial processes or mate-
rial uses, though suc h changes could have signicant emis-
sions benets. It is not a legal or policy study per se, and
contains no embedded assumptions about carbon prices
or regulations; rather it raises the question of what kinds
of laws and policies would be needed to achieve the sorts
of infrastructure changes, technology deployments, con-
sumer uptake, and coordination across sectors indicated by
these results. e needed laws and policies are the subject
of the rest of this book. e U.S. study does not assume
dramatic change s in behavior and consumption patterns,
though these are val id topics to explore (as is done in Chap-
ter 3). Finally, it is not a study of GDP or jobs impacts of
deep decarbonization, though, as discussed later, it can be
and has been used as t he basis for such a study.
II. Background
e DDPP is an international research collaboration
that explores how individual countries can limit GHG
emissions consistent with <2°C, with emphasis on steeply
reducing CO2 emissions from fossil fuel combustion,
a transition referred to as “deep decarbonization.” e
DDPP consists of research teams from 16 countries
representing three-fourths of current global CO2 emis-
sions: Australia, Brazi l, Canada, China, France, Ger-
many, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, Mexico, Russia,
South Africa, South Korea, t he United Kingdom, and
the United States.7 e research teams a re independent
and do not necessarily reect the policy positions of their
national governments. Starting in t he fall of 2013, the
teams developed road maps of potential routes, or “path-
ways,” to deep decarbonization in their respective coun-
tries.8 e DDPP studies are distinguished from other
7. e DDPP was inaugurated in 2013 by the Sustainable Development Solu-
tions Network, directed by Jerey Sachs, and the Institute for Sustainable
Development and International Relations, directed by Laurence Tubiana,
with the support of United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon.
8. Individual DDPP country pathways studies, along with reports synthesiz-
ing results across countries, are available on the DDPP website at http://
deepdecarbonization.org.
Technical and Economic Feasibility of Deep Decarbonization in the United States Page 23
low-carbon transition studies both in goa ls and execution.
From the outset, the DDPP aimed to change the focus
of climate policy discussions from incremental emissions
adjustments to transformation of the energy system, in
a way that obliges near-term decisions about long-lived
infrastructure investments to be made with the ultimate
emissions goals in mind. is objective is operational-
ized through backca sting, an approach that starts with a
scientically based objective (e.g., an 80 x 50 target) and
works backward to understand the sequence of physical
changes required to achieve it. is enta ils bottom-up
assessments of sectoral infrastructure and tech nology
needs over time, at a level of detail sucient to move
policy beyond the setting of aspirational targets toward
grappling with the concrete challenges of implementa-
tion. is detailed, country-specic analy tical approach
is well-aligned with the similarly bottom-up architecture
of post-Copenhagen climate policy, based on voluntary
emissions reduction commitments—such a s nationally
determined contributions —made by i ndividua l coun-
tries, rather than centra lly allocated. e DDPP country
teams set their own emissions ta rgets, and their ana lyses
variously take into account national conditions, preexist-
ing infra structure, local resource endowments, preferred
policy mechanisms, and aspirations for socioeconomic
development. i s emphasis on local k nowledge a nd
preferences contrasts sharply with the top-down model-
ing and generic assumptions on which past climate polic y
discussions have often been based.
e DDPP has had a considerable impact on the global
climate discussion, evident for example in references to
long-term decarbonization in the U.S.-China joint agree-
ments of 2014 and 2015, in U.S.-Canada joint agreements
in 2016, and in the ubiquitous use of the terms “deep
decarbonization” and “pathways” in many post-Paris con-
texts.9 e DDPP’s philosophy and approach are felt in
Paris Agreement Article 4.19, which acknowledges the
importance of transparent pathways analysis by calling on
all Parties “to formulate and communicate long-term low
greenhouse gas emission development strategies” no later
than 2020.10 Since Paris, several countries—including
the United States, Canada, Mexico, and Germa ny—have
published mid-century strategies (MCS) as a demonstra-
tion of climate leadership. e U.S. and Canadian DDPP
9. e text of the “U.S.-Canada Joint Statement on Climate, Energy, and
Arctic Leadership” can be found at https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/
the-press-oce/2016/03/10/us-canada-joint-statement-climate-energy-
and-arctic-leadership.
10. Conference of the Parties, Adoption of the Paris Agreement, art. 4.19, U.N.
Doc. FCCC/CP/2015/L.9/Rev/1 (Dec. 12, 2015). e text of the Paris
Agreement can be found on the United Nations Framework Convention on
Climate Change website at http://unfccc.int/paris_agreement/items/9485.
php. Laurence Tubiana, co-founder of the DDPP and French ambassador
for climate change during the 21st Conference of Parties, played a key role
in the formulation and adoption of Article 4.19.
studies were explicit points of reference in the development
of both countries’ MCS.11
In addition to helping shape the U.S. government’s
MCS, U.S. DDPP research was the principal basis for a
business-oriented report on U.S. low-carbon strategy by the
Risky Business g roup, From Risk to Return: Investing in a
Clean Energy Economy,12 and America’s Clean Energy Fron-
tier: e Pathway to a Safer Climate Future,13 by the Natu-
ral Resources Defense Council. e U.S. DDPP research
team has also conducted deep decarbonization pathways
studies in collaboration with severa l state governments,
including California,14 New York, and Washington,15 as
well as a regional study for the northeastern U.S.16 ese
studies, similar in methods and ndings to the U.S. study,
are playing signicant roles in energy and climate policy
development in t hese state s.
III. Objectives
e U.S. study is based on a detailed year-by-year analy-
sis of the changes in U.S. physical inf rastructure required
to achieve deep decarbonization by mid-century. Using
transparent and conservative economic and engineering
assumptions (see Table 1), the authors built multiple sce-
narios to understand the technical requirements and costs
of dierent technology alternatives— or “pathways”—for
meeting the 80 x 50 goal.
e main objective of this work is to reorient climate
policy toward implementation, especially of transforma-
tional changes in t he energy system. e emphasis on
physical stocks, high sectoral granularity, and long time
horizon in the analysis supports this objective in three
ways. First, it aims to provide policymakers a nd busi-
nesses with a more detailed understa nding of what deep
11. T W H, U S M-C S D
D (2016), available at https://obamawhitehouse.archives.
gov/sites/default/les/docs/mid_century_strategy_report-nal.pdf. E-
C C C, C’ M-C L-T
L-G G D S (2016), available at http://
unfccc.int/les/focus/long-term_strategies/application/pdf/canadas_mid-
century_long-term_strategy.pdf.
12. R B, F R R: I C E
E (2016), available at https://riskybusiness.org/site/assets/uploads/
sites/5/2016/10/RBP-FromRiskToReturn-WEB.pdf.
13. V G A L, A’ C E F-
: T P S C F (2017), available at https://
www.nrdc.org/resources/americas-clean-energy-frontier-pathway-safer-
climate-future.
14. Energy and Environmental Economics, Inc., Public Proceedings—Summary
of the California State Agencies’ PATHWAYS Project: Long-Term GHG Reduc-
tion, https://www.ethree.com/public_proceedings/summary-california-state-
agencies-pathways-project-long-term-greenhouse-gas-reduction-scenarios/
(last visited Oct. 6, 2017).
15. Washington Governor Jay Inslee, Deep Decarbonization, http://www.governor.
wa.gov/issues/issues/energy-environment/deep-decarbonization (last visited
Oct. 6, 2017).
16. J H. W ., D D N
U S E C W H-Q (2018),
available at http://unsdsn.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/2018.04.05-
Northeast-Deep-Decarbonization-Pathways-Study-Final.pdf.
To continue reading
Request your trial