|
|
|
|
Project Title:
|
Potential Energy Savings and Greenhouse Gas Reductions from Transportation
|
| PIN:
|
SASP-L-07-03-A
|
Major Unit:
|
Transportation Research Board
|
Sub Unit:
|
Studies and Special Programs Division
|
RSO:
|
Menzies, Thomas
|
|
|
Subject/Focus Area:
|
|
|
Meeting 2
May 1, 2008 - May 2, 2008
Arnold and Mabel Beckman Center
100 Academy Dr.
Irvine, California
|
|
If you would like to attend the sessions of this meeting that are open
to the public or need more information please contact:
|
| Contact Name:
Tom Menzies
|
| Email:
tmenzies@nas.edu
|
| Phone:
202-334-1837
|
Fax:
|
|
Agenda:
Board Room
9:00 Open Session:
Explanation of Meeting Goals and Structure Chairman, Staff
The Statement of Task for the study calls for the committee to “develop scenarios to illustrate potential savings over a 25-50 year time horizon for the United States” and to “estimate the potential energy savings and greenhouse gas reductions that might be realized from transportation.” The objective of this meeting, therefore, is to use several simplified scenarios to help identify where the greatest needs, opportunities, and challenges lie for controlling GHG emissions from transportation. This information should prove helpful when examining policy options during subsequent meetings.
The agenda consists of a series of discussions centered on a half dozen scenarios covering the next 20 to 40 years. Each scenario posits changes in one or more of the following factors affecting GHG emissions—a) the total amount of personal travel and freight traffic, b)the modal split of this travel/traffic, c) energy efficiency/intensity of each mode, and d) the GHG content of the energy used in each mode.
The first scenario, offered as a reference case, assumes that each of the above components will change in accordance with relevant current and anticipated trends. We use the DOE’s Annual Energy Outlook 2008 for form this reference case. The five alternative scenarios assume a 10 and 20 percent differential from the baseline during the 20- to 40- yr time horizon. (There is no quantitative basis for the 10% to 20% reductions—they are simply “conversation starters.")
One- or two-hour discussions will be devoted to each of the alternative scenarios. Using a spreadsheet model and data from DOE, George Eads will provide estimates of the GHG impacts of scenarios (as possible, given data limitations). Committee members with expertise pertinent to each scenario will introduce and lead committee discussions on
• Whether growth rates, expectations, and assumptions in the reference case are reasonable and compare favorably with other “mode or sector-specific” projections.
• What combinations of changes in technology, operations, and behavior would be needed to bring about the 10-20% reduction relative to the reference case? (starting with the most likely or least costly ones)
• What are the obstacles to, and opportunities for, such change?
• Identify candidate policies to prompt/facilitate changes?
Several experts from the UC Irvine Institute for Transportation Studies have been invited to join in the scenario discussions and present their own related research.
9:10 Overview of Spreadsheet Model, Data, and Assumptions George Eads
9:30 Scenario 1: “Reference Case” George Eads
10:00 Scenario 2: Reduction in Light Duty Vehicle (LDV) Travel by 10-20%
Implications for GHG George Eads
“What would it take” to further this outcome through a:
o reduction in local personal travel?
o shift in local travel from LDV to transit?
o shift in intercity travel from LDV to intercity rail?
Lead Committee Member: Brian Taylor Guest Experts: Ken Small, Marlon Boarnet
11:15 Break
11:30 LDV Fuel Price Elasticities and the Rebound Effect Ken Small
12:15 Lunch
1:15 Scenario 3: Reduction in Heavy Duty Vehicle (HDV) traffic by 10-20%
Implications for GHG George Eads
“What would it take” to further this outcome through a:
o reduction in the volume of freight normally moved by truck?
o shift in freight from truck to rail and/or barge?
Lead Committee Members: Lance Grenzeback, John Samuels
2:00 Scenario 4: Increase in energy efficiency of LDV and HDV by 10-20%
Implications for GHG George Eads
“What would it take” to further this outcome through improvements in the:
o energy efficiency of light duty vehicles?
o energy efficiency of heavy duty vehicles?
o operating efficiency of highways?
o efficiency of trucking operations?
Lead Committee Members: John German, Tony Greszler Guest Expert: Stephen Ritchie
3:45 Break
4:00 Scenario 5: Reduce energy use by air transport by 10-20%
Implications for GHG George Eads
“What would it take” to further this outcome through improvements in the:
o energy efficiency of aircraft?
o operating efficiency of air carriers and the air transport system?
Lead Committee Members: Ian Waitz, Jack Fearnsides
4:45 Scenario 6: Reduce the carbon content of energy by 10-20%
Implications for GHG George Eads
“What would it take” to further this outcome for:
A. LDV?
B. HDV?
C. Aircraft?
D. Water and other modes?
Lead Committee Members: Dan Sperling, Jamie Winebrake Guest Expert: Don Paul
5:45 Wrap-Up
6:00 Reception for All Members and Guest Participants
6:30 Dinner, Executive Dining Room, Beckman Center
Dinner Speaker: Dr. Donald Paul, VP and Chief Technology Officer, Chevron
“Evolution of Fuels”
|
Closed Session Summary Posted After the Meeting
The following committee members were present at the closed sessions of the meeting:
E. Frankel
V. Arroyo
G. Eads
J. German
L. Grenzeback
A Greszler
M. Hanemann
H. Lee
V. McConnel
J. Samuels
D. Sperling
B. Taylor
K. Taylor
I. Waitz
J. Winebrake
The following topics were discussed in the closed sessions:
The committee discussed tentative findings, the study approach, organization of the report, and plans for the third meeting.
The following materials (written documents) were made available to the committee in the closed sessions:
none
Date of posting of Closed Session Summary:
May 6, 2008
|
|
|
