ECONOMIC AND GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS IMPACTS OF ALTERNATIVE TRANSPORTATION SCENARIOS FOR CANADIAN CITIES
CERI Study by Ganesh Doluweera, Hossein Hosseini, Anna Vypovska, and Mohammad Ahmadi
Transportation is an energy service that is essential for the functioning of social and economic systems. Fuels consumed for transportation — mostly gasoline and diesel — are almost exclusively derived from fossil energy sources. As such the transportation sector is a significant contributor to anthropogenic greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. At 25% of total emissions, the transportation sector is the second largest contributor to Canada’s GHG emissions. The vehicles being a large stock of dispersed GHG emitters and the fact that the demand for transportation is growing in proportion to population growth have made the transportation sector a challenging sector to reduce GHG emissions.
While transportation emissions are from dispersed vehicles, most of the GHG emissions from transportation, particularly those from passenger transportation is concentrated in urban centers. This has led many cities around the world, including several in Canada, to explore alternative options to reduce GHG emissions from transportation. These options include fuel and vehicle technology switching, improving vehicle fuel economy, changing operating practices, and reducing transportation demand through urban planning. This study developed an analysis to provide energy, economic and GHG emissions implications of alternative solutions to reduce fuel demand and emissions for passenger and freight transportation in Calgary, Ottawa, Halifax, and Yellowknife.
A key difference in this study in comparison to others related to transportation is the focus on energy systems. We consider the impacts on the oil supply, electricity supply, and distribution networks. Table E.1 lists the total transportation energy demand for urban passenger and freight transportation in each of the four cities. We find that all options have the potential to reduce transportation fuel demand and by doing so, reduce GHG emissions.
• Urban densification can potentially reduce the overall energy consumption by about 1-2% in 2020, 2-5% by 2030, and 4-8% by 2050, depending on the city.
• Overall fuel economy improvement in conventional passenger vehicle stock – mostly gasoline-fueled – under the Stringent CAFE1 scenario can achieve up to approximately 21% fuel demand reduction in all four cities except Yellowknife. In Yellowknife, the fuel demand reduction potential under the Stringent CAFE scenario is up to 10%.
• Under the Alternative Vehicles scenario, the vehicle stock transitions to one dominated by battery-powered electric vehicles (BEVs) for private vehicles and public transit vehicles and one dominated by fuel cell electric vehicles (FCEVs) for urban freight vehicles. This reduces transportation fuel consumption by up to 40-46% by 2050 depending on the city. The overall primary energy consumption and GHG emissions under this scenario depend on overall efficiency and GHG intensity of the electricity system. Total electrical energy demanded by BEV passenger vehicle fleets in respective cities would increase by less than 5% in Calgary, 6% in Halifax, 2% in Ottawa, and 3% in Yellowknife. However, the peak demand impact can be as high as a 25% increase.
• Use of Fuel Cell Electric Vehicles, fueled by hydrogen from electricity or natural gas, has the advantage of higher range and lower refuelling times that are important for freight vehicles. The analysis showed high-efficiency gains due to FCEV adaptation. The FCEV-based freight vehicles (0.8 megajoule [MJ]/tonne-km) in the freight sector reduces the fuel usage by at least half compared to the reference case (1.7 MJ/tonne-km).
Compared to the BAU, all three alternative transportation scenarios we assessed deliver GHG emissions reduction. The exact amount depends on the city and scenario.
In all four cities, the GHG emissions reduction potential under the Urban Densification scenario is about 5% in all years compared to the BAU. The Stringent CAFE scenario sees emissions reduction potential of up to 20% in all periods. GHG emissions reduction potential under the The macroeconomic impact assessment shows that the decline in gasoline sales under Alternative Vehicles scenario leads to a notable decline in provincial GDP and jobs. However, there are also gains due to higher electricity investment and sales.
The urban transportation systems we utilize today are a result of several decades of technical evolution, infrastructure developments, and public as well as private investments. Making changes to such a complex system requires challenging and integrated technical and policy solutions from the business community and government.
The authors of this report would like to extend their thanks and sincere gratitude to all CERI staff involved in the production and editing of the material, including but not limited to Allan Fogwill, Dinara Millington and Megan Murphy. The authors would also like to thank the following individuals and institutions for providing data and helpful insights for this study:
Professor David Layzell and Mr. Ralph Torrie, Canadian Energy Systems Analysis Research (CESAR) Initiative, The University of Calgary
Ms. Nicole LeBlanc and Mr. Grant Freudenthaler, Analytics & Forecasting Team, Alberta Electric System Operator (AESO)
BC Hydro
Mr. Chuck Farmer and Mr. Bashir Bhana, Planning, Legal, Indigenous Relations and Regulatory Affairs, Independent Electricity System Operator (IESO)
Mr. Steven Pacifico and Mr. Derek May, Energy Exchange
Mr. Bryan Gormley, Canadian Gas Association