ML14304A703

Contingency Plan Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement, Part 3 of 4

ML14304A703
Person / Time
Site:	Indian Point
Issue date:	09/10/2013
From:	Ecology & Environment, State of NY, Dept of Public Service
To:	Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, State of NY, Public Service Commission
Shared Package
ML14304A441	List: ML14304A693 ML14304A694 ML14304A696 ML14304A699 ML14304A700 ML14304A701 ML14304A703 ML14304A704 ML14304A748 ML14304A751 ML14304A752
References
F-2012-1028
Download: ML14304A703 (60)

Text

The Role of Micrognds Microgrids, or neighborhood-scale networks of shared DG resources, have the potential to provide both resiliency benefits and reduce emissions, but have very few precedents in New York City. After Hurricane Sandy, while lower Manhattan was without power, a cluster of New York University buildings was powered by a 6 MW cogeneration sys-tem serving the campus.At Hudson Yards, the development team of Related Companies and Oxford Properties Group are planning a large 12 MW cogeneration plant, which will generate power at twice the efficiency of a conventional natural gas power plant and enable "functional occupancy" of its retail, restaurant and office complex during even an extended grid outage.The complex Is thermally connected to the developments' other 3 residential and office buildings to enable the dis-tribution of thermal energy from the cogeneration plant throughout the mixed use neighborhood and the exchange of hot and chilled water so that the development's 5 individual building plants can be operated like a single plant for optimum energy and operational efficiency as well as maximum capacity and resiliency.

Microgrids that connect multiple customers are a promising new concept that could be applied elsewhere In the city, offering an opportunity to innovate alternative power generation and delivery models while accelerating adoption of smart grid technologies that are key to modernizing the electric grid. The City has several projects underway to study the implementation of microgrids, working closely with New York State, the Pace Energy and Climate Center, the New York State Smart Grid Consortium, and Con Edison to evaluate optimal technologies and business models for ml-crogrids.

This collaborative is currently analyzing the feasibility of a microgrid cluster In East Harlem that would serve both the Metropolitan Hospital and the Washington and Lexington NYCHA facilities, and possibly others.The City is also evaluating distributed power options for the Hunts Point Food Distribution Center in the Bronx, a critical location for the city's food supply. Ensuring continuous power will limit supply chain disruptions by enabling uninter-rupted facility operation and the maintenance of refrigerated storage capacity In the Meat, Fish, and Produce Markets.These options include cogeneration and trigeneration systems (generating electricity, heating, and cooling), the pro-curement and installation of backup generators, and the protection or elevation of existing utility infrastructure.

Metropolitan Hospital Area Hunts Point Food Distribution Center (HPFDC) V -m FUMA Prelimninry FIRI4% 100 Year Floodplain E ý.qMA i dfi ý -~r ftm.O mffldWli m HICHA Properties S -or n r r E? P rks Critical Infrastnruture FWiftldet -him Amn r i o -Z "i 0 K=Source: NYC Mayor's Office Sourcr. NYC maws Othice I

• 6

• S --6 0-.New Yor Cit has th motefiintas drv 75 pecn les than avrg Ameri-6 can an as a reul the emi arcino tin aroun ton Noehees th cit ful htpo e alla of ths veice r sins whc maeu0 peren of total cit emsios Reucn emsin in the save bilin on a n al liui fu l expes -to ad tr ani accsil locations, de sae an more attactv fo Swalkn and bikng -and aggesvl fote th adop-tionof leanr atomoivetecholoi7s Trasporttio Overview In a city of endless destinations, New Yorkers are always on the move. Subways run round the dock, stetching from Rockaway Beach to Van Cortlandt Park. Federal and state highways are over-laid on a dense grid of busy local streets. A neddace of new ferry terminals and bike paths adorn the "tys waterfront Bustling in-ternational airports connect the city tD every major destination in the wordd With the exception of walking and biking, all of this movement re-quires energy-and 99 percent of this eneryoriginates from fos-sil fuels. All told, the citys transportation system is responsible for 11 million tons of emissions every year, or 20 percent of the city's total emissions.

On a per capita basis, this compares well to other cities. Still, the potential exists to reduce transportation emissions further. More New Yorkers, particularly the newest arrivals, could live in dense, mixed-use, tranitsl:h neighbrhoods; new trans-portation options like bus rapid transit and bicydcing could reduce the need for driving, and, most vehicles on the streets could be far deaner.Several major challenges will make it difticult to reduce emissions in the transportation sector. Parts of the city are simply out of reach of mass transit, leaving residents with few options other than to drive. City steets are often bettersuited for cars and unwelcoming to pedesians and bicyclists-although the City has made major improvements in recent years Biofuels and electric vehicles offer great potential for reducing emissions, but demand growth for these new technologies is very gradual. Individuals do not con-sider the health and economic impacts of traffic congestion-n do they have a price signal to do so-when they decide o drive. -nally, the City has only limited ability to influence the transportation system, which numerous other entities, public and private, play a role in operating City govemment and its partners nevertheless have tools that can be used to accelerate carbon reductions and put the city onto a lwer-carbon pathway. The City is already using some of these tools to advance the goals of PlaNYC and can expand these efforts.Zoring and land use planning can encourage density and mixed-use development in parts of the city that are most accessible to transit. The City can work with the State to improve mass transit service, including expanding the Select Bus Service program that is now saving all five boroughs.

The City can expand efforts to make steets safer for walking and biking. And it can foster deaner trans-portation technologies like electric vehicles and biodiesel through pilots, purchasing in the City fleet, and early infrastructure develcp ment. These efforts will not only help to reduce carbon, but also improve quality of life, clean the air, and make the economy more competitive.

SNYC's Pathways to Deep Carbon Reductions Trasprtaio Transportation Fundamentals The city's transportation system is a dazzling mix of activity, and New Yorkers place upon it high demands for service and reliability.

From the city's extensive network of mass tran-sit--rail, subways, buses, and ferries-to its crisscrossing streetscapes that accommodate cars, bikes and pedestrians moving in every direction.

Daily commuters, business trav-elers and tourists are also growing in record numbers and accentuate demand on the transportation system. In fact, on Thursday, October 24, 2013, New York City's subways hit an all-time high for ridership, just shy of 6 million rides in a single day.The city's on-road transportation system touches every cor-ner of the five boroughs and allows for the greatest flexibility in travel. Over 13 thousand taxis, 6 thousand buses, hundreds of thousands of bikes, and more than two million private cars and trucks move on more than 6,000 miles of streets, nearly 800 bridges, and through 9 tunnels, connecting points in the city in millions of daily combinations.

The bus system offers three types of service: regular local service, express service between boroughs, and Select Bus Service-a form of bus rapid transit that operates at greater speeds thanks to dedi-cated lanes, fewer stops, and off-board fare collection.

The City has over 300 miles of bike lanes and recently launched the nation's largest bike-share system, Citi Bike, covering Manhattan below 59th Street and some parts of Brooklyn.The subway and rail systems do not offer the range or flex-ibility of roadways because they operate along fixed tracks to a finite number of destinations, but their strength lie in their scope and capacity.

The city's subways carry more than 1.7 billion riders each year along 21 interconnected routes that span 660 miles and connect 468 stations across the five boroughs.

Subways are synonymous with density: 42 per-cent of the city's landmass is within a 10-minute walk to a subway stop, and these areas are home to 75 percent of the I Transportation Usage Patterns, 2000-ZO1Z% change (adjusted for population growth)251 9/11 Financial Crisis 20 15 10 5 0*~-5-10-15 2000+17%Public transit Airplanes Driving Commuter rail+2%_r__T_2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 Source: MTA, PANYNJ, NYMTC, NYC Mayor's Office Built Density and Distance to Subway Population density per acre in thousands-<15-15-75 75, -o5,150 150,- 350-350+/ Subway Stations FJ 1/2 Mile Buffer from Subway Station 0 I T ansprtaio city's built area and 72 percent of its population. (See chart: Built Density and Distance to Subway)Marine transport used to be extremely important as well, mainly for delivering goods into the city -as recently as the 1970s, the waterfront bustled with commercial activity as ocean going vessels and local barges exchanged their wares. Containerized shipping caused much of this activity to disband throughout the region and the transport of goods shifted to truck. Recently, however, there has been a resur-gence of marine deliveries with, for example, the opening of Red Hook Container Terminal; efforts are also underway to improve the connectivity of marine terminals and the freight rail network. The waterfront has also seen a recent renais-sance in passenger transportation as ferry lines and termi-nals have sprung up across the city, including the East River Ferry Service, which launched in 2011 and has exceeded rid-ership expectations.

Farther into the surrounding region, Port Authority's PATH trains go to New Jersey, Metropolitan Transportation Author-ity's Long Island and Metro-North railroads connect to towns as far as Montauk and New Haven, and Amtrak's service car-ries passengers up and down the Eastern seaboard, most importantly to Boston and Washington, D.C. For longer dis-tance trips, airplanes shuttle more than 54 million passen-gers a year out of the area's three major airports.Multiple agencies own and operate different parts of the transportation system. The New York City Department of Transportation manages the city's streets and many of its bridges. The Metropolitan Transportation Authority, a New York State agency, runs the city's subways, buses, and re-gional rail. The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, a public authority, manages some of the city's largest bridges, most of its tunnels, and the region's airports.

Private com-panies operate taxis and livery cars under the supervision of the City's Taxi and Limousine Commission.

And private companies operate most of the city's ferry terminals and port infrastructure, with some public support. Funding for the transportation system comes from a mix of sources, few of which the City directly controls.During the past decade, the city's population increased by nearly 300,000 people. Over the same time period, transit ridership grew by 17 percent over this period, while driving only went up 2 percent and commuter rail stayed nearly flat.(See chart: Transportation Usage Patterns, 2000-2012)

In response to increasing demand, major investments are be-ing made to improve the city's mass transit infrastructure:

two new subway lines are being built on the Upper East Side and in Midtown West; a new terminal for PATH trains is rising up next to the new World Trade Center building; tunnels for East Side Access, one of the largest public works projects in decades, are under construction and will ultimately save commuters nearly one quarter of a billion hours a week.Several other new transportation options were launched in 2013, including the bike share program, Citi Bike, and lime-colored Boro Taxis that are authorized to pick up passengers anywhere in the city except airports and Manhattan south of West 110th and East 96th Street.

I~~~6 Trnprtto Sources of GHG Emissions The transportation system is responsible for 20 percent of the city's total emissions

-10.9 million tons in 2011. Of that amount, passenger cars account for 70 percent while trucks and public transit make up the remainder.

Aviation, which is not counted as part of the city's greenhouse gas baseline or its 30% reduction goal, amounts to another 15.0 million tons. Without aviation, the city's per capita emissions from transportation are roughly 6.4 tons per year; by comparison, a single round-trip flight to London creates 1.2 tons of emis-sions (See chart: Transportation Emissions)

Emissions per capita vary by borough. Residents of Staten Island and Queens drive more than those who live in Brook-lyn and Manhattan

-but still far less in the rest of the U.S., with an average American producing roughly five times the driving emissions of an average New Yorker. (See chart: Per Capita Emissions from Driving)Emissions fell nearly 5% since 2005, when they stood at 11.5 million tons -even as the city's population grew. Most of the decline was due to less carbon intensive electricity for mass transit; lower per capita VMT; and improved vehicle fuel economy. (See chart: Drivers of Change to Transportation Emissions, 2005-2012)

I Transportation Emissions MtCO e.Subway & Commuter Rail heavy Trucks Light Trucks Source: NYC Mayor's Office Passenger Cars 0 SNYC's Pathways to Deep Carbon Reductions Ie Trns r a I Per Capita GHG Emissions from Driving Metric tons CO e per year, 2011 Bronxj 0.9 Brooklyn Manhattan Queens Staten Island NYC Average U.S. Average-0.7-0.7 1.3 1.7-0.9 ., 80% '- -1 4.6 Source: NYC Mayor's Office I Drivers of Change to Transportation Emissions, 2005-2012 Metric tons COe 12.5 -12.0 11.5 11.0 10.5 10.0 1.0 0.5 11.66 l -0.02- 1O.092u ......-0.01-Per capita transit usage-.. -0i.wo06=11.12 0.0 2005 Population emissions growth On-road vehicle fuel economy-passenger cars and light trucks On-road Per capita vehicle fuel VMT economy-heavy trucks More efficient electricity generation for transit Per capita 2012 solid waste emissions export Source: NYMTC; UC Berkeley, NYC Mayor's Office Technica As % of total ZO(of L-ý, LII I Tra spotto Emissions Abatement Potential Maintaining the City's Density Steering growth towards dense, diverse, walkable neighborhoods The city's density is one of its greatest assets. Many New Yorkers simply do not need to travel as far as most other Americans, whether because their friends live up the block or because the pharmacy is around the corner -and when they do, they can typically take mass transit.Over the past decade, over 94 percent of new building permits filed with the city were for construction located within 36 mile of transit. Continuing to encourage transit-accessible density as the city grows will help make sure that emissions remain low for new arrivals and existing residents alike.Expanding Mass Transit Subway service Subways make the city's density possible.

The system's reach is extensive-72 percent of the city's population lives within a half-mile walk of a subway station. Two ex-pansion projects are also underway.

The Second Avenue Subway will connect 96th Street to 63rd Street in the first phase and stretch all the way to Financial District at Ha-nover Square in later phases, while the 7 line extension will go west along 42nd Street and then down 11th Ave-nue to 34th Street. Carbon abatement is not these lines'primary function and therefore they are not quantified as part of the 80 by 50 reduction strategy.

The Second Av-enue Subway will relieve congestion on the 41516 line and make living farther east on the Upper East Side easier for existing residents and more attractive for new ones. The 7 line extension will support impending large-scale de-velopment in Hudson Yards that would not be possible otherwise.

Nevertheless, creating additional lines and connections over the coming decades could encourage mode shifting and densification in areas that are poorly covered by subways.Ferry service Ferries have enjoyed remarkable success in New York City in recent years. Use of the new East River Ferry, for ex-ample, more than doubled initial estimates within a year of its launch in June 2011. There is potential to add more ferry service and connect new points along the water-front-which could help to foster density, improve travel experiences, and make it possible to live in parts of the city that were previously less attractive because of their distance from mass transit. But new ferries are not likely to have a significant effect on reducing New Yorker's driv-ing or carbon emission and so they were not quantified as part of the 80X50 reduction plan.Commuter trains Commuter trains are extremely important for the region, as millions of commuters use Metro North, Long Island Railroad, and New Jersey Transit to get into New York City on a typical workday. The train lines have shaped settle-ment patterns in the NYC metropolitan area, and they have so effectively displaced driving that only 16 percent of workers commute to Manhattan's central business district by car. New commuter lines are not in the works currently, but service will improve once the East Side Ac-cess project-one of the region's largest public works projects in decades-allows travelers from Long Island to arrive into Grand Central Terminal instead of Penn Station if so desired. Construction of additional lines or expan-sion and improvement of existing ones would have simi-lar effects: better access to the city and better service for existing commuters.

For the purposes of this report however, the direct emissions potential of any additional lines was not estimated.

I~ ~ I Trnprtto I Shifting to Less Energy-Intensive Forms of Transport Bus rapid transit A BRT line can cost 50 times less than a new subway line and take months instead of de-cades to build. It is also faster than convention-al buses. The city's Select Bus Service, which uses dedicated lanes and off-board fare collec- 0.4 tion, and is now located in all five boroughs, of-fers a 20 percent speed advantage compared to convention lines. Introducing additional Select Bus Service routes throughout the city $n/aI would have two effects: first, it would save time for passengers who were riding the same routes on regular buses, which would have no effect on carbon emissions, and second, it would encourage those who were previously driving to switch to the bus instead, which would reduce emissions.

The exact cause-and-ef-fect abatement potential from expanding SBS coverage is difficult to estimate, but, as an example, increasing the share of trips taken on Select Bus Service to 7 per-cent -in line with what Ottawa and Bogota achieved with large-scale implementations of their respective systems-would reduce emissions by 0.4 MtCO 2 e compared to the business as usual case. Because of the uncertainty in the range of possible reductions attributable to SBS, the cost per ton of carbon abated was not quantified.

Bicycling Of all the car trips in New York City, 10 percent are under half-mile, 22 percent are less than 1 mile and 56 percent are less than 3 miles -dis-tances that could be readily served by bicycle.In recent years, cycling in New York City has 0.5 grown much more popular than it used to be: , 22 percent of New Yorkers ride a bike at least L7IJ a few times a year, and NYC DOT's Commuter Cycling Indicator grew 2.5 times since 2000 --$300 though the share of New Yorkers who use bi- LIIJ cycles for their daily commutes is still relatively low, at 1 percent. (See charts: NYC Population Bike Usage Status and NYC DOT Commuter Cycling Indicator)

The carbon emissions impact of higher cycling rates is difficult to estimate because of limited data about mode-shifting potential, but it is certainly positive.

Bikes do not reduce emissions when new riders switch from subways, buses, or walking, but they do reduce emissions when they replace rides in taxis or private cars. Carbon abate-ment potential of bikes is highest in areas that rely on cars, whereas in dense areas the expansion of biking and associated infrastructure is likely to bring about more convenience, health benefits, and traffic safety improve-ments than carbon emissions reductions.

A detailed siz-ing of the carbon reduction potential of biking is beyond I NYC Population Bike Usage Status% of total population, 2012 A few times a year At least once a month Several times a month Never or 78%physically unable Source: NYC DOHMH Community Health Survey I NYC DOT Commuter Cycling Indicator Thousands 40 30 10 I Percentage sector wide reduction b Amount of COze abated'Cost to abate carbon 0~1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 Source: NYC DOT SNYC's Pathways to Deep Carbon Reductions Traspotaio the scope of this report, but for the sake of illustration, if New Yorkers' share of trips taken by bike increased to 15 percent (which Berlin achieves and Copenhagen far exceeds with its record 33 percent) and just half of those trips displaced car travel-carbon emissions would fall by 0.5 MtCO2e.Adopting Cleaner Vehicles and Fuels No matter how good the city's transit system is, or how dense and mixed-use its neighborhoods, some trips will still require cars. Moving two tons of metal through space will always require a lot of energy, and reducing the emissions from this movement comes down to three options: switching to different vehicle technologies (hy-brid electric and battery electric, for now), making con-ventional vehicles more efficient, and using biofuels. (See chart: Vehicles on Road by Powertrain Technology)

Battery electric vehicles Regional trains and buses Of the four options for traveling along the Eastern Seaboard -driving, taking a bus, tak-ing a train, or flying -driving and flying are by far the most carbon intensive.

Reliable data is not available for the exact number of bus or car travelers between New York and Boston and Washington, D.C., but the share of train travel has risen from 37 percent to 75 per-cent between Washington, D.C. and New York from 2000 to 2011, and from 20 percent to 54 percent between New York and Boston in the%n/a Imillion tons Battery electric vehicles (EVs), which rely on a large battery pack for all (or nearly all) of their energy and need to plug into the grid to recharge, emit 70% less carbon per mile trav-eled than conventional vehicles do. Over time, conventional and electric vehicles alike will be-come cleaner (due, in large part, to strict CAFE standards), but the EV advantage will persist, especially as the grid becomes cleaner. (See chart: Carbon Intensity of Battery Electric and Conventional Vehicles)tons same period. The share could be higher yet: in countries where true high-speed rail took off -Spain and China are two examples -regional trains and buses have become so popular that airlines have largely stopped serving routes under 300 miles. From an emissions standpoint, shifting all existing passengers on routes to Boston and Washington DC from planes to trains would lead to emis-sions savings of at least 0.1 MtCO2e. Cleaning up the grid in line with the 80 by 50 pathway would increase this potential to 0.29 MtCO2e.1 4 As with subway expansions, high-speed trains are not primarily about carbon emis-sions abatement; therefore, the direct cost per ton of car-bon abatement was not calculated.

Electric vehicles could play an extremely important role in carbon abatement, but all across the country, they still represent a tiny share of new purchases.

Even in San Francisco, they amounted to only 0.9 percent of new reg-istrations between 2010 and 2012; in New York City, the share was lower yet at 0.2 percent. (See chart: Electric Vehicle Share of New Auto Sales by Location)Today's electric vehicles are far superior to prior incar-nations that were plagued by limited range, charging challenges and high cost. Today's vehicles have sufficient range for daily driving, charging is simpler and more op-tions are available, and prices are falling. In 1995, GM's EV1 -the first electric vehicle sold to consumers by a major automaker

-was almost twice as expensive as an average vehicle, but today's Nissan Leaf, costs essentially the same as an average car after accounting for federal tax credits. (See chart: Electric Vehicle Price Dynamics)Technology will improve further yet, and if, as modeled, battery electric vehicles represent 2 percent of all vehi-cles by 2020, 8 percent by 2030, and 41 percent by 2050, they could abate 0.1, 0.4, and 1.6 MtCO 2 e, respectively.

The societal cost of abatement would come in at $80/ton I Tra Isportaio 7 in 2020 (not taking tax credits into account, EVs would still be more expensive than conventional vehicles), then drop to -$1 0/ton in 2030 as EV prices drop.Plug-in hybrid electric vehicles Today's plug-in hybrids can only rely on their ii batteries for between 7 and 35 miles. Once 2.5%the battery is depleted, a small gasoline en-gine engages to extend the vehicle's range (to 340 miles in the case of one such vehicle, the 1.6 Chevy Volt). Plug-in hybrids are not as benefi-cial as battery-only EVs, but they are nearly as good, especially for in-city driving. And com-pared to EVs, they do not induce range anxiety -or require as robust a charging network, and because of their smaller batteries they cost less. As modeled, PHEVs could account for 6 percent of all vehicles on the road by 2020, 11 percent by 2030, and 47 percent by 2050, abating 0.3, 0.5, and 1.6 MtCO2e, respectively.

The cost of abatement would be $90/ton in 2020 and -$10/ton in 2030 as vehicle prices continue to drop.I Vehicles on Road by Powertrain Technology

% of total vehicle stock (Millions)

I Carbon Intensity of Battery Electric and Conventional Vehicles Co2e (lbs/mile):

NYC-specific grid intensity along 80 by 50 pathway 0.70 0.60 0.50 0.40 0.30 0.20 0.10 0.00 l Internal Combustion Engine Electric Vehicle 2013 2020 2025 Source: US EPA, NYC Mayor;s Office I EV Share of New Auto Sales by Location; 2010-2012 Battery EV and PHEV as % of total registrations; total registrations in thousands 467 1,489 678 1.112 2.qqq 2010 l I 93 1.96 MM 100.0%99.5%.,-100%2U9 2030 WdI11 2.21 99.0%MM 2.0%2050 47 I 229 NMM 1.5%1.0%0.5%0.0%0 MDVO 0 LOW battery electric (BEV)'L.0W d*b vdeh LDV plug-in hybrid (PHEV)a LOV hybrid M LDV advanced powertrain LDV standard powertrain San Los Francisco Angeles Boston Chicago New York City Source: NYC Mayor's Office Source: Polk Automotive SNYC's Pathways to Deep Carbon Reductions IS Traspr I Electric Vehicle Price Dynamics MSRP in thousands (all values indexed to CPI inflation$70* General Motors$80 EV 1* Eli--Av* Toyota 5u CD KAv 4$40 Nissa LEAF$30-$20$10$0 .... .....'94 '96 '98 '00 '02 '04 '06 'o8 Source: US DOE; Transportation Conventional hybrid vehicles The carbon benefits of conventional hybrid %hicles, which recharge their battery from thi internal combustion engines, are small but ne ertheless helpful and very cost-effective as interim step towards 80X50. These vehicles a expected to represent 30 percent of all vehicl in 2030, but practically disappear by 2050, battery electric and plug-in alternatives co tinue to improve. The abatement potential 0.2 MtCO2e in 2020 and 0.1 MtCO2e in 203 achieved at large societal savings: -$170/ton 2020 and -$530/ton in 2030.Advanced internal combustion engines Federal CAFE standards are leading to drama ic improvements in the fuel efficiency of co ventional vehicles, and their impact is alreai captured in the business-as-usual emissio scenario.

However, the standards only dicta improvements through 2025, and their impa on vehicle emissions will be limited by ti speed of vehicle turnover.

The potential exis for additional emissions reductions from conventional of 2011) vehicles, whether through more aggressive vehicle stan-dards in the future or through accelerated upgrading to erage Vehicle vehicles that meet the standards that are in force today.By 2020, accelerated uptake of more efficient vehicles Tesla could abate up to 0.7 MtCO2e; by 2030 and 2050, tighter Model S standards and accelerated switching could abate 0.6-0.7 MtCO2e. Because the incremental costs of cleaner vehi-Chevrolet cles pay off through fuel savings, the range of abatement VOLT costs would be between -$170/ton and -$150/ton.

an Alternative bus powertrains

• In recent years, MTA has upgraded portions of-* its 6,000-unit bus fleet to cleaner-burning die- 0.2%SMART sel, compressed natural gas, and hybrid elec-Electric Drive tric units. There is a balance to be struck in the upgrade process: hybrid vehicles may be the 0.2 cleanest of the three, but they also cost more..............

to purchase and maintain, and the incremental 10 '12 '14 money may be better directed -at least in the short term -to replacing old diesel vehicles in -$230 Department, NYC their fleet with more cleaner models. A cleaner L.1I.to mix of buses featuring predominantly hybrids has the potential to abate approximately 0.1-0.2 MtCO2e at a cost of between -$190/ton and -$230/ton.

e-Oir 0.1% Biofuels ev-an Different biofuel technologies have been avail-ire 0.1 able for some time, but it was only in recent 1 es ,,, l years that their cost and availability expanded as L enough to make them a viable option for local in- car fleets. All city vehicles running on diesel 1.2 is -$530 currently use B5 year-round and over the next"0, two years the entire fleet will be increased to in B20 for the non-winter months. Scaling up bio-fuel use could abate 0.2 MtCO2e in 2020, and 1$701 up to 1.2 MtCO2e between 2030 and 2050. Bio-fuels command virtually no cost premium over at- conventional fuels which means that the they would lead to negative abatement costs at -$701ton in 2030.)n-dy ns te ict he sts LI.0%~L0.7 ICarbonAbatement Costs for Selected Transportation Measures Employment Impacts of Transportation Sector Carbon Abatement% of total; total emissions reduced in MtCOe I Thousands of Jobs 0 Negative Between So and $ioo Above loo 2020 6% 1.7 4 -.--Net Impact Long term shift in competitiveness

-Capital expenditures 3 iOpportunity cost of local spending 2.7 2, 1.l 2030 2050 5.4 0tinE t 100%Source: NYC Mayor's Office-1 2015 2020 2025 2030 Source: NYC Mayors Office I Trnsoraio Challenges The transit network is vast but still finite and infrastructure is in need of modernization.

Subways make the city run, but they don't go every-where: 28 percent of New Yorkers do not live within a half-mile of a subway station. Even if a subway station is near, not all routes are convenient:

traveling from the Bronx to Queens or from Manhattan to JFK can take a long time -and driving may become the preferred op-tion. Where subways do go, they may not always provide a speed and frequency of service or level of comfort that potential travelers find preferable to other modes.Walking and biking can be uninviting, unsafe, or both The city's street grid was laid out in the days of the horse buggy, but more than two million vehicles traverse it to-day, and it shows. Cars, buses, bicycles, and pedestrians compete for limited space, and while a neighborhood like the West Village can be very pedestrian and bike-friend-ly because of its small right-of-ways, walking or biking along Queens Boulevard is a different story altogether.

The city has made great strides in reducing traffic fatali-ties through a raft of street design measures, but there is more to be done.New technologies are available, but adoption has been slow EVs and biofuels hold a lot of promise, but their adoption is gradual and will take time to get to scale. EVs account for just 0.1 percent of all new vehicles purchased in the metropolitan area since 2010, and biofuels are mainly available only through bioethanol added to gasoline, which does not lead to a significant emissions reduc-tion. Unlike ethanol, biodiesel use is not required and not available in the retail market even though it is far bet-ter environmentally.

For EVs, the incremental cost, con-tinued concerns about range, and scarcity of charging stations are obstacles to growth despite their increasing affordability.

The economics of driving are not fully efficient For any practice that carries a cost, reflecting it directly is usually a good idea -charging for electricity per kilowatt-hour instead of monthly makes people watch their usage, and taxing cigarettes deters smoking and recovers some of the indirect costs imposed on society at large from the illness they cause. Driving comes with a multitude of costs, but the only costs that are tied directly in propor-tion to the amount of miles driven are fuel and mainte-nance costs. Insurance is priced based on a measure of risk for accidents, but not amount driven, and the nega-tive externalities of driving -congestion and air pollution-are not priced at all.Planning jurisdiction and operational author-ity spans agencies and levels of government All of the city's systems feature a complex mix of players-but transportation is perhaps the most varied of them all. City government may control streets and zoning, but agencies at other levels of government fund, construct, and operate major components of the city's transporta-tion infrastructure.

As a result, major projects often take decades to materialize.

Most importantly, vehicle choices come down to millions of individual decisions

-and un-like with buildings, where the local building code governs construction, the parameters of those choices are set at the federal level, and then only loosely.

Trasportaio Capturing the Potential Strategy 1 Zone for Neighborhood Density and Diversity Much of the city is already dense and mixed-use, but opportunities for improvement still exist -and zoning, which determines how a given plot of land can be used and how much can be built on it, is the best tool at the City's disposal.

Over 120 City-initiated rezonings were completed in the city in the last decade, allowing greater density in areas close to transit while limiting growth in auto-dependent areas. The combination of City policy and market activity ensured that more than 87 percent of new building permits between 2007 and 2012 were is-sued in areas within % mile of a subway or commuter rail station. (See chart: New Building Permits and Transit Cov-erage). As the city continues to attract new residents and grow,- careful use of zoning proceeding in tandem with transit improvements could ensure that opportunities for development continue to get created in areas where many residents will find car ownership is not a necessity.

I Daily Citi Bike Ridership Trends Thousands; 2013; normalized for weekly fluctuations 40 30 2 2 20 10 8'0 33 Z3 38 June July August September October Source: Citi Bike I New Building Permits and Transit Coverage 2007-2012; all construction types Strategy 2 Build and Maintain Transit Infrastructure

[11 /2 Mile Buffer from Subway Station Transit infrastructure takes time to build and is expen-sive to maintain -but it is indispensable when it comes to carbon abatement.

Putting the city onto an 80 by 50 pathway would require improving transit where it already I Taxi and Transit Ridership by Share of Total Monthly Trips Percent of total; 2013 100% o-0.5% ---1o.6%

• Citi Bike 7.3% Taxi 6.0% Wk Commuter Rail 80% M Subway 60%40% 86.1%20%May July September Source: NYC Mayor's Office Source: MTA, NYCTLC, Citi Bike, NYC Mayor's Officeý NYC's Pathways to Deep Carbon Reductions IIra spor I Possible Bike Share Expansion Areas from 2009 Study Segmented into 3 phases Bicycle share expansion Citi Bike, the city's bike share-program, saw excellent growth since its launch in May 2013: by October, more than 90,000 annual members had joined, and the daily number of rides was on track to reaching 40,000 -still far below 470,000 daily taxi trips, let alone millions of sub-way rides, but picking up quickly. (See chart: Daily Citi Bike Ridership Trends and Taxi and Transit Ridership by Share of Total Monthly Trips)The system, however, is only in its first phase -and there is potential for it to expand. The 2009 study from the Department of City Planning that evaluated the po-tential for bike share in New York City envisioned three stages of implementation:

the first one, with 10,500 bi-cycles, would cover the densest areas of Manhattan and Brooklyn; the second one, bringing the system to 30,000 bicycles, would expand into Queens and the Bronx, and further into Northern Manhattan and Brooklyn; and the third one, increasing the capacity to 50,000 bikes, could cover the city as far as Coney Island and Pelham Bay Park, spanning 81 square miles. (See map: Possible Bike Share Expansion Areas from 2009 Study)V__*440./I exists and taking it to areas that it does not while being careful to invest in the options the greatest marginal benefit for the amoun spent.Bus rapid transit Of all the transit options, BRT lines may hav to contribute to carbon abatement:

they are up and require little enough investment th ones could be set up along major transpor The city's BRT offering, Select Bus Service, a on four routes, and several route expansion works, including on Webster Avenue in the Nostrand Avenue in Brooklyn.

More SBS rc continue to encourage drivers to shift away save time for existing commuters, and mak hoods more attractive.

The damage from Hurricane Sandy to bike share infra-structure stored in the Brooklyn Navy Yard shrank first stage deployment, but most of the area mentioned in the Source: NYC DCP original study is now covered. Covering the remaining ar-eas would make it possible to reduce short car trips and would also make it easier for New Yorkers to access new yet cover -Select Bus Service routes. However, the main obstacle that deliver to the program expansion is funding, both for capital and t of money operating costs. For the first phase, sponsorships by Ci-tibank and MasterCard paid all of the initial capital costs and membership fees are covering the operating costs.The financing model, for subsequent phases, is yet to be established.

City capital or private sponsors could pay e the most for the capital costs, but membership revenues may not quick to set be enough to cover the operating costs because the num-at multiple ber of users per bike would decline as residential density t corridors, falls. In that case, an ongoing financial commitment from Iready runs either the City or a private sponsor would be required to s are in the expand the system.Bronx and)utes could'from cars, Subways e neighbor-Because subways are so expensive and take so long to build, new lines would not serve as a marginal carbon I~ ~ m Trnprto 7 abatement method for the short or even the medium term. The more immediate concern for the system is to maintain the quality of service on existing lines, and the biggest challenge to that is funding. As with any other transportation option, the system requires taxpayer sup-port and cannot be funded by user fees alone. The financ-es of the MTA, the New York State agency that runs the city's subway system, would need to be strengthened in order for service to remain convenient and reliable.One possible exception that could reduce emissions in the short to medium term is the extension of the N line to serve LaGuardia airport, which was last seriously dis-cussed last decade. Because the only transit option for getting to LGA is the bus, the project would have the po-tential to reduce emissions directly.

In the longer term, better connections between Queens and Brooklyn -in-cluding possibly those that rely on existing unused right-of-ways -would merit consideration, though as with the current two extensions, economic development con-cerns would likely drive the decision-making.

Ferries The East River Ferry service already brings commuters from Long Island City and Brooklyn waterfront to Wall Street. As the city's waterfront continues to be redevel-oped, ferries will grow in importance, and opportunities for new routes will arise. The former Domino factory in Williamsburg is just one example of a new project that could benefit from ferry connectivity.

As with subways though, new ferry projects would be driven primarily by economic development considerations and would re-quire near-term subsidies.

Streetcars Streetcars ran in the city's streets up until the 1950s -then, the service was shut down and the rails were re-moved; the last remaining cars from that era are now rusting behind a Fairway supermarket in Red Hook. Pro-posals exist to resurrect streetcar service in parts of the city but the marginal cost of construction is still substan-tial enough that any projects would have to be weighed carefully against cheaper alternatives such as bus rapid transit.Regional and commuter rail For rail, the greatest abatement potential lies in launch-ing true high-speed service between Washington D.C.and Boston -and displacing car and airline travel as a result. Amtrak recently proposed a plan to upgrade the speed of its trains by 2041, and while a discussion of the funding and planning challenges of the endeavor are be-yond the scope of this report, local support would still be important.

For commuter rail, the drivers of expansion would be less about incremental abatement and more about the availability of funding and need for capacity in-creases. Two rail tunnels connecting to New Jersey under the Hudson River are more than 100 years old and both are over capacity.

A new link, perhaps following in the footsteps of the now-suspended project called ARC (Ac-cess to the Region's Core), could improve the passenger flow into and out of the city.Strategy 3 Improve the Streetscape Safer, pedestrian-friendly streets Neighborhood plazas, wider sidewalks, pedestrian is-lands, and an assortment of traffic calming measures have been popping up across the city and making streets bet-ter and safer for all New Yorkers. Seniors and schoolchil-dren have received special attention through programs like Safe Streets for Seniors and Safe Routes to Schools.Thanks to these and other measures, the city's streets are safer than they have been at any point in the last 100 years. As the city grows and changes, more will need to be done. The difficulty lies in the extremely fragmented nature of needed improvements:

no two intersections are the same, and many changes require long approval and community engagement processes.

A methodical fo-cus on incremental improvements all over the city -often relying on piloting and testing to quickly establish what works and what does not -has proven to work and could be a template for the future.Bike lane expansion Cycling is most effective as a marginal carbon abatement tool in areas that are not well served by transit -it is in those areas that it replaces driving instead of subway rides. Incidentally, these are the areas that aren't well served by the existing bike lane network either (See map: Built Density and Distance to Bike Lanes) -which means that focusing the network expansion efforts on those ar-eas may be the best way to capture the carbon abate-ment potential of cycling. The process can be lengthy and challenging, and each mile of a new bike lane would SNYC's Pathways to Deep Carbon Reductions Built Density and Distance to Bike Lanes Population density per acre in thousands-l <15 1 15 75 -150/ 150 -350-350 +Bike Lanes--' 1/4 Mile Buffer from Bike Lane I ~ S Trnsoraio 0 serve fewer riders than it would in a dense neighborhood

-but with the bike lane network already well-developed in denser parts of the city, the less dense areas represent the next frontier.Bike bridge access The bike lane network may be well developed within some neighborhoods, but the city's boroughs could be connected better. Bridges are part of the answer -and while Manhattan, Williamsburg, and Queensboro bridges all have separate paths for cyclists, the same is not true of all the major connections.

Some, like the Verrazano, from Brooklyn to Staten Island, and the Whitestone, from Queens to the Bronx, have no accommodations for bi-cyclists at all. Others, like the Henry Hudson, Robert F.Kennedy and Marine Parkway bridges, require riders to dismount.

Still others have bike paths that could use im-provement:

on the Brooklyn Bridge, the narrow walkway can be congested for cyclists and pedestrians alike, while on the Pulaski bridge from Long Island City to Greenpoint, the shared pedestrian and bike path can be as narrow as 8 feet. Creating bike paths where none exist and improv-ing them where they do will be critical to making biking in the city more viable.Strategy 4 Support Cleaner Vehicles Clean vehicle incentives Most incentives for clean vehicles arrive in the form of federal tax credits -those for EVs, for example. Still, there are options at the state and local level to encourage clean vehicle ownership among private and commercial users alike. For commercial vehicles, two programs are already available:

the Hunts Point Clean Truck Program, managed by City DOT, aims to take at least 500 of the old-est, most polluting trucks off of the streets of the Bronx;the Citywide Private Fleet Alternative Fuel Programs, co-managed by DOT and NYSERDA, offers rebates of up to 80 percent of the increased cost of choosing an electric or alternative fuel vehicle over a conventional one. The NYSERDA Program has been operating for over 10 years and has funded hundreds of clean advanced technology vehicles.

Another program is on the way as well: NYSER-DA will be providing rebates to commercial sector fleets exclusively for the purchase of new electric trucks. No in-centive programs are in place for private vehicles yet, but one option is a local or regional "feebate" program -a revenue neutral initiative that encourages vehicle buyers and car manufacturers to invest in efficiency.

Under this framework, vehicles with above average efficiency would receive a rebate while those with below average efficien-cy would be assessed a fee.EV charging infrastructure Charging is perhaps the biggest barrier to EV adoption: although there are over 180 public charging stations throughout the city, it is not enough -and only three are of the fastest variety that can charge a vehicle in 30 min-utes or less.. To improve charging infrastructure around the city, three strategies could help. First, there could be more EV charging points in garages and parking lots (which is where most of the existing 180 are today). The City has been partnering with the private sector, as well as Federal and State governments to develop these -and more are on the way. (See map: Existing EV Charging Points) Second, the issue of parking would need to be addressed:

at least some street chargers would need to be available if EVs are to be adopted en masse. A pilot to evaluate the feasibility and utilization levels of dedicated EV parking spots could be a helpful starting point. Final-ly, the City can implement a recently passed local law that will require 20 percent of new residential and workplace parking to be "charger ready." The incremental cost to developers will be negligible

-the measure only requires the installation of wiring and not of actual chargers -but will help prevent costly retrofits in the future.Electric taxi pilot If an electric taxi can make it in New York it can make it anywhere.

Few vehicles drive as much every day and suffer as much abuse as the New York City's yellow cabs.Several electric taxis, all Nissan Leafs, are already cruis-ing the city's streets as part of an electric taxi pilot, and a Taxi and Limousine Commission study of what it would take to electrify 1/3 of the fleet is underway.

Such a fleet would reduce emissions by 90,000 tons a year -but at least three issues arise.The choice of vehicle is one: the Leaf is not custom-built for full-time taxi operation, and it does not have much passenger space. An electric version of the Nissan NV200, a custom-built taxi designed just for New York or a similarly sized vehicle would likely replace the Leaf in any large-scale electrification, but that vehicle is still be-ing tested and developed.

SNYC's Pathways to Deep Carbon Reductions I Trnprtto I I Existing EV Charging Points 2013 A.'6 A.added costs are particularly problematic if a charger has low utilization.

Within the taxi electrification effort, it may be possible to rely on mobile technology to in-&cease charger utilization But in the longer term, the City, the electric utilities and regulators may need to address the fundamental economics of standby charges to make quick chargers more viable.EVs at Hunts Point market The Hunts Point Food Distribution Center (FDC) is the.-City's primary food hub, with more than 100 wholesale distributors supplying more than 50 percent of the City's produce, meat, and fish. Most commodities arrive by truck, and most trucks run on conventional diesel. To pro-mote the conversion of truck fleets to alternative fuels, r the City is partnering with a private developer to build a retail alternative fueling station in the FDC. In addition to offering biodiesel, CNG, ethanol, and limited conven-tional fuel, this project also plans to offer electric vehicle charging stations, which will make electric vehicles more attractive and help electrify some of the 12,000 daily truck trips to the FDC.Source: NYC Mayor's Office The charging network -or lack thereof -is another ob-stacle. Because each taxi drives more than 50 passenger miles per 12-hour shift (as well as additional miles spent cruising for fares and traveling to and from home or a fleet garage), it would need to recharge after each shift-and existing chargers are too slow to work with the economics of the industry.

A citywide network of quick chargers, which can recharge a battery to 80 percent in 30 minutes or less, would have to be installed instead.Quick chargers would require more space and could draw up to 15 times more power. To get the network in-stalled, City, State, and the private sector would have to cooperate. (See map: Potential Quick Charge Network for Electric Taxis)The economics of the electric sector present a final chal-lenge: electricity is billed not just on the amount of en-ergy consumed, but on the speed it is used. The rationale is that just as it costs more to build and maintain a high-way than a dirt road, it costs more to build and maintain a higher voltage electricity distribution system that can supply large amounts of energy quickly. At the price of$12-22 per kW for demand charges could add $30,000 a year to the cost of running a quick charger -these i Potential Quick Charge Network for Electric Taxis Number of chargers per district 2 12 3 3 3 Bi4"tyhIN 1 *4 A3 2 I Source: NYC Mayor's Office Traspotaio 0 Strategy 5 Support Biofuels Biofuels are already available, but just as with EVs, their adoption has been gradual. Supply is not the limiting fac-tor -plenty of capacity is available locally, however little retail infrastructure exists. To promote biofuel adoption, City and State governments could work to explore biofu-el mandates.

The City's own fleet could serve as a testing ground for progressively higher biofuel blends. New York City's municipal fleet has emerged as one of the largest purchasers of biofuels on the East Coast: some City ve-hicles already use blends of up to 30 percent, and blends of up to 90 percent are being tested. The municipal fleet average could approach 30 percent by 2020 already, set-ting an example for other large fleets around the city.Biofuels requirements for City contractors have not been introduced yet, but could be considered.

Strategy 6 Make Driving More Economically Efficient Use fees for vehicle travel Use fees -a regional vehicle miles travelled charge or congestion pricing -can help reduce VMT and increase available funding for transit. New York City proposed a congestion pricing program in 2008, with the idea of charging drivers for entering the Central Business District and using the revenues to fund transit -but it did not ad-vance past the State Assembly despite support from the City Council. Several European cities have successfully put similar programs in place: in one example, bus use in Stockholm's core rose 9 percent after the city introduced a congestion charge; in another, Singapore experienced a 73 percent decline in the use of private cars, a 30 per-cent increase in carpools, and a doubling of buses' share of work traffic.1 s In the case of New York, a similar use fee tool could offer a 0.3 MtCO2e reduction and generate nearly a billion dollars a year for transit investment.

Dynamic pricing for parking Dynamic pricing for parking helps match parking supply to parking demand and avoids situations in which driv-ers cruise endlessly for available parking spots, which contribute to congestion.

San Francisco (SFPark) and Los Angeles (LAExpresspark) already have such programs in place, and New York City is conducting pilots in Green-wich Village, Park Slope, Jackson Heights, and Atlantic/Smith/Court Streets as part of the PARK Smart program.Depending on the results of the pilots, the program could be expanded further, making parking in the city more efficient.

Pay as you drive insurance As its name suggests, "pay as you drive" insurance (PAYD)allows drivers to pay for insurance based on the amount of miles they drive. Newly available thanks to simple de-vices that car owners can install to share driving data with their insurance companies, PAYD rewards drivers for driving less, thereby contributing to reductions in the number of miles traveled.

Two insurance companies be-gan offering PAYD insurance in New York in early 2013; in the longer term, if the experience proves successful, a 50 percent switch to PAYD insurance could abate as much as 0.5 MtCO2e.ý NYC's Pathways to Deep Carbon Reductions Asise aipln to in Improv*e ed frih o p erain lo 0xug07sam 11S1 n M4 Y% o.e 1 loci ino *..l To Uo UW Wl Yo 06o waotkISaMn 0a T gh6Ctp 1.005 ~ ~ e to Wo to toPWWo s-t pgwo,5itet11 Mff no aq am 0.J5& caw? .we W w ofo~tt will* 101 an Unis .ola xlsm- 4fota v

• lws*0w ol N 00K va Coo t§ý *ý eo q. 0 oI o MW j10.-k *5~p 7A@ 'QT? 0 5**s sal olon *lshao lo Inowl widyml TW to0 So?~~ go coy Ma in *~~al is ed, W* Wo WAYt astoatM ~agg 0e to~~~ ~ to IBM IN *-D(,s AC

• adR eo *AW 4 in IV to*a V0,fýd -t , TO %o to go *.o oyie* erl Vosl MW Do snodt Isming,* (W -anon' to wi yqyl a qiats a

• 0 M* caqo *...q~a 0Ad .~lu townAi onsIN 0~0 it *gw yan.Y0.0Ioto5P S smixon"00 van to .an eynt o v`

I I I I I a sanitatioT 0'I* P !i I:

I1I11I1 in'A'fl LI'l 1: I~.-4 L'~A N Soid Wat Overview On the city's sidewalks, black bags pile up at night; by morning, they disappear into the bellies of garbage trucks.Leftover food and old clothes, used paper cups and coffee shop grinds, wood and metal and concrete debris all add up to 10 million tons of waste a year -enough to fill the Empire State Building 21 times over, or to load up more than 3,000 large trucks every day. Around 15 percent of this material ends up at recycling plants; another 10 to 15 percent is converted to energy at facilities in New Jersey;less than 1 percent becomes compost; and the remainder travels as far away as Virginia and South Carolina to end up in landfills.

City taxpayers fund the residential part of the system, spending more than $100 for every ton that goes to landfills, but earning back up to $20 for every ton that is recycled, for a net expenditure of more than $300 million a year for the export of waste. Collection costs run an additional

$700 million. Commercial waste is paid for by businesses directly.Annual emissions from waste amount to 2.1 million metric tons -most from paper and organic waste as they de-compose in landfills, and the rest from waste-to-energy fa-cilities and from the trucks and trains that move the waste within the city and away from it. Emissions fell more than 20 percent in recent years because New Yorkers generate less waste, and because some of the waste now travels by rail and barge instead of truck -but reductions consistent with an 80 by 50 goal would need to go far beyond that. On that pathway, the volumes of waste would have to drop, most recyclable waste would have to be recycled, most organic waste would need to be composted or turned into biogas, and the rest would be converted to energy with minimal environmental impact. Very little would be landfilled.

The potential does exist to achieve these outcomes -and nearly all of the individual measures to get there would lead to savings in the long term. Yet unlocking this poten-tial will be challenging.

New Yorkers would need to im-prove recycling habits, which will be aided by the recent simplification of rules and improved messaging.

Waste processing infrastructure improved significantly this fall with the opening of the new Sims recycling facility in South Brooklyn -but the infrastructure to process organic waste would need to be expanded.

Plants in New Jersey convert some of the waste-to-energy

-but newer, cleaner, and more efficient plants are yet to be built.These challenges are real, but they may be possible to overcome -and initiatives of the last years have already pushed New York City towards a more sustainable solid waste system. With the appropriate long-term commit-ment, emissions from solid waste could continue to drop and potentially even be neutralized.

SNYC's Pathways to Deep Carbon Reductions I oidW Solid Waste Fundamentals New York City's residents, workers, and visitors generate more than 10 million tons of waste every year. Approxi-mately two-thirds of this waste is generated from every-day activities and typically left for pickup on the curb.The remaining third is debris from the construction and demolition of buildings (also called C&D waste). An addi-tional 4.8 million tons of fill -essentially dirt from excava-tions -is generated each year but nearly all of it is reused within the city and thus is not a major source of exported waste or GHG emissions.

Uniformed City workers from the Department of Sanita-tion (DSNY) pick up waste from residents, City govern-ment buildings, and some large institutions like hospitals and universities.

More than 200 commercial carters pick up waste from businesses.

Residents are required to separate their waste into three streams: paper and card-board, metal/glass/plastic, and all the rest.1 7 Businesses are also required by law to recycle and some are now required to source separate organic waste. (See chart: Residential Waste Composition)

Once picked up, residential and commercial waste is typically transported to one of four types of destinations:

recycling facilities, organic waste processing facilities, waste-to-energy facilities, or landfills.

A small but poten-tially growing amount of organic waste is processed at the City's wastewater treatment plants; several hundred tons a year are also composted locally at neighborhood community gardens. In 2011, recycling rates for residen-tial, commercial, and C&D waste were at 20 percent, 46 percent, and 45 percent, respectively.

Between 8 and 19 percent of waste was converted to energy, one percent was composted, and the rest was sent to landfills. (See charts: New York City Solid Waste by Source and Mode of Disposal and New York City Residential and Commercial Solid Waste Flows)Solid waste transfer and processing facilities are spread throughout the city and far beyond it as well. The major-ity of DSNY's recyclable content is managed at the new Sims facility in South Brooklyn; composting is taken to locations in Staten Island, Rikers Island, and most recent-ly, to the Newtown Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant;and everything left over is taken to waste-to energy fa-cilities outside of the city or to transfer stations in the city that coordinate delivery to landfills as far away as Virginia and South Carolina.

In the case of commercial carters, recyclables are taken to a variety of private pro-cessing facilities; compostable waste mostly travels to a facility in Delaware -though large commercial facilities are now under development closer by; and the remaining waste either goes directly to waste-to-energy facilities or is offloaded at a network of private transfer stations in and around the city and exported to remote landfills, mostly by truck. (See chart: New York City's Solid Waste Infrastructure)

The costs of managing the city's waste are substantial.

DSNY spends more than $700 million a year to collect the waste, and more than $300 million to export it, paying on the order of $100/ton for landfill exports, around $60/ton to recycle metal, glass, and plastic, and earning $20/ton on paper recycling.

Businesses spend comparable amounts.The system has evolved over the years. In the first half of the twentieth century, building-based incineration was common, and disposal in local landfills was the standard until municipal landfills started closing, culminating in the closure of Fresh Kills Landfill on Staten Island in 2001. In 2006, the City's Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan (SWMP) addressed the issues of geographic equity in the siting of waste transfer infrastructure.

Historically the Bronx and Staten Island hosted a disproportionate part of the city's waste infrastructure.

The SWMP sought to minimize in-city waste truck traffic by committing to construct a network of marine transfer stations through-out the city, where waste would be loaded onto barges and then taken to transfer stations outside the city, in or-der to be put into rail cars and trucks and exported to landfills.

Each borough would manage the waste it gener-ates at facilities located within the borough. The City is in the process of signing long-term export contracts with landfills in the Northeast; five marine transfer stations are under construction and are scheduled to become opera-tional in 2018.Approaches to managing waste are also evolving:

in the 2011 update to PlaNYC, the City committed to divert-ing 75 percent of solid waste from landfills by 2030 (the number includes fill). In 2013, the City also undertook the largest expansion of the recycling program in its 25 year history by accepting all rigid plastics for recycling for the first time.

I oid at New York City Solid Waste by Source and Mode of Disposal Millions of tons of waste; %, 2011 4.1 Residential Waste by Composition Millions short tons; % of total; 2004-2005 4 Recy cld Muonvee Eandfte D 4 17%3.4%, Residential Commercial Construction and demolition Source: NYC Mayor's Office New York City Residential and Commercial Solid Waste Flows" 8 Thousands of tons; 2011 Source: NYC Mayor's Office Metal/ glass/plastic Paper Food waste Other organics Inorganic Recycled Composted Converted Landfilled Source: NYC Mayor's Office SNYC's Pathways to Deep Carbon Reductions I oid at New York City's Solid Waste Infrastructure As of 2013 Waste type Lo il tracspri Transter no- output: Source-separated organics Organics trucks se ra ed r c , PaZt g ource ecyc Ing M i I S Source-UnIc pa Municipal pa t'was solid waste'c Construction and demolition lecycling trucckts MSW trucks C&D trucks Wastewater treatment Rikes a%ten island I ýpmpostlngrp st 1.; C Cornmerý"" compo:ting r7ities'fcaoc i .1?d Zioe Sim Sims recycling facillity (2014)recycling facilities Essex waste to energy facility Landfill Secondary markets Flared Converted to electririty and heat onsite Injected into natural gas grid Released into atmosphere Flared Transfer stations Converted to electricity and heat onsite Injected into natural gas grid Also releases hiogenio (Source: NYC Mayor's Office Most recently, the processing of organic waste has come to the fore as the City is beginning to pilot curbside corn-posting pickup in several neighborhoods in all five bor-oughs. In addition, working with the restaurant sector on a Food Waste Challenge requires participants to com-mit to diverting at least 50 percent of their food waste from landfill, and most recently, passing a requirement that large generators of organic waste source separate that content, beginning in 2015, in order to divert it from landfills.

The City is also working with a waste manage-ment company to process food waste collected from Public Schools into a slurry and then use spare anaero-bic digester capacity at the Newtown Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant to turn the food waste into biogas that can then be fed back into the utility grid.

II Soi Wat Sources of GHG Emissions New York City's solid waste emissions come from three sources -landfill methane, waste-to-energy, and trans-portation

-that in 2011 added up to more than 2.1 mil-lion tons.Landfill methane is by far the biggest source: it is re-sponsible for 89 percent of all solid waste emissions (See chart: Solid Waste GHG Emissions by Source). The methane is generated when paper and organic waste decompose in landfills without oxygen (if oxygen were present, the decomposition would produce C02 instead).Most landfills install equipment that captures up to 90-95 percent of the leaking methane and either flares it, produces electricity with it, or cleans it and feeds it into the gas grid. However, because the global warming effect of methane is 25 times as high as that of C02, even the relatively small amounts of fugitive emissions should be avoided.Emissions from processing waste at waste-to-energy fa-cilities are the second, but far smaller, source of emis-sions, with a 6 percent overall share. Transportation rep-resents an even smaller share of the overall emissions, but has been a source of emissions reductions in recent years as export of municipal solid waste has shifted from truck-based to rail- or barge-based transportation.

The relative composition of these three components has remained relatively unchanged since 2005, but the total fell by 21 percent, mostly because New Yorkers began to generate less waste per capita and because of the afore-mentioned mode shift. Exact reasons for the decline will not be known until DSNY completes a new waste charac-terization study (the previous one dates from 2005), but the technology-related decline in paper use and news-print circulation might offer a partial explanation.

I Solid Waste GHG Emissions by Source% of total; 2012 Landfilled Source: NYC Mayor's Office I Solid Waste Emissions MtCO e; % of total 3P0-2.7 2.7 2.6 2,5 2.0 1.5 1 .0.5 0,0 Transport IWaste -to- energy E Landfills ,5 2.3 2.3 I I i 2.1 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Source: NYC Mayor's Office MNYC's Pathways to Deep Carbon Reductions Technical Potential of GHG Reduction Measures As % of total 2005 emissions F-Waste Prevention U U U Ip , ~fT ~It I SomlWat Emissions Abatement Potential The "three R's" of solid waste management

-reduce, reuse, recycle -are also a strong framework for limiting greenhouse gas emissions from the sector. On the 80 by 50 pathway, volumes of waste would need to drop as consumers use fewer disposables and manufacturers of goods pay greater attention to packaging.

Nearly all organic waste would need to be composted or processed in anaerobic digesters within the region; nearly all re-cyclable material would need to be recycled; and most of what remains would need to be turned into to energy at state-of-the-art, low-emission conversion facilities.

Only a very small portion of remaining waste would be sent to landfills, which would lead to savings both for businesses and residents.

The sector that produces more than 2.1 million tons of emissions today would need to be nearly carbon free to reach 80 by 50.Waste prevention The best way to reduce carbon emissions from waste is not to generate it in the first place. Volumes of waste gen-erated per capita usually go hand in hand with prosper-ity. The wealthier a city, the more its residents tend to consume, and the less they tend to reuse. For example, New York City residents generate nearly 1,800 pounds of waste per year on average, while residents of the aver-age city in China generate nearly half that -a reflection of higher consumption and income levels in the U.S. com-pared to China.In recent years though, New York City's waste generation volumes have been falling. Since 2005 they have fallen by more than 20 percent. While the reasons behind the de-cline are not entirely clear -explanations include lighter packaging, a decline in paper use because of computer-ization, and a shift in consumption patterns away from goods and towards services), they mirror the national trends: solid waste generation in the U.S. stood at 980 pounds per year back in 1960, climbed to 1,730 in 2000, and has since declined to 1,606 -a drop of more than 7 percent.Still, potential exists to reduce the volumes of waste fur-ther -for example, another 20 percent reduction would eliminate 0.4 million tons of emissions.

For example, reducing the use of disposable paper and plastic bags by 75 percent -the kinds of reductions that cities like Washington DC and Dublin that introduced bag fees or bans are seeing -could reduce emissions by almost 20,000 tCO 2 e. In another example, reducing the use of plastic foodservice packaging by 55 percent could re-duce emissions by 11,000 tons. These numbers are highly understated given that they only capture local emissions and not the upstream emissions embedded in these disposables

-a factor that is important to consid-er in any discussions of the impact of better solid waste management.

This study however assumed, conserva-tively, that per capita generation rates will remain flat.Organic waste processing Organic waste makes up about 35 percent of the city's waste stream but less than one per-cent of that amount is composted or otherwise processed.

The rest goes to landfills, including over 1.2 million tons of discarded food waste 0.81 million alone. Organic waste is the greatest contribu-tonsb tor to New York City's solid waste emissions because the decomposition of organic mate- -$60 rials in landfills in the absence of oxygen pro- pertoo'I duces methane -a greenhouse gas that is 25 times stronger than carbon dioxide. While modern landfills can capture as much as 90 percent of their methane -which they either flare, feed back into the natural gas grid, or convert to electricity onsite -older landfills may emit methane at higher rates. Two fa-vorable alternatives to landfilling organic waste can help to reduce emissions.

The first alternative, composting, involves the decom-position of organic waste in the presence of oxygen at either small-scale facilities in backyards or community gardens, or at a larger scale in windrows.

Because the de-composition is aerobic, organic compounds break down into C02 instead of methane -and because these ma-terials (plants, for example) originally captured C02 from the air, the net impact on global emissions is zero (such emissions are also called biogenic).

The second option, anaerobic digestion (AD), involves the accelerated decomposition of organics without the presence of oxygen in the same process that sewage un-dergoes at wastewater treatment plants after it received initial treatment.

Digesters break down the waste into water, methane, and sludge. The sludge is then exported I Percentage sector wide reduction b Amount of CO2e abated I Cost to abate carbon SNYC's Pathways to Deep Carbon Reductions I S lW to specialized landfills or turned into fertilizer, while the methane is captured and, just as with landfill methane, is either flared, burned to produce heat and energy, or cleaned and returned into the natural gas distribution grid, as will be the case at the City's Newtown Creek Wastewater Treatment facility.Of the two options, scaling up of anaerobic digestion holds the greatest carbon reduction potential.

Initiatives like backyard and community garden composting are im-portant, particularly to build public awareness, but regu-lar composting fails to capture all of the energy embed-ded in organic waste (which is why composting heaps heat up), whereas AD captures most of it. Anaerobic digestion also makes economic sense. Societal cost of carbon reductions is on the order of negative $60/ton in 2030 because processing waste locally and turning it into energy is far cheaper than sending it to landfills by truck.The GHG reduction potential from it amounts to at least 0.8 MtCO2e in 2050.Of the two options, scaling up of anaerobic digestion holds the greatest carbon reduction potential.

Initiatives like backyard and community garden composting are im-portant, particularly to build public awareness, but regu-lar composting fails to capture all of the energy embed-ded in organic waste (which is why composting heaps heat up), whereas AD captures most of it. It also makes economic sense: societal cost of carbon reductions is on the order of negative $60/ton in 2030 because process-ing waste locally and turning it into energy is far cheaper than sending it to landfills by truck. The GHG reduction potential from it amounts to at least 0.8 MtCO2e in 2050.Recycling Non-organic recyclables that end up in landfills contribute less to the City's Scope 2 emissions

%than organics do. This is because of the recy-clables that New York City collects, only paper decomposes, while metal, glass, and plastic 0[5 only contribute to transportation emissions.

millon That said, the real benefit of recycling comes ton, from reducing upstream emissions by temper-ing demand for virgin materials like paper and -$130 aluminum that require large amounts of ener- perton gy to produce (aluminum smelters require so much energy that they are usually sited based on prox-imity to cheap electricity).

The avoided emissions from recycling far outweigh those emissions that New York City's current carbon inventory would capture.Just like anaerobic digestion, recycling is also attractive economically:

the City is currently paying around $60/ton to process metal, glass, and plastic -an almost 50 per-cent reduction from the cost of landfilling, and it is actu-ally earning up to $20/ton for paper. As a result, improv-ing recycling rates can offer cost-negative reductions at a cost of around -$130 per ton of carbon.The city's current recycling rate is relatively low com-pared to other major cities which is why such aggres-sive efforts are underway to increase participation.

Only about 20 percent of residential waste is recycled.

Recy-cling rates in the commercial sector are higher -around 46 percent, in part because much of it is paper, which is a valuable commodity.

If recycling rates were to increase to 30 percent on the residential side -which is the City's current 2020 goal -and, very conservatively, stay at least unchanged on the commercial side, the city could reduce annual GHG emissions by at least 0.5 MtCO2e by 2050.Waste-to-energy conversion Approximately 19 percent of the city's non-recycled residential waste and 7 percent of its non-recycled commercial waste travels to con-version facilities in Essex County, New Jersey rather than to landfills.

These facilities utilize high temperatures to combust waste and then use the heat from the combustion to produce steam, which then powers the turbines that generate electricity.

3.9%2.5 million tons-$100 per ton A newer technology called plasma gasification is begin-ning to emerge as a viable alternative:

in gasification fa-cilities, waste is not combusted, but is rather heated up to such a high temperature that it breaks down into basic molecules that form synthetic gas (syngas) which is then used to produce electricity

-a cleaner and more efficient way of turning waste into energy. The technology is not yet available in or around New York City, but the plants are clean enough and can be small enough to potentially site them in or near the city and connect them to either the local district heating systems or even potentially the steam system. Plasma gasification facilities could also be retooled to turn syngas into methane and then export it to the grid or to turn it into liquid fuels.

Soid at Several pilots have already been constructed around the U.S. and globally and the technology is becoming more promising.

Although the siting of waste-to-energy facili-ties within or close to the city could be met with oppo-sition from local residents, other cities -most notably Copenhagen

-have successfully integrated small scale waste-to-energy facilities into their district heating sys-tems, ultimately gaining public acceptance for the idea of processing waste closer to where it is generated.

The total potential carbon abatement from plasma gas-ification is 2.5 MtCO2e by 2050, which would enable the waste sector overall to become a carbon sink -i.e. it would create a net reduction in the city's overall emis-sions inventory.

It is important to note, however, that al-though waste conversion using plasma gasification may be attractive from a carbon accounting point of view, it should not become a replacement for waste prevention, recycling, and composting, all of which are preferable from an overall environmental standpoint.

As with organ-ics processing and recycling, the cost per ton of carbon abated would be negative -around -$1 00/ton in 2030.Low-emission waste transport Waste transport accounts for just 4 percent of the city's solid waste emissions.

A small share comes from the trucks that collect waste within the city; the majority is from larger long-distance export trucks that travel hun-dreds of miles to landfills out of state because landfilling is cheaper where land values are lower. The City's 2006 Solid Waste Management Plan called for transitioning to rail and barges for exporting waste as an alternative to trucks and implementation of the plan has already re-duced emissions by 50,000 tons. Transport emissions could be reduced further through additional mode-shifting or through using more efficient vehicles and cleaner fuels for the long-haul export trucks. Because of the small size of the impact of mode-shifting, the exact potential was not quantified.

Capture and reuse of landfill gas All landfills to which the city exports its waste capture fugitive methane, which they flare, turn to energy, or sell into the natural gas. The average landfill capture rate is around 85 percent. At landfills within the city, all of which are now capped, generation of methane is declin-ing and methane capture is improving, which in recent years contributed to a 30,000 tCO2e reduction in emis-sions. While small additional improvements may be pos-sible with better technology, further analysis was not conducted.

SNYC's Pathways to Deep Carbon Reductions Soli W Challenges The solid waste system could one day be nearly carbon-free

-but three challenges stand in the way, having to do with choices, incentives, and infrastructure.

The right choice is not always the easy choice within the existing system Every day, eight million New Yorkers make decisions about waste -whether to reuse, or recycle, or to com-post, orto send something into a landfill.

These decisions compete with hundreds of others -and if it comes to a choice between putting a water bottle in the trash, re-cycling it, or not buying it in the first place, the simplest option will often win. Recycling is available, but can be complicated; composting is thought of as an option for only the most environmentally minded. And even envi-ronmentalists can be frustrated by resource choices and packaging decisions that are made upstream, where the consumer has little influence.

As a result, most waste ends up in landfills

-even if the people who send it there would prefer that it did not.Many residents and businesses are not con-cerned and have no incentive to be Some New Yorkers pay enough attention to recycling and composting that they will begin to recycle new types of waste on the first day a new option is announced.

But others will express little or know interest in learning new rules or changing behavior.

They might benefit from hav-ing more information

-but that may not stop them from feeling that "green" options are too varied or inconve-nient. They might choose to modify their behavior if they had the incentive

-but with waste pickup included in the tax bill, they have few reasons to do so.Infrastructure to support new waste handling methods is unavailable locally New York City exports most of its waste, and local facili-ties for processing it are in limited supply. The situation improved this fall with the opening of the Sims Recycling Facility in South Brooklyn, but more infrastructure is need-ed, particularly for organic waste processing.

Small-scale, community-based composting programs are spreading to Greenmarkets and neighborhood facilities throughout the city thanks to a partnership between GrowNYC and the NYC Department of Parks and Recreation, but these sites do not offer sufficient processing capacity for a city-wide organic composting effort. Additional processing infrastructure is expected to come online now that the City passed legislation that will require large generators to divert organic waste from landfills by 2015.

I oid at Capturing the Potential Strategy 1 Making it Easier to Compost and Recycle Recycling in the public realm New Yorkers can recycle at home and at work-but until recently their only option on most city streets was to toss their recyclables in garbage cans. In March 2013, Mayor Bloomberg launched the city's first public space recycling pilot, inaugurating 30 BigBelly solar-powered recycling compactors in Times Square that will serve more than 500,000 people who pass through the area every day.Conventional recycling containers are on the way as well: by the end of 2013, the City will place more than 1,000 of them around New York. Future efforts to encourage recy-cling would have to continue expanding the availability of public recycling options.Recycling in apartment buildings Many of the city's apartment dwellers may want to recy-cle but may not know enough about their options or may lack room for separate recycling bins in their buildings.

To expand the availability of space for recycling in apart-ment buildings, the Green Codes Task Force-a group of more than 200 design and real estate professionals that were convened by the Urban Green Council at the request of Mayor Bloomberg and New York City Council Speaker Christine Quinn-recommended that new and fully renovated buildings with more than 12 units include a designated waste and recycling room. This proposal was enacted into law.Existing buildings without dedicated recycling rooms can still benefit from better information and simpler recycling rules. To this end, DSNY recently expanded the recycling program to include for the first time the recycling of all rigid plastics, including toys, hangers, shampoo bottles, coffee cups and food containers, which will reduce confu-sion about which plastic types are recyclable and which are not. The City also simplified its information materials and messaging about recycling to educate New Yorkers about these changes.Composting options In 2013, DSNY started collecting organic waste from sev-eral neighborhoods in Staten Island, Queens and Brook-lyn, picking it up from single- and multi-family homes several times a month and delivering it to transfer sta-tions, from where it is sent onward to composting and anaerobic digestion facilities.

The program has proven successful and is now being expanded to other neighbor-hoods and building types.Strategy 2 Changing Behaviors through Education, Challenges and Incentives Improving marketing and education Individual actions can have a huge impact in chang-ing the marketplace.

New Yorkers are certainly open to the idea of changing their behaviors:

a recent study by GreeNYC, PlaNYC's public education arm, found that the city's residents were collectively willing to take simple actions that could reduce up to 200,000 tons of paper, textile, and food waste per year-2 percent of the city's waste stream. Converting this willingness into real re-ductions will be challenging.

Collection for commercial and residential waste streams operates entirely indepen-dently and this can cause confusion and frustration.

To address the issue, the City is already working to improve its educational tools and is working with the commercial waste sector to achieve consistent messaging; the work will need to continue.Food waste challenges Mayoral Challenges, where several organizations within an industry are asked to commit to sustainable goals on a voluntary basis have worked well for greenhouse gas emissions

-and the model can be expanded to solid waste. The Mayor's Food Waste Challenge, a voluntary challenge to the private sector to commit to divert from landfills at least 50 percent of the food waste that they generate is doing just that. The program requires partici-pants to conduct a baseline waste generation audit and then use simple tracking techniques to measure diverted waste on an ongoing basis. It will also be complemented by a professionally branded, "consumer facing" cam-paign that could engage diners and the public to build awareness and support for organic waste composting.

A high-profile group of participants and a successful pro-gram could prove that organic waste diversion is feasi-ble, affordable, and good for business.NYC's Pathways to Deep Carbon Reductions I S l Wat Price signals Waste collection and export may cost the City hun-dreds of millions of dollars annually, but most New York-ers would not notice since they are not billed directly but rather indirectly through their tax bills. As a result, households have no monetary incentives

-other than fines for non-compliance

-to either recycle more or to reduce the amount of waste they generate.

Cities across the country have developed creative solutions to setting price signals that incentivize waste reduction.

For exam-ple, the City of Philadelphia and others have partnered with private companies to incentivize recycling by pro-viding discounts and gift certificates at leading retailers.

Other cities have set direct price signals through Pay-As-You-Throw programs in which homes are charged for non-recyclable waste they generate, which becomes an incentive to produce less waste. In New York City, imple-menting these programs in multifamily housing could be challenging; one and two-family homes could present less of an obstacle.Strategy 3 Spurring Action through Mandates and Enforcement Targeted waste reduction measures According to the City's 2005 Waste Characterization Study, paper and, plastic bags represent 3.4 percent of the city's residential waste stream, or 120,000 tons a year. Cities like Dublin and Washington DC have already launched targeted campaigns to reduce disposable bag use -one program to impose small bag fees succeeded in reducing their volume by as much as 90 percent and significantly reduced pollution in rivers and water bod-ies. In New York City, similar measures to manage bag use could divert large amounts of waste from landfills at a negligible consumer cost.Organics collection from the largest generators The top 10 percent of food waste generators

-large hotels, banquet halls, cafeterias, and food wholesalers

-produce approximately 40 percent of organic waste.Policies and programs to introduce organics collection for at least these largest generators

-including through mandates-would help jumpstart organics processing.

To this end, the City recently passed into law a requirement that large generators of organic waste -those that gen-erate at least one ton per week -divert it from landfills through source separation.

When fully enacted in 2015, the law could result in up to 30 percent of the city's or-ganic waste being diverted from landfills while only af-fecting less than 5 percent of businesses that generate organic waste and less than 0.5 percent of businesses overall.Diversion of construction and demolition waste Construction and demolition accounts for more than a quarter of the city's waste. The City is already addressing the issue through the Green Codes process: a recently passed local law requires at least 30 percent recycled as-phalt in new streets, which will divert up to than 300,000 tons of asphalt away from landfills every year. Two more proposals are moving through City Council: one estab-lishes requirements to recycle C&D waste from construc-tion sites; the other requires a minimum percentage of recycled concrete in certain types of building materials.

The proposals are expected to be introduced in the first half of 2014.Packaging waste reduction Governments, corporations and institutions across the country have begun to implement "Extended Producer Responsibility" (EPR) programs that allow large purchas-ing entities to use their buying power to encourage prod-uct suppliers to reduce packaging waste and end of life disposal costs without imposing an explicit tax. These programs allow producers to find the most efficient means of reducing waste, which can include reuse, buy-back, or recycling, often with the assistance of a third party. These typically occur at the level of states -Cali-fornia's EPR programs have achieved significant reduc-tion in the types and volume of packaging that end up in the waste stream, for example -but city-level measures could be just as viable.Recycling enforcement In 2010, Mayor Bloomberg signed legislation to raise the penalties for failing to recycle for the first time in over a decade. The new system created tiered penalties de-pending on building size; the penalties increase with building size. As new recycling programs come into ef-fect, strong and effective enforcement will be crucial.

I oid Strategy 4 Developing New Infrastructure to Support Better Waste Disposal For years, New York City's waste processing infrastruc-ture was focused on sending waste to landfills quickly and efficiently

-first locally, in places like Fresh Kills, and then to other nearby states. Recycling infrastructure is beginning to catch up, but modern waste-to-energy and anaerobic digestion facilities would still need to be con-structed if the city is to achieve its diversion goals and support the processing of higher volumes of waste di-verted from landfills as education and incentives begin to take effect.Recycling The city's recycling infrastructure is improving:

working in partnership with Sims Metal Management, the City is now constructing a state-of-the-art recycling facility at the South Brooklyn Marine Terminal that will process metal, glass, and an expanded variety of plastics.

Another facil-ity key to increasing the diversion rate is the Gansevoort Marine Transfer Station, located on the Hudson River in downtown Manhattan.

The station, now under construc-tion, will accept metal, glass, and plastic, along with pa-per from residential and commercial sources, and will become Manhattan's primary recycling marine transfer station, connecting by barge to the Sims facility and the Visy paper mill in Staten Island. Not only will this allow Manhattan to collect and transport its own recyclables for the first time, it will also eliminate nearly 14,000 truck trips per year to the Bronx and New Jersey.Construction of the Gansevoort Station will also allow the City to convert Manhattan's West 59th Street Marine Transfer Station to the borough's only construction and demolition transfer facility.

This will make it possible for C&D waste to leave Manhattan by barge instead of by truck, which is how the 400,000 tons of waste generated by construction activities in Manhattan leave the bor-ough today.Anaerobic digestion Anaerobic digestion would have to play a major role in capturing the abatement potential of organic waste -but no dedicated facilities are yet available anywhere near New York City. The closest major organics processing facility is located in Delaware -but it uses the aerated windrow method, which ensures that the waste releases C02 instead of methane as it decomposes but does not capture its full energy potential.

A pilot AD facility in or near the city could help improve the economics of com-posting, make it more attractive to local businesses, and begin to solve the self-reinforcing problem of constrained processing capacity preventing the takeoff of demand, and vice versa.Organics processing at wastewater plants If food waste challenges and, down the road, a potential organics mandate succeed in generating high enough food waste volumes, the private sector will inevitably step in to offer processing solutions.

Yet the necessary AD infrastructure might take several years to permit and build -and in the meantime, processing capacity is read-ily available within the city. Of the city's 14 wastewater treatment plants, 4 have spare capacity to process up to 560 tons a day of organics, of which 500 tons are at Newtown Creek, the city's newest plant. There, the De-partment of Environmental Protection (DEP) is partner-ing with a private company called Waste Management to process up to 60 tons of food waste a day, increasing to 250 tons by 2017 as long as all technical challenges are resolved.

DEP will also launch a study to examine the eco-nomic and technical feasibility of repairing the digesters that are currently out of service or even potentially build-ing new ones to handle higher volumes of organic waste.Onsite food waste processing Large-scale AD facilities are central to processing the city's organic waste, but not all of the waste needs to be picked up for processing.

Where enough of it is gener-ated in one place, it can be processed locally. Technolo-gies to do so are available and large waste generators like produce markets could be possible candidates for piloting on-site processing of food waste.Waste conversion Fully capturing the abatement potential of waste conver-sion through plasma gasification or other comparable technologies would require constructing a network of facilities throughout the city -but a pilot would have to be developed first. A small-scale advanced conversion technology facility could serve as a proof concept for New York City, making it possible to test the economics SNYC's Pathways to Deep Carbon Reductions I SoldWat of the project, potentially integrate it into local heating systems, and develop it into a blueprint that could later be used citywide.Strategy 5 Improving Solid Waste Transportation Transportation only represents a small proportion of sol-id waste emissions, but opportunities to improve it do exist for both municipal and commercial fleets.Biofuel use in City waste fleets The Department of Sanitation has pioneered the use of biodiesel in its fleets and over time this practice has been adopted across agencies.

All diesel-powered City vehicles now utilize a 5 percent blend of biodiesel (B5)and as of 2016, these vehicles will be required to use B20 between the months of April and November.

Expanding to higher concentrations of biodiesel in City fleets would present an opportunity to "close the loop" in solid waste management because biodiesel can be processed from waste cooking oil and agricultural by-products at local facilities.

Modernization of private waste fleets Many of the city's more than 200 commercial carters operate trucks that are over 15 years old and inefficient compared to newer models. Carters will gradually re-place their trucks with models that comply with recent federal fuel efficiency standards

-but the process could be accelerated through a mixture of requirements and in-centives, helping reduce not only carbon emissions, but also emissions of airborne pollutants, which would have a direct positive impact on public health.

I~)0 U, 0~~1 9 1111111 I cnm icAayi Abatement Cost-Effectiveness As described in the preceding chapters, reaching 80 by 50 would require a portfolio of actions to reduce carbon across all sectors, year in and year out. Many of these measures would come with an incremental cost or need for upfront in-vestment.

However, as long as measures are timed to coin-cide with natural replacement and retrofit cycles, the majority would more than pay for themselves because of savings in energy consumption, solid waste export fees or other op-erational expenditures.

At a 4 percent discount rate, these measures would be beneficial from a societal standpoint or, in other words, they would have a "negative-cost." In 2030, for example, nearly 80 percent of carbon abatement measures are estimated to be cost-negative.

Another 8 per-cent of measures would cost less than $100/ton, and only 12 percent cost more than $1 00/ton. As 2050 approaches, more expensive measures would eventually need to be implement-ed to achieve an 80 percent reduction, but overall, two-thirds of measures would be cost-negative.

The cost effectiveness of abatement measures would vary significantly by sector. In the solid waste sector, for example, 100 percent of measures would be cost-negative because the fees that the City and private companies currently pay for waste export are so high and diverting waste to recycling and composting is nearly guaranteed to save money. Likewise, over 80 percent of abatement measures in buildings would be cost-negative because savings from reduced energy con-sumption would typically exceed upfront costs.In the power sector, however, approximately 95 percent of measures would cost above $1 00/ton.1 9 This does not include behind-the-meter technologies such as solar PV, which are assumed to enter the market on an economic basis (e.g. at grid parity). Large-scale renewables might reduce the need for fossil fuels in electricity production, but the amount of up-front capital investment they would require would exceed any savings over time. Nevertheless, achieving 80 by 50 without cleaning up the electric grid would be nearly impossible.

But at the same time it is essential to reduce electricity demand as much as possible in order to reduce the amount of clean power generation that would need to be built and therefore to minimize costs. (See chart: 2030 Abatement Costs by Sector)I Abatement Potential by Cost per Ton% of total; Metric tons Co-e 2020 7%120%20301 %113 205 1 27% 18*<$o/tCO2e

>So and <$100/tCO2e M >100/tCO2e Source: NYC Mayor's Office Ranking abatement measures by their cost effectiveness on a marginal abatement cost curve demonstrates a theoretical pathway to reach 80 by 50. The lower cost abatement mea-sures like plug load reduction and lighting upgrades-appear-ing on the left hand side of the abatement curve-are tapped first and consistently over time as more and more buildings replace their equipment on a natural time cycle. In contrast, more expensive measures like electrifying heating systems or building out large-scale renewable energy resources are de-layed until later years when technology costs fall and other abatement options becomes scarce enough that capturing this potential becomes necessary. (See graphics:

Emissions Abatement Potential by Year)I 2030 Abatement Costs By Sector% of sectoral abatement:

Metric ton CO e Bllilcling, Trartspuitaticir Sdid ivaste 95 145 1.8 3.5 2.9 Wt*:* 0rd$0/C~-, * /C~* does not include behind the meter technologies Source: NYC Mayor's Office M NYC's Pathways to Deep Carbon Reductions

,I Ecnmi I Emissions Abatement Potential; 2020 MtCo~e U Solid waste M Transport Power M Buildings 300 200 100 0 100 200 300 400-500-600 700 B00 Off shore wind Solar thermal Hydropower Waste conversion Building facades RetcyclIminrg P owerit r a Irimprove merits is 40 45 I Central systems and lighting Demand reduc~tion Conversion to gab Plug load reduction I Emissions Abatement Potential; 2030 MtCo e 300 200 100 Ott-shore wind Solar thermi;!Hydropower Buligfacades Organic waste processing Alternative fuels Waste conversion Powertrainmproveients Pecyc tng M Solid waste a Transport Power I Buildings 35 40 45-100-200 300-400-500-60o-700-0o0 Central systems and lighting IN Demand reductioln Plug load reduction Conversion to gas I Emissions Abatement Potential; 2050 MtCo~e 200 100 0-100 200 Organic-300 Recycling Waste conversi 400 000-600 Conversion to pas Central systems and lighting-700 Solar PV-00d-900 Plog load redortion* Solid waste N Transport Powet Buildings electrilrratior, I Buildings Off shore wind Hydr opower I Alternative fuels 40 45 I Solar thermal Building facades waste proc essng on Source: NYC Mayor's Office I1 Ecnmc nl Changes to Capital and Operational Expenditure Flows To achieve 80 by 50 would require billions of dollars of incre-mental capital investment.

Over the next twenty years, the majority of this incremental investment would go towards en-ergy efficiency retrofits in buildings.

Investments in clean power would ramp up after 2030, while incremental spending on more efficient and less polluting transportation would be smaller but steady throughout the next several decades. The effect of these investments would be felt in the near term as buildings begin to utilize less electicity natural gas and liquid fuels, and as ve-hicles become more efficient.

As a result, annual savings on op-erational expenditures (opex) would exceed the required annual capital investments by 2020. By the 2030s, the annual savings would equal more than $6 billion a year. (See chart: Changes in Annual Capital Spending and Opex)The amount of capital investments required -$1 billion a year in 2015 and scaling up to more than $4 billion a year by the 2030s-is comparable to the entire capital investment programs of Con Edison or the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), the city's water and sewer utility. However, the number needs to be seen in the context of citywide investments that occur every year in the course of normal construction and activity.

In 2012, I Changes to Annual Capital Investment Flows by Sector$ billions I Solid waste N Transportation Power 8,3* Buildings 6.2 5.3 m 4.6 4.8 1.9 0.8 27 0-0.2 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 Source: NYC Mayor's Office Changes to Annual Opex Flows by Sector under 80 by 50 BAU$ billionsW* Solid waste E Transportation foD Ni pe I r example, more than $30 billion was spent on construction in Power 164 ew York City;, an additional

$4 billion a year would represent 13 N Buildings 146 ercent of this amount. 13 0 Changes in Annual Capital Spending and Opex 1O2$ billions; net difference in bold I M*Capex spending 6.7 NOpex savings 3.7 0. II -1. :W K IEIIII 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 Source: NYC Mayor-8.2-10 183 1 2050's Office 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 Source: NYC Mayor's Office MNYC's Pathways to Deep Carbon Reductions Ecnmi nayi I Changes to Energy Demand on the 80 by 50 Pathway vs. BAU Indexed to 201o-Business as usual.80x5o pathway--Box 5o pathway with building electrification Electricity 140 Gasoline+33%120 10 0 ----- ---- ---- ---- --- ----------

80-60-36%40 20 0 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 Natural gas 140 120 100 80 -35%40 20 -73%0 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 Oil 140 120 100 80 N -21%60 140+28%120 , 100-- ---------- ----------80 S 27%40 20 0 -90%2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 Changes to Energy Demand Reductions in energy demand would be the primary driver of operational savings in the economy. Electricity demand would initially drop as buildings become more efficient, but recover partially as vehicles (and potentially building heating systems) electrify.

By 2050, electricity demand would be 12 to 36 percent below 2012 levels depending on how many buildings electrify.

Gasoline demand is expected to drop even under the business as usual case because of aggressive federal standards to improve automobile efficiency-Corporate Average Fuel Economy or CAFE standards.

On the 80 by 50 path-way, gasoline demand would decline even faster due to an accelerated switch to electric vehicles, reaching a 73 40 20 0-79%2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 Source: NYC Mayor's Office percent reduction from today's levels by 2050. Natural gas demand would first increase to accommodate build-ings moving away from heavy fuel oils and then gradu-ally drop as investment in energy efficiency grows. The extent of declining natural gas demand by 2050 would depend on how widespread electrification of buildings is, but it would exceed 25 percent and could be much high-er. Demand for heating oil is also expected to drop in the business as usual (BAU) case because of the current pac-ing of oil-to-gas conversions, as well as the competitive economics of natural gas, but demand reductions could exceed 70 percent by 2050 on the abatement pathway.(See chart: Changes to Energy Demand on the 80 by 50 pathway vs. BAU)

Ecno i Anlyi I Employment Impacts by Type Thousands; by type of impact 25 -Net impact Long term shift in competitiveness U Capital expenditures 20 U Opportunity cost of local spending I Jobs Created Through Capital Expenditure, by Sector Thousands 15 10 5 0 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0* Waste E Transportation

• Buildings Power-5 2015 2020 2025 2030 2015 2020 2025 2030 Source: NYC Mayor's Office Impact on Local Economy The changes to the patterns of capital investment and op-erational expenditures would impact the economy directly: jobs would be created in some sectors and lost in others, personal income would increase, and gross regional product would grow. The economic impact, only estimated through 2030 due to the level of uncertainty past that date, would occur via three main channels:* Direct impact of capital expenditures:

Capital invest-ment directly creating jobs in construction and related sectors" Opportunity cost of local spending:

The diversion of spending from other sectors to pay for the investment in (1) leads to negative economic impacts in other sec-tors of the economy" Long-term shift in competitiveness:

Decrease in en-ergy use resulting from capital investment helps to lower production costs and make the economy more competitive in the long term The jobs impact from the combination of these three chan-nels would be positive:

by 2030, the 80 by 50 pathway could create up to 18,000 jobs -mainly because the economy would become more competitive.

While the direct job cre-ation spurred by capital investment would be offset by Source: NYC Mayor's Office losses in other sectors, the resulting energy savings from capital investments would have enough of an impact on the economy's production costs to create thousands of net-new jobs over the next two decades. (See chart: Employment Impacts by Type)Capital expenditures in buildings would play the most im-portant role in the creation of jobs, contributing between 60 and 80 percent of all the new jobs. Power investments would account for most of the remaining job benefits, with solar PV installations contributing the most and off-shore wind playing a role as well. The employment im-pact of transportation and solid waste measures would be negligible. (See chart: Jobs Created Through Capital Expenditure, by Sector)Gross regional product (GRP) -or the measure of the strength of the region's economy -would benefit as well.By 2030, GRP would increase by nearly $1.9 billion a year.Investments in buildings, again, would provide the greatest contribution.

Investments in cleaner power, on the other hand, would lead to losses because of its relatively higher costs. Personal income levels would experience similar ef-fects, with cost savings from using less energy more than offsetting the higher prices consumers would pay for clean-er energy -leading to a net increase in income of $2.2 bil-lion a year by 2030.MNYC's Pathways to Deep Carbon Reductions Economic Disruptions of Carbon Abatement Impact on Energy Sector Jobs Every year, New Yorkers spend almost $30 billion on energy-approximately

$11 billion on electricity, $10 billion on natu-ral gas and liquid fuels in buildings, and $8 billion on trans-portation fuels. Part of this spending goes towards the ex-traction and refining of fossil fuels, which takes place outside of New York Cit, but other parts support local jobs- 20,000 in total, or 0.2 percent of the city's total 2011 private sector employment of 3.1 million. More than half of these jobs are in electricity distribution (primarily Con Edison); the rest are in naurlgas dsrbuin fuel ditibto, and retai gaso-line operations (See chart: Energy Sector Employment In New York City).On the 80 by 50 pathway, the 12,500 jobs in power transmis-sion and would be relatvely unaffected.

Thecity would still have to malntain its electrical grid regardless of changes to either demand or the carbon intensity of electric-it The 500 jobs in power generation would be unaffected by 2030 -gas-fired power plants would still be playing a prominent role -but by 2050, the importance of gas-fired gwould decline, and at least some of those jobs would likely shift to other power generation technologies.

The 2,300 jobs in natural gas distribution would remain rel-atively unaffected as well -just as with electricity, the city Energy Sector Employment in New York City Thousands:

based on NAICS-6 classification; 2011 14 would still have to maintain its natural gas grid, though de-mand for natural gas would likely fall off because of energy efficiency and building electrification.

Businesses serving the gasoline marketplace

-4,400 jobs in all -would likely feel the Impact of decarbonizatlon the most. Some of these businesses would reorient their services (gas stations, for example, could add EV charging);

some would go out of business.Impact on Lower Income Residents and Energy Intensive Businesses Pursuing 80 by 50 could also have equity implications:

total energy costs might drop for the city overall, but electrcity prices would Increase, affecting energy intensive manufac-turing and residents who live on fixed income or low wages.Both cases would call for some form of assistance

-and the necessary programs may already exist.Manufacturing no longer accounts for as many New York City jobs as it used to- but Industrial companies still employ tens of thousands of New Yorkers. These companies would stand to benefit less from energy efficiency than, for exam-pie, office buildings.

Two existing programs administered by the New York City Economic Development Corporation, BIR (the Business Incentive Rate), and NYCPUS the New York City Public Utility Service), have for years been provid-ing discounts and rebates of up to 20 percent to local manu-facturers.

These and similar programs could be used tohp energy intnsv buiese miigt th Imat of hge electricity prices rltdt eabnzto in ordrtomain-tain competitiveness of local As previously, decarbonization would ideally occurat a national or at least regional scale in order to level the playing field, so that New York City's industries are not disproportionately impacted.13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 1;>: city residents that live on fixed incomes or low wages could benefit from energy effici meay if they were able to partake in them, but practical obstacles could limit up-14. take and help would be required to mitigate cost of living 1.4 Fuel dealers Impacts. NYSERDA's EmPower New York program provides income-elIgible New Yorkers with energy efficiency services 3.0 Gas stations forno cost, while the NewYorkState of and Community Renewal provides free and low-cost weath-erization services through its network of contractors.

The fined federalfUldd L Iy oducts istics; NYC Mayor's Office costs of home heating. These programs could bet to help residents cope with higher power prices that result from switching to a lower carbon grid.Electricity Natural gas Re distribution pro Source: Bureau of Labor Stat 0 I A Next Steps Vi $1 IfII l I Next Steps I GHG Emissions Pathways Metric tons Co e; % reduction vs. 2005 in a give year 50 --Historic Reduction--30x3o Pathway-- 8ox5o Pathway 40 20 0-0 2005 2012 2020 2030 2040 2050 Source: NYC Mayor's Office Even though the exact shape of a low-carbon city is un-certain today -and the 80 by 50 goal itself may well be too aggressive for a relatively efficient city like New York-the city has both the tools and the momentum to ac-celerate carbon reduction efforts this decade. As the city is now close to two-thirds of the way to the PlaNYC 30 percent greenhouse gas reduction goal, it could consider accelerating the target date for reaching the goal, from 2030 to 2020. Doing so could put New York City on a trajectory to achieve 80 by 50 while maintaining focus on what is achievable today.To reach a 30 percent reduction, emissions would need to fall another 6.4 million tons below 2012 levels. If the City aggressively implements and strategically expands several existing initiatives it could achieve the 6.4 mil-lion ton reduction within this decade. These reduction actions are focused on the buildings, transportation and waste sectors. Given the long-lead times and expense of projects it is not assumed that any major abatements will accrue from the power sector. However, several promising near-term opportunities exist and could be pursued in tandem with the hope of providing an I Citywide CO e Emissions Reduction Summary MtCOze 55 5ff 45 40 30--------------

---

414---3 6 51 e2ý(005f v~o (020 2 00 fons Addtlitoff0 file redwftfons jibmoed edurtions edued 2030 C02e target Source: NYC Mayor's Office SNYC's Pathways to Deep Carbon Reductions NetStp additional buffer to achieve 30 by 20. The following sec-tion briefly describes these possible efforts.Achieving 30 by 20 will require tremendous effort and consistent reductions of 2 percent per year through the end of the decade. This will not be easy, but New Yorkers stand to gain along the way. Reducing energy consump-tion in buildings will lower operational expenses and GHG Reduction Potential of Existing and New Policies Sector and GHG reduction potential create jobs. Converting to cleaner fuels in buildings and electrifying or using biodiesel in vehicles will improve air quality. And diverting waste from landfills will save city residents and businesses on waste export costs and could promote local industries.

These and other mea-sures could reinforce and strengthen New York City's global leadership in responding to climate change, while making the city more competitive, livable, and resilient.

Sector and measure GHG reduction potential 04 X L.LJ I I I Energy code tightening and enforcement 2 Oil to gas conversions Mayor's Carbon Challenge City government energy efficiency Organic waste -anaerobic digestion 40 Expanded recycling Power reductions could contribute another 1.5 Mt 10 3.0 Mt total 0.5 0.5 04 0.2 1/3 taxi electrification 0-Biofuels for City fleet <0.1 Citywide vehicle electrification 02* Buildings energy efficiency accelerator 13 o.6 Mt total 0.3 Mt total 1 Biofuels for building fuels 0.9 2.5 Mt total 0.3 I Carbon Challenge expansion Total captured 64 Power, not counted towards main reductions, would add 1.5 MT 1 Canadian hydro 1,000 MW Offshore wind 2 350 MW Solar buildout 3 300 MW 0.24 1.10

• Support transmissionriting in PSC process" Work with NYPA and State to accelerate pilot project" Reform solar interconnect rules and incentives o.18 Total: 1.5 Mt Source: NYC Mayor's Office Emissions Abatement and Climate Resiliency Even as the City works to reduce greenhouse gas emis-sions, the climate is still changing, and the climate risks that the city has always faced are becoming worse. How-ever, the very strategies that help reduce emissions can also make the city more resilient.

Storm surges and heat waves are the two most impor-tant climate risks for New York City. Both struck in recent years, and both affected the city's energy infrastructure:

Hurricane Sandy left 800,000 customers in the dark and devastated liquid fuels supply infrastructure in 2012, Hur-ricane Irene came close to shutting down the electric grid in 2011, and intense heat waves led to highest-ever pe-riods of peak demand in the summers of 2012 and 2013-though the electric grid held up relatively well in both cases.These risks will intensify:

according to the New York City Panel on Climate Change, a scientific advisory body that Mayor Bloomberg originally convened in 2008, by the 2050s, sea levels around New York City could rise by as much as 2.5 feet, and heat waves would become a far more regular occurrence, with more than 50 days every year above 90 0 F, compared to less than 20 today.In this context, any strategy that reduces emissions by reducing energy demand and diversifying its sources can help make the city more resilient to storm surge and heat wave-related disruptions to energy supply infrastructure.

Measures that advance building energy efficiency, pro-mote distributed generation, and increase the penetra-tion of electric vehicles help do just that.Building energy efficiency measures reduce baseline electricity demand -and that alleviates the strain on the electric grid during periods of high demand that occur during heat waves. To mitigate the consequences of heat waves, utilities rely on programs that pay large custom-ers to reduce their demand if necessary (called demand response), but an 8 percent reduction in citywide elec-tricity demand achieved through energy efficiency would provide double the demand reduction available through demand response programs today and obviate the need for hundreds of millions of dollars in spending to upgrade the electric distribution system that would otherwise be required.

An additional benefit of energy efficiency is that if outages do occur, more efficient buildings can remain comfortably habitable longer because it takes longer for them to heat up in summer or cool down in winter.Distributed generation systems allow customers to pro-duce their own electricity

-including when the grid is down. Properly installed combined heat and power sys-tems and fuel cells -both running on natural gas -can supply buildings with enough electricity to operate nor-mally even if the electric grid is completely down. Smaller scale distributed generation systems -primarily rooftop-mounted solar panels -usually cannot cover a build-ing's electricity needs during an outage, but if properly installed, they could provide enough energy to operate at least several lights and power outlets in a typical one or two-family home.Electric vehicles lessen the city's dependence on liquid fuels for mobility at the cost of greater reliance on the electric grid -but the electric grid is generally more reli-able in the face of storm surges than the liquid fuels infra-structure is. They also make it possible to provide power to one or two-family homes during power outages: a fully charged EV with a 26 kwh battery could power a one or two-family home for at least a day, as long as the home is pre-wired to be able to connect to the vehicle. In the next few years, once the necessary interconnection standards are developed, EVs might also be able to help shave peak load, feeding their stored energy back into the grid dur-ing periods of high demand.These and other strategies are discussed in detail in the context of resiliency in PlaNYC: A Stronger, More Resil-ient New York, a 438-page report that Mayor Bloomberg launched in the aftermath of Sandy and released on June 11, 2013. The report puts forward more than 200 initia-tives to protect New York City's residents, buildings, and infrastructure from climate threats today and in the fu-ture and is available online at nyc.gov/resiliency.

S

I ~g Apedie Appendix:

Assumptions Assumptions used to evaluate the emissions reduction potential throughout this study include the following in-formation below.Population and economy Population, employment, and GDP growth figures were taken from the New York Metropolitan Transportation Council (NYMTC) forecasts for 2010-2030 and 2031-2040.

This information was proportionally adapted to forecast figures through 2050. On average: population growth increases at 0.4 percent annually; employment increas-es at 0.8 percent annually; and GDP grows at 3 percent annually.Energy consumption According to Consolidated Edison, Inc. Annual Energy Outlook, annual energy demand grows by 0.7 percent for electricity, 0.7 percent for natural gas, 0.1 percent a year for steam, and -0.8 percent a year for oil. 2031-2050 growth across energy sources is driven by growth in residential and nonresidential floor space, or residential compound annual growth (CAGR) of 0.3 percent and non-residential CAGR of 0.4 percent.Energy consumption figures for the report presumes no new energy efficiency policies, programs, nor use of current technologies.

Additionally, GHG emissions reductions from the Greener, Greater Buildings Plan and the Green Codes Task Force were not taken into account.Buildings Population growth drove an increase in residential square footage from 3.6 billion sq ft in 2010, and is expected to rise to 3.9 billion sq ft in 2030. By holding the 2010 sq ft per capita figure constant, a 2050 square footage of 4.1 billion sq. ft. is projected.

For nonresidential square footage, holding the 2010 figure of 1.8 billion sq ft con-stant, square footage for 2030 and 2050 is projected for increases of 1.9 billion and 2.1 billion sq ft, respectively.

Although building stock is divided into low and high rise categories, new growth was evenly allocated between the two groups. For low rise buildings, an additional im-pact of demolition is included; 0.6 percent of buildings are demolished annually, which translates into an aver-age building lifetime of less than 150 years. With the oc-currence of low rise demolitions, the 2050 share of high rise buildings increases.

Climate change According to the New York City Panel on Climate Change, average temperatures may rise up to 3 degrees Fahren-heit by 2050.Other Other analysis includes the following assumptions:

• Waste per capita remains constant, according to the New York City Mayor's Office of Long-Term Planning and Sustainability (OLTPS).* NYMTC forecasts also include an increase in vehicle miles traveled by 17 percent.* All non-City measures currently in place take effect, such as Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE)standards, electricity grid upgrades, and transit sys-tem upgrades from the NYMTC Regional Transporta-tion Plan.MNYC's Pathways to Deep Carbon Reductions I Appedics Endnotes 1. Compared to 2005 levels.2. RCPs, or Representative Concentration Pathways, are an evolution of the IPCC's approach to forecast-ing emissions.

Instead of trying to develop emis-sions scenarios from economic and social ones, the RCP approach develops carbon pathways first; from those, economic and social scenario combinations can be derived if necessary.

3. 2010, an EU nonprofit had already set a precedent for releasing a comprehensive study of this type: Roadmap 2050, a report funded by the European Climate Foundation, analyzed the technical potential and costs of deep union-wide emissions reductions, with a particular focus on the energy sector. In 2013, a study by Urban Green Council, the New York Chap-ter of the U.S. Green Buildings Council called "90x50" examined the technical potential for deep carbon re-ductions in New York City, focusing most heavily on buildings and finding that even with existing technol-ogy, such reductions indeed appear possible in the long term. Also in 2013, a study by the International Energy Agency drew renewed attention to the issue at the global level by suggesting that targeted en-ergy efficiency measures, partial phase-out of coal-fired power plants, reduction in fugitive emissions from fossil fuel production, and a partial phase-out of fossil fuel subsidies could stop the growth in world-wide emissions by 2020 at no net cost to the global economy."ROADMAP 2050." Roadmap 2050. N.p., n.d. Web.31 Dec. 2013. <http://www.roadmap2050.eu/projectV roadmap-2050#>.

"90 By 50: NYC Can Reduce its Carbon Footprint 90%By 2050." Urban Green Council. Urban Green Coun-cil, 14 Feb. 2013. Web. 31 Dec. 2013. <http://www.

urbangreencouncil.org/servlet/servlet.FileDownload

?file=01 5UOOOOOOOnD3r>."Redrawing the Energy-Climate Map." World Energy Outlook Special Report. N.p., 10 June 2013. Web.31 Dec. 2013. <http://www.worldenergyoutlook.

org/media/weowebsite/2013/energyclimatemap/Re-drawingEnergyClimateMap.pdf>.

4. In the energy sector, fugitive emissions are mostly caused by methane escaping from gas pipelines and by sulfur hexafluoride (SF 6)-a highly potent GHG that utilities used for insulation in the past--leaking from electric equipment.

5. Scope 1 and 2 only.6. Although it is possible to assess these impacts through 2050, the usefulness of this analysis is lim-ited by the very long time horizon, which becomes more of a constraint in economic modeling than in the estimation of technical reduction potential.

7. Full abatement potential would be achieved by 2050, but unless otherwise noted cost per ton is for 2030 given greater cost uncertainty in the outer years.8. Cost per ton value shown is for 2050, since heat pumps do not play a significant abatement role in 2050.9. The potential for having GSHPs replace cooling loads was not estimated given the added costs of integrat-ing them into building cooling systems -particularly if cooling is provided by packaged terminal air con-ditioners (PTACs) installed directly in windows and walls.10. In the Bronx and in Manhattan, the forecast adoption rates could be 15 percent and 10 percent respec-tively, mostly from standing column systems serving low-rise buildings.

In Staten Island, the rate could be higher: 25 percent served by open loop and standing column systems. In Queens and Brooklyn, the rates could be up to 35 percent and limited only by the need to balance heat extracted from the aquifer in winter and returned for cooling in summer.11. Approximately 50 percent of New York City's build-ings use steam radiators for heat, with the balance being hydronic, forced air, and electric window units.Air source heat pumps can integrate with most hy-dronic and forced air heating systems at a negligible cost. Integration with steam radiators is prohibitively expensive, but it can be bypassed at least in residen-tial applications through replacing PTACs directly, where ASHPs -unlike GSHPs -could provide cooling as well for no added cost.12. 2050 cost.

Appendic 13. A 20 MW Goteborg Energi facility in Sweden is under construction, a 12 MW unit sponsored by the Energy Research Centre of the Netherlands is in planning, and a 200 MW plant by E.ON, also in Sweden, is tar-geted for a 2015 completion.

14. This number does not take into account the impact of shifting car passengers onto trains, which is was beyond the scope of this exercise.15. "Congestion Pricing: A Primer." Federal Highway Ad-ministration Publications.

U.S. Department of Trans-portation Federal Highway Administration, n.d. Web.31 Dec. 2013. <http://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/

congestionpricing/congestionpricing.pdf>.

16. "Opportunities for Reducing Surface Emissions Through Surface Movement Optimization." Techni-cal Report #: ICAT-2008-7.

MIT International Center for Air Transportation (ICAT) Department of Aeronau-tics & Astronautics Massachusetts Institute of Tech-nology, n.d. Web. 31 Dec. 2013. <http://dspace.mit.

edu/bitstream/handle/1 721.1/66491

/Balakrishnan-ICAT-2008-07.pdfsequence=l

>.17. Residential waste is at least 41 percent recyclable and 40 percent compostable

18. Excludes fill.19. This does not include solar energy, which is consid-ered a demand-side or building sector measure.MNYC's Pathways to Deep Carbon Reductions Appenice This page left blank intentionally.

Mayr' Ofic of Log-er Plnnn .6Sstiabl C it Hall New Yok *Y00