![[logo] US EPA](http://www.epa.gov/epafiles/images/logo_epaseal.gif){kind=logo}
Phase 1: Co-Control Analysis
IES programs for
History and Objectives
Work on the IES-Mexico program in Mexico City began in February 2002. The initial project was designed to improve analysis of measures under consideration in PROAIRE, the Metropolitan Environmental Commission’s (CAM) set of policy measures for addressing local air quality in the Mexico City Metropolitan Area (MCMA) from 2002-2010, and add consideration of associated greenhouse gases (GHGs) to that analysis.
Team
The IES team is based at the National Institute of Ecology (INE) in coordination with the other members of the CAM, and the governments of the State of Mexico and the Federal District. Dr. Adrián Fernández, Dr. Leonora Rojas Bracho, and Julia Martinez (Biól.) of INE oversee the technical team. Through coordination by and collaboration with INE, individuals from several other institutions have contributed to the various phases of IES-Mexico work.
Methodology
The first phase of work in Mexico, the “co-control” phase, was designed to build capacity in Mexico for addressing the problems of urban air pollution and associated GHG emissions in an integrated manner. Through this project, the team worked to unify the air quality control measures in PROAIRE with GHG mitigation measures from separate studies into one consistent body of possible control actions. This work included the quantification of costs and reductions in emissions of multiple pollutants. This body of control actions forms the foundation for analyzing and planning integrated management of urban air pollution and GHG emissions. The team also worked to develop and implement decision-support tools based on linear programming and goal programming with three main objectives:
- To provide support to CAM for decision-making with the goal of informing the forthcoming two-year review of PROAIRE.
- To explore the least-cost set of policies and actions for achieving emissions reductions of multiple pollutants, to address more general questions on the relationship between urban air pollution control and associated GHG mitigation.
- To develop methods that would complement the co-benefits methods used for IES projects in other countries.
The co-control study resulted in an improved framework for quantitative methods of policy analysis by analyzing the links between policies, activities, and emissions of multiple pollutants. These methods focus on identifying cost-effective means of achieving emissions reductions of multiple gases.
Study Results
Initial results from the Phase 1 final report (PDF) (94 pp, 673K, About PDF) indicate that implementation of the measures in PROAIRE would yield a reduction of about 2.2 million tons carbon dioxide (CO2) per year in 2010, a 3.5-percent reduction from the baseline projected CO2 emissions for the MCMA. This reduction results equally from measures that improve vehicle technology and replace old vehicles with newer vehicles and investments to improve the transportation infrastructure (e.g., expansion and improvement of public transportation). This reduction in associated CO2 emissions can be considered an important “co-benefit” of actions to improve urban air quality.
Results also indicate significant opportunities for achieving the air quality goals of PROAIRE at a reduced cost. The total cost of achieving air quality improvements can be reduced by increasing the emphasis on more cost-effective measures, while decreasing the emphasis on less cost-effective measures. When only PROAIRE measures are considered, the team estimated that the air quality goals can be met with up to 20-percent reductions in both the total investment costs and the net present value (NPV).
The GHG mitigation measures were often characterized by relatively large up-front investments, but show good returns or negative NPVs over a longer term due to the significant savings in fuel or electricity consumption. This contrasts with the PROAIRE measures, where changes in expenditures on fuels or electricity are generally a smaller component of the NPV.
Outcomes
A workshop was held in August 2002 to present results of the co-control work to policymakers and other stakeholders. Participants included members of the CAM as well as IES participants from the other Latin American projects. Participants felt that the IES work would help improve the information and tools available to decision-makers.
Experience in attracting interest from policymakers was very encouraging. Project meetings and discussions of the assumptions made in cost and emissions reductions estimates involve a wide participation from CAM and have raised CAM members' awareness of possible methodological improvements. Further, some members of CAM have suggested that this project can be very useful in promoting objective and quantitative policy analysis in evaluating emissions control strategies. Through these discussions, the co-control project became a focal point for early discussions within CAM about the two-year review of PROAIRE and led to a new focus on the use of quantitative methods and the inclusion of associated GHG mitigation.