Rhode Island
Greenhouse Gas Action Plan
Developed by
The Rhode Island Greenhouse Gas Stakeholder Process

Convened by
Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management
Rhode Island State Energy Office
Project Manager/Facilitator
Raab Associates, Ltd.
Technical/Policy Consultant
Tellus Institute

July 15, 2002

Rhode Island Greenhouse Gas Action Plan

July 15, 2002

Dedication
We dedicate this Plan to
the memory of Mary Kilmarx
for her decades of service to Rhode Island on energy and environmental issues
and for helping to launch this Rhode Island Greenhouse Gas Process.

2

Rhode Island Greenhouse Gas Action Plan

July 15, 2002
Stakeholder Members

I. Executive Summary
In the fall of 2001, the Rhode Island Department ofEnvironmental Management and the State Energy
Office convened a group of over 30 diverse
stakeholders from business, industry, citizen
groups, environmental organizations, and othergovernment agencies to develop a Greenhouse Gas
Action Plan for Rhode Island.
The convening of this group was largely
precipitated by the growing international consensus
among scientists and policymakers that carbon
dioxide and other greenhouse gases are warming
the planet at a rapid rate. If this trend continues, it
could have adverse impacts on Rhode Island’s
environment and economy. More immediately, theRhode Island process builds on a recent agreement
among all the New England Governors and Eastern
Canadian Premiers to reduce greenhouse gases in
the region to 1990 levels by 2010, 10% below
those levels in 2020, and by as much as 75% overthe longer-term.
The Rhode Island Greenhouse Gas Process isfunded by the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, the U.S. Department of Energy, theInstitute for Environmental Conflict Resolution,and the State of Rhode Island. The state hired
Raab Associates, Ltd. to provide facilitation andproject management services, and Tellus Instituteto provide consulting and modeling services ontechnical and policy issues.

Associated Builders and Contractors
Audubon Society of Rhode Island
Brown University
Business Roundtable
Conservation Law Foundation
Department of Administration
Governor's Policy Office (ex officio)
Narragansett ElectricNat. Fed’n of Independent Businesses
New England Gas Company
Northern RI Chamber of Commerce
Oil Heat Institute
Providence Chamber of Commerce
RI Builder's Association
RI Dept. of Environmental Management
RI Dept. of Transportation
RI Economic Development Corporation
RI House, Policy Office (ex officio)
RI League of Cities and Towns
RI Petroleum Institute
RI Public Interest Research GroupRI Public Transit Authority
RI Division of Public Utilities and Carriers
RI Senate, Policy Office (ex officio)
RI Society of Environmental Professionals
RI State Energy Office
RI Statewide Planning
Save The Bay
Sierra Club
Sustainability Coalition
The Energy Council of Rhode Island
US EPA (ex officio)
US DOE (ex officio)

The process has three distinct phases:•••

Phase I - Stakeholders developed a GHG Action Plan and prioritized and evaluated alist of greenhouse gas reduction options.
Phase II - In the Fall of 2002, the Stakeholders will further research, analyze, and (aswarranted) design implementation strategies for key high priority program and policy
options.
Phase III -Actual program implementation of the highest priority options, anddevelopment of implementation plans for other options.

During the course of Phase I the Stakeholder Steering Committee met five times. Three
additional Working Groups – 1) Buildings and Facilities; 2) Transportation and Land
3

Rhode Island Greenhouse Gas Action Plan

July 15, 2002

Use; and 3) Energy Supply and Solid Waste - met three times each, for a total of 14
meetings between October 2001 and July 2002.
Over 60 individuals participated actively in the Working Groups. Each of the Working
Groups discussed multiple greenhouse gas reduction initiatives, programs, and policy
options. Tellus Institute analyzed these options in Scoping Papers, detailing potential
carbon emissions reductions, net costs and savings, and other benefits. Each of theWorking Groups ultimately made recommendations to the Stakeholder Steering
Committee regarding the prioritization of the options, as well as additional comments andconsiderations for certain options. The Stakeholders shaped this Plan with the assistanceof the consultants and facilitator.
The Stakeholders accept the New England Governors and Eastern Canadian Premiers’
regional Greenhouse Gas Reduction target of reducing GHG emissions to the 1990 levelby 2010 and 10% below 1990 levels by 2020 as a reasonable goal for now, on which tobase a Rhode Island GHG Action Plan. Thus this Plan adopts Rhode Island’s
proportional share of these regional targets as its own targets, i.e., the same percentage
reductions below Rhode Island’s Baseline emissions path.
Fig. ES1: Baseline Emissions Scenario Compared to Governors’/Premiers’ Target

Million Tonnes Carbon Equivalent

4.0

Baseline

3.5

Governors' Premieres' Target
3.0

2.5

2.0

1.5

1.0
1990

1995

2000

2005

2010

2015

2020

Years

Figure ES1 above shows the Baseline path for Rhode Island’s GHG emissions (expected
growth of its related GHG emissions absent new initiatives) and a path for Rhode Island’s
proportional share of the Governors’ and Premiers’ regional targets, indicating the gap
that needs to be filled with initiatives, programs, and policies in a comprehensive GHG
Action Plan. Since the Baseline entails steady growth in GHG emissions over the next
twenty years following the growth in the 1990s, the target of 10 percent below 1990
emissions in 2020 will require that emissions in 2020 be about one-third below the levelof the Baseline. This presents the challenge of identifying and implementing policies andmeasures to close the gap.
4

Rhode Island Greenhouse Gas Action Plan

July 15, 2002

The Stakeholders have agreed to include 52 program and policy options in this Plan to begin to fillthis gap between the baseline and the greenhouse gas reduction targets.
Higher Priority Consensus In-State Options

Lower Priority Consensus In-State Options# Name#Buildings and Facilities
1 Commercial/Industrial Fossil Fuel Retrofit
2 Compact Residential Appliances Initiative
3 Energy Efficiency Targeting Initiative(Industrial)
4 Combined Heat & Power (CHP) Initiative(Industrial)
5 Electric Energy Efficiency Retrofit in NonResidential Buildings and Facilities
6 Efficient Residential Fossil Fuel Heating
7 Tax Credits For Energy Efficiency
8 Combined Heat & Power (CHP) Initiative(Non-Industrial)
9 Efficient Residential Electric Cooling
10 Retrofit Program For Electrically Heated
Residences
11 Retrofit For Fossil Heated Residences
12 Electric Equipment Retrofit Program(Small Commercial & Industrial)
13 Public Facilities Efficiency Initiative
14 Efficient Residential Lighting / Appliances
15 Efficient Non-Residential Construction
16 Energy Star Home Construction Program
17 Use of Lower Carbon Fossil Fuels
Transportation
18 Local Fuel Economy Improvements(Feebate)
19 Transit Oriented Development andEnhancing Transit Options and Operations
20 Expand Bicycle/Pedestrian Infrastructures
21 Commuting Efficiency Program
22 Commuting Trip Reduction Initiative
23 Government Owned And Private FleetVehicle Efficiency Initiative
Land Use
24 Urban/Suburban Forestry Program
25 Open Space Protection Program
Energy Supply/Solid Waste
26 Renewable Portfolio Standards
27 Resource Management (RM) Contracting
28 Pay-As-You-Throw (PAYT) Initiative
29 State Facilities Renewable Purchase
Requirement
1

Saved
Carbon1

Name

Saved
CarbonBuildings and Facilities
30 Compact Floorspace Initiative
5
31 Switch from Electric to Fossil Fuel Heating
1
32 Solar Photovoltaic (PV) Buydown Program1
33 Active Solar Hot Water Heating Initiative
1
34 Non-Residential Natural Gas Air<1
Conditioning Initiative
Transportation
35 Fleet Fuel GHG Content Mandate
40
Land Use36 Conversion of Marginal Cropland to Forest
40
Initiative
37 Conversion of Marginal Cropland to<1.5
Wetlands Initiative
38 Low Input Agriculture and Improved
0.4
Cropping Systems Initiative
39 Forest Management Initiative
TBD2
Energy Supply
40 Promote New Renewable Electricity
8
Supply Using System Benefit Charge Funds
41 Promote Green Power Purchases Using
13
System Benefit Charge Funds
42 Incentive Package Initiative2• Production tax credit2• Investment tax credit
0.2• Net metering
TBD2• Backup rates
43 Direct Government Investments Or
0.5
Expenditures in Renewable Energy
Solid Waste
44 Deposit Bottle System (“Bottle Bill”)
19

100
80
40
35
30
25
15
15
10
9
6
5
5
5
5
1
TBD2
125
19
19
19
18
<2.5

Non-Consensus In-State Options
#

<120
60

Name

Saved
CarbonBuildings and Facilities
45 Upgrade New Residential Construction
Building Code46 Upgrade New Commercial Construction
Building CodeTransportation and Land Use
47 Increase the Gasoline Tax

140
70
55
0.4

Estimates of thousands of metric tons in 2020 of greenhouse gases expressed as carbon equivalent

5

2

20
40

38

TBD: To Be DeterminedRhode Island Greenhouse Gas Action Plan

July 15, 2002

Consensus Regional/National Options# NameConsensus Priority Study Options

Saved
CarbonBuildings and Facilities
48 Upgrade And Extend Appliance Efficiency
Standards
Transportation
49 National Fuel Efficiency Standards For Cars
And Light Trucks (CAFÉ)Energy Supply
50 Carbon (And Multi-Pollutant) Cap And
Permit Trade System For The Power Sector

#

Name

51 Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT)-Based
Insurance Premium Structures
52 Transportation Infrastructure Planning
TBD• Commuter rail/light rail and its
potential electrification• Advanced bus rapid transit• Barging• Shifting transportation resources topreserving RI’s transportation infrastructure

100

250

140

The Stakeholder Group’s decision to include these options was based primarily on apreliminary assessment of the saved carbon and the cost of saved carbon. These factors
as well as additional factors will be examined in Phase II and beyond and theprioritization of the options will be revisited at that time, and on this basis a decision will
be made as to whether and if so how to proceed on each option.
Forty-nine of the options are consensus options endorsed by all the Stakeholders. Only
three options are non-consensus options. Also, 49 of the options are primarily in-state
options, while only three options would require regional or national implementation. Of
the full set of options, 25 are targeted at buildings and facilities, 11 at transportation, 6 atland use, 6 at energy supply, and 4 at solid waste. In addition to these 52 options, theStakeholders also identified numerous other potentially fruitful areas for Rhode Island to
track and study for possible future inclusion in the Plan.
Figure ES2: RI GHG Emissions Scenarios Compared to Governors’/Premiers’ Target
Baseline

Million Tonnes Carbon Equivalent

4.0

Consensus

Consensus + NonConsensus

3.5

Governors'/Premiers'
Target3.0
In State Consensus +Federal/Regional
Consensus + NonConsensus +Federal/Regional

2.5

2.0
1990

2000

Saved
Carbon
110

2010

6

2020

Rhode Island Greenhouse Gas Action Plan

July 15, 2002

As can be seen in Figure ES2 above, substantial carbon savings can be attained if these options are
implemented. The In-State Consensus options are projected to almost meet the 2020 target of theGovernors and Premiers. The In-State options as a whole (Consensus plus Non-Consensus) could
meet the 2020 target. With national and regional options added the target could be exceeded with orwithout the non-consensus In-State options. Moreover, the sharp downward trend approaching theyear 2020 indicates that continuation of these options would have additional reductions in thefollowing years. We assume that elements of the policy portfolios will begin to be implemented in
2003.
The modeling effort also shows that these carbon savings can be achieved while producing
substantial cumulative net economic benefits to Rhode Island. For example, implementing all the instate options could be accomplished at a cumulative net economic benefit of over $700 million. Thisoccurs largely because many of the options identified in this Plan also save energy and those savings
exceed capital and operation and maintenance costs for the energy saving technologies and practices.
There are also savings due to reductions in other air pollutants.
The Stakeholders agree that some of the in-state options identified in the Plan could and should be
replaced by a combination of regional, national, and trading options when they are both timely andmore cost-effective than in-state activities. To this end, Rhode Island needs to continue to monitor
new technologies as well as programs and policies adopted by other jurisdictions to identify
opportunities to improve Rhode Island’s in-state GHG reduction programs and policies. The Rhode
Island GHG Plan should be reviewed every 3-5 years to ensure that it is appropriate and achievable,
and reflects the best technologies and program/policy designs, as well as the right mix of local,
regional and national initiatives, and to adjust its targets and Plan accordingly. Because there will bean on-going need to coordinate among a wide range of entities including state agencies, local
government, the Legislature, businesses, and citizens, Rhode Island should consider having one
entity such as a state agency serve in a shepherding (i.e., coordinating and tracking) role.

7

Rhode Island Greenhouse Gas Action Plan

July 15, 2002

Phase I Rhode Island Greenhouse Gas Action Plan
Table of Contents
Executive Summary ...............................................................................................................3
Table of Contents...................................................................................................................8
List of Tables and Figures .....................................................................................................9I. Introduction and Stakeholder Process Overview ...............................................................10
II. Rhode Island GHG Reduction Targets .............................................................................12
III. Recommended Program and Policy Options ...................................................................15
IV. Impact Analysis and Results ...........................................................................................35
V. List of Participants in Stakeholder and Working Groups ................................................43
Appendix A: Ground Rules ...................................................................................................A-2
Appendix B: New England Governors’ and Eastern Canadian Premiers’
Regional GHG Reduction Targets .......................................................................A-5
Appendix C: Climate Change and Rhode Island ...................................................................A-6
Appendix D: Rhode Island Greenhouse Gas Baseline Scenario:
Summary Figures and Tables...............................................................................A-10
Appendix E: Scenario Modeling Methods.............................................................................A-26
Appendix F: LEAP 2000 Model ............................................................................................A-30
Appendix G: Detailed Program and Policy Option Descriptions ..........................................A-32

8

Rhode Island Greenhouse Gas Action Plan

July 15, 2002

List of Tables and Figures
Figure ES1: GHG Baseline Emissions Scenario Compared to Governors’/Premiers’ Target..................................... 4
Figure ES2: RI GHG Emissions Scenarios Compared to Governors’/Premiers’ Target............................................. 6
Figure 2a: GHG Emissions of Baseline Scenario Compared to Governors’/Premiers’ Target ................................... 12
Figure 2b: RI GHG Emissions Scenarios Compared to Governors’/Premiers’ Target ............................................... 13
Figure 3a: Rhode Island GHG Reduction Option Categories .................................................................................... 15
Table 3b: Higher Priority Consensus In-State Options ............................................................................................... 17
Table 3c: Lower Priority Consensus In-State Options ................................................................................................ 18
Table 3d: Non-Consensus In-State Options ................................................................................................................ 19
Table 3e: Consensus Regional/National Options (Higher Priority) ............................................................................ 19
Table 3f: Consensus Priority Study Options ............................................................................................................... 19
Table 3g: Consensus In-State Options: Prioritized by Saved Carbon ......................................................................... 31
Table 3h: Non-Consensus State Options ..................................................................................................................... 33
Table 3i: Consensus Regional/National Options......................................................................................................... 33
Table 3j: Consensus Priority Study Options................................................................................................................ 33
Figure 4a: Rhode Island GHG Emissions Scenarios Compared to Governors’/Premiers’ Target .............................. 35
Table 4b: GHG Emissions from Scenarios.................................................................................................................. 36
Figure 4c. Contribution of Options to GHG Savings versus Baseline in Scenario: Consensus & Non-Consensus.... 36
Figure 4d: Contribution of Options to GHG Savings vs. Baseline in 2020 in Scenario: Cons & Non-Cons

37

Figure 4e: Scenario Net Economic Benefits and GHG Savings versus Baseline........................................................ 38
Figure 4f. Costs and Benefits of Scenarios vs. Baseline ............................................................................................. 39
Figure 4g.Iimpacts of Options on Emissions of Oxides of Nitrogen (NOx) ............................................................... 39
Figure 4h.Iimpacts of Options on Emissions of Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs)............................................. 40
Figure 4i: PM10 Emissions from Scenarios ................................................................................................................ 41
Figure4j: SO2 Emissions from Scenarios.................................................................................................................... 41
Table 5a: Stakeholder Members .................................................................................................................................. 43
Table 5b: Working Groups ........................................................................................................................................ 44* Many additional tables and figures are included in the Appendices.

9

Rhode Island Greenhouse Gas Action Plan

July 15, 2002

I. Introduction and Stakeholder Process Overview
There is a growing international consensus among scientists and policymakers that carbon dioxide
and other greenhouse gases are warming our planet at a rapid rate. If this trend continues it could
have severe impacts on human life and the environment. Thus global warming and greenhouse gas
issues have become a major concern for policymakers and citizens worldwide. Reducing
greenhouse gases can help reduce global warming -- a major concern for Rhode Islanders because of
its potential adverse impacts through flooding in coastal areas, saltwater contamination of drinking
water, extreme weather events, damage to local crops, and other potential adverse Rhode Island
impacts described by EPA in its publication Climate Change And Rhode Island (See Appendix C).
In response, the Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management (DEM) and the State
Energy Office convened stakeholders from business, industry, citizen groups, environmentalorganizations, and other government agencies. The product of their work, this Action Plan,
developed by a broad Stakeholder group, identifies ways Rhode Island can substantially reduce its
contribution to greenhouse gas emissions.
The Rhode Island Greenhouse Gas Process began in the Fall of 2001 with funding from the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S. Department of Energy, the Institute for Environmental
Conflict Resolution, and the State of Rhode Island. The state hired Raab Associates, Ltd. to provide
facilitation and project management services and Tellus Institute to provide consulting and modelingservices on technical and policy issues. The process has three distinct phases:•••

Phase I - Stakeholders developed a GHG Action Plan which includes its prioritized a list ofgreenhouse gas reduction options.
Phase II - In the Fall of 2002, the stakeholders will further research, analyze, and (as warranted)
design implementation strategies for key high priority program and policy options.
Phase III Actual program implementation of the highest priority options, and developing
implementation plans for other options.

In Phase I, Raab Associates assisted DEM and the Energy Office in structuring the process andidentifying key stakeholders. During the course of Phase I the Stakeholder Steering Committee met
five times and three Working Groups – 1) Buildings and Facilities; 2) Transportation and Land Use;and 3) Energy Supply and Solid Waste - met three times each, for a total of 14 meetings between
October 2001 and July 2002. (For a full list of participants in each Group please refer to Section V.)
Tellus Institute used its LEAP 2000 software (See Appendix F) to model energy demand and supply,
GHG and criteria air pollutant emissions, and cost scenarios for Rhode Island. The process is also
supported by a dedicated website (http://righg.raabassociates.org) that houses all the relevant
documents, the schedule, and contact information for the participants. The Stakeholders firstreviewed the goals, mission and objectives of the process and discussed the forecasted baseline for
Rhode Island GHG emissions over the planning horizon. The Stakeholders also agreed on Ground
Rules that would govern the process, including:•

Decisions are to be made by consensus, meaning that everyone in the decision-making groupis at least willing to live with a decision and chose not to dissent.

10

Rhode Island Greenhouse Gas Action Plan•••

July 15, 2002

Representatives are responsible for voicing their objections and concerns, and silence orabsence is considered consent.
For non-consensus issues, the Stakeholder Group members supporting each alternative
approach are to be listed under each alternative.
The Group’s Report at the end of the Phase I and Final Report at the end of Phase II will
include all areas of consensus, as well as a description of the alternative approaches preferredby Group members in areas where consensus is not reached, if any. (For a full copy of the
Ground Rules, refer to Appendix A)

The Group reviewed a comprehensive list of options for reducing GHG emissions prepared by
Tellus Institute. Some of these options built on ongoing activities in Rhode Island and some werecompletely new. Tellus described each option, and characterized each by its carbon reductions, costof-saved carbons and criteria pollutant reduction co-benefits. The Stakeholders discussed the criteria
they would use to prioritize the set of options, including the carbon reductions, cost of saved carbon,
and co-benefits such as the reduction of other air pollutants.
The Working Groups convened to identify, flesh-out, and prioritize options in specific areas. Mostof the Stakeholders participated in at least one Working Group. The Working Groups also included
other people from the Stakeholder organizations as well as other invited interested individuals. EachWorking Group began by reviewing a Scoping Paper prepared by Tellus Institute describing options
to reduce GHG emissions in their particular sectors. For each option, the Scoping Paper presents asummary description of the option and it’s potential application in Rhode Island, the impact of theoption over time, the GHG reductions associated with the option’s impact, and the option’s overall
costs, savings and co-benefits. Many of the options were iterated over several meetings between the
Working Groups and the consulting team.
The Working Groups prioritized the options into four bins: high priority, medium priority, lowpriority, and non-consensus. They reached consensus on the priority of the vast majority of options.
Each Working Group then drafted a memo for the Stakeholder Group explaining their binning
decisions along with additional thoughts and concerns regarding specific options.
The full Stakeholder Group convened in June and July 2002 to review the Working Group
recommendations and to weave them into a unified and comprehensive GHG Action Plan. The
Stakeholder Group’s deliberations were supported by GHG modeling runs showing the costs andbenefits of various portfolios of options. The Phase I Action Plan represents the culmination of the
Stakeholder Group’s Phase I effort. It includes consensus language on targets for Rhode Island, as
well as unanimous support for nearly 50 different options. Only 3 options remain as non-consensus
items.
Section II includes the Stakeholders’ recommendations on greenhouse gas targets for Rhode Island.
Section III contains the 52 policy and program options to meet these targets, with the cost andbenefit impacts of these options analyzed in Section IV. Section V lists all the members of the
Stakeholder and Working Groups, and Section VI is for the signatures of the Stakeholder members.
The Appendices include the process Ground Rules, the New England Governors’ and Eastern
Canadian Premiers’ Regional GHG Reduction Targets, an EPA paper outlining the impact of climatechange on Rhode Island, the baseline RI GHG scenario, scenario modeling methods, information on
the LEAP 2000 model, and detailed program and policy option descriptions.
11Rhode Island Greenhouse Gas Action Plan

July 15, 2002

II. Rhode Island Greenhouse Gas Reduction Targets
In August of 2001 all the New England Governors and Eastern Canadian Premiers signed a Climate
Action Plan for New England and Eastern Canada that included the following regional GHG
reduction targets:•••

Short-term Goal: Reduce regional GHG emissions to 1990 emissions by 2010.
Mid-term Goal: Reduce regional GHG emissions by at least 10% below 1990 emissions by 2020,and establish an iterative five-year process, commencing in 2005, to adjust the goals if necessary andset future emissions reduction goals.
Long-term Goal: Reduce regional GHG emissions sufficiently to eliminate any dangerous threat tothe climate; current science suggests this will require reductions of 75–85% below current levels

These targets are to be achieved on a regional basis with states and provinces contributing to theoverall reduction in aggregate but not necessarily in equal measure by each jurisdiction. The fulltext regarding these targets is in Appendix B.
After careful consideration, the Rhode Island Stakeholder Group accepts the New England
Governors and Eastern Canadian Premiers’ regional Greenhouse Gas Reduction target of decreasing
GHG emissions to the 1990 level by 2010 and 10% below 1990 levels by 2020 as a reasonable goal
for now, on which to base a Rhode Island GHG Action Plan. Thus it would set its proportional shareof these regional targets as its own targets, i.e., the same percentage reductions below Rhode Island’s
Baseline emissions path.
Fig. 2a: Baseline GHG Emissions Compared to Governors’/Premiers’ Target

Million Tonnes Carbon Equivalent

4.0

3.5

Baseline
Governors' Premieres' Target

3.0

2.5

2.0

1.5

1.0
1990

1995

2000

2005

2010

2015

2020

Years

The figure above shows the Baseline path for its GHG emissions and a path for Rhode Island’s
proportional share of the Governors’ and Premiers’ regional targets, indicating the gap that needs tobe filled with policies and measures in a comprehensive GHG Action Plan. Since the Baseline
entails steady growth in GHG emissions over the next twenty years following the growth in the
1990s, the target of 10 percent below 1990 emissions in 2020 will require that emissions in 2020 be
about one-third below the level of the Baseline. This presents the challenge of identifying andimplementing policies and measures to close the gap.
12

Rhode Island Greenhouse Gas Action Plan

July 15, 2002

The Stakeholder Group examined many GHG reduction options that could be used to meet thesetargets, and concluded that Rhode Island could potentially meet its proportional share of the regionaltargets using only in-state options if need be. This would require launching new statewide
initiatives and policies as well as expanding existing programs and policies. (These options aredelineated in the next section of this Plan.) With the Governors’ and Premiers regional targets
serving to guide Rhode Island’s own targets in this way, the Stakeholders acknowledged that it could
prove desirable in the future to depart from these targets as more is learned, either by strengthening
or relaxing them, based upon perceived requirements for climate stabilization co-benefits, and therole desired by Rhode Island citizens, the performance and emergence of technologies and policies,
trading across state boundaries, and enactment of national and regional programs.
The figure below shows the projected baseline for GHG emissions in Rhode Island; what theemissions for Rhode Island would need to be to meet a proportional share of the regional target, plus
what the emissions could be if certain GHG reductions policies and programs options are
implemented. Two of these lines show what the emissions would be from just in-state Rhode Island
actions (the consensus options representing those that all the stakeholders agree should be pursued,
and the consensus options plus just a few non-consensus options). The last two lines show what theemissions could be if a few key regional and national actions are added to the in-state actions.
Figure 2b: RI GHG Emissions Scenarios Compared to Governors’/Premiers’ Target
Baseline
Consensus
4.0
Consensus + Non-Consensus

Million Tonnes Carbon Equivalent

Governors'/Premiers' Target
In State Consensus +Federal/Regional

3.5

Consensus + Non-Consensus+ Federal/Regional

3.0

2.5

2.0
1990

1995

2000

2005

2010

2015

2020

It is important to point out that although the Group agrees that this Plan should show how theregional proportional share could be met by in-state activities if need be, the Group also agrees that13

Rhode Island Greenhouse Gas Action Plan

July 15, 2002

some of these in-state options could and should be replaced by a combination of regional, national,
and trading options when they are both timely and more cost-effective than in-state activities.
Also the Group stresses the importance of Rhode Island needing to continue to monitor new
technologies as well as programs and policies adopted by other jurisdictions to identify opportunities
to improve Rhode Island’s in-state GHG reduction programs and policies. To this end, theStakeholders agree that the Rhode Island GHG Plan should be reviewed every 3-5 years to ensurethat it is appropriate and achievable, and reflects the best technologies and program/policy designs,
as well as the right mix of local, regional and national initiatives, and to adjust its targets and Plan
accordingly. The Group further notes that the options delineated in the next section would need tobe coordinated among a wide range of entities including state agencies, local government, theLegislature, businesses, and citizens. To this end the Group acknowledges the importance of having
one entity such as state agency serve in a shepherding (i.e., coordinating and tracking) role.
The Group also notes that Tellus Institute derived the carbon reduction and other option specificnumbers in this Plan using a range of data sources from in Rhode Island and elsewhere and thesewere refined through Stakeholder input in the Working Group process. The Group recognizes that
until actual GHG reduction programs and policies can be designed and implemented in Rhode Island
many of these numbers will remain as educated placeholders. The actual GHG reduction factors fora particular program or policy will depend on numerous factors including the final design andsuccessful implementation. Therefore the Group acknowledges that carbon savings as well as othercosts and benefits associated with a particular option could depart from what is shown in thisdocument.

14

Rhode Island Greenhouse Gas Action PlanIII.

July 15, 2002

Recommended Program and Policy Options

As shown in Figure 3a below, the Rhode Island Greenhouse Gas Plan includes 52 options. Fortynine of the options are consensus options endorsed by all the Stakeholders. Only three options are
non-consensus options indicating a split among the Stakeholders on recommendations concerningthat option. Also, 49 of the options are primarily in-state options, while only three options would
require regional or national implementation.
Figure 3a: Rhode Island GHG Reduction Option Categories
Buildings/
Facilities

Transportation

Land
Use

EnergySupply

Solid
Waste

Total

In State
HigherLower
Non-Consensus
Priority Study

17
5
2

6
1
1
2

2
4

1
4

3
1

29
15
3
2

Sub-Total
Regional/ National

24
1

10
1

6

5
1

4

49
3

Total

25

11

6

6

4

52

The Stakeholders identify 29 of the 49, in-state consensus options as higher priority, 15 as lower
priority, and 2 for priority research. Of the full set, 25 options are targeted at buildings and facilities,
11 at transportation, 6 at land use, 6 at energy supply, and 4 at solid waste. In addition to these 52
options, the Stakeholders also identified numerous other potentially fruitful areas for Rhode Island to
track and study for possible future inclusion in the Plan.
It is noteworthy that the options represent a combination of maintaining and expanding existing
programs and policies, as well as putting into place many new initiatives. A number of the programs
particularly in the buildings and facilities and energy supply areas, can use systems benefit charge(SBC) funds approved by the Legislature as part of electric restructuring legislation, while otherprograms and policies will require new funding sources. The options would also require a wide
range of different lead actors from the Legislature, state agencies, local governments, businesses,
and citizens.
The tables below show each of the options included in this Plan, as follows:• Higher priority consensus in-state options• Lower priority consensus in-state options• Non-consensus in-state options• Consensus regional/national options (higher priority)• Consensus priority study
The options are grouped by sector (buildings & facilities, etc) in each table. In addition, the tables
include the projected potential saved tons of carbon in 2020, the cost for each ton of saved carbon,
and the co-benefits associated with each ton of saved carbon. Note that negative costs of saved
carbon and negative co-benefits indicate economic savings. For example, when energy bills are
reduced over the useful life of installed high efficiency equipment by more than the additional
15

Rhode Island Greenhouse Gas Action Plan

July 15, 2002

capital and operation and maintenance costs for this improved equipment, the result is a net
economic savings (negative costs of saved carbon). Similarly, the negative costs of co-benefits
indicate savings from reducing key air pollutants. The Stakeholders note that all the numbers inthese tables are being provided by Tellus Institute based on their professional judgment andanalyses, and that these numbers need to be studied further and refined as appropriate as actual
programs and policies are designed and implemented in Rhode Island.
Following the table is a short description of each of the programs, including important consensus
notes from the Stakeholders regarding certain options. More detailed descriptions of each of theoptions as well as the modeling assumptions for each option are located in Appendix G where theoptions are organized by the option numbers shown in the tables below.
Following the descriptions of each of the options is another table showing the same options arranged
in descending order of saved carbon for the in-state consensus and non-consensus options as well as
for the few regional/national initiatives and the study options. This section of the report ends with alist of other areas and issues identified by the Stakeholders for potential future greenhouse gas
reduction options.

16

Rhode Island Greenhouse Gas Action Plan

July 15, 2002

Table 3b: Higher Priority Consensus In-State Options#

Name

Buildings and Facilities
1 Commercial/Industrial Fossil Fuel Retrofit Initiative
2 Compact Residential Appliances Initiative
3 Energy Efficiency Targeting Initiative (Industrial)
4 Combined Heat & Power (CHP) Initiative (Industrial)
5 Electric Energy Efficiency Retrofit in Non-Residential Buildings
and Facilities
6 Efficient Residential Fossil Fuel Heating Initiative
7 Tax Credits For Energy Efficiency
8 Combined Heat & Power (CHP) Initiative (Non-Industrial)
9 Efficient Residential Electric Cooling Initiative
10 Retrofit Program For Electrically Heated Residences
11 Retrofit Initiative For Fossil Heated Residences
12 Electric Equipment Retrofit Program (Small Commercial &Industrial)
13 Public Facilities Efficiency Initiative
14 Efficient Residential Lighting and Appliances Programs
15 Efficient Non-Residential Construction
16 Energy Star Home Construction Program
17 Use of Lower Carbon Fossil Fuels
Transportation
18 Local Fuel Economy Improvements (Feebate) Initiative
19 Transit Oriented Development And Enhancing Transit Options
And Operations Initiative5
20 Bicycle and Pedestrian Infrastructures Initiative
21 Commuting Efficiency Program
22 Commuting Trip Reduction Initiative
23 Government Owned And Private Fleet-Vehicle Efficiency
Land Use
24 Urban/Suburban Forestry Program
25 Open Space Protection Program
Energy Supply
26 Renewable Portfolio Standards
Solid Waste
27 Resource Management (RM) Contracting Initiative
28 Pay-As-You-Throw (PAYT) Initiative
29 State Facilities Renewable Purchase Requirement
1

Saved
Carbon1

CSC2

CoBenefits3

100
80
40
35
30

-200
-550
-180
-70
-200

-13 to –19-43 to –61-32 to –46-51 to –72-51 to –72

25
15
15
10
9
6
5

10
-150
-90
0
-7
-7
-150

-13 to –19-32 to –46-51 to –72-51 to –72-51 to –72-13 to –19-36 to –51

5
5
5
1
TBD4

-160
-226
-200
0
TBD

-25 to -36-51 to –72-36 to –51-27 to -38
TBD

125
19

-300
-500

-22 to –32-22 to –32

19
19
18
<2.5

-500
-500
-500
-300

-22 to –32-22 to –32-22 to –32-22 to –32

<120
60

~0
~0

NSB6
NSB

140
70
55
0.4

46 & 2307 -30 to -75
<0
<0
250

TBD
TBD
-30 to -75

Estimates of thousands of metric tons in 2020
CSC is cost of saved carbon, which is net costs (costs minus savings) per metric ton carbon equivalent reduced by the
option.
3
Net co-benefits (a savings, thus negative) per metric ton of carbon equivalent reduced by the option.
4
This item is TBD because this is a new option that Tellus and the Stakeholders have not analyzed.
5
The carbon savings and CSC are based on the TOD option in the Scoping Paper, which does not include additionalsavings and costs associated with transit enhancements.
6
NSB is Net Social Benefit, may include economic benefits or costs, but not readily quantifiable
7
These numbers represent upper bounds from a national and Massachusetts study respectively. See Appendix G.
217

Rhode Island Greenhouse Gas Action Plan

July 15, 2002

Table 3c: Lower Priority Consensus In-State Options#

Name

Buildings and Facilities
30 Compact Floorspace Initiative
31 Switching From Electricity To Fossil Fuel Heating
32 Solar Photovoltaic (PV) Buydown Program
33 Active Solar Hot Water Heating Initiative
34 Non-Residential Natural Gas Air Conditioning Initiative
Transportation
35 Fleet Fuel GHG Content Mandate
Land Use36 Conversion of Marginal Cropland to Forest Initiative
37 Conversion of Marginal Cropland to Wetlands Initiative
38 Low Input Agriculture and Improved Cropping Systems
Initiative
39 Forest Management Initiative
Energy Supply
40 Promote New Renewable Electricity Supply Using System
Benefit Charge Funds
41 Promote Green Power Purchases Using System Benefit
Charge Funds
42 Incentive Package Initiative• Production tax credit• Investment tax credit• Net metering• Backup rates
43 Direct Government Investments Or Expenditures in
Renewable Energy
Solid Waste
44 Deposit Bottle System (“Bottle Bill”)

8

NEB is Net Economic Benefit, but not readily quantifiable

18

Saved
CarbonCSC

CoBenefits

5
1
1
1
<1

-400
170
1200
1100
300

-17 to –24-40 to –50-13 to –19-20 to –30-40 to -50

40

100

-22 to –32

40
<1.5
0.4

25
25
2-6

NSB
NSB
NSB

NRA

0-40

NEB8

8

250

-30 to -75

13

300

-30 to -75

2
2
0.2
TBD
0.5

417
417
294
TBD

-30 to -75-30 to -75-30 to -75
TBD-30 to -75

200
19

>0

TBD

Rhode Island Greenhouse Gas Action Plan

July 15, 2002

Table 3d: Non-Consensus In-State Options#

Name

Buildings and Facilities
45 Upgrade New Residential Construction Building Code46 Upgrade New Commercial Construction Building CodeTransportation and Land Use
47 Increase The Gasoline Tax

Saved
CarbonCSC

CoBenefits

20
40

-20
-300

-32 to –47-32 to –47

38

0-22 to –32

Table 3e: Consensus Regional/National Options (Higher Priority)#

Name

Buildings and Facilities
48 Upgrade And Extend Appliance Efficiency Standards
Transportation
49 National Fuel Efficiency Standards For Cars And Light
Trucks (CAFÉ)Energy Supply
50 Carbon (And Multi-Pollutant) Cap And Permit Trade System
For The Power Sector

Saved
CarbonCSC

CoBenefits

100

-50

-51 to –72

250

-300

-22 to –32

140

46, and -30 to -75
2309

Table 3f: Consensus Priority Study Options#

Name

51 Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT)-Based Insurance Premium
Structures
52 Transportation Infrastructure Planning• Commuter rail/light rail and its potential electrification• Advanced bus rapid transit• Barging• Carbon impacts of shifting transportation resources fromnew lane miles to preserving, enhancing and better
integrating the State’s transportation infrastructure

9

Saved
Carbon110

CSC<0

CoBenefits-22 to –32

TBD

TBD

TBD

The saved carbon target of the Carbon Cap and Trade program is the same as the saved carbon from RPS by design,and the cost of implementation is assumed to track the RPS cost by design.

19Rhode Island Greenhouse Gas Action Plan

July 15, 2002

Higher Priority Consensus In-State Options
Buildings and Facilities
1. Commercial/Industrial Fossil Fuel Retrofit Initiative
This new program would target facilities heated with natural gas or oil in order to conserve fossil
fuel. New sources of funding such as a gas/oil system benefit charge and/or Energy Office resources
would be needed and could be used to support this program, which could be structured like
Narragansett Electric Company’s SBC-funded current “Energy Initiative” program for facilities
heated with electricity. The program would provide education, program marketing and/or contractor
training as well as financial incentives.
2. Compact Residential Appliances Initiative
This initiative would provide outreach and education to encourage households to select the smallest
appropriate appliances for their service needs thereby reducing energy use and costs.
3. Energy Efficiency Targeting Initiative (Industrial)
This initiative would assist industries to set energy efficiency targets for production areas andprocesses using computerized monitoring and targeting systems.
4. Combined Heat & Power (CHP) Initiative (Industrial)
This initiative would promote the use of CHP in industry with technical studies, program marketingand financial incentives. Possible CHP technologies include combustion turbine (CT) type systems
and internal combustion engines (ICEs), likely fueled by natural gas.
The Stakeholder Group unanimously agrees that this should be a higher priority option, and thoughsome members felt that rate structure issues were not an impediment to expanded appropriate use of
Combined Heat & Power, the Group noted that back-up rates will be reviewed by the Public Utility
Commission in 2004 with an order to follow in 2005.
5. Electric Energy Efficiency Retrofit in Non-Residential Buildings and Facilities
Continue Narragansett Electric Company’s SBC-funded program to promote installation of measures
to save electricity in non-residential buildings and facilities through rebates, financing options andtechnical assistance for qualifying lighting, heating, air conditioning, electric motors and motor
drive, and other measures.
6. Efficient Residential Fossil Fuel Heating Initiative
This new program would promote installation of the highest efficiency natural gas and oil heating
equipment instead of the standard efficiency equipment that is usually installed in new andreplacement applications in the State. New sources of funding such as a gas/oil system benefit
charge and/or Energy Office resources would be needed and would be used to support education,
program marketing and/or contractor training as well as financial incentives.
20

Rhode Island Greenhouse Gas Action Plan

July 15, 2002

7. Tax Credits For Energy Efficiency
This initiative would reinstate and expand energy efficiency tax credits to promote energy efficiency
in the commercial and residential sectors. If the tax credits were extensive enough to encourage
substantial energy efficiency investment, the state could slightly increase other relevant taxes tooffset the revenue lost from the credits.
8. Combined Heat & Power (CHP) Initiative (Non-Industrial)
This initiative would promote the use of CHP in non-industrial buildings and facilities throughtechnical studies, program marketing and financial incentives. Potential CHP technologies include
micro-turbines, fuel cells, combustion turbine (CT) type systems and internal combustion engines(ICEs) likely fueled by natural gas. Multi-building campuses are especially promising sites for CHP.
The Stakeholder Group unanimously agrees that this should be a higher priority option, and thoughsome members felt that rate structure issues were not an impediment to expanded appropriate use of
Combined Heat & Power, the Group noted that back-up rates will be reviewed by the Public Utility
Commission in 2004 with an order to follow in 2005.
9. Efficient Residential Electric Cooling Initiative
This new program would provide incentives for efficient home electric cooling, including promoting
the purchase of high- efficiency units, improved installation and proper equipment sizing. The
program would use SBC or other public benefit funds for education, program marketing and/or
contractor training, as well as financial incentives. This option is currently being designed andimplemented by Narragansett Electric with SBC funds.
10. Retrofit Program For Electrically Heated Residences
Continue Narragansett Electric Company’s “Energy Wise” program, which provides energy-use
audits and surveys and financial assistance for installing weatherization measures in existing homes,
thereby saving electricity.
11. Retrofit Initiative For Fossil Heated Residences
This new program would be targeted to homes heated with natural gas or oil. The program would
deliver such services as energy audits, information, and financial incentives for cost-effective
measures that reduce fuel consumption. It could be structured like Narragansett Electric’s “Energy
Wise” program, which provides funding for education, program marketing and/or contractor training
as well as financial incentives.
12. Electric Equipment Retrofit Program (Small Commercial & Industrial)
Continue Narragansett Electric Company’s SBC-funded retrofit assistance program to increaseenergy efficiency in small commercial & industrial buildings by providing information, interest-freefinancing and rebates for qualifying equipment.

21

Rhode Island Greenhouse Gas Action Plan

July 15, 2002

13. Public Facilities Efficiency Initiative
This option would expand programs to increase energy efficiency in state and local public facilities
through such measures as comprehensive retrofitting, best technology in all new construction,
maximum use of day lighting and lighting controls, and using lower carbon fossil fuels for space
heat. It could entail legislative or regulatory changes governing leasing and financing by such
facilities, new resources via expanded energy-related revolving loan funds, and mandated standards.
14. Efficient Residential Lighting and Appliances ProgramsContinue two programs at Narragansett Electric Company to promote (1) efficient lighting and (2)energy-efficient washing machines and other equipment in U.S. EPA’s “Energy Star Appliances”
programs. These systems benefits charge (SBC) funded programs offer information and rebates
toward the purchase of the appliances. These programs are currently part of a regional effort
spearheaded by the Northeast Energy Efficiency Project (NEEP).
15. Efficient Non-Residential Construction
Continue Narragansett Electric Company’s SBC-funded program to promote installation of energyefficiency measures, primarily for electricity savings, in new non-residential buildings and thoseundergoing renovation, by combining information, technical assistance, and rebates for qualifying
measures affecting building shells, HVAC systems, lighting and equipment.
16. Energy Star Home Construction Program
Continue and intensify marketing of the US EPA’s Energy Star Homes program, sponsored in
Rhode Island by Narragansett Electric Company and Pascoag Fire District using SBC funds. The
program promotes energy efficiency in new house construction (aiming for 30% greater efficiency
than in Rhode Island’s current Model Energy Code (MEC) by combining a house efficiency rating
system with rebates for reaching a target rating.
17. Use of Lower Carbon Fossil Fuels
This initiative replaced an option titled Switching from Oil to Natural Gas, but the Stakeholder
Group was strongly divided about the advisability of this switching from oil to natural gas due to alack of clarity regarding the relative GHG impacts of oil and gas heat. The Group agreed that weshould encourage use of lower carbon fossil fuels (where fossil fuels are in use) when such fuels areavailable and cost effective, and that Rhode Island should continue to look for those opportunities.
So this new option was created and the Group agreed that it should be a higher priority.
Transportation
18. Local Fuel Economy Improvements (Feebate) Initiative
This initiative would create a fee and rebate (“feebate”) incentive system (through a refinement oftaxes paid in automobile purchases) for the purchase of new cars and light trucks. Rhode Island
residents purchasing low efficiency vehicles would pay a higher fee and those purchasing highefficiency vehicles would get a rebate. This could be designed to be revenue neutral, thus keeping
22Rhode Island Greenhouse Gas Action Plan

July 15, 2002

the overall revenues the same as before. The feebate would need to be adjusted annually to ensurestability of revenues, and updated periodically to (1) monitor impacts and adjust the incentive system
to meet or change the goals, (2) take account of technology changes, and (3) take account of nationalor regional initiatives.
19. Transit Oriented Development And Enhancing Transit Options And Operations Initiative
This initiative would combine efforts underway in Rhode Island to integrate land-use zoning andtransit planning to reduce automobile trips i.e., maximize walkability, easy access to transit, smart
growth, etc. It would also include improved bus routing and services, better integration with
community settlement patterns and other transportation modes, and long term incentives and land
use approaches to guide growth along rail transit routes. The Stakeholder Group acknowledges therelationship of transit oriented development and increased non-automobile transit opportunities, andrecommended studying the creation of more aggressive implementation programs to relieve
dependence on the automobile and provide greater public transit ridership.
20. Bicycle and Pedestrian Infrastructures Initiative
This initiative would build on the State’s Greenspace and Greenways Element of the State Guide
Plan, the existing bikeways and other efforts throughout the State to: create more bicycle lanes andpaths, eliminate hazards to cyclists and pedestrians, improve street network connectivity, as well as
establish pedestrian malls and walkways, through grant programs, incentive systems, zoning andregulations.
21. Commuting Efficiency ProgramThis program would build upon existing incentive programs in the State such as car and van pools,
preferred parking, and park-and-ride lots. It would provide fare reductions (subsidies/vouchers) for
transit use in commuting and Ride-Home programs for commuters who use alternative modes.
22. Commuting Trip Reduction Initiative
This initiative, one of several energy and transportation options included in the State Guide Plan,
would reduce vehicle use by providing incentives for flex time, telecommuting, telecommunications
and internet commerce.
23. Government Owned And Private Fleet-Vehicle Efficiency Initiative
This initiative would build on Rhode Island’s current state alternative vehicle fuel program to create
additional programs to optimize efficiency of vehicle use, to encourage government and industry topurchase more energy efficient vehicles and/or promote alternate fuel use. Note: the numbers in thetables and figures in this document regarding this option include only the impacts from government
fleets, but the Stakeholder Group agreed that these standards should also be applied to private fleets.

23

Rhode Island Greenhouse Gas Action Plan

July 15, 2002

Land Use
24. Urban/Suburban Forestry ProgramThis program would expand programs of the Rhode Island Department of Environmental
Management, the Rhode Island Tree Council and the Statewide Planning Program to expand tree
cover and thus achieve energy savings as well as other environmental and aesthetic benefits.
25. Open Space Protection ProgramThis program would expand Rhode Island’s efforts to acquire and preserve open space, reduce
sprawl and encourage use of existing infrastructure. The Stakeholder Group clarifies that the saved
carbon estimate for this option assumes the continuation of existing open space protection programs
or comparable efforts through 2020.
Energy Supply
26. Renewable Portfolio Standards
This initiative would establish a system requiring that a minimum percentage of retail electricity soldto Rhode Island consumers come from qualifying renewable resources. Important design features
include the eligible types (e.g., wind, biomass, solar, hydroelectric, or ocean), vintages andgeographic location of qualifying renewable generation, and how the percentage requirementchanges over time (e.g., progressively increasing). The Stakeholder Group agrees that the RPS is an
important option for consideration. The Group further agrees that the potential rate impacts of the
RPS need to be looked at and modeled for Rhode Island prior to final endorsement. With thisclarifying note, all the members of the Stakeholder Group felt that this should be a higher priority
except for Narragansett Electric, who felt it should be a lower priority.
Solid Waste
27. Resource Management (RM) Contracting Initiative
This initiative would provide support for contractual arrangements between haulers and nonresidential waste generators that cap compensation for garbage hauling and disposal and provide
profit-sharing to contractors for waste minimization.
28. Pay-As-You-Throw (PAYT) Initiative
This initiative would not require state law or regulation. Instead, it would provide education andincentives to communities to adopt Pay-As-You-Throw, that would in turn require households to pay
for waste disposal based on the amount they generate through a fee either for each bag or can ofwaste or based on the weight of their trash, thereby providing an incentive for households togenerate less waste. It would expand beyond the existing PAYT programs in five Rhode Island
communities, to widespread implementation by municipalities throughout the State, and would
recover recycling costs as part of the fee for disposal.

24Rhode Island Greenhouse Gas Action Plan

July 15, 2002

29. State Facilities Renewable Purchase Requirement
This option would require state agencies and facilities to buy minimum portions of their electricity
from renewable resources, by setting deadlines for reaching specific target for renewables as apercentage of total electricity consumption.

Lower Priority Consensus In-State Options
Buildings and Facilities
30. Compact Floorspace Initiative
This voluntary initiative would encourage households and businesses to reduce floorspace perresident or per-employee to reduce energy use and costs. The outreach and education program
would explain the tradeoffs involved in reducing floorspace.
The Stakeholder Group agreed that this is a lower priority option in spite of its very low projected
cost of saved carbon because many in the Group questioned the political viability of promoting
smaller living units.
31. Switching From Electricity To Fossil Fuel HeatingThis new initiative would promote the switching from electric space heating to natural gas and oil
heating when cost-effective and would result in reduced overall carbon emissions.
32. Solar Photovoltaic (PV) Buydown ProgramThis involves renewal of the PV/small wind program funded by the SBC, for installation of rooftop
solar Photovoltaic (PV) systems in buildings and facilities which currently subsidizes the cost by $3
per watt of installed PV capacity.
33. Active Solar Hot Water Heating Initiative
This initiative would create a program to provide funding for education, program marketing and/or
contractor training, as well as financial incentives for installation of systems that collect and store
thermal energy from the sun to heat water for residential and small commercial use.
34. Non-Residential Natural Gas Air Conditioning Initiative
This natural gas air conditioning initiative would focus on commercial, industrial, and institutional
applications with favorable economics such as combined replacement of electric cooling and water
heating. It could be promoted through New England Gas Co.’s DSM program. The program would
provide funding for education, program marketing and/or contractor training, as well as financial
incentives.

25

Rhode Island Greenhouse Gas Action Plan

July 15, 2002

Transportation
35. Fleet Fuel GHG Content Mandate
This initiative would study policies to establish a minimum requirement (perhaps progressively
stronger over time) to reduce the life-cycle GHG content of vehicle fuels sold in the State. The
requirement is not-fuel-specific or prescriptive, but could be met in a number of ways such as blends(e.g., cellulosic ethanol) and/or alternative fueled vehicles (e.g., natural gas, biodiesel), thereby
reducing oil consumption and GHG emissions. Among the questions that would require resolution
are supply availability, the other environmental (e.g., land and water) impacts of the alternatives
versus gasoline, and the level of the requirement and availability and cost of the options to meet it.
Land Use
36. Conversion of Marginal Cropland to Forest Initiative
This initiative, which is a priority of the Rhode Island Land Acquisition Program, would adapt thetypes of approaches taken by the US Soil Bank and Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) to provide
incentives to farmers to convert under-utilized or low value cropland to forested land. Incentives
could include compensation, cost-sharing, and tax treatment.
37. Conversion of Marginal Cropland to Wetlands Initiative
This initiative, which is a priority of the Rhode Island Land Acquisition Program, would adapt thetypes of approaches taken by the US Soil Bank and Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) to provide
incentives to farmers to convert under-utilized or low value cropland to wetlands (new or restored).
Incentives could include compensation, cost-sharing, and tax treatment. While this would haveimportant local ecological benefits, its net GHG impacts are uncertain and need further study, owing
to the potential releases of methane.
38. Low Input Agriculture and Improved Cropping Systems Initiative
This initiative would support such practices as conservation tillage or low-tillage farming, integrated
pest management, organic farming, and increased use of cover crops, which would increase carbon
retention and decrease GHG releases (e.g., N2O) from reduced fertilizer use and CO2 from decreased
diesel use while providing soil and water benefits.
39. Forest Management Initiative
This initiative would build upon ongoing Rhode Island Best Management Practice programs. It
would expand legislative frameworks to increase biomass in existing forests, require prompter
revegetation of cut areas and restrict harvesting in streamside areas, and establish new forests andplantings.

26

Rhode Island Greenhouse Gas Action Plan

July 15, 2002

Energy Supply
40. Promote New Renewable Electricity Supply Using System Benefit Charge Funds
This would continue the existing or emerging renewable energy programs supported by the SBC
beyond the current 2012 sunset date. New renewable capacity anywhere in New England would be
eligible as long as it supplies Rhode Island customers.
41. Promote Green Power Purchases Using System Benefit Charge Funds
This would also continue the programs supported by the SBC beyond the 2012 sunset date toprovide subsidies to Rhode Island customers who buy green power or their suppliers. Green poweris generated from renewable energy sources, such as wind and solar power, geothermal, and alimited set of hydropower and biomass resources
42. Incentive Package Initiative••••

production tax credit
investment tax credit
net metering
back-up rates

This initiative would build upon existing Rhode Island programs to provide a package of incentives
that complement the RPS and SBC, including tax credits and net metering, to promote use ofrenewable technologies. A production tax credit is typically applied to the early years of operationof qualifying renewable electric generators, while the investment credit is designed to reduce thecosts for the purchase, installation, or manufacture of renewable energy systems, equipment, andfacilities. Tax credits can apply to income, corporate, property, and sales taxes.
Net metering allows Rhode Island retail customers to use on-site electricity generation fromrenewable resources and fuel cells up to 25 kW to effectively run the meter backwards, reducing theusage on which their retail electric bill is calculated. Net metering eligibility could be expanded
beyond the current 25 kW limit; and the current 1 MW limit on aggregate enrollment could be raisedor eliminated. Supporting electric rate provisions (e.g., tariffs for back-up electric service) could
also be changed to address barriers/changes in wholesale, distribution or retail electricity market
rules.
The Stakeholder Group recommended implementation of the Incentive Package to provide animportant infrastructure for renewable energy and distributed generation even though the measures
themselves don’t provide substantial GHG savings. Any backup rate or net metering proposals
should evaluate and appropriately address potential adverse rate impacts and lost revenue to theutility.
43. Direct Government Investments Or Expenditures in Renewable Energy
The State or its municipalities could pay directly to promote renewable projects ranging frominvestment in renewable facilities in Rhode Island (customer-sited or bulk) or using low-costfinancing to the purchase of renewable energy credits or CO2 emission reduction credits.
27

Rhode Island Greenhouse Gas Action Plan

July 15, 2002

Solid Waste
44. Deposit Bottle System (“Bottle Bill”)
A Bottle Bill would require a deposit at the time of purchase for certain bottles which is refunded
upon return. The Stakeholder Group agreed to put the bottle bill in the low priority bin, assuming
Pay-As-You-Throw is aggressively implemented. If not, the Group recommended restudying thisoption for potentially moving it up in priority.

Non-Consensus In-State Options
Buildings and Facilities
45. Upgrade New Residential Construction Building Code
46. Upgrade New Commercial Construction Building CodeThe residential code change would consist of promulgating and applying higher energy-efficiency
standards than are reflected in current state building codes (the 1995 Model Energy Code), as theamount of energy consumed in new or substantially renovated buildings is strongly affected bybuilding codes. This would be complemented by funding for some mix of education, training forcontractors and inspectors, and possible financial incentives. The commercial code change would
consist of promulgating and applying higher energy-efficiency standards than are reflected in current
state building codes (the ASHRAE 90.1 Standard). This would be complemented by funding for
education, training for contractors and inspectors, and possible financial incentives.
The following nine parties feel that these two options should be given higher priority: theConservation Law Foundation, Brown University, Rhode Island DEM, the Sierra Club, RI PIRG,
Sustainability, NECo, RIPTA, and TEC-RI. The following four parties feel that the two options
should be given lower priority: RI DPUC, Business Roundtable, the Building Commission, and theEconomic Development Corporation. The following four parties feel that it is premature to bin thetwo options until further study: the RI Petroleum Institute, the Oil Heat Institute, the New England
Gas Company, and the Rhode Island Builders Association.
Transportation and Land Use
47. Increase The Gasoline Tax
A policy to increase the gasoline tax by $0.50 per gallon would provide an incentive to purchasemore fuel-efficient vehicles and to encourage more efficient travel choices. It could be explicitly
tax-revenue neutral, thus not increasing overall household taxes, via complementary income-tax
reductions, or it could be implicitly tax-revenue neutral by providing the funding for the rebate
portion of the feebate system. The Stakeholder Group was unable to reach consensus due tosignificant disagreement about the wisdom and feasibility of a gasoline tax and its relative priority.
The group discussed several options, including putting it in the higher priority category with clearly
expressed uncertainty or the lower priority category because of the political and social barriers. The
Group did agree on a need for more research, analysis and discussion to assess this option, including
elasticities, neighboring state effects, the advisability of state vs. federal taxes and equity issues.
28

Rhode Island Greenhouse Gas Action Plan

July 15, 2002

Regional/National Consensus Options
Buildings and Facilities
48. Upgrade And Extend Appliance Efficiency Standards
This initiative would support the “Northeast Equipment Standards Project” organized by theNortheast Energy Efficiency Partnership (NEEP) for states to propose or adopt energy efficiency
standards for fifteen types of equipment, which would exceed existing federal efficiency standards orapply to equipment not subject to federal efficiency standards. This would be complemented byfunding for training for contractors and inspectors, and possible financial incentives.
The Stakeholder Group agrees to categorize this initiative as “higher priority” but to emphasize thata focus on regional and federal standards would be a more effective strategy than RI- only
implementation, which the Group believes is probably impractical.
Transportation
49. National Fuel Efficiency Standards For Cars And Light Trucks (CAFÉ)With this initiative, Rhode Island’s local and state governments, coordinating with other New
England State governments, would encourage the US Congress to enact new national corporate
average fuel efficiency (CAFÉ) standards for automobiles, raising the standards for cars andincluding light trucks (e.g., SUVs) in the same category. This would involve progressive increases
in mpg in each year’s fleet of new sales, to double the average mpg by 2020 to about 50 mpg. If thiswere achieved it could reduce the level, influence the design, or obviate the need for Rhode Islandspecific fuel-efficiency incentives or standards.
The Stakeholder Group agreed that the bigger the region covered by CAFÉ standards the better, andthat the Group’s clear preference is to focus Rhode Island’s efforts on supporting the establishmentof a more efficient national standard. If establishment of a more efficient national standard isn’t
immediately forthcoming, however, the Group agreed that RI should look at the viability of aregional standard, but that a Rhode Island only standard does not really make sense.
Energy Supply
50. Carbon (And Multi-Pollutant) Cap And Permit Trade System For The Power Sector
These options would be implemented to reduce GHG emissions either directly through a carbon cap
and trade system, or indirectly through reductions in other pollutants (SO2 and NOx), or both. They
are best pursued at the national or regional level, but could be applied at the state level in lieu of (oras a complement to national or regional system). Currently, various multi-pollutant national
approaches have been studied and proposed in Congress, and some states have taken this path.

29

Rhode Island Greenhouse Gas Action Plan

July 15, 2002

Consensus Priority Study Options
51. Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT)-Based Insurance Premium Structures
Explore the impacts and design of a Pay-As-You-Drive Insurance system in the State, which wouldbase all or some portion of annual insurance premiums on vehicle miles traveled (VMT), providing
incentive to make more efficient travel decisions and thus reduce VMT’s, energy use and emissionsof GHGs and pollutants. Some have suggested a Pay-At-The-Pump premium tied to gasoline
purchases, but a more direct way to address VMT (rather than VMT and fuel efficiency together)would be odometer-based fee (e.g., at the time of annual registration).
The Stakeholder Group acknowledges that the idea of VMT-based insurance is potentiallypromising, but the members felt that RI should not be the first to implement such a program. The
Group agreed to recommend monitoring developments in this area and keep it open as a possibility.
It also agreed that this program may be more effective regionally.
52. Transportation Infrastructure Planning
Study the impact of various transportation infrastructure initiatives, including:• commuter rail/light rail and its potential electrification• advanced bus rapid transit• barging• carbon impacts of shifting transportation resources from new lane miles to preserving,enhancing and better integrating the State’s transportation infrastructure30

Rhode Island Greenhouse Gas Action Plan

July 15, 2002

Table 3g: Consensus In-State Options (ordered by saved carbon)#

Name

26 Renewable Portfolio Standards

Saved
Carbon140

18 Local Fuel Economy Improvements (Feebate) Initiative
24 Urban/Suburban Forestry Program
1 Commercial/Industrial Fossil Fuel Retrofit Initiative

125
<120
100

CoBenefits
46, and -30 to -75
230-300 -22 to –32~0NSB-200 -13 to –19

2 Compact Residential Appliances Initiative
27 Resource Management (RM) Contracting Initiative
25 Open Space Protection Program
28 Pay-As-You-Throw (PAYT) Initiative
35 Fleet Fuel GHG Content Mandate
36 Conversion of Marginal Cropland to Forest Initiative
3 Energy Efficiency Targeting Initiative (Industrial)
4 Combined Heat & Power (CHP) Initiative (Industrial)
5 Electric Energy Efficiency Retrofit in Non-Residential
Buildings and Facilities
6 Efficient Residential Fossil Fuel Heating Initiative
19 Transit Oriented Development/Enhancing Transit Options &Operations Initiative
44 Deposit Bottle System (“Bottle Bill”)
20 Bicycle and Pedestrian Infrastructures Initiative
21 Commuting Efficiency Program
22 Commuting Trip Reduction Initiative
7 Tax Credits For Energy Efficiency
8 Combined Heat & Power (CHP) Initiative (Non-Industrial)
41 Promote Green Power Purchases Using System Benefit
Charge Funds
9 Efficient Residential Electric Cooling Initiative
10 Retrofit Program For Electrically Heated Residences
40 Promote New Renewable Electricity Supply Using System
Benefit Charge
11 Retrofit Initiative For Fossil Heated Residences
30 Compact Floorspace Initiative
12 Electric Equipment Retrofit Program (Small Commercial &Industrial)
13 Public Facilities Efficiency Initiative

80
70
60
55
40
40
40
35
30

-550
<0
~0
<0
100
25
-180
-70
-200

-43 to –61
TBD
NSB
TBD
-22 to –32NSB-32 to –46-51 to –72-51 to –72

25
19

10
-500

-13 to –19-22 to –32

19
19
19
18
15
15
13

>0
-500
-500
-500
-150
-90
300

TBD
-22 to –32-22 to –32-22 to –32-32 to –46-51 to –72-30 to -75

10
9
8

0
-7
250

-51 to –72-51 to –72-30 to -75

6
5
5

-7
-400
-150

-13 to –19-17 to –24-36 to –51

5

-160

-25 to -36

31

CSC

Rhode Island Greenhouse Gas Action Plan

July 15, 2002

Table 3g: Consensus In-State Options (continued)
Name#
14 Efficient Residential Lighting and Appliances Programs
15 Efficient Non-Residential Construction
23 Government Owned And Private Fleet-Vehicle Efficiency
Initiative
42 Incentive Package Initiative• Production tax credit• Investment tax credit• Net metering• Backup rates
37 Conversion of Marginal Cropland to Wetlands Initiative
16 Energy Star Home Construction Program
31 Switching From Electricity To Fossil Fuel Heating
32 Solar Photovoltaic (PV) Buydown Program
33 Active Solar Hot Water Heating Initiative
34 Non-Residential Natural Gas Air Conditioning Initiative
43 Direct Government Investments Or Expenditures in
Renewable Energy
38 Low Input Agriculture and Improved Cropping Systems
Initiative
29 State Facilities Renewable Purchase Requirement
39 Forest Management Initiative
17 Use of Lower Carbon Fossil Fuels

32

Saved
CarbonCSC

CoBenefits

5
5
<2.5

-226
-200
-300

-51 to –72-36 to –51-22 to –32

2
2
0.2
TBD
<1.5
1
1
1
1
<1
0.5

417
417
294
TBD
25
0
170
1200
1100
300

-30 to -75-30 to -75-30 to -75
TBD
NSB-27 to -38-40 to –50-13 to –19-20 to –30-40 to -50-30 to -75

0.4

200
2-6

NSB

0.4
NRA
TBD

250
0-40
TBD

-30 to -75
NEB
TBD

Rhode Island Greenhouse Gas Action Plan

July 15, 2002

Table 3h: Non-Consensus State Options(ordered by saved carbon)#
Name
Saved Carbon CSC Co-Benefits
46 Upgrade New Commercial Construction Building Code40-300 -32 to –47
47 Increase The Gasoline Tax
38
0-22 to –32
45 Upgrade New Residential Construction Building Code20
-20 -32 to –47

Table 3i: Consensus Regional/National Options(ordered by saved carbon)#

Name

49 Nat’l Fuel Efficiency Standards for Cars/Light Trucks (CAFÉ)
50 Carbon (and Multi-Pollutant) Cap & Permit Trade System For
The Power Sector
48 Upgrade and Extend Appliance Efficiency Standards

Saved
Carbon
250
140
100

CSC

CoBenefits-300 -22 to –32
46, and -30 to -75
23010-50 -51 to –72

Table 3j: Consensus Priority Study Options

#

Name

51 Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT)-Based Insurance Premium
Structures
52 Transportation Infrastructure Planning• Commuter rail/light rail and its potential electrification• Advanced bus rapid transit• Barging• Carbon impacts of shifting transportation resources from newlane miles to preserving, enhancing and better integrating theState’s transportation infrastructure

10

Saved
Carbon110

CSC<0

CoBenefits-22 to –32

TBD

TBD

TBD

The saved carbon target of the Carbon Cap and Trade program is the same as the saved carbon from RPS by design,and the cost of implementation is assumed to track the RPS cost by design.

33

Rhode Island Greenhouse Gas Action Plan

July 15, 2002

Options to Research and Monitor For Possible Future Plan Inclusion
The Stakeholder Group agreed the Rhode Island needs to research and monitor several options forpossible future implementation:
Energy Supply and Solid Waste• Backyard Compost (education)• Sludge Reduction Options (research/capital investment)• Environmentally Preferable Procurement (EPP) Program (research)• Performance-Based Ratemaking, including decoupling utility sales from profit toencourage energy efficiency and other public benefits• Improving Power Factor and Reducing Line Losses
Transportation/Land Use• Improving the carbon efficiency of ground vehicles (air-side and land-side) at the
airport• Assess the current state of aircraft emissions and RI’s role in influencing it (including
best management practices)• Taxing heavy duty vehicles• Reducing emissions from small engines (off-road and utility engines, including
lawnmowers, boats, snowmobiles, and snowblowers)• Location efficient mortgages
Buildings/Facilities and Transportation/Land Use• Biodiesel fuels for both heating and transportation applications

34

Rhode Island Greenhouse Gas Action Plan

July 15, 2002

IV. Impact Analysis and Results
The In-State Consensus options are projected to almost meet the 2020 target of the Governors andPremiers. The In-State options as a whole (Consensus plus Non-Consensus) could meet the 2020
target. With national and regional options added the target could be exceeded. Moreover, the sharp
downward trend approaching the year 2020 indicates that continuation of these options would haveadditional reductions in the following years.
The overall impacts of the three policy scenarios can be reflected in three broad categories – GHG
reductions, economic costs and savings, and pollutant reduction co-benefits. Tables 4a through 4dshow various GHG emission reduction scenarios. Tables 4e and 4f show the economic costs andbenefits. And Tables 4g through 4j show the impacts of each policy on air pollutants.
For a description of the scenario modeling methods and the LEAP modeling software used to
produce the graphs in this section, please see Appendices D and E respectively.
Figure 4a: Rhode Island GHG Emissions Scenarios Compared to Governors’/Premiers’ Target

Baseline
4.0

Consensus

Million Tonnes Carbon Equivalent

Consensus + Non-Consensus
Governors'/Premiers' Target

3.5

In State Consensus +Federal/Regional
Consensus + Non-Consensus+ Federal/Regional
3.0

2.5

2.0
1990

1995

2000

2005

2010

2015

2020

Figure 4a shows the GHG emissions trajectory of each of the four policy scenarios, along with theBaseline scenario and a path based on the targets for 2010 and 2020 adopted by the New England
Governors/Canadian Premiers. These values combine emissions from all greenhouse gases fromend-uses through supplies that are tracked in the LEAP system, including carbon dioxide andmethane, based on the global warming potential (GWP) of each (in metric tons of carbon
equivalent).
35

Rhode Island Greenhouse Gas Action Plan

July 15, 2002

Table 4b shows the numerical values for these scenarios for two historic years, 1990 and 1999, andfor three years spanning our policy scenario time-horizon, 2002, 2010 and 2020. Note that the
reduction below the Baseline projection for the In-State Consensus plus Non-Consensus options
reaches about 16 percent (3.1 versus 3.7 million metric tons) by 2010, and about 34 percent (2.7
versus 4.1 million metric tons) by 2020.
Table 4b.
GHG Emisssions from Scenarios
Million Metric Tons Carbon Equivalent
1990
3.0

Baseline
Consensus
Consensus + Non-Consensus
Governors'/Premieres' Target
In State Consensus + Federal/Regional
Consensus + Non-Consensus + Federal/Regional

1999
3.5

2002
3.6
3.6
3.6
3.6
3.6
3.6

2010
3.7
3.1
3.1
3.0
3.0
3.0

2020
4.1
2.8
2.7
2.7
2.6
2.5

Figure 4c shows the In-state Consensus plus Non-Consensus policy scenario broken out into thethree groups of options studied in the scoping papers. It shows how that scenario is built up
progressively from options in Buildings and Facilities, Transportation and Land-use and Energy and
Solid Waste. Note that each group of options contributes substantially to the overall reductions.
Fig 4c. Contribution of Options to GHG Savings vs. Baseline Scenario: Consensus/Non-Consensus

Baseline

4

Million Tonnes Carbon Equivalent+Buildings & Facilities

3.5+Transport & Land-Use+Energy Supply and Solid Waste =Consensus & Non-Consensus

3

2.5

2

1.5

1
1990

1995

2000

2005

2010

2015

2020

Years

Figure 4d (see next page) shows the contribution of each individual measure to the total emission
reductions in 2020 for the In-State Consensus plus Non-Consensus policy scenario. While thesemeasure-specific impacts span a range of magnitudes, with the state RPS, vehicle efficiency, andindustrial efficiency providing the largest reductions, no single measure dominates and all makeimportant contributions.
36Rhode Island Greenhouse Gas Action Plan

July 15, 2002

Figure 4d: Contribution of Options to GHG Savings vs. Baseline in 2020 in Scenario: Consensus & Non-Consensus
Tax Credits for Energy Efficiency
1%
All Others
Fuel Switch Oil to Gas
5%
1%
Building Shell Retrofits“All Other” Measures
State Incentives for Fuel Economy
9%1%
Bottle Bill
Efficient Heating
1%
2%
Fleet Fuel GHG Content
3%

VMT-based Insurance
8%

Increase Gas Tax
3%
Compact Appliances
3%
Renewable Portfolio Standard
7%

Convert Cropland to Forestry
3%
Elec Eff in Non-Res Facilities
3%

Design 2000
Efficient Residential Cooling
Tax Credits for Energy
Efficiency
Retrofit Program
Efficient Lighting & Appliances
Compact Floor Space
Fuel Switching: Electric to Fossil
Public Facilities Initiative
Local Govt. Vehicle Fuel
Efficiency
Convert Croplands to Wetlands
Solar Water Heating
Solar Water Heating
Low Input AgricEnergy Star Homes
Solar PV Cells Program
Gas Air Conditioning

Industrial Energy Efficiency
7%

Non Industrial CHP
3%

Pay as You Throw
4%
Fossil Energy Efficiency
6%
Open Space Protection
4%
Industrial CHP
4%

EnergySupply &
Solid
Waste
18%

Urban & Suburban Forestry
5%

Upgrade Building Codes
Transit Oriented Development
5%5%Resource Management Contracting
5%

37

Transport& LandUse
40%

Buildings
andFacilities
42%

Rhode Island Greenhouse Gas Action Plan

Figure 4e shows the cumulative GHG reductions and the cumulative discounted net economic
benefits (i.e., savings minus costs) through 2020 of each scenario versus the Baseline. Note thatcosts are only assessed through 2020, not through each measure’s entire lifetime. There will
therefore be additional net savings (and GHG reductions) beyond 2020 for technologies installed
before 2020 that are still functioning beyond 2020, which are not shown here. Note also thatthe more aggressive scenarios actually yield more economic benefits; this is because each of
the scenarios have the many options with net savings along with the few (such as the RPS) withnet costs, and the progression shown here adds sets of options with overall net savings.
Figure 4e: Scenario Net Economic Benefits and GHG Savings vs. Baseline

1,200

18
Cumulative GHG Savings
Cumulative Net Economic Benefit

1,000

14
800

12
10

600
8
400

6

Million Discounted 1999$

Million Tonnes C Equivalent

16

4
200

Consensus + NonConsensus +Regional/National

Consensus

0Consensus & NonConsensus

2-

Figure 4f shows the net economic savings for each of the three policy scenarios in greater detail.
Costs are the additional capital and O&M costs of purchasing and using more expensive energy
efficient equipment. These result mainly from incremental investments in the transport sector
and in buildings and facilities. Net capital and O&M costs for electric power generation are verysmall since the additional costs of purchasing and operating more expensive renewables arebalanced by the benefits of the combined cycle natural gas power plants that are avoided becauseof the lower electricity demands owing to greater end-use efficiency in electricity using
equipment. Benefits are (a) the avoided costs of fuel that no longer needs to be purchased in the
scenario (compared to the fuel that would have been purchased in the Baseline scenario); (b)avoided environmental externality costs due to the lower level of non-greenhouse gas air
pollutant emissions in the policy scenarios compared to the Baseline scenario. Externalities
values are based on a review of externality values that have been adopted or proposed by State
Public Utility Commissions in the U.S. for use in electric power planning.
38

Rhode Island Greenhouse Gas Action Plan
Figure 4f. Costs and Benefits of Scenarios vs. Baseline
1800
Million Cumulative Discounted 199$

Avoided Environmental Externalities

1600
Avoided Transport Fuel Costs

1400
1200

Avoided Buildings & Facilities Fuel Costs

1000

Avoided Electric Generation Fuel Costs

800

Energy Supply & Solid Waste Capital & O&M
Costs

600

Buildings & Facilities Capital & O&M Costs

400
Transport & Land-Use Capital & O&M Costs
Benefits

200
0

Costs

-200

Consensus

Consensus + Non
Consensus-600

Consensus, NonConsensus +Regional/National-400

Figure 4g shows the impacts of each policy scenario on emissions of oxides of Nitrogen (NOx).
Nitrogen oxides form when fuel is burned at high temperatures, as in a combustion process. NOx
is involved in the formation of ground-level ozone, which can trigger serious respiratory
problems. It reacts to form nitrate particles, acid aerosols, as well as NO2, which also cause
respiratory problems. It also contributes to formation of acid rain and to nutrient overload thatlowers water quality. NOx also contributes to atmospheric particles that cause visibility
impairment most noticeable in national parks, and reacts to form toxic chemicals. It also
contributes to global warming. (summarized from EPA web site:
http://www.epa.gov/air/urbanair/nox/index.html)
Figure 4g. Impacts of Options on Emissions of Oxides of Nitrogen NOx)
18

Baseline

17
Consensus
16
Thousand Tonnes

15

Consensus + Non
Consensus

14

Consensus, NonConsensus + Regional/National

13
12
11
10
9
8
2000

2005

2010

2015

Years

39

2020

Rhode Island Greenhouse Gas Action Plan

Figure 4h shows the impacts of each policy scenario on emissions of Volatile Organic
Compounds (VOCs). This pollutant contributes to the production of photochemical smog and to
ground level ozone, which affects the human respiratory system. High ozone levels can also
damage crops, forests and wildlife (summarized from “A Guide to Environmental Analysis forEnergy Planners”: http://www.tellus.org/seib/publications/emanual.pdf
Figure 4h: Impacts of Options on Emissions of Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs)
33
Baseline
31

Consensus

Thousand Tonnes

29

Consensus + Non
Consensus
Consensus, NonConsensus + Regional/Nat

27

25

23

21

19

17
2000

2005

2010

2015

2020

Years

Figure 4i shows the impacts of each policy scenario on emissions of Particulate matter. The
graph focuses on particulate matter of size less than 10 microns in diameter (PM10), but asimilar effect is expected for particulate matter of smaller sizes (PM2.5). Particulates areassociated with serious health effects including increased hospital admissions and emergency
room visits for people with heart and lung disease, and work and school absences. Particulates
are the major source of haze that reduces visibility in many parts of the United States, including
National Parks. Particulates settle on soil and water and harm the environment by changing thenutrient and chemical balance. They also cause erosion and staining of structures. (Summarizedfrom EPA web site: http://www.epa.gov/ebtpages/airairposulfuroxidesso2.html)

40

Rhode Island Greenhouse Gas Action Plan
Figure 4i: PM10 Emissions from Scenarios
2.9
Baseline
Consensus

2.7

Consensus + Non
Consensus
Thousand Tonnes

2.5

Consensus, NonConsensus + Regional/National

2.3

2.1

1.9

1.7
2000

2005

2010

2015

2020

Years

Figure 4j shows the impacts of each policy scenario on emissions of Sulfur Dioxide (SO2). This
pollutant is formed when fuels containing sulfur, such as coal and oil are burned. SO2
contributes to respiratory illness, particularly in children and the elderly, and aggravates existingheart and lung diseases. It contributes to the formation of acid rain, which damages trees, crops,
historic buildings, and monuments; and makes soils, lakes, and streams acidic. It also
contributes to the formation of atmospheric particles that cause visibility impairment, mostnoticeably in national parks. (summarized from EPA web site:
http://www.epa.gov/ebtpages/airairposulfuroxidesso2.html)
Figure4j: SO2 Emissions from Scenarios

Thousand Tonnes

32

Baseline

30

Consensus

28

Consensus + Non
Consensus
Consensus, NonConsensus + Regional/National

26

24

22

20

18
2000

2005

2010

2015

Years

41

2020

Rhode Island Greenhouse Gas Action Plan

References
Brown University and Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management. 2000. Rhode Island
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory.
http://www.brown.edu/Research/EnvStudies_Theses/GHG/index.shtml
Bureau of Economic Analysis. 2001. Regional Accounts Data. U.S. Department of Commerce.
http://www.bea.doc.gov/bea/regional/data.htm

Oak Ridge National Laboratory. 2000. Transportation Energy Data Book. Edition 20. http://wwwcta.ornl.gov/data/tedb20/ ORNL-6959 (Edition 20 of ORNL-5198)
Office of Highway Policy Information, Federal Highway Administration. 1999. Highway Statistics.
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ohim/hs99/index.htm
United States Environmental Protection Agency. National Air Quality and Emissions
Trends Report, 1999 http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/trends/index.html

Bernow, S. et al., Tellus Institute. 2001. The American Way to the Kyoto Protocol: An
Economic Analysis to Reduce Carbon Pollution. For World Wildlife Fund.
Tellus Institute. 2001. LEAP: Long-range Energy Alternatives Planning System. User Guide.
http://www.tellus.org/seib/leap.
United States Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration (DOE/EIA). 2001. Annual
Energy Outlook 2001 With Projections to 2020. http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/
Report#:DOE/EIA-0383(2001).
United States Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration (DOE/EIA). 2000. National
Energy Modeling System. http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/overview/index.html
Report#:DOE/EIA-0581(2000)
United States Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration (DOE/EIA). 2001. Sate Energy
Data Report. http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/states/main_ri.html

42Rhode Island Greenhouse Gas Action Plan

V. List of Participants in Stakeholder and Working Groups

Table 5a: Stakeholder Members

Associated Builders and Contractors, Robert Boiselle
Audubon Society of Rhode Island, Eugenia Marks
Brown University, Harold WardBusiness Roundtable, Gary Ezovski
Conservation Law Foundation, Richard Kennelly
Department of Administration, Bill Ferguson
Narragansett Electric, Kate Ringe-Welch
National Federation of Independent Businesses, Terrence Martiesian
New England Gas Company, Marc Viera
Northern Rhode Island Chamber of Commerce, Jason Martiesian
Oil Heat Institute, Peter Lombardi
Providence Chamber of Commerce, Janet Raymond
RI Builder's Association, Roger Warren
RI Department of Environmental Management, Jan Reitsma
RI Department of Transportation, Diane Badorek
RI Economic Development Corporation, Mike Walker
RI League of Cities and Towns, Jennifer Perkins
RI Petroleum Institute, Lenette Boiselle
RI Public Interest Research Group, Kate Strouse
RI Public Transit Authority, Mark Therrien
RI Public Utilities Division, Doug HartleyRI Society of Environmental Professionals, Richard Austin
RI State Energy Office, Janice McClanaghan
RI Statewide Planning, John O'Brien
Save The Bay, Topher Hamblett
Sierra Club, Alicia Karpick
Sustainability Coalition, Bradley Hyson
The Energy Council of Rhode Island, Roger Buck
Ex Officio (non-voting) Stakeholder Members

Governor's Policy Office, Janis Loiselle
RI Senate, Policy Office, Kenneth Payne
RI House, Policy Office, Gary Ciminero
US EPA (ex officio), Norm Willard/ Bill White/ Elissa Tonkin
US DOE (ex officio), Lois Pasquerella

43Rhode Island Greenhouse Gas Action Plan
Table 5b: Working Groups
Energy Supply and Solid Waste

Buildings and Facilities

Brown University, Harold Ward
Env. Science Services, Inc, Jan Greenwood
Lincoln Environmental/Biz RTB, Brenda Pope
Narragansett Electric Co., Kate Ringe-Welch
New England Gas Company, Gary Beland
People’s Power and Light, Erich Stephens
RI PIRG, Kate Strouse
RI DPUC, Doug Hartley
RI Resource Recovery Corp, Dante Ionata
RI Society of Env. Prof., Richard Austin
RI State Energy Office, Janice McClanaghan
RIDEM - Str. Planning & Policy, Janet Keller
RI State Energy Office, Julie Capobianco
Statewide Planning, Bruce Vild
Sustainability Coalition, Bradley Hyson
The Energy Council of RI, Roger Buck
URI's Energy Center, Vin Rose
US Navy, Jim Carlson

Associated Builders/Contractors, Robert Boiselle
Brown University, Kurt Teichert
Conservation Services Group, Ned Reynolds
Lincoln Environmental/Biz RTB, Gary Ezovski
Natl. Federation of Ind. Biz, Terrance Martiesian
Narragansett Electric Company, Dave Jacobson
New England Gas Company, Diane Geaber
Oil Heat Institute, John Batey
Oil Heat Institute, Peter Lombardi
Pawtucket Pub. Works Director, Jack Carney
People’s Power and Light, Erich Stephens
RI Builders Association, Roger Warren
RI DOA Building Code, Stuart Cowen
RI DPUC, Al Contente
RI State Energy Office, Janice McClanaghan
RI State Energy Office, Tim HoweRIDEM-Air Resources, Tom Barry
Sustainability Coalition, Bradley Hyson
The Energy Council of RI, Roger Buck
US DOE, Lois Pasquerella
Weil-McLain, John Brady

Transportation and Land Use
AAA Public Affairs, Bob Murray
Alliance Environmental Group, Michael Geisser
APA, Clark Collins
Aquidneck Is. Planning Comm, Kelly Woodward
Brown University, Harold Ward
Dept. of Adminstration, Bill Ferguson
East Coast Greenway Alliance, Sue Barker
New England Gas Company, Dave Moniz
Northeast Sustainable Energy Assn., Karina Lutz
RI Airport Corporation, Jim Zisiades
RI Builders Assn., Roger Warren
RI Dept. of Transportation, Diane Badorek
RI Petroleum Institute, Lenette Boiselle
RI State Energy Office, Janice McClanaghan
RIDEM- Air Resources, Steve Majkut
RI Public Transportation Authority, Rachel Ede
Save The Bay, Topher Hamblett
Sierra Club Transportation Chair, Barry Schiller
Sierra Club, Alicia Karpick
Statewide Planning, George Johnson
URI Comm. Planning/LS Arch., Rob Thompson
URI/RISea Grant/CRC, Jennifer McCann

44