The role of cities in climate change mitigation

1. “Investigating urban sustainable energy policies in Europe: experiences from the Covenant of Mayors”BenedettaLucchittaIEFE – Bocconi University 8th International Scientific Conference, Energy and Climate Change contributing to deep decarbonization 7-9 October 2015

2. The role of cities in climate change mitigation The increase in global energy consumption, due to a rise in population and wealth, will have significant effects on greenhouse gas emissions, human wellbeing, and sustainability (Fragkias et al, 2013). Cities contribution to global GHG emissions, World Energy Outlook, 2014

3. The role of cities in climate change mitigation In this context, municipalities have the opportunity to become leading actors for implementing sustainable energy policies. Local authorities, being the closest administration to citizens, are ideally positioned to understand their concerns. Moreover, they can address the challenges in a comprehensive way, facilitating the conciliation between the public and private interest and the integration of sustainable energy into overall local development goals. In Europe, municipalities widely cooperate with regions and other sub-national authorities to plan and implement sustainable energy actions in their territories.These regional and local policies are placed in a wider context of national and European policies for climate and energy, with medium and long-term objectives.

4. The Covenant of Mayors After the adoption of the EU Climate and Energy Package, in 2008 the European Commission launched the Covenant of Mayors to support the efforts deployed by local authorities in the implementation of sustainable energy policies. Covenant signatories voluntary commit to meet and exceed the European Union 20% CO2 reduction target by 2020. 6.482 local authorities signed the CoM by September 2015. Source: Covenant of Mayors office

5. CoM signatories per country Source: JRC data from “The Covenant of Mayors in Figures and Performance Indicators: 6-year Assessment” (2015)

6. The Covenant of Mayorsprocess CoM signatories undertake to: prepare a Baseline Emission Inventory (BEI)quantifying the amount of CO2 emitted due to energy consumption in their territoriesin a base year (recommended 1990). It allows to identify the main sources of CO2emissions. submit a Sustainable Energy Action Plan (SEAP): key document definingthe activities and measures set up to achieve the target, together with time frames and assigned responsibilities. The EC – JRC has defined guidelines and suggested methodologies. Source: Covenant of Mayors office

7. The Covenant of Mayors governance DG Energy EC: is the promoter of the CoM initiative Covenant of Mayors office: is responsible for the coordination and daily management of the initiative. It provides signatories with administrative support and technical guidance, facilitates networking between Covenant stakeholders and ensures the promotion of their activities. The CoMO is managed by a consortium of European networks representing local and regional authorities EC Joint Research Centre: assists signatories with scientific and technical questions and action plans and checks the eligibility of the SEAPs ensuring the quality of the signatories action plans. Covenant coordinators: public administrations which provide strategic guidance, financial and technical support to municipalities signing up to the Covenant of Mayors but lacking necessary skills and/or resources to fulfil their requirements.The Commission distinguishes between Territorial Coordinators, which are sub-national decentralized authorities and National Coordinators, which are national public bodies including national energy agencies and ministry of energy. Covenant supporters: the associations of local and regional authorities which provide guidance and networking support to signatories, in an effort to help them meet their commitments. Source: Covenant of Mayors office

8. CoM signatories strategies research IEFE|JRC 1 evaluate which are the most relevant and frequent actions adopted by cities in their strategies 2 assess the coherence between BEIs and SEAPs in the city sample 3 test the relevance of significant drivers on urban emissions and on CO2eq intended reductions

9. City sample 4 • Cities included in the research sample have been selected by: • population (more than 100.000) • state of the SEAP (accepted SEAP by February 2014). • This yields a sample of 124 cities, with population ranging from about 108.000 to 7.67 million. • Total emissions in the sample correspond to 10% of total CO2eqemissions from the European Union in 2013, in all sectors. 3 3 1 15 2 4 3 20 10 4 17 1 2 9 25 2

10. Classification of actions • The classification by sectors, sub-sectors and categories of actions developed by the JRC has been used for the analysis. The categories of action were revised, in total 117 categories of actions were individuated. • Each single action (5.574) included in the sample SEAPs has been classified into a category of action. • Sectors and sub-sectors: • Buildings and facilities • Residential • Tertiary • Municipal • Not specified • Transport • Municipal fleet • Public transport • Private and commercial transport • Mixed actions • Industry • Public lighting • Local electricity production • Local heat/cold production • Land use planning • Waste and water • Working with the citizens and stakeholders • Other • Each action for emission reduction has been further classified into: a typology of policy lever(in total 28) that describes the policy instrument used by the local authority to implement the action. ACTION

11. Residual sectors • Data used for the analysis were provided by the municipalities as part of their SEAPs (and controlled by the JRC). • Cities are only required to report aggregate emission reduction data at sector level and only the most relevant actions for emission reduction. • So the sum of the intended reductions from quantified actions does not necessarily coincide with total and sector emission reductions. • For this reason, a residual sector has been introduced: • “emission reduction not assigned to specific actions” • In some cases it was not possible to attribute emissions reductions for certain actions to a category of action and to a subsector because of lack of explanation/information. • For this reason another residual sectorhas been introduced: • “emission reductions not attributed to a specific category of actions”

12. City sample descriptive statistics • 370 Mton of CO2eq emissions in the inventory year, that corresponds to the 10% of total CO2 emissions from the European Union in 2013 • 6.65 ton CO2eq emissions per capita, slightly lower than the average level of emissions per capita in the EU28 (estimated to 7.3 ton CO2 per capita in 2013, (Oliver et al., 2014) • 94 Mton of intended emission reduction, that corresponds to the 25% of baseline emissions • 46.5% of emission reductions not assigned to a specific action • 10%of emission reductions impossible to attribute to a specific category of action • In the following analysis of the distribution of emissions, it has been assumed that emissions from residual sectors have the same distribution of emissions attributed to specific sectors, subsectors and categories of actions. Source: IEFE Bocconi-JRC elaboration

13. Emission distribution per sectors and subsectors Percentage on total emissions in the city sample BUILDINGS Residential 30,6% Tertiary 16,2% Municipal 2,2% TRASPORTS Private/commercial 24,6% Public 1,6% Municipal 0,1% Source: IEFE Bocconi-JRC elaboration

14. Intended emission reduction distribution per sectors and subsectors Percentage on total SEAPs expected reduction in the city sample BUILDING Residential 15,7% Tertiary 8% Not specified 3,6% Municipal 2,8% TRANSPORT Private and commercial 10,6% Public transports 5,6% Mixed actions 4,1% Municipal fleet 0,3% Source: IEFE Bocconi-JRC elaboration

15. Most relevant categories of actions and policy levers Percentage on total intended emission reduction in SEAPs Building category of action 4,5%Integrated actions 2,4%Purchase of green energy policy levers 4,4% Energy management 2,8% Infrastructures and construction Transport category of action 2,8% Cleaner vehicles 1,6% Electric vehicles policy levers 3,6% Management and organization 2,3% Transport and mobility planning Local electricity production category of action 3,3% Combined heat and power 2,9% Wind power policy levers 1,7% Infrastructures and construction 0,3% Access to credit Source: IEFE Bocconi-JRC elaboration

16. Coherence between emissions and intended emissions reductions • In emission inventories emissions from local energy production and local heat and cold production don’t appear because allocated to final consumption sectors • The different weight of Industry in emission inventories and SEAPs can be explained by: • the industry sector is not-compulsory in the SEAPs • part of the intended emission reductions from local energy production and local heat and cold production are referred to the industrial sector.

17. Relevance of emission reductions per sector and subsector in relation to baseline emissions in the same sector and sub-sector Cities prove to be better able to implement emission reductions in the public sector. Based on disaggregated data, BEIs emissions from public transports, municipal fleet, municipal buildings and public lighting show the strongest intended decreases (54%, 33% and 20%). For a few sectors it is not possible to calculate the percentage of emission reductions compared to emissions in base year because these last are not accounted separately in the inventories. Overall emissions which is possible to attribute to specific sectors and subsectors are intended to decrease by 15%. The variability in the intended reduction among subsectors may derive from different abatement costs, implementation barriers or incentives, social acceptability. Source: IEFE Bocconi-JRC elaboration

18. Regression model • The regressions analyses are aimed at the estimation of: • 1 correlation between selected drivers and the urban emissions per sector and sub-sector • 2correlation between selected drivers and intended emissions reduction per sector and sub-sector • Considered drivers: • population • urban density • GDP • HDD (heating degree days) • EEF (electricity emission factor) • LCA approach instead of IPCC approach • emission reporting unit: CO2 equivalent emissions for all greenhouse gases or CO2 • reduction target type: target in terms of per capita emissions or target based on the total level of emissions • baseline emission (for the second regression only)

19. Emission drivers assessment Source: IEFE Bocconi-JRC elaboration

20. Emission drivers assessment The following drivers are statistically significant in explaining the level of urban emissions, although the effects vary according to the different sectors and sub-sectors. There are relevant differences among public and private sectors and sub-sectors Private sectors are: Residential buildings; Tertiary buildings; Industry; Private and commercial transport. Public sectors are: Municipal buildings; Municipal fleet; Public transport; Public lighting. + indicates a positive correlation; - indicates a negative correlation., 0 not statistically significant One symbol indicates a less than proportional relation (coefficient below 1); two symbols indicate a proportional relation (coefficient around 1) Source: IEFE Bocconi-JRC elaboration

21. Emission drivers assessment Population size is less than proportionally related to the level of emissions in all private sectors and subsectors, while it is proportionally related to emissions in public sectors. Nonetheless, the small contribution of the public sector to total emissions ensures that an increase of population size leads to a less than proportional increase of total emissions (decrease of emissions per capita). Urban density is beneficial to residential buildings only (negative correlation). Evidence on climatic conditions points to a split incentive problem in the public sector: emissions from municipal buildings increase relatively more than emissions from residential buildings in colder cities (higher HDD). GDP is positively correlated with emissions in private sectors only (residential buildings, tertiary buildings and private/commercial transport). The local electricity emission factor has an extensive impact across city sectors, with the only exception of transports. This suggests that estimated emission reductions from local electricity production will mainly benefit the building sector, the industrial sector and public lighting.

22. Intended emission reduction drivers assessment Source: IEFE Bocconi-JRC elaboration

23. Intended emission reduction drivers assessment • For intended emission reductions, the only significant driver is the level of baseline emissions. • The other drivers are seldom relevant and are summarized in the table below. Private sectors are: Residential buildings; Tertiary buildings; Private and commercial transport. Public sectors are: Municipal buildings; Municipal fleet; Public transport; Public lighting. Local electricity production is also considered. The number of observations in other sectors is too low to yield reliable results. + indicates a positive correlation; - indicates a negative correlation; 0 indicates no statistical significance (coefficient close to zero or too high variability) One symbol indicates a less than proportional relation (coefficient below in absolute value 1); two symbols indicate a proportional relation (coefficient around 1) Source: IEFE Bocconi-JRC elaboration

24. Conclusions The distribution of intended emission reductions is coherent with the weight of emissions for different sectors and subsectors.Building, transportation and local electricity production sectors stand out as the most relevant for emission reductions in SEAPs. Management and infrastructure construction stand out as the major policy levers. On average, cities in the sample are committed to achieve a reduction of 25% of baseline emissions by 2020. In general cities with higher emissions are associated to higher intended emission reductions. Intended emission reductions are higher in public activities in relation to emissions in base year, even if the weight of public activities is relatively low compared to private activities. Population, urban density, climatic conditions, GDP and local electricity factors are statistically significant drivers of city emissions. There are relevant differences in their influence between public and private activities. For intended emission reductions the only significant driver is the level of emissions in base year. Limits of the analysis The strength of results is often constrained by the bounded number of cities available in the sample and the limited degree of details provided by some of them, with regard to the source of emissions and the attribution to specific categories of actions of intended emission reductions. Moreover emission reductions are not reported ex post, but intended in voluntary commitments (credibility issue). Nonetheless, the uniform approach to emission accounting ensures the comparability of cities and the consistency of results with regard to available data.

25. Thank you edoardo.croci@unibocconi.it benedetta.lucchitta@unibocconi.it tania.molteni@unibocconi.it greet.maenhout@jrc.ec.europa.eu simone.martelli@jrc.ec.europa.eu