IEEE Power & Energy Magazine - July/August 2018 - 66

GHG Emissions

in the high re scenario, electric sector emissions fall roughly
40% below 2016 levels, from roughly 56 mmtCo2 to 33
mmtCo2 in 2030. this represents a nearly 70% reduction
below 1990 levels. in contrast, 40 × 30 scenario electricity
emissions fall less, only 29% below 2016 levels to 40 mmtCo2,
roughly 63% below 1990 levels.

trends in economy-wide emissions are different, however. in
the high re scenario, economy-wide emissions fall 30% below
1990 levels, from 382 to 266 mmtCo2. the 40 × 30 scenario
falls 40% below 1990 levels, to 229 mmtCo2, roughly 36 mmt
further than the high re scenario (figure 9). in the 40 × 30 scenario, renewable generation, transport electrification, and building fuel substitution away from petroleum to natural gas and
electricity all support achievement of the 40 × 30 target.
Curtailment

450

MMTCO2e

400
350

1990-2015
High RE Scenario
40 × 30 Scenario
40% Below 1990

300
250

in the 40 × 30 scenario, curtailment is estimated to
reach 4% by 2030 but reaches 7% in the high re scenario,
despite similar levels of Vre penetration. the general finding is that higher levels of Vre adoption in both regions
may be complemented by new electric loads, particularly if
there is some flexibility to eV charging. in both scenarios,
increased transmission would be required, although the
limited spatial resolution of the simulation does not provide
specific estimates.

1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
2014
2018
2020
2022
2024
2026
2028
2030

200

Cost

northeast electricity rates today are currently higher than the
national average, although widespread ee investment means that
total annual electricity costs per customer are near the national
Figure 9. Northeast economy-wide emissions in the high
average.
Both the 40 × 30 and high re scenarios were found
RE and 40 × 30 scenarios.
to raise electricity supply costs
by approximately $0.03/kWh, or
table 1. The 40 × 30 scenario assumptions for California
approximately 20% above today's
and the Northeast in 2030, compared to present day.
rates, before inflation. While the
Today
2030
40 × 30 scenario triggered higher
capacity additions, as these increCategory
California
Northeast
California
Northeast
mental costs are spread over more
Solar, including behind the meter 13%
<1%
38%
16%
demand, the cost impacts were
(generation)
on par with the high re scenario.
Wind (generation)
9%
2%
11%
18%
from a customer point of view,
the 40 × 30 cost increases would
Total RE generation, excluding
29%
5%
60%
35%
large hydro (generation)
be partially or wholly mitigated
by reduced expenditures on petroTotal RE generation, including
39%
21%
70%
51%
large hydro (generation)
leum products.

Light-duty ZEV adoption
(annual sales)

<2%

64%

100%

ZEV penetration (light-duty fleet)

<1%

<2%

20%

50%

ZEV penetration (mediumduty fleet)

ZEV penetration (heavyduty fleet)

Other off-road and hydrogen
production electric loads (load)

Total transportation electrification 0%
loads (load)

Electric heat penetration (heating
demand in all buildings)

<2%

25%

Total electric heat loads (load)

ieee power & energy magazine

Regional Synthesis
of Study Results
Key scenario assumptions are
summarized in table 1, including a comparison between today
and 2030 for California and the
northeast. By 2030, the California scenario includes more
renewable and large hydroelectric generation than in the northeast scenario (70% versus 51%).
the northeast 40 × 30 scenario
includes more aggressive lightduty eV adoption assumptions but
does not assume the electrification
july/august 2018

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of IEEE Power & Energy Magazine - July/August 2018