Objective

1
Objective

• Review of how the RAINS framework uses scientific
  and economic understanding for the development of
  European air pollution policies
• The outcome will be used to
• Ensure that the the model is fit for purpose,
  scientifically credible, robust and transparent
• Improve the modelling framework

2
Tasks Included-

• Driving forces and emissions
• Are the emission inventories used by RAINS are
  likely to introduce bias or misunderstanding
  regarding emission sources, suitability,
  completeness, and inexactness?
• Abatement technologies and costs
• Problems arising due to limitations to only
  technical measures
• Verification of costs. Ex-ante vs. ex-post cost
  estimates

3
Driving Forces and Emissions

• Emission data are as free from omission, error
  and material misstatement as currently possible
  (the problems estimating NH3 and PM being
  addressed elsewhere).
• The largest errors/misstatements probably reside
  in the projections data from external bodies.
• The calculation algorithms are technically
  defensible under their current conditions of use.

4
Driving Forces and Emissions Recommendations

• The important role of the RAINS team in driving
  data convergence should continue
• Particularly in energy, transport, and
  agricultural forecasting arena.
• Work should continue to improve the emission,
  abatement, and implementation factors used.
• Work with Egtei and IPTS to develop suitable data
  sets for non-technical abatement measures.

5
Abatement technologies and costs

• Questions
• Is there bias due to the restriction of modelling
  to end of pipe control measures?
• Would including non-technical measures improve
  forecasts of i) environmental results or ii)
  economic impact?
• Is the current means of assessment and
  verification adequate?
• Are there differences between ex-ante and ex-post
  assessments of the costs of control, if so why?
• Would these differences have influenced the
  results of the Gothenburg Protocol and the NEC
  Directive?

6
Abatement technologies and costs

• Historically, costs have been overestimated in
  RAINS
• Sensitivity analysis is needed, at country and
  sector level, to better understand the nature of
  this bias.
• Inclusion of non-technical measures would
  decrease costs for achieving a given target but
  may lead to greater uncertainty.
• The dialogue with Member States is very important

7
Abatement and Costs

• Cost information is drawn from as wide a circle
  of information as we are aware of.
• The algorithms and calculation approach (cost
  curves and associated aspects of the optimisation
  process) are technically defensible under their
  conditions of use.
• The history of the RAINS model has not created
  a material bias in the NEC Directive.
• There is evolutionary development in RAINS that
  will preserve its utility for future policy
  development use.

8
Abatement and Costs - Recommendations

• Dialogue with Member States is the best approach
  to identifying control options associated costs
• IIASA should analyse which aspects of their
  calculation are the most significant sources of
  bias (by sector pollutant) leading to deviation
  between ex-ante and ex-post cost assessment.
• Non-tech measures should be Included where
  possible
• There is a role for greater Industrial
  participation in the collection of cost data
  notwithstanding that RAINS is constrained to
  using aggregated national data.