> home
> About
> Contact Us
> Editorial Info
> IEEE-USA

06.10

The Scorecard: A Common Sense Approach to Carbon Mitigation Portfolio Assessment

By Veronika Rabl

The United States and other countries are pursuing a very broad range of technology options to mitigate potential climate change impacts. Do we run the risk of expending our financial and R&D capital on options that will not be available in a timely manner? The Scorecard is a simple, qualitative approach that can provide guidance for answering this question.

Members of the Founder Societies’ Carbon Management Initiative, which spans a range of engineering disciplines, have selected the Scorecard approach as a tool for assessing the merit of various greenhouse gas (GHG) management options. The Founder Societies’ Carbon Management Initiative is a collaborative effort formed by the five Founder Societies of the United Engineering Foundation — AIChE, AIME, ASCE, ASME, IEEE — representing more than one million members. The Initiative is designed to apply unbiased, interdisciplinary, state-of-the-art engineering expertise to identify practical steps the country can take toward managing greenhouse gas emissions.

The objective of the Scorecard approach is to identify options that could be implemented in sufficient quantity to provide a significant impact on GHG reduction in the 2020 and 2050 timeframes. In general, options for 2020 timeframe will be different from those that become important in 2050. The Scorecards developed so far focus on electric power and transportation systems (4-wheel passenger vehicles).

The nomenclature used in the scorecards is:

Options: Technologies and/or other measures that could reduce GHG emissions. While an initial set of Options may be provided as part of any sector/technology-specific scorecard, the users are expected to customize the list to reflect their expertise.

Attributes: A set of indicators (metrics) used to “grade” each Option; in combination, they yield a relative (compared to other options in the same scorecard) potential for success in a timely manner.

The Scorecards employ a simple A, B, C, D and E grading system (similar to that used in many schools) for the Attributes. The Electric Power Scorecard rates major types of power sources, including coal, gas and renewables using several Attributes (see sample below). The Transportation Scorecard rates various transportation systems, using traditional or new fuel sources and technologies, by the same set of Attributes. The Attributes include items such as technical issues, cost, environmental and risk issues, and timing of significant implementation.

Sample Scorecard

Click image to see larger view

An initial list of Options and Attributes was developed by the Carbon Management Committee and the participants of the workshop on Gaps & Barriers. These Options and Attributes were used to evaluate implementation of promising power generations and transportation options.

The Attributes are described below. While the major Attribute categories are common to all scorecards, some adjustments in the definitions may be necessary for each specific set of technologies/measures being scored.

1.   GHG Reduction Potential: To what extent can the Option reduce U.S. GHG emissions? For example, is the reduction per unit cost large or small compared to other Options?

2.   Technology: This Attribute includes:

• Technical Readiness – Is the Option proven to be functional or is further development (e.g., R&D, Pilot Studies) required?

• Market Readiness – Is the Option already in commercial use or does it require further development before it becomes commercially available? Does the supply chain capacity exist to support the Option?

• Infrastructure Availability – What magnitude of infrastructure revisions, changes or additions are needed to support the Option? Are massive and key changes (or adaptations) in habits or infrastructure required?

3.   Financial: The Total Cost of developing and implementing the Option, including:

• Capital and operations and maintenance (O&M) costs, using private business decision criteria. Costs should not include carbon taxes, costs of allowances, or government subsidies.

• Costs of requisite infrastructure changes

• Impact on the economy and cost of living

• To what extent is government subsidies needed to implement the Option?

4.   Environmental: All of the various environmental implications of the Option in particular, including:

• Land Use Commitment – What impact does the Option have on land usage? As an example, will the Option change deciduous forest to suburban development thereby decreasing GHG limiting capacity?

• Water Use Commitment – How does the Option impact water usage and water supply systems (e.g., potable water supply)?

• Air Quality Impact – How does the Option impact air quality over and above GHG emissions (e.g., all other non-GHG issues such as increased ozone and acid rain)?

5.   Risk: Defines those items that are a risk to development, implementation or operation of the Option, including:

• Reliability – Does the Option have intrinsic complexity that could result in frequent failures?

• Safety - Is the Option safe or is there an inherent or perceived risk?

• Expected Future Growth – What is the likelihood that the Option will grow in usage and can be expanded to further markets?

• Impediments to Growth – Is the infrastructure and supply chain available? Is the expertise, including engineers and construction personnel, available to develop and implement the Option? Are there sufficient numbers of engineers, construction, and operating personnel to implement the Option? Are the educational institutions available to train engineers, construction, and operating personnel to implement the Option? Is there sufficient raw material and feedstock to support the Option?

6.   Social-Political: These are non-technical issues that are critical to the implementation and operation of an Option, including:

• Public Willingness to Support – How the public views the Option and is willing to support it both vocally and with resources.

• Neighborhood Acceptance (i.e., not in my back yarg [NIMBY]) – Willingness of the public to encourage and accept the alternative within their immediate area including various associated physical changes (e.g., new roads and/or rail lines).

• Energy Security – How much does the Option reduce the imports of foreign oil?

• Regulatory/Legal Framework to Enable – Are new statutes or regulations required?

• Litigation Potential - Does the Option create a likelihood of protracted litigation?

• Permitting - Are significant modifications or new permit applications and/or permits required?

• Social Impacts - Changes to human and labor rights; rural and social development revisions; potential for increased income; and, quality of life impacts. Do actions risk the loss of some species or promote one species over another? How does the Option impact the availability and supply of food?

7.   Implementation Timing: To what extent can the Option be implemented by 2020 and 2050 taking into account all of the Attributes?

The Scorecard is not a substitute for systems analysis or life-cycle assessments. Rather, it provides means to screen promising options using “down-to-earth” engineering, environmental and socio-political considerations.

A more detailed Description and Instructions and the Electric Power Scorecard Form can be found on the Electric Power Scorecard webpage, hosted by AIChE.

We would like to continue improving the methodology. You can help if you complete the Scorecard and email it to carbonmanagement@foundersocieties.org for compilation.

Veronika Rabl is IEEE's Lead Technical Member for the Founder Societies Carbon Management Initiative.

Comments may be submitted to todaysengineer@ieee.org.