How Well Have China's Recent Five-Year Plans Been Implemented

Aug 11, 2014 - This extra increment was the price paid for the rapid reduction of SO2 and TSP. .... Since controls on CO2 emissions are the responsibi...
2 downloads 0 Views 986KB Size
Download PDF
Policy Analysis pubs.acs.org/est

How Well Have China’s Recent Five-Year Plans Been Implemented for Energy Conservation and Air Pollution Control? XianQiang Mao,* Ji Zhou, and Gabriel Corsetti School of Environment, Beijing Normal University, No. 19 Xinjiekouwai Street, Beijing 100875, P. R. China S Supporting Information *

ABSTRACT: This study evaluates how well China’s 11th and 12th Five-Year Plans have been implemented in terms of energy conservation and air pollution control and deconstructs the effects of the economic, energy, and environmental policies included in the Plans. A “counterfactual” comparative-scenario method is deployed, which assumes a business as usual scenario in which the changes in economic, energy, and environmental parameters are “frozen”, and then reactivates them one by one, with the help of LEAP modeling. It is found that during the 11th Five-Year Plan period, the binding targets were basically achieved. Economic growth put a great strain upon the energy demand and the environment, but energy policy made a decisive contribution by promoting energy efficiency and structure. Environmental policy promoted the deployment of end-of-pipe treatment which led to the control of certain air pollutants but at the expense of an increase in energy use and in the emission of other pollutants. During the ongoing 12th Five-Year Plan period, energy policy’s potential for efficiency improvement is shrinking, but economic policy is restraining economic growth thus making a positive contribution. Environmental policy attempts to enforce multipollutant reduction, but there is still insufficient focus on the cocontrol of different pollutants and CO2.

1. INTRODUCTION China’s Five-Year Plans (FYP) can be said to constitute an integrated system. In the beginning of every FYP period, The Outline of the Five-Year Plan for National Economic and Social Development is published,1,2 after which the ministries propose specific plans covering their related fields. Within the FYP system, there are a host of important targets regarding economic development, energy conservation, and environmental protection (the 3Es). Fulfilling these targets with relevant supporting policies is the core work of the central and local governments during the subsequent 5 years of the FYP period. Until the beginning of the 21st century, whenever there was a conflict between economic growth and environmental protection, the former would generally take precedence over the latter.3 Meanwhile environmental degradation, accompanied by rapid economic growth, reached an unprecedentedly serious level, which prompted the government to set a host of targets in the National Environmental Protection 10th Five-Year Plan (for 2001−2005) so as to prevent this deterioration.4 However, the results of the implementation of this plan were not as good as expected. For instance, by the end of 2005, the emissions of total suspended particulate (TSP) were not cut to the point which the plan envisaged, while emissions of SO2 actually increased by 27.8% over the level of 2000, instead of being reduced.5 This severe situation caused the top decisionmakers to reconsider the rationality, strength, and implementation of previous target-setting and supporting policies and © 2014 American Chemical Society

incorporate more stringent targets into the 11th FYP--a 20% reduction in energy intensity and a 10% cut in total SO2 emissions. This was the first time that the central government had set binding (or compulsory) environmental targets.5,6 Within the 12th FYP, these binding targets were further expanded to 8% and 10% emission cuts for SO2 and NOx and 16% and 17% reductions in energy and CO2 intensity.7,8 The achievement of these targets relies on a series of 3E policies within the FYPs. In previous research, reviews of 3E policies effects have been made only sporadically, including the energy policy effects on the energy efficiency and saving and carbon emission reduction and the effects of environmental policies for SO2 reduction.9−15 In the present paper, we try to identify economy, energy, and environment (3E) elements within the FYPs, so as to evaluate how well the 3E targets in the 11th and the 12th FYP periods were fulfilled and what the effects of 3E policies are on energy consumption and the related emissions of CO2 and local air pollutants (LAPs, refer toSO2, NOx, TSP, etc.). With a comprehensive review, we seek the successful experiences, existing problems, and room for improvement and attempt to provide useful information and support for the making of China’s 13th FYP. Received: Revised: Accepted: Published: 10036

April 8, 2014 August 9, 2014 August 11, 2014 August 11, 2014 dx.doi.org/10.1021/es501729d | Environ. Sci. Technol. 2014, 48, 10036−10044

Environmental Science & Technology

10037

The prefixes “XI” or “XII” represent the 11th and 12th FYP periods. The suffixes “R” and “P” stand for the “realistic (or actual)” and “planned” series of scenarios. a

XI-EEER/XII-EEER

XI-EEEP/XII-EEEP

XI-EER/XII-EER

XI-EEP/XII-EEP

XI-ER/XII-ER

XI-EP/XII-EP

scenario description

The BAU scenario of the 11th/12th FYP. The pace of economic development is extrapolated from the previous five year period. The economic structure, energy intensity and mix, and the emission factors are assumed to remain constant (be frozen) from the end of the previous five year period. The planned (expected) outcome according to economic targets and policies in the 11th/12th FYP. Activating the new economic targets and policies, i.e., the changes of economic growth and structure according to planned targets, but without the application of the new energy and environmental targets and policies, or the energy and environment parameters are assumed to remain as in XI-BAU/ XII-BAU. The real (actual) outcome of economic policy of the 11th/12th FYP. Reactivating the changes in economic growth and structure according to actual statistics (the data of 2013−2015 in XII-ER is projected based on the average rates of increase for 2010−2012). Energy and environment parameters are assumed to remain as in XI-BAU/XII-BAU. The planned (expected) outcome of economic and energy targets and policies in the 11th/12th FYP. Based on the XI-EP/XII-EP, energy targets and policies are introduced, but the environmental targets and policies are still absent. The changes in energy intensity and mix are reactivated according to planned targets. The parameters of the environment are still frozen. The real (actual) outcome of economic and energy targets and policies of the 11th/12th FYP. Based on the XI-ER/XII-ER, reactivating the changes in the energy intensity and mix according to actual statistics (the data of 2013−2015 in XII-EER is projected based on the average rates of change for 2010−2012). The parameters of the environment are still frozen. The planned (expected) outcome of all the planned 3E targets and policies d in the 11th/12th FYP. Based on the XI-EEP/XII-EEP, environmental targets and policies are reintroduced. The changes of emission factors are reactivated according to planned targets. The real (actual) outcome of integrated 3E targets and policies of the 11th/12th FYP. Based on the XI-EER/XII-EER, the changes of emission factors are reactivated according to actual statistics (the data of 2013−2015 in XII-EEER is projected based on the average rates of change for 2010−2012).

3Escenarios

Table 1. Naming and Description of the Different 3E Scenariosa

2. METHODS AND DATA 2.1. 3E Elements Identification and the Scenarios Setting. In this paper, the elements within the FYP system regarding Economic development, Energy conservation, and Environmental protection are defined as the “3E elements”, which consist of a host of 3E targets and relevant supporting policies. These numerous targets and supporting policies are classified by their different “Es” as follows. Economic elements are the goals set for promoting economic growth and structural change and their supporting policies, including macroeconomic regulation (stimulating or controlling economic growth16,17); limiting or encouraging the development of certain industries (for instance limiting industries with a high energy-intensity, pollution levels, and resource-dependence or which present overcapacity and encouraging high-end manufacturing and services18−20); and the selection of a general development path or style (a green and circular economy or a sustainable economy1,2,21,22). Energy elements are the targets and policies devoted to the improvement of energy conservation, efficiency, and structures. The command and control tools mainly consist of disaggregating the targets of energy intensity reduction,23,24 giving incentives to deploy energy saving facilities and upgrade production technologies,25,26 promoting the use of energy-efficient products,27 and substituting coal with clean energy and developing renewable energy;6,24,28 market based instruments include differential electricity pricing for high energy-consuming industries29 and reforming resource taxes and subsidizing.30−32 Environmental elements refers to the emission reduction target settings and the policies and measures driving polluters to improve end-of-pipe treatment of pollution. The command and control tools include assigning abatement targets and signing duty contracts,24,33 fining illegal emissions, and upgrading concentration standards for emissions;34,35 the market instruments mainly include raising pollution levies and giving premiums or subsidies for desulfurization, dust removal, and denitrification.5,7,36−38 In the Supporting Information Section 1 (the policy scenario setting background), we have provided a list of the key policy documents of the 11th and 12th FYPs that were considered in the policy scenario setting process to identify the 3E elements (see Table S1). In order to identify the effects and the ability to fulfill targets of the 3E policies in a reasonable way, we make reference to Price’s approach,10 which creates a “counterfactual baseline” (marked by an absence of other policies) to estimate the effects of certain policy. Several groups of scenarios are created. In the business as usual scenario (BAU), the changes in policy shock parameters of economic growth and structure, energy intensity and mix, and emission factors are “frozen”, or put a another way, the economic growth rate is extrapolated from the average of the previous five-year period, and the rest of the parameters are kept at the level of the end of the previous five-year period. In the other scenarios, i.e. ER/EER/EEER and EP/EEP/ EEEP in Table 1, the “frozen parameters” are reactivated one by one according to the real statistics and planned targets, respectively. As it can be seen from the way in which the scenarios are set, economic, energy, and environmental policies are added on in succession. We essentially consider economic development to be the most basic determinant of energy demand and consumption, and economic development and energy consumption together lie at the basis of the environmental situation. This is especially true for China. In the past decades, economic

XI-BAU/XII-BAU

Policy Analysis

dx.doi.org/10.1021/es501729d | Environ. Sci. Technol. 2014, 48, 10036−10044

Environmental Science & Technology

Policy Analysis

targets and supporting policies. The data used for the realistic scenarios is drawn from the China Statistical Yearbook,51 the China Energy Statistical Yearbook,52 and the China Statistical Yearbook on the Environment.53 So as to fit the data rules of LEAP, actual energy intensity is attained by dividing energy demand by activity level, while the planned energy intensity is set according to the related targets. The LEAP model itself contains IPCC Tier1/Tier2 default GHG emission factors,54 which can be directly used in calculating CO2 emissions. For the calculation of LAPs emission, the default emission factors are modified based on the environmental statistics of different sectors, so as to fit their diversified characteristics.

development was the top priority in China, while the energy sector’s responsibility has been to meet the demands of economic development, while environment considerations were ranked the least important among the three Es. For this reason, when setting the scenarios we chose to look first at the expected and actual effects of economic policy taken alone (ER/EP) on economic development, energy use, and environment, then at the effects of economic and energy policies combined (EER/EEP) on the energy use and environment, and finally at the effects of economic, energy, and environmental policies taken together (EEER/EEEP) on energy use and the environment. To facilitate the analysis, however, we omit the impact exerted by energy and environmental targets and policies on the economy and other derived effects. The differences in status indicator value between ER and EP, EER and EEP, and EEER and EEEP represent the distance of the actual and the planned economic, energy, and environmental outcomes. Similarly, the differences in status indicator value between ER and BAU (EP and BAU), EER and ER (EEP and EP), and EEER and EER (EEEP and EEP) represent the actual (planned) effects of economic policy, energy policy, and environmental policy, respectively. Moreover a “difference in difference” analysis offers a comparison of the planned and actual effects of certain policy scenarios. For example, [(EEP-EP) − (EER-ER)] provides a comparison between the planned and actual effects of energy policy. Thus, this study can perform a comparative-scenario analysis if needed. In Supporting Information section 1 (the policy scenario setting background), we have elaborated more in detail on how the counterfactual scenarios were set and how to differentiate the difference between alternative scenarios, such as ER and EP. 2.2. Simulation Tool: The LEAP-China Model. We make use of the LEAP (the Long range Energy Alternatives Planning System) as our modeling tool. The LEAP was developed by the Stockholm Environmental Institute (SEI) in the 1980s.39 As a bottom-up modeling method, it is widely used for economyenergy-environment policy analysis. As opposed to top-down methods which are based on the assumption of market equilibrium and simulate the policy shock caused interaction between economic factors, the bottom-up model is based on technical detail. It takes economic activity as its basis, and the level of this activity determines the demand for energy, which in turn directly affects the levels of air pollutant emissions. The technical factors of energy use and the pollutant emissions in each industry/sector represent the linkages between the economy, energy, and the environmental system. The idea behind the LEAP exactly coincides with the way we set the counterfactual scenarios, and the 3E elements/dimensions are added on in the sequence of economy, energy, and environment. The LEAP can thus be used to build a model of an integrated 3E system which includes levels of economic activity, energy supply transformation-demand, and emissions of LAPs and GHGs (greenhouse gases).40 Compared with previous works41−50 which focused mainly on a single policy or a mixedpolicy package, this study attempts to clarify the effects of the 3E policies through a comparative-scenario analysis. The details of the model structure (Figure S1) and of the calculation process (Figure S2) are described in the Supporting Information Section 2 (detailed explanation of the methods and calculation processes of LEAP-China). 2.3. Data Sources. The data used for the planned scenarios comes mainly from the sections of the FYPs regarding the 3E

3. RESULTS 3.1. Target Fulfilling and the Effects of 3E Policies in the 11th FYP Period. 3.1.1. The Economic Perspective. Since China’s opening and reform in the early 1980s until the start of the 21st century, the continuous rapid growth of the economy was such that an average annual growth of 9.4% was achieved between 1978 and 2005, but this was achieved at the cost of a significant rise in energy consumption and the resulting emissions of LAPs and GHG. The energy consumption in 2005 amounted to 2,233 million tons of coal equivalence (Mtce), 25.5 million tons (Mt) for SO2, and 20.9Mt for TSP, which all represented a 4-fold increase on 1978. This obvious and serious situation was not ignored by the decision makers in Beijing; therefore the expected economic growth of the 11th FYP (also in EP scenario) was set at 7.5%,2 apparently so as to adhere to the tenet of “leaving space when making plans”. Within this period, however, the central and local governments were still enthusiastic about pursuing economic growth, which led to an actual GDP growth of 11.2% (in ER scenario), exceeding not only the 7.5% which had been planned for but also the 9.76% inherited from the 10th FYP period (in BAU). During the 11th FYP period, the actual growth of the primary, secondary, and tertiary industry was 7.26%, 10.9%, and 12.6%, respectively. Out of the value added of Industry, the share of Energy Processing and Mining only declined by 2.2% and 1.4% respectively; the share of Nonmetallic Mineral Products (hereinafter, Nonmetal for short), Metallurgy and Metal Products (hereinafter, Metallurgy for short, including iron and steel), and the Chemical sector rose by 0.8%, 0.4%, and 0.1%, respectively. The annual growth of Nonmetal (mainly cement), Metallurgy (mainly iron and steel), and Chemicals were 11%, 15%, and 11%, respectively. Thus, the structure of Industry did not change much, and the growth of energy-intensive and high-polluting industries was not suppressed as planned. (More details about the sectoral composition of the value added are shown in Figure S3 and Figure S4 in the Supporting Information.) When comparing the actual and planned effects of the economic policy, or (ER-BAU) vs (EP-BAU) in the 11th FYP period, we can see that the effect of economic policy on growth was actually faster than planned, but the economic structure improved little. The consequence was that despite the overall energy intensity decreasing (see Figure S5 in the Supporting Information), the total energy consumption and pollutants emission in ER were actually much larger than in EP, due to the overly expanded GDP scale. Extra increments, or (ER-EP), of primary energy use of 1484.27 Mtce and emissions of SO2 of 16.61Mt, NOx of 10.37Mt, TSP of 23.35Mt, and CO2 of 4182.53Mt were seen during the 11th FYP period. In fact, we 10038

dx.doi.org/10.1021/es501729d | Environ. Sci. Technol. 2014, 48, 10036−10044

Environmental Science & Technology

10039

−5560.93 −4185.90 −5804.95 −6033.93 1097.71 1547.22 −10268.17 −8672.61 −3193.90 988.63 −3875.60 −5307.35 728.93 1302.95 −6340.57 −2015.76 −6.26 −4.04 −10.09 −12.13 −6.38 −6.79 −22.72 −22.95 −12.82 10.53 −16.53 −29.25 −31.97 −40.04 −61.32 −58.75 −15.65 −11.87 −15.98 −13.82 −16.75 −11.77 −48.37 −37.46 −6.26 4.11 −7.90 −8.10 −0.17 0.08 −14.32 −3.91 −12.87 −9.77 −16.01 −15.09 −11.07 −15.25 −39.95 −40.11 −9.77 6.84 −15.99 −21.59 −20.60 −31.24 −46.36 −45.99 a

Positive value represents an increase, while negative value represents a decrease.

−1880.10 −1515.11 −1434.72 −1366.95 141.91 200.03 −3172.91 −2682.03 −2535.62 −2017.99 −2225.93 −2001.87 422.20 595.09 −4339.35 −3424.78 −1090.15 394.12 −1674.78 −1625.12 280.36 501.14 −2484.56 −729.86

−827.15 251.05 −1337.62 −1336.29 94.24 168.45 −2070.53 −916.79

55612.03 45343.86 46939.42 1595.56 39407.02 33066.45 37391.26 4324.81 86.38 63.65 63.42 −0.23 138.46 77.13 79.70 2.57 154.79 106.42 117.33 10.91 104.19 89.87 100.28 10.41 147.74 107.79 107.63 −0.16 167.03 120.67 121.04 0.37 15535.38 12362.48 12853.36 490.88 11276.66 9206.12 10359.87 1153.75 22042.80 17703.44 18618.02 914.58 15352.45 12867.89 14622.59 1754.70

BAU EEEP EEER difference between planned and actual effects of 3E policy (EEER-EEEP) planned effects of economic policy (EP-BAU) actual effects of economic policy (ER-BAU) planned effects of energy policy (EEP-EP) actual effects of energy policy (EER-ER) planned effects of environmental policy (EEEP-EEP) actual effects of environmental policy (EEER-EER) planned total effects of 3E policy (EEEP-BAU) actual effects of 3E policy (EEER-BAU)

11th FYP period 12th FYP period 11th FYP period 12th FYP period 11th FYP period 12th FYP period 11th FYP period 12th FYP period 11th FYP period 12th FYP period 11th FYP period comparison indicators

final energy demand (Mtce) primary energy use (Mtce)

Table 2. Cumulative Effects of 3E Policies during Each FYP Perioda

SO2 emissions (Mt)

NOx emissions (Mt)

TSP emissions (Mt)

CO2 emissions (Mt)

can conclude that economic policy did not play a positive role in energy saving and emissions reduction during the 11th FYP period. 3.1.2. The Energy Perspective. As shown in Figure S5 in the Supporting Information, energy policy generally contributed more than 70% (a ratio of |EER-ER| over |EEER-BAU|) to the overall reduction of energy intensity during the 11th FYP period. The mix of final energy demand of sectors due to economic and energy policy impacts in 2010 (EER) is shown in Figure S6 in the Supporting Information. Compared with 2005, the share of coal dropped to various extents, while that of natural gas and electricity increased. Specifically, for the Households sector, the share of coal consumption declined by 15.8%, while natural gas, liquefied petroleum gas (LPG), and electricity rose by 6.4%, 3.6%, and 6.6%, respectively, which has led to a cleaner final energy consumption structure, while the increase of 3.0% in the share of gasoline implied the expanding use of private cars. For the Industry sector the change in the energy mix was relatively slight, with a decrease in the share of coal of 4.2%, while natural gas increased by 0.95% and electricity by 3.3%. The share of natural gas in Transport went up by 3.7% due to the spread of liquefied natural gas (LNG) vehicles. In terms of energy saving (hereafter, converted into primary energy), a cumulative 1,625 Mtce was saved under the actual effects of energy policy (comparing EER with ER) during the 11th FYP period (see Table 2), thanks to the reduction in energy intensity and the change in the energy mix. Energy policy also counted a great deal toward emissions reduction. Out of the overall emissions reduction in SO2 and TSP gained during the 11th FYP period due to the 3E policies, energy policy accounted for 47% and 50% or |EER-ER| over |EEER-BAU|, respectively (see Table 2). It was also at work in alleviating the growth of NOx and CO2 emissions, which was not a compulsory target in the 11th FYP. From the perspective of the sectors, energy policy mainly acts on the industries with a high energy consumption. Nonmetal, Chemicals, Mining, Metallurgy, and Energy Processing accounted for 67% of the total 1,625 Mtce savings caused by energy policy. Moreover, out of the emissions reduction gained by energy policy, the four major sectors, Nonmetal, Metallurgy, Chemicals, and Power & Heating (as the main subsector of Energy Processing) were responsible for 51% of SO2 emissions reduction, 46% of NOx, 71% of TSP, and 73% of CO2. Additionally, Household accounted for 31% of SO2 emissions reduction due to the natural gas and electricity substitution of coal, and Transport accounted for 34% of NOx emissions reduction owing to efficiency enhancement (for sectoral details see Table S2 in the Supporting Information). Comparing |EER-ER| vs |EEP-EP| in the 11th FYP period (see Table 2), the actual effects of energy policy were basically as good as planned for energy saving and were even better than expected for pollution emission reduction. The unambiguously positive impacts on the control of both LAPs and CO2 emissions fully reflected the fact that energy policy is of significance for pollutants cocontrol.55,56 3.1.3. The Environmental Perspective. Under the drive of environmental target setting and of the supporting policies, which contained a series of both command-and-control and market-based measures, polluting industries have been forced to deploy antiair pollution facilities. The environmental protection department has attached great emphasis on the control of TSP emissions since the 10th FYP period. Moreover, since

12th FYP period

Policy Analysis

dx.doi.org/10.1021/es501729d | Environ. Sci. Technol. 2014, 48, 10036−10044

Environmental Science & Technology

Policy Analysis

Figure 1. Effects of 3E policies on pollutants emission.

emissions, reaching 14.29% by 2010. The binding targets were thus basically fulfilled under the combined effects of the 3E policies. However, not all of the 3E policies perform positively on energy conservation and emissions reduction. The extensive and excessive growth pushed by economic policy brought great pressure on the environment in this five-year period. A typical case was the economic stimulus program which came into force at the end of 2008 aimed at fighting against the worldwide financial crisis and recession. It is estimated that 86% of the 4 trillion RMB stimulus investment was oriented toward infrastructure construction and real estate development, which in turn drove the growth of high energy consumption and high emission industries such as iron and steel, nonferrous metal, cement, coal mining, etc.57 Without the stimulus investment, many of the high energy demand and highly polluting productivities were expected to die out within the 11th FYP period. Through the stimulus investment, China kept up a high GDP growth rate at the expense of missing a strategic opportunity to optimize its industrial structure and curb its mounting energy use and emission of pollutants. However, energy policy played an essential role in achieving the planned goals. The improvement of energy efficiency and structure not only alleviated the pressure on energy but also realized the cocontrol of LAPs and CO2. According to Price et al.,10 many of the energy-efficiency programs appeared to be on track to meet − or in some cases exceed − energy saving targets. Most of the Ten Key Projects, the Top-1000 Program, and the Small Plant Closure Program met or surpassed the 11th FYP energy savings goals. China’s appliance standards and labeling program also became very robust. Environmental policy forced the deployment of end-of-pipe treatment facilities and made a big contribution to the reduction of SO2 and TSP. According to Xu, China’s new policy

the 11th FYP period, the reduction of SO2 emissions was established as a binding target. As shown in Figure 1, environmental policy has played a decisive role in the reduction of SO2 and TSP emissions. When it comes to SO2 emissions reduction the actual result was even superior to the planned targets (22.95Mt/a),5 decreasing to 22.68Mt/a. Although no binding target was imposed on the emissions reduction of TSP in the 11th FYP, there was concrete progress in the deployment of dust-removers, which ensured the continuous decrease of TSP emissions. The interesting thing however is that with the addition of environmental policy (EEER), the emissions of NOx and CO2 underwent a small extra increment (compared with EER), rather than a decrease as might be thought. The reason is that the end-of-pipe treatment is a process which consumes electricity and brings about more emissions from the Power sector. As can be seen in Table 2 (see the actual effects of environmental policy), an extra 501.14 Mtce of primary energy was consumed during the 11th FYP period, and an extra 0.08Mt of NOx and 1,302.95 Mt of CO2 were emitted. Under the environmental policy in the 11th FYP period (a five-year cumulative), the actual emissions reduction for SO2 was 31.24Mt (comparing EEER with EER), which is 1.5 times the effect of the planned scenario (comparing EEEP with EEP). Moreover most of the reduction came from Power & Heating, accounting for 84.5%. The actual reduction of TSP was 25% more than planned, reaching 40.04 Mt, of which 82% was contributed by Power & Heating and Nonmetal (for sectoral details see Table S2 in the Supporting Information). 3.1.4. General Perspective. By the end of the 11th FYP period in 2010, overall energy intensity had decreased by 19% from the level of 2005. Actual results were thus very close to the planned target of 20%. The actual result of SO2 emissions reduction even surpassed the target of a 10% cut in annual 10040

dx.doi.org/10.1021/es501729d | Environ. Sci. Technol. 2014, 48, 10036−10044

Environmental Science & Technology

Policy Analysis

while electricity and natural gas will increase slightly (for more details see Figure S6 in the Supporting Information). According to the cumulative results (comparing EER with ER, see Table 2) of the 12th FYP period, energy policy will bring about energy savings of 2,002 Mtce (converted to primary energy), 56% of which will come from the three key sectors of Nonmetal, Metallurgy, and Chemicals. In terms of the emissions reduction caused by energy policy, these three key sectors as well as Power & Heating will be the major contributors, accounting for more than 70% of SO2, TSP, and CO2 emissions reduction and 60% of NOx emissions reduction. Household and Transport have also considerably contributed to the reduction of SO2 and NOx emissions (for sectoral details see Table S3 in the Supporting Information). 3.2.3. The Effects of Environmental Policy. Keeping a strict control on SO2 emissions (a reduction of 8% from the 2010 level), the policy-makers further incorporated a binding target on reduction of NOx emissions into the 12th FYP (a reduction of 10% from the 2010 level). As shown in Figure 1, achieving the target on SO2 emissions reduction through environmental policy will not be very difficult. This is because the incentive policies and techniques for SO2 reduction have become more mature; furthermore, adequate installing and running of the environmental facilities is now somewhat guaranteed.14 It can be seen from Figure 1 that the contribution of environmental policy to TSP emissions reduction in the 12th FYP period (26.6% by 2015) will not be as great as it was during the 11th FYP period (64.2% by 2010). This is probably due to the lack of a binding target on TSP or PM2.5 reduction, which means that emitters have no incentives to improve the efficiency of their dust removers. When it comes to achieving the target for NOx emissions reduction, calculations do not leave much space for optimism. Although the subsidy for denitrification in coal fired power plants (named “denitrification price”) was piloted in some cases and spread to the whole of China in 2013,60 the scale of denitrification facilities installed is still small; the running rate is very low; and it will take time for full implementation of the new policy at the regional level. By 2013, only 27.6% of the coal-fired power units deployed denitrification facilities,61 and it will be very hard to achieve a reduction on the total amount of NOx emissions by 2015 (see Figure 1). But undoubtedly, the NOx emissions will be controlled to a large extent, which can be seen by comparing EEER and EER for NOx emission or a 11.77 Mt reduction during the 12th FYP period. Due to the reinforcement of the end-of-pipe treatment of the LAPs emissions described above, more energy, about an extra 595.05 Mtce (converted to primary energy, see Table 2), will be consumed during the 12th FYP period. Accordingly, extra CO2 emissions of about 1,547.22Mt will be emitted in this fiveyear period, comparing EEER with EER. This extra 1,547.22Mt of CO2 emissions amounts to 3.3% of total emission during the period and should be regarded as the carbon cost paid for controlling LAPs. Since controls on CO2 emissions are the responsibility of the National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC), although there is a CO2 intensity target included in the 12th FYP (a reduction of 17% on CO2 emissions per unit of GDP), the Ministry of Environmental Protection (MEP) is in a position to “feel at ease” over this. From the point of view of sectoral emissions reduction caused by environmental policy (comparing EEER with EER), Power & Heating remain the most important sectors. They account for

incentives since 2007 (price premiums or penalties for different functions) appear well designed to overcome the hurdle of the high operation and maintenance costs of SO2 scrubbers. The continuous emission monitoring systems and the more frequent plant inspections have also forced the plant managers to use scrubbers.58 However, wide application of end-of-pipe treatment also caused an extra increment in energy consumption as well as in NOx and CO2 emissions. This extra increment was the price paid for the rapid reduction of SO2 and TSP.55,56 In view of the situation described above, whether and how the 12th FYP responds to previous experiences and the existing issues will be extremely significant for China’s economic, energy, and environmental trends. 3.2. Target Fulfilling and the Effects of 3E Policies in the 12th FYP Period. The 12th FYP period had not yet come to an end at the time when this paper was written, but we can try to estimate the “actual” effects of 3E policies during this five-year period based on the statistics of the past two years (economic data for three years) and on comparing them with the planned targets. 3.2.1. The Economic Perspective. For the 12th FYP, the planned annual growth in GDP was lowered to 7% (EP scenario).1 There are two factors which determined this slowing down of GDP growth. On the one hand, it was explicitly decided to cease extensive and excessive growth leading to high energy consumption and pollution; on the other hand, China’s export sector is undergoing a weak recovery due to the recession in the world economy. Based on the average rates of growth of 2011− 2013,59 it is projected that the annual growth of the overall economy will stay at an average of 7.9% over the 12th FYP period (ER scenario). Specifically, annual growth will be 5.46% for primary industry, 6.83% for secondary industry, and 9.57% for tertiary industry. According to the projections in the current study, the growth rate of Industry, 6.84%, is inferior to the planned overall economic growth rate for the 12th FYP period. Out of the value added of Industry (in ER scenario), the share of Mining will drop by 2.9%, Energy Processing by 1.5%, and Metallurgy by 1.3%. The share of Equipment Manufacturing will rise by 5.7% and Nonmetal by 1.1% (see Figure S4 in the Supporting Information). Services will maintain a fast growth rate of 9.57%, thus helping the overall economic growth to reach the planned goal. According to the projections, economic growth and adjustment will be generally made according to the plan (by comparing scenarios ER and EP). Owing to these growth and structural changes, economic targets and the supporting policies will help to achieve the reduction of energy intensity (see Figure S5 in the Supporting Information), and the cocontrol of energy consumption and pollutant emissions (see Figure 1 where curve ER is below curve BAU, and also see Table 2 where the index values of (EP-BAU) and (ER-BAU) are all negative). 3.2.2. The Energy Perspective. The successful existing energy policy will be maintained during the 12th FYP period, and the target of energy intensity has been set as a reduction of 16% from the 2010 level. Based on the existing statistics and model simulations, the actual contribution of energy policy to the overall reduction of energy intensity will be more than 80%, a ratio of |EER-ER| over |EEER-BAU| (see Figure S5 in the Supporting Information). Besides that, the energy structure of different sectors will continue to optimize, but the range of changes is getting smaller. When it comes to the sectoral mix of final energy demand, the share of coal will decrease further, 10041

dx.doi.org/10.1021/es501729d | Environ. Sci. Technol. 2014, 48, 10036−10044

Environmental Science & Technology

Policy Analysis

expectations on pollutants cocontrol.55,56 It is expected that new binding targets on air pollutants (e.g., mercury removal, ozone, or dioxin control) will probably appear in the next FYP after the 12th one ends, but a policy with little concept of cocontrol may cause trouble again.

61% of the reduction for SO2 emissions, 76% for NOx, and 41% for TSP. Metallurgy is however making a greater contribution to SO2 emissions reduction than previously, contributing 21% of the reduction caused by environmental policy. Nonmetal will be responsible for 14% of NOx emissions reduction and 34% of TSP (for sectoral details see Table S3 in the Supporting Information). 3.2.4. General Perspective. The accomplishment in energy intensity and NOx emissions reduction for the years 2011 and 2012 is below the planned targets. As shown in Figure 1 and Figure S5 in the Supporting Information, the binding targets of the 12th FYP period for SO2 emissions reduction will be achieved, but it will not be easy to accomplish the goals of energy intensity and NOx emissions reduction. However, it is too early to be certain of this. The actual data of 2011 and 2012 (or 2011−2013 for economic growth) are used to extrapolate the data for the rest of the years until the 12th FYP period ends. However, we cannot rule out the possibility that the tough regulations and controls taken by administrators at all levels will obtain the required results during the remaining two years,62 and this may lead to a potential bias in our modeling projection. According to the experience during the 11th FYP period, the central government is very likely to implement more stringent command-and-control measures to accomplish the target. However, the new generation of Chinese leaders which came into power in 2012 has clearly drawn lessons from the 11th FYP period. Although they are faced with the pressure of economic growth slowing down, no massive stimulus investment program was put forward. Instead micro- and accurate stimulus investments are used to keep up a moderate growth rate. It is anticipated that the relative slowdown of economic growth and the adjustment of the economic structure promoted by the economic policy is a strategic opportunity for China to nudge its development back along a sustainable pathway. A more sustainable, healthier, and unhurried development will largely release the energy and environmental tensions. On the other hand, a lot of energy saving techniques and measures have been implemented, making further opportunities for improving energy efficiency become increasingly small and expensive in the 12th FYP period. The low carbon and low emission energy opportunities in the near future lie in the energy structure adjustment and optimization.63 It can be seen from Table S4 in the Supporting Information that renewable energy, both wind and solar, grew from almost nothing before the 11th FYP and is developing rapidly. The electricity generation capacities of wind and solar power developed at a blowout growth rate of 71.5% and 54.8% annually during the 11th and 12th FYP periods. Although renewable energy accounts for a rather small proportion of overall primary energy use, it will be a positive force for cleaning up the energy structure. In each FYP, the environmental policy represents a response to acute environmental problem. For the 12th FYP, environmental policy is strengthening its binding targets on NOx emissions, similar to what happened with SO2 in the 11th FYP period. Undoubtedly, adding one binding target in each FYP in this way makes it easier for the administrators to target and concentrate on managing a certain pollutant. On the other hand, it can really cause trouble for the practitioners of endof-pipe treatment. For instance, it is more costly but less effective to install additional denitrification equipment when a desulfurization system already exists, rather than investing in a technique of combined desulfurization and denitrification from the start. An ideal policy should have provided more reasonable

4. DISCUSSION Lessons drawn from the current study in the Chinese context can also be applied to other developing countries. It is always true that pursuing economic growth can be a double edged sword that exerts energy and environmental stress. Any economic expansion stimulus program needs to be matched with environmental targets and favor economic structural adjustment and energy saving. Energy policy making should promote cleaner energy substitution and energy efficiency. Environmental policy needs to put an emphasis on local pollutants and GHGs emission cocontrol. When this paper was written, half of the 12th FYP period was already in the past. Compared with long-term planning, the present decision makers are certainly paying more attention to the upcoming FYP. The most important thing now is to prompt a more systematic design to integrate all of the 3E targets and supporting policies to exert an optimized positive effect on energy conservation and emissions reduction. This is a challenge to China’s top decision makers because the design tasks of the 3E targets and supporting policies actually fall on different departments with different departmental responsibilities and political interests, for instance the NDRC, the MEP, the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology (MIIT), etc. This paper makes use of a “counterfactual” method with the help of LEAP modeling. Such a comparative-scenario analysis has both its strength and its weakness. The strength is that it grasps the most important relationships within the 3E system: economic development, characterized by its scale, structure, efficiency, and growth rate, lays the basis for energy consumption; and then energy consumption, characterized by its mix, efficiency, and quantity, is the decisive element for air pollution emission. This logic is clear and conforms to intuition. Its weakness however lies in the fact that it fails to reflect the complexity of the interaction between the economy-energyenvironment elements within the 3E system, particularly the rebound effect from the energy and environmental targets and policies back to the economy. This will also require future research conducted in combination with economic model instruments such as computable general equilibrium and inputoutput modeling. Another concern is that since the counterfactual method analyses the effect of the different policies in a sequential way, the results might be largely affected by the order in which the changes in the policy factors are introduced. We have assumed that the implementation of the policies is sequential: first economic policy is implemented, then energy policy, and finally environmental policy. The rationality of assuming such a sequence lies in the belief that, in the Chinese circumstances, economic development is the most basic determinant of energy demand and consumption, or put another way, development is the utmost strategic target that FYPs are pursuing, while energy policy is there mainly to support the achievement of economic targets. Environmental protection is more of a complementary countermeasure to curb the stress from economic and energy schemes. However, an exploratory calculation of the consequence of the different sequences of policy adoption is drawn up and 10042

dx.doi.org/10.1021/es501729d | Environ. Sci. Technol. 2014, 48, 10036−10044

Environmental Science & Technology

Policy Analysis

(6) NDRC. Comprehensive work plan on energy conversation and emissions reduction, 2007; http://www.gov.cn/jrzg/2007-06/03/ content_634545.htm (accessed Oct 13, 2013). (7) MEP. National Environmental Protection 12th Five-Year Plan, 2011; http://www.gov.cn/zwgk/2011-12/20/content_2024895.htm (accessed Oct 18, 2013). (8) State Council. The Energy Conservation and Emission Reduction 12th Five-Year Plan, 2012; http://www.gov.cn/gongbao/content/ 2012/content_2217291.htm (accessed Feb 4, 2013). (9) Zhou, N.; Levine, M. D.; Price, L. Overview of current energyefficiency policies in China. Energy Policy 2010, 38 (11), 6439−6452, DOI: 10.1016/j.enpol.2009.08.015. (10) Price, L.; Levine, M. D.; Zhou, N.; Fridley, D.; Aden, N.; Lu, H.; McNeil, M.; Zheng, N.; Qin, Y.; Yowargana, P. Assessment of China’s energy-saving and emission-reduction accomplishments and opportunities during the 11th Five Year Plan. Energy Policy 2011, 39 (4), 2165−2178, DOI: 10.1016/j.enpol.2011.02.006. (11) Lo, K.; Wang, M. Y. Energy conservation in China’s Twelfth Five-Year Plan period: Continuation or paradigm shift? Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev. 2013, 18, 499−507, DOI: 10.1016/ j.rser.2012.10.042. (12) Yuan, J.; Kang, J.; Yu, C.; Hu, Z. Energy conservation and emissions reduction in ChinaProgress and prospective. Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev. 2011, 15 (9), 4334−4347, DOI: 10.1016/ j.rser.2011.07.117. (13) Cao, J.; Garbaccio, R.; Ho, M. S. China’s 11th Five-Year Plan and the Environment: Reducing SO2 Emissions. Rev Environ. Economics Policy 2009, 3 (2), 231−250, DOI: 10.1093/reep/rep006. (14) Xu, Y. The use of a goal for SO2 mitigation planning and management in China’s 11th Five-Year Plan. J. Environ. Planning Manage. 2011, 54 (6), 769−783, DOI: 10.1080/09640568.2010.528944. (15) Xu, Y.; Williams, R. H.; Socolow, R. H. China’s rapid deployment of SO2 scrubbers. Energy Environ. Sci. 2009, 2 (5), 459 DOI: 10.1039/b901357c. (16) State Council. Measures deployed by the Standing Committee of the State Council to expand internal demand and promote economic growth, 2008; http://www.gov.cn/ldhd/2008-11/09/ content_1143689.htm (accessed May 12, 2013). (17) Lafraniere, S. China’s Efforts to Rein in Rapid Growth Are Paying Off, 2010; http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/15/business/ global/15chinaecon.html (accessed Dec 12, 2013). (18) NDRC. Intensify the policy of cuting the prducts export of the industries which are high-polluted, energy-intensive and resourcedependent, 2008; http://www.gov.cn/2008jhbg/content_924848.htm (accessed June 11, 2013). (19) Xinhua. The adjustment of tariff rates to reduce the export of energy-intensive products, 2007; http://www.gov.cn/banshi/2007-05/ 22/content_622030.htm (accessed Aug 2, 2013). (20) State Council. Announcement on how to control the overcapacity and redundancy of certain sectors so as to lead to a healthy development of industry, 2009; http://www.gov.cn/zwgk/ 2009-09/29/content_1430087.htm (accessed July 21, 2013). (21) Min, S.; Jianming, Z. National promotion of the development of a cyclical economy in seven points, 2006; http://www.gov.cn/jrzg/ 2006-05/11/content_277817.htm (accessed Sept 1, 2013). (22) MST. In the first three years of 11th FYP period, Ministry of science and technology support the circular economy with 4 billion Yuan investments, 2008; http://www.most.gov.cn/kjbgz/200812/ t20081223_66293.htm (accessed Sept 3, 2013). (23) Xinhua. 30 provinces and municipalities and 15 SOEs sign the energy saving target responsibility agreeement with the NDRC, 2006; http://news.xinhuanet.com/environment/2006-07/27/content_ 4883343.htm (accessed Feb 4, 2013). (24) State Council. The comprehensive work plan of the 12th FiveYear Plan period on Energy saving and emissions reduction, 2011; http://www.gov.cn/zwgk/2011-09/07/content_1941731.htm (accessed Feb 4, 2013).

listed in the Supporting Information Section 4 (exploration to the consequences of sequential implementation of policies) and Table S6. In our simulation, environmental policies perform quite stably in all the sequences. However, the contribution from economic and energy policies varies much more from one sequence to another. Although there have certainly been many achievements in the environmental field, it is undeniable that in some parts of China, especially in certain “hot spots”, the situation is actually getting worse. At this very moment, Beijing and the neighboring provinces of Hebei and Tianjin are suffering from unprecedented bouts of thick smog and haze. This is largely caused by the extremely concentrated production of iron and steel, cement, and more in Hebei province, where over half of the country’s blast furnaces are located and one-third of its iron and steel is produced. The fast expanding car fleet is also causing the air pollution to deteriorate. Future 3E policies should take responsibility for this severe situation and play an active role in solving these problems. This will hopefully constitute our research direction for the future.

■

ASSOCIATED CONTENT

S Supporting Information *

Supporting Information Section 1: the policy scenario setting background, Supporting Information Section 2: detailed explanation of the methods and calculation processes of LEAP-China, Supporting Information Section 3: the supplementary details of the calculation results, Supporting Information Section 4: exploration of the consequences of sequential implementation of policies. This material is available free of charge via the Internet at http://pubs.acs.org.

■

AUTHOR INFORMATION

Corresponding Author

*Phone: +86-10-58807812. Fax: +86-10-58807812. E-mail: [email protected]. Notes

The authors declare no competing financial interest.

■

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

■

REFERENCES

This study was supported by The Energy Foundation with The China Sustainable Energy Program (Re: G-0911-11642, G-110814677). We also sincerely thank the invaluable comments from the three anonymous reviewers.

(1) NPC. Outline of the 12th Five-Year Plan for national economic and social development of the People’s Republic of China, 2011; http://www.gov.cn/2011lh/content_1825838_2.htm (accessed Mar 11, 2013). (2) NPC. Outline of the 11th Five-Year Plan for national economic and social development of the People’s Republic of China, 2006; http://www.gov.cn/gongbao/content/2006/content_268766.htm (accessed Mar 11, 2013). (3) Hu, J. Comprehensively implement the Scientific Outlook on Development, promote economic and social development fast as well as good. Qiushi 2006, 1 (6), 3−9. (4) SEPA. National Environmental Protection 10th Five-Year Plan, 2002; http://gcs.mep.gov.cn/hjgh/swgh/ (accessed Jun 21, 2013). (5) SEPA. National Environmental Protection 11th Five-Year Plan, 2007; http://www.gov.cn/zwgk/2007-11/26/content_815498.htm (accessed Jun 21, 2013). 10043

dx.doi.org/10.1021/es501729d | Environ. Sci. Technol. 2014, 48, 10036−10044

Environmental Science & Technology

Policy Analysis

(25) NDRC. The implementation scheme of the ″1000 enterprises energy saving program″, 2006; http://bgt.ndrc.gov.cn/zcfb/200604/ t20060414_499304.html (accessed Sept 8, 2013). (26) NDRC. Implementation scheme of the ″energy-saving and lowcarbon to 10000 enterprises program″, 2011; http://bgt.ndrc.gov.cn/ zcfb/201112/t20111229_498695.html (accessed. (27) NDRC. Launching the project of “energy saving and consumer benefiting” the state will give subsidies for high efficiency and energy saving products, 2009; http://www.gov.cn/gzdt/2009-05/21/ content_1321461.htm (accessed May 6, 2013). (28) NDRC. The Medium and Long Term Development Plan for Renewable Energy, 2007; http://www.ndrc.gov.cn/zcfb/zcfbghwb/ 200709/W020140220601800225116.pdf (accessed June 11, 2013). (29) NDRC. Proposal on improving the policy on differentiated electricity prices, 2006; http://zys.ndrc.gov.cn/xwfb/200609/ t20060930_87354.html (accessed Sept 5, 2013). (30) State Council. Resolution of the State Council on the amendment of ″provisional regulation on the PRC resource tax″, 2011; http://www.gov.cn/zwgk/2011-10/10/content_1965540.htm (accessed Feb 5, 2013). (31) NDRC. Announcement of the NDRC regarding the improvement of the policy on the feed-in tariffs for windpower, 2009; http:// www.gov.cn/zwgk/2009-07/27/content_1376064.htm (accessed June 12, 2013). (32) NDRC. Announcement of the NDRC regarding the improvement of the policy on the feed-in tariffs for photovoltaic power, 2011; http://bgt.ndrc.gov.cn/zcfb/201108/t20110801_498640.html (accessed May 8, 2013). (33) MEP. The MEP signs a responsibility agreement on emissions reduction targets for the 12th Five-Year Plan with all of the provinces and with some SOEs, 2011; http://www.zhb.gov.cn/gkml/hbb/qt/ 201112/t20111220_221518.htm (accessed Aug 23, 2013). (34) MEP. ″Environmental Administrative Penalties″ Amendment, 2010; http://www.zhb.gov.cn/gkml/hbb/bl/201002/t20100201_ 185230.htm (accessed Oct 15, 2013). (35) MEP. Announcement regarding the implementation of the ″environmental air quality standards (GB3095−2012)″, 2012; http:// www.zhb.gov.cn/gkml/hbb/bwj/201203/t20120302_224147.htm (accessed Oct 16, 2013). (36) State Council. Plan of action for atmospheric pollution prevention, 2013; http://zfs.mep.gov.cn/fg/gwyw/201309/ t20130912_260045.htm (accessed May 24, 2013). (37) NDRC; SEPA. Operation and management methods for the desulfurization subsidies and desulfurization facilities of coal-fired power plants (trial implementation), 2007; http://bgt.ndrc.gov.cn/ zcfb/200706/t20070612_499170.html (accessed June 9, 2013). (38) NDRC. Announcement regarding the enhancement of the ″surcharges on renewable power″ standard and the ″subsidized power prices for environmental protection″, 2013; http://jgs.ndrc.gov.cn/ jggs/dljg/201308/t20130830_556124.html (accessed Mar 1, 2014). (39) COMMEND. An Introduction to LEAP, 2014; http://www. energycommunity.org/default.asp?action=47 (accessed Jan 2, 2014). (40) COMMEND. LEAP: User Guide, 2012; http://www. energycommunity.org/default.asp?action=41 (accessed Dec 2, 2013). (41) Nyun-Bae, P.; Sun-Jin, Y.; Eui-Chan, J. An analysis of long-term scenarios for the transition to renewable energy in the Korean electricity sector. Energy Policy 2013, 52 (0), 288−296, DOI: 10.1016/ j.enpol.2012.09.021. (42) Cai, W.; Wang, C.; Chen, J.; Wang, K.; Zhang, Y.; Lu, X. Comparison of CO2 emission scenarios and mitigation opportunities in China’s five sectors in 2020. Energy Policy 2008, 36 (3), 1181−1194, DOI: 10.1016/j.enpol.2007.11.030. (43) Cai, W.; Wang, C.; Wang, K.; Zhang, Y.; Chen, J. Scenario analysis on CO2 emissions reduction potential in China’s electricity sector. Energy Policy 2007, 35 (12), 6445−6456, DOI: 10.1016/ j.enpol.2007.08.026. (44) Wang, K.; Wang, C.; Lu, X.; Chen, J. Scenario analysis on CO2 emissions reduction potential in China’s iron and steel industry. Energy Policy 2007, 35 (4), 2320−2335, DOI: 10.1016/j.enpol.2006.08.007.

(45) Kadian, R.; Dahiya, R. P.; Garg, H. P. Energy-related emissions and mitigation opportunities from the household sector in Delhi. Energy Policy 2007, 35 (12), 6195−6211, DOI: 10.1016/ j.enpol.2007.07.014. (46) Shabbir, R.; Ahmad, S. S. Monitoring urban transport air pollution and energy demand in Rawalpindi and Islamabad using leap model. Energy 2010, 35 (5), 2323−2332, DOI: 10.1016/j.energy.2010.02.025. (47) Huang, Y.; Bor, Y. J.; Peng, C. Y. The long-term forecast of Taiwan’s energy supply and demand: LEAP model application. Energy Policy 2011, 39 (11), 6790−6803, DOI: 10.1016/j.enpol.2010.10.023. (48) Chen, C.; Kan, H.; Huang, C.; Li, L.; Zhuang, Y.; Chen, R.; Chen, B. Others Impact of ambient air pollution on public health under various traffic policies in Shanghai, China. Biomed. Environ. Sci. 2009, 22 (3), 210−215, DOI: 10.1016/S0895-3988(09)60047-7. (49) He, K.; Lei, Y.; Pan, X.; Zhang, Y.; Zhang, Q.; Chen, D. Cobenefits from energy policies in China. Energy 2010, 35 (11), 4265− 4272, DOI: 10.1016/j.energy.2008.07.021. (50) Lin, J.; Cao, B.; Cui, S.; Wang, W.; Bai, X. Evaluating the effectiveness of urban energy conservation and GHG mitigation measures: The case of Xiamen city, China. Energy Policy 2010, 38 (9), 5123−5132, DOI: 10.1016/j.enpol.2010.04.042. (51) NBS. China Statistical Yearbook, http://www.stats.gov.cn/tjsj/ ndsj/ (accessed Aug 1, 2013). (52) NBS(DES). China Energy Statistical Yearbook, http://epub. c n k i . n e t / K N S / o l d N a v i / n _ i t e m . a s p x ?N a v i ID =4 & B as e ID = YCXME&NaviLink= (accessed Aug 1, 2013). (53) MEP; NBS. China Statistical Yearbook On Environment, http://epub.cnki.net/KNS/oldNavi/n_item.aspx?NaviID=4&BaseID= YHJSD&NaviLink= (accessed Aug 1, 2013). (54) IPCC. Guidelines for national greenhouse gas inventories; IGES: Japan, 2006; http://www.ipcc-tfi.iges.or.jp/meeting/pdfiles/ Washington_Report.pdf (accessed Aug 1, 2013). (55) Mao, X.; Zeng, A.; Hu, T.; Zhou, J.; Xing, Y.; Liu, S. Co-control of local air pollutants and CO2 in the Chinese iron and steel industry. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2013, 47 (21), 12002−12010, DOI: 10.1021/ es4021316. (56) Mao, X. Q.; Zeng, A.; Hu, T.; Xing, Y. K.; Zhou, J.; Liu, Z. Y. Co-control of local air pollutants and CO2 from the Chinese coal-fired power industry. J. Cleaner Prod. 2014, 67 (0), 220−227, DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.12.017. (57) Yang, J.; Zhu, K.; Cui, Y.; He, W.; Xiang, C.; Wu, Q. The impacts of China’s economic stimulus plan on climate change and energy; DRCSC, WWF: Beijing, 2010; http://yunpan.cn/QIWkYZ4KSLqjQ (password:0f8e) (accessed Aug 1, 2013). (58) Xu, Y. Improvements in the operation of SO2 scrubbers in China’s coal power plants. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2010, 45 (2), 380− 385. (59) NBS. Statistical bulletin of national economy and social development, 2011−2013; http://www.stats.gov.cn/tjsj/tjgb/ndtjgb/ (accessed Mar 31, 2014). (60) NDRC. NDRC expands the piloting of the denitrification power price to coal-fired plants, 2013; http://www.gov.cn/gzdt/2013-01/09/ content_2308249.htm (accessed Mar 1, 2014). (61) MEP. MEP released the assessment results of main pollutants total emissions 2012, 2013; http://www.zhb.gov.cn/gkml/hbb/qt/ 201308/t20130829_259033.htm (accessed Dec 25, 2013). (62) Huanqiu. Some areas carry out compulsory power restriction to complete the targets, 2010; http://finance.huanqiu.com/roll/2010-09/ 1080684_2.html (accessed Apr 5, 2013). (63) State Council. The 12th Five-Year Plan of energy development, 2013; http://www.gov.cn/zwgk/2013-01/23/content_2318554.htm (accessed May 25, 2013).

10044

dx.doi.org/10.1021/es501729d | Environ. Sci. Technol. 2014, 48, 10036−10044