Climate Policy 2 (2002) 247–254

Short communication

Domestic actions contributing to the mitigation of GHG emissionsfrom power generation in Brazil

Emilio Lèbre La Rovere∗, Branca Bastos AmericanoPrograma de Planejamento Energético, Instituto de Pesquisa e Pós-Graduação de Engenharia,

Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro, PPE/COPPE/UFRJ, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

Abstract

Continued growth and the privatisation of Brazil’s electricity system, which is largely based upon hydropower, isprojected to lead to big expansion mainly of natural gas but also coal power stations with a resulting huge growth ingreenhouse gases (GHG) emissions unless steps are taken to avoid this. The Brazilian National Program of PowerConservation and Efficient Use of Electrical Energy in terms of avoided GHG emissions (PROCEL), originallycreated in 1985, is a multi-stakeholder program coordinated by Eletrobrás aimed to reduce the waste of electricalpower on both supply and demand side. Initially crippled by lack of funds, a new finance structure introduced in1994 has greatly increased PROCEL’s impact. Here we develop scenarios that suggest that continued expansion ofPROCEL’s programme, including resources that might be drawn through clean development mechanism (CDM)projects, to meet projected PROCEL targets over the next two decades could avoid approximately one-third of theGHG emissions from the Brazilian power sector. This contribution demonstrates the significant global environmentalbenefits of PROCEL in addition to national benefits of this innovative programme.© 2002 Published by Elsevier Science Ltd.

Keywords: Greenhouse effect; Emissions; Energy efficiency; Power sector; Brazil

1. Introduction

This paper assesses the global environmental benefits of The Brazilian National Program of PowerConservation and Efficient Use of Electrical Energy in terms of avoided greenhouse gases (GHG) emis-sions (PROCEL). It is the main result of 2-year research by the authors for Eletrobrás. We take as astarting point the power conservation results achieved in the 1990s. Future power generation expansion isprojected according to the new ELETROBRÁS Decennial Plan and the scenario II of its long-term 2015plan extended up to the year 2020. We present the methodology adopted for sharing the total amount of

∗ Corresponding author.E-mail address: emilio@ppe.ufrj.br (E.L. La Rovere).

1469-3062/02/$ – see front matter © 2002 Published by Elsevier Science Ltd.PII: S1469-3062(02)00048-7

248 E.L. La Rovere, B.B. Americano / Climate Policy 2 (2002) 247–254

energy conservation among the different power sources, and calculate the corresponding avoided emis-sions of carbon dioxide (CO2), carbon monoxide (CO), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O) and nitrogenoxides (NOx) together with the overall global warming potential (GWP).

The methodology developed for estimating the future GHG emissions avoided by PROCEL assumesthat the kWh saved will come from the marginal generation units scheduled for each year in the DecennialPlan (1998–2007) and the supply expansion scenario 2008–2020. The analysis considers separately theamount of energy conservation during peak and base load periods with different partitions for each ofthe two scenarios. We also estimate the methane emissions from the hydropower reservoirs, allowingfor a more comprehensive estimate of the contribution from PROCEL to avoid future GHG emissions.However, further field research efforts are still needed to improve the accuracy of such estimates.

The methodological approach presented in this report can be easily adapted to use at the project level.This would allow to determine the GHG emissions avoided by the implementation of specific electricalenergy conservation projects in different regions of the country, which might become eligible underKyoto’s Clean Development Mechanism (CDM). One of the key criteria to be met by CDM projectproposals is to ensure GHG emission reductions. PROCEL/ELETROBRÁS can apply this methodologyto assess the potential global environmental benefits of new energy conservation project proposals andalso use it in the follow-up of their implementation, allowing for the certification of emission reductionsex post. The CDM may become increasingly important as a large potential source of additional financialresources to foster energy conservation efforts in Brazil.

Due to the current trends of expansion of thermopower generation in the country, the correspondingGHG emissions would increase from the current level of 14 million tonnes (Mt) of CO2 equivalent (eq.)to 67 Mt CO2 eq. in 2010 and 183 Mt CO2 eq. in 2020. Overall GHG emissions from the Brazilian powersector would be even higher including GHG emissions from hydropower reservoirs. Our study estimatesthat meeting PROCEL targets (corresponding to energy savings of 10% in 2010 and 18% in 2020) wouldreduce GHG emission from thermopower plants by 31 Mt CO2 eq. in 2010 and 98 Mt CO2 eq. in 2020,or more if avoided GHG emissions from hydropower reservoirs are accounted for. CDM projects in thefield of energy conservation in Brazil are already raising interest among foreign investors thanks to thecost effectiveness of these options compared to non-conventional renewable energy sources.

2. Power generation

Until the early 1990s, hydropower dominated the Brazilian electricity picture, accounting for over 90%of domestic power needs. Given the larger initial investment and long payback period required by largehydropower schemes, the private sector tends to privilege thermopower, due to its higher risk aversioncoupled with the financial constraints imposed by capital scarcity in developing countries. Thus, morerecently, hydropower development in Brazil have slowed down in favour of thermopower plants. Theatmospheric pollution due to thermopower plants fired by coal, oil products and natural gas is bound toincrease. In particular, GHG emissions from the power sector are slowly but consistently increasing in thelast years. If emissions from hydropower reservoirs are included in the analysis, the role of the electricpower sector in terms of GHG emissions can grow significantly.

In this scenario, the role of power conservation is increasing as an instrument of limiting GHG emissions.To estimate the potential energy conservation contribution, we develop a scenario of the power generationprofile in the mid- and long-term and estimate the avoided emissions due to PROCEL’s actions. We caution

E.L. La Rovere, B.B. Americano / Climate Policy 2 (2002) 247–254 249

Table 1Power generation per energy source, 1998–2007

Year Total power generation(TWh per year)

Structure (%)

Hydro Natural gas Coal Diesel Fuel oil Nuclear Transmission

1998 308 93.4 0.4 1.8 1.5 1.4 1.3 0.31999 345 86.8 2.3 1.8 1.6 1.3 2.5 3.72000 375 81.7 6.8 1.9 1.5 1.2 3.1 3.82001 392 81.1 7.7 2.0 1.4 1.1 3.0 3.62003 440 80.0 7.8 2.4 1.2 1.0 2.7 4.92005 468 80.4 7.4 2.9 1.2 0.9 2.7 4.62007 494 79.4 7.0 3.3 1.1 0.9 4.0 4.3

Source:La Rovere and Americano (1999).

that for the estimate of avoided emissions in the future, large uncertainties prevail in the reference scenarioitself. The structural reform of the Brazilian power sector has changed the nature of power generationexpansion programs, which have now to be seen as tools of indicative planning only. The estimatespresented here are affected by this added uncertainty.

The methodological approach used in this study considers three different periods for calculating theamount of power generation from each primary energy source:

• 1990–1997: data available (presented inLa Rovere and Americano, 1999);• 1998–2007: power generation expansion according to the Decennial Plan;• 2008–2020: power generation scenarios built according to assumptions made in this study.

The amount of power generation in the period 1990–1997 comes from the National Energy Balance(BEN). To calculate the capacity added between 1998 and 2007, information from the Decennial Planwas used, specifying on a monthly basis the entering into operation of new units (turbines) of each plantadded to the system. It was assumed that the amount of energy generated by the already operating plantswould remain constant (at the 1997 levels) during all the period. The resulting power generation structureuntil 2007 is shown inTable 1.

The last column refers to the addition of firm energy to the generation capacity made availableby the interconnection of the two previously separated grid systems (south/southeast/centre-west andnorth/northeast) scheduled to take place within this period.

The overall increase of Brazilian power market in the period 2008–2020 was estimated accordingto scenario II of the Eletrobrás Plan 2015 (usually considered as the scenario with higher probability).Annual growth rates assumed were 4.8% until 2010 and 4.2% from 2011 to 2020, and plan assumptionswere as follows:

• Power generated from nuclear plants and from the interconnection of the grid through new transmissionlines is frozen at 2007 levels, because no new nuclear power plant is planned to be built after 2007, andthe interconnection of previously split sub-systems of the grid will be by that time already achievedand thus new transmission lines will not add to the total amount of firm energy deliverable.

• Hydropower adds an amount of energy per year that corresponds to the mean value in the period ofthe Decennial Plan (1997–2007), that is 11,310 GWh per year. This assumption was based in the still

250 E.L. La Rovere, B.B. Americano / Climate Policy 2 (2002) 247–254

Table 2Power generation per energy source, 2008–2020

Year Total power generation(TWh per year)

Structure (%)

Hydro Natural gas Coal Diesel Fuel oil Nuclear Transmission

2008 517 78.0 8.2 3.8 1.1 0.9 3.8 4.12010 565 75.4 10.5 4.9 1.1 0.9 3.5 3.82015 694 69.5 15.6 7.3 0.9 0.8 2.8 3.12020 853 63.2 20.8 9.7 0.8 0.7 2.3 2.5

Source:La Rovere and Americano (1999).

largely available Brazilian hydropower potential, taking into account that thermopower will play amore important role in the future, due to the privatisation of the electric sector.

• A linear trend was fitted to the diesel-based generation growth and also assumed for fuel oil. Dieseloil has only a local importance, limited to the isolated systems of the northern region. Fuel oil plays amarginal role in the Brazilian energy system, serving mainly to meet peak load requirements.

• The relationship between the market shares of the remaining power sources, gas and coal, are kept thesame as in the year 2007. So, the growth rates of these fuels are the same for every year in the period2008–2020. Consequently, growing power demand is met mainly by natural gas and coal, accordingto the recent trend of privatisation of the Brazilian power sector.

The resulting power generation structure from 2008 to 2020 is shown inTable 2; it represents a growthrate of more than 4% per year in total power generation, mostly from rapid growth in natural gas and coalplants (Fig. 1).

3. Energy conservation: PROCEL’s actions

PROCEL was created in December 1985 aiming to reduce the waste of electrical power both at thedemand and supply sides. ELETROBRÁS plays the role of executive secretariat of PROCEL, in charge ofcoordinating the efforts from governmental bodies, utilities, consumers, manufacturers, research institutesand other stakeholders in the electrical power system.

In an early stage, PROCEL suffered from insufficient budget resource allocations. After 1994, itsfinancial means were substantially increased thanks to the use of Reserva Global de Reversão (RGR,an important fund managed by the power sector in Brazil). From then on, significant results have beenachieved by PROCEL, including the creation of its technical staff and a critical mass in the field of energyconservation in the country, as shown inTable 3.

PROCEL’s actions include both demand side and supply side oriented energy conservation measures.Demand side projects are related to the use of power by final consumers, and have focused on improving

the energy efficiency of electricity consuming equipment. PROCEL’s programmes and pilot projects haveincluded:

• labelling programs to inform consumers about the average power consumption of appliances;• granting of energy efficiency labels to appliances to influence the choice of consumers;• funding the substitution of equipment with energy efficiency labels for less energy efficient equipment;

E.L. La Rovere, B.B. Americano / Climate Policy 2 (2002) 247–254 251

Fig. 1. Power generation per energy source, 1990–2020.

Table 3Annual results achieved by PROCEL, 1986–1997

1986–1994 1995 1996 1997

Approved investments (R$ million)a 33.5 30b 50b 122b

Actual investments (R$ million)a 31.5 15.8 19.6 40.6Energy saved and additional generation due to

actions taken in the year (GWh per year)1274 572 1970 1758

Equivalent power generation plant (MW)c 300 135 430 415Peak power reduction (MW) 219 103 293 976Avoided investments (R$ million) 600 270 860 830

Source:La Rovere and Americano (1999).a Salaries of ELETROBRAS/PROCEL staff not included.b RGR resources included: R$ 20 million in 1995, R$ 40 million in 1996 and R$ 90 million in 1997.c Obtained from energy saved and additional generation, considering a typical load factor of 56% for hydropower plants and

including 15% of average losses in transmission and distribution for the energy saved.

252 E.L. La Rovere, B.B. Americano / Climate Policy 2 (2002) 247–254

• energy efficient design of commercial buildings;• substitution of compact fluorescent bulbs for incandescent bulbs in the residential sector (low income

households);• funding of efficient lighting;• energy efficiency programs in public buildings;• adoption of the yellow tariff, allowing for differentiated tariffs according to the period of consumption;• installation of demand limiters in electrical showers to foster their use in off-peak periods;• retrofitting public lighting;• marketing campaigns to modify consumption inhabits.

Supply side projects concentrate on reducing power losses along the generation, transmission and distri-bution power chain. Among them, can be highlighted:

• the installation of meters to reduce commercial losses due to widespread illegal consumption;• additional generation projects, making more energy available to the grid through the improvement of

generation plants, such as:◦ better cooling of the generation units to improve their performance (Balbina, Samuel and Emborcação

hydropower plants and Jorge Lacerda thermopower plant),◦ minor equipment changes in the Itaipu hydropower plant, reducing the need for scheduled stops.

Besides these direct measures at the supply and demand sides, PROCEL has invested in general infras-tructure works, in research and development of new technologies, and in educational programs includingtraining and events.

Moreover, PROCEL’s action has also been important in the reform of the Brazilian legislation affectingthe power sector, through the elaboration of a law instituting a National Energy Conservation Policy. Inthe restructuring of Brazilian power sector, PROCEL provides technical support to the newly createdNational Agency of Electrical Power (ANEEL).

In our analysis, energy savings at the demand side were converted to supply savings as follows. Overalllosses in transmission and distribution of power were estimated to be 15% in 1996. According to thetargets for reducing these losses, it was assumed that this average figure would be linearly decreased from1999 to 2005, to reach the level of 10%, then kept constant until 2020. The amounts of energy savingsand additional generation capacity made available by all energy conservation projects were kept constantafter 2001 until 2020. This corresponds to the optimistic assumption that even after the end of PROCELprojects, the implementation of all their measures to increase energy efficiency will be continued by thefinal consumers on their own (seeLa Rovere and Americano, 1999).

PROCEL annual budget estimates are about R$ 70 million in 1997, R$ 90 million in 1998 and R$ 130million from 1999 on. Funding from GEF and IRDB projects were added to these figures, as well as theresources from RGR allocated to PROCEL. The amount of energy conservation was calculated using anaverage estimate of US$ 10/MWh.

4. Emissions from thermopower generation

Applying the average GHG emission factors for Brazilian thermopower plants to the power generationfrom each source of energy.Table 4shows the results obtained for GHG emissions from thermopower

E.L. La Rovere, B.B. Americano / Climate Policy 2 (2002) 247–254 253

Table 4Annual GHG emissions from the Brazilian thermopower sector

Year Emissions (kt CO2 eq.) Emissions structure (%)

Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2 CH4 N2O

1990 9,644 9,628 2 14 99.83 0.02 0.151997 16,590 16,560 4 26 99.82 0.02 0.161998 14,175 14,145 4 27 99.78 0.03 0.191999 18,942 18,901 11 30 99.78 0.06 0.162000 27,608 27,547 28 32 99.78 0.10 0.122005 38,785 38,696 38 51 99.77 0.10 0.132010 66,766 66,608 65 93 99.76 0.10 0.142015 114,952 114,675 117 160 99.76 0.10 0.142020 182,666 182,222 190 254 99.76 0.10 0.14

Totala 1,737,019 1,732,886 1742 2394 99.76 0.10 0.14

Source:La Rovere and Americano (1999).a Total corresponds to accumulated figures from 1998 to 2020.

generation in the period 1990–2020. Applying the GWPs to add up the emissions of CO2, CH4 and N2O interms of kt of CO2 eq., it can be seen that by far the most important GHG in Brazilian thermopower genera-tion system is CO2 with nearly 100% of the emissions (not taking into account the CO and NOx emissions).

The accumulated emissions from thermopower generation for the whole period 1998–2020 are pre-sented inTable 5. In terms of CO2 eq., the cumulative GHG emissions from thermopower generation willbe 1.8 Gt CO2 eq. during the period 1990–2020, with CO2 emissions corresponding to 99.76%.

The importance of non-CO2 GHG emissions can be higher than suggested by the above results, if CH4

emissions from hydropower dams are included in the calculations. So far, these emissions are not takeninto account within IPCC Guidelines for GHG Emissions Inventory. However, preliminary estimates madeby PPE/COPPE/UFRJ show that under specific circumstances CO2 and CH4 emissions from underwaterdecomposition of biomass can be relevant in areas flooded by hydropower dams. Field measurementscurrently undertaken in pilot projects located in the Amazon region can allow for more accurate estimates.

5. GHG emissions avoided by PROCEL

Annual amounts of power generation, energy conservation, overall emissions from the power sectorand avoided emissions by PROCEL under the assumptions of the study byLa Rovere and Americano(1999)are summarised inTable 6.

Table 5Accumulated GHG emissions from thermopower generation, 1998–2020

Accumulated emissions CO2 CO CH4 NOX N2O Total

kt 1,732,886 571 83 10,200 8 –kt CO2 eq. 1,732,886 – 1742 – 2394 1,737,019kt CO2 eq. (%) 99.76 – 0.10 – 0.14 100

Source:La Rovere and Americano (1999).

254 E.L. La Rovere, B.B. Americano / Climate Policy 2 (2002) 247–254

Table 6Summary of PROCEL results and GHG avoided emissions, 1990–2020

TWh per year α (%) Mt CO2 eq. (from CO2, N2O and CH4) ε (%)

G C G + C E AE E + AE

1990 223 0.16 223 0.07 9.6 0.04 9.6 0.411997 308 5.8 314 1.8 17 1.2 18 6.61998 308 8.0 316 2.5 14 4.1 18 231999 346 10 356 2.9 19 5.6 25 232000 376 13 389 3.3 28 5.4 33 162005 470 29 499 5.9 39 11 50 222010 567 62 628 9.8 67 31 98 322015 696 130 826 16 115 63 178 352020 855 191 1,047 18 183 98 280 35

Total (1990–2020) 12,980 1694 14,675 12 1739 830 2565 32

Note: columns 2–4 refer to electrical energy in TWh per year.G: power generation;C: total energy conservation by PROCEL=Cb + Cp; G + C = power generation in the absence of PROCEL—hypothetical situation. Column 5,α = C/(G + C), canbe understood as the conservation rate and shows the ratio of total energy conservation (C) to the power generation in theabsence of PROCEL (G + C). Remaining columns refer to GHG, in million tonnes of CO2 eq. (Mt CO2 eq.);E: emissions fromthe power sector; AE: avoided emissions by PROCEL=AEb+ AEp; E + AE = emissions from the power generation sector inthe absence of PROCEL—hypothetical situation. The last columnε = AE/(E + AE) shows the ratio of avoided emissions (AE)to the emissions from the power generation sector in the absence of PROCEL (E + AE), and can be interpreted as the avoidedemissions rate.

Under the assumptions of this study, PROCEL contributes significantly to cut GHG annual emissionsfrom the power sector. This contribution varies according to the specific year. The emissions avoided byPROCEL reach 98 Mt of CO2 eq. in 2020, which correspond to seven times the estimated GHG emissionsfrom the Brazilian power sector in 1998. In terms of the accumulated values along the whole period from1990 to 2020, meeting PROCEL targets will allow for a reduction equivalent to 30–33% of what wouldbe the estimated GHG emissions from the power sector without PROCEL.

Further reading

La Rovere, E.L., Americano, B.B., 1998. Environmental Impacts of Privatizing the Brazilian Power Sector. In: Proceedings ofthe Annual Meeting of the International Association of Impact Assessment, Christchurch, April.

La Rovere, E.L., Legey, L.F., Miguez, J.D.G., 1994. Alternative energy strategies for abatement of carbon emissions in Brazil.Energy Policy 22 (11), 914–924.

References

La Rovere, E.L., Americano, B.B., 1999. Assessment of Global Environmental Impacts of PROCEL: GHG Emissions Avoidedby PROCEL, 1990–2020. Final Report to Eletrobrás, September.