*7.2. Low Carbon Scenario (LCS)*

Figure 5 shows the vehicle stock evolution in the LCS, as can be seen the total volume reaches almost 70 million vehicles, 3.7 million vehicles less than BLS.

**Figure 5.** Evolution of the Mexican vehicle fleet in the low carbon scenario.

In addition, there is a significant technological change in the LCS, towards the year 2035, 29% (20.1 million vehicles) are based on new technologies, 44% (30.7 million vehicles) use mixtures with biofuels and the rest 27% (18.9 million vehicles) remain with conventional technologies.

Figure 6 shows energy consumption results of the LCS, where gasoline and diesel contribute 51.4% and 16.4% of total energy consumption, respectively, followed to a lesser extent by kerosene, at 11.1%; sugarcane ethanol, at 9.8%; electric power, at 3.3%; LPG, at 3.1%; sorghum ethanol, at 1.2%; and jatropha biodiesel, at 1.0%. Fuel oil and NG contribute 0.18% and 0.04%, respectively. By year 2035, transport sector energy requirements total 3,468 PJ in the LCS, which represents a reduction of 41% compared to the BLS.

**Figure 6.** Energy consumption by energy carrier in the LCS.

Figure 7 shows results of the GHG reductions in the LCS scenario. In terms of energy efficiency measures, gasoline price without subventions contributes most, at 571 MtCO2e, followed by the integration of transport companies, at 415 MtCO2e; Customs vehicular environmental in the border, at 259 MtCO2e; rail systems for cargo, at 236 MtCO2e; federal clean transportation program, at 226 MtCO2e; sustainable oriented transport development, at 210 MtCO2e; performance standard for light vehicles, at 120 MtCO2e; performance standard for cargo vehicles, at 116 MtCO2e; optimization of public transportation routes, at 98 MtCO2e; verification and restriction of traffic in the main 20 metropolitan zones and 5 border metropolitan zones, at 17 MtCO2e; public bicycle system, at 9 MtCO2e; rapid transport systems, at 5 MtCO2e; introduction of hybrid buses, at 5 MtCO2e and, finally, public transport electric systems, at 3 MtCO2e.

**Figure 7.** GHG emissions' reduction by measure in the LCS.

Regarding biofuels' use, the one that reduces GHG most is sugarcane ethanol, at 355 MtCO2e, followed by palm oil biodiesel, at 82 MtCO2e; ethanol from sorghum grain, at 43 MtCO2e; and biodiesel from *Jatropha curcas*, at 35 MtCO2e.

Regarding the new electric motor technologies, the HEV reduces GHG by 127 MtCO2e, followed by the PHEV, at 45 MtCO2e; and, finally, the BEV, at 23 MtCO2e.

To summarize, the cumulative total of the emissions avoided in the analysis period amounted to 3165.9 MtCO2e in the LCS, which represents a total mitigation potential of 46.3% when compared to the emissions from the BLS. At 2035 levels, 229 MtCO2e are mitigated, which corresponds to a 59.3% GHG emissions' reduction relative to a BLS.

The resulting 10 best GHG mitigation measures in the Mexican transport sector, representing a total of 85% of avoided emissions, are: the gasoline price without subventions, at 18.0%; freight transport companies integration, at 13.1%; sugarcane ethanol, at 11.2%; border environmental customs for vehicles, at 8.2%; freight rail systems, at 7.5%; program for clean freight transport, at 7.1%; urban development oriented to sustainable transport, at 6.6%; fuel economy standard for LDV, at 5.4%; HEV, at 4.0%; and, finally, fuel economy standard in freight HDV, at 3.8%.

Considering the classification from the study by [6], in relation to an ambitious transport sector low carbon scenario in India, and adding our results according to this classification, Table 11 was developed in order to compare our results for Mexico with that of this author.


**Table 11.** Comparison of mitigation results of similar transport sector´s Low Carbon Scenarios in 2035 from India [6] and Mexico (this work) in absolute and relative values relative to a baseline scenario.

\* Sustainable mobility: Public bicycles system, confined bus rapid transit systems (BRT), urban development planning oriented to sustainable transportation, optimization of public transport routes in urban areas; \*\* Freight logistics: Program for clean freight transport, freight rail systems, freight transport companies' integration; \*\*\* Fuel economy: Fuel economy standard for light duty vehicles (LDV), gasoline price without subventions, verification and circulation restriction in the main 20 metropolitan areas and five border metropolitan areas, fuel economy standard in heavy duty vehicles-freight (HDV), border environmental customs for vehicles; \*\*\*\* Biofuels use: Sugarcane ethanol, sorghum grain ethanol, *Jatropha curcas* biodiesel, oil palm biodiesel; \*\*\*\*\* Electric mobility: Hybrid electric vehicles (HEV), plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEV), battery electric vehicles (BEV), introduction of hybrid buses, electric transport systems.

According to the percentage data shown in the mentioned table, in the mitigation measures related to sustainable mobility, our results are similar with respect to the mentioned study. The same can be said about the measures that concern the fuel economy, however, the set of mitigation measures of our work is more ambitious regarding freight logistic and biofuels measures of the low-carbon scenario carried out for the India's transport sector, achieving in the first case a higher mitigation by a factor of 5 and in the second case, higher by a factor of 3, in percentage terms. Finally, it is observed that our measures concerning electric vehicles have less ambition to mitigate in the Mexican transport sector than that established for the study of India mentioned, being smaller by a factor of almost 6, in percentage terms.

In global terms, the two low-carbon scenarios of the two countries show important similarities in terms of ambition to mitigate. When comparing CO2 reductions in year 2035 in percentage terms, we can observe that the mitigation potential identified for Mexico represents a 56% of CO2 reduction when compared to the BLS, while for the case of India, this CO2 reduction is 51% compared to a baseline scenario.

Table 12 shows the results of the incremental costs of investment, maintenance, avoided fuel, avoided subsidies, co-benefits, cost-benefit, mitigation cost, and avoided emissions from the 21 mitigation measures considered. According to this table, only 11 measures have a net investment cost; these are Introduction of hybrid buses, electric public transport systems, confined BRT systems, urban development oriented to sustainable transport, in addition to all measures corresponding to the use of liquid biofuels and those of new electric mobility technologies.


**Table 12.** Avoided GHG costs and emissions from mitigation measures in the transport sector in Mexico during 2010–2035 period.

Note: I: Investment cost, M: Maintenance cost, S: Subsidies, CPS: Co-products and Sales incomes, AF: Avoided Fuel cost, C-B: Cost Benefit, MC: Mitigation Cost and AE: Accumulated Avoided Emissions.

The rest of the measures considered have no net investment cost, and they have benefits; these are fuel economy standard for LDVs, gasoline price without subventions, verification and circulation restriction in the main 20 metropolitan zones and five border metropolitan zones, fuel economy standard in HDV-F, border environmental customs for vehicles, optimization of public transport routes in urban areas, public bicycles system, program for clean freight transport, and freight transport companies' integration. To summarize, the 21 measures studied represent an investment cost of 13,135 MUSD, a maintenance cost of 6867 MUSD and an avoided fuel cost of −120,209 MUSD. From the economic analysis results a cost-benefit of −271,265 MUSD and mitigation costs from −366 to −7 USD/tCO2e. Finally, the cumulative mitigation potential is 1994 MtCO2e.

Figure 8 shows the marginal cost curve of the measures analyzed and, in turn, indicates a route to follow for the implementation of mitigation measures based mainly on those that have no cost but have grea<sup>t</sup> potential for reducing emissions, which could initiate a transition toward a low carbon transport sector.

**Figure 8.** Marginal abatement cost curve for transport sector in Mexico.
