View
22
Download
0
Category
Preview:
DESCRIPTION
The NEG-ECP Climate Change Action Plan and the Northeast Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI). Western Regional Air Partnership Information Sharing Meeting on Climate Change Santa Fe, NM – August 25-26, 2005. Ken Colburn Center for Climate Strategies (CCS) - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Citation preview
The NEG-ECP Climate Change Action Plan and the
Northeast Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI)
Western Regional Air PartnershipInformation Sharing Meeting on Climate Change
Santa Fe, NM – August 25-26, 2005
Ken ColburnCenter for Climate Strategies (CCS)kcolburn@symbioticstrategies.com
617-784-6975
Why Are the States Acting?
• Defensively:– Sense of urgency; exposure to climate risks– Protecting existing economies (forests, tourism, etc.)
• Offensively:– Learning curve; early adopters secure
competitive advantage (e.g., BP, Dupont, UTC)
• Aggressively to protect:– Public Health; Quality of Life
• Significant relative impact
• Prior success leading by example
Long History Working Together
• 1967 - New England Governors (NEG) formed NESCAUM to address air quality issues
• 1985-87 – Many states adopted regs ahead of feds (acid rain; air toxics) – and kept robust economy
• 1990 – Ozone Transport Commission (12 states, under Clean Air Act Amendments)
• Not just history…– Not alone in this – Cross-pollination; better ideas & vetting– Greater punch; strength in numbers– Competitive advantage; learning curve
• 50% additional reduction nationally
• 50% by 2003 • “Virtual elimination”
• 1990 GHG levels by 2010 • 10% below 1990 by 2020 • 75-85% ultimately
• Reaffirmed post-2002
Regional Plan, Individual Action…
• States moved forward with plans to implement– CT GHG plan, RPS, LEV, appliances, CHP– MA 4-P regulations, RPS– NH 4-P legislation, registry – ME GHG legislation, plan– RI plan– NJ consent decree & 20% initiative– NY LEV, plan, NYSERDA energy efforts– Even WV mandatory GHG reporting– Pacific states joining in: OR, CA, WA
• Initiated – April 2003 letter from Governor Pataki (R-NY) to 10 Northeast and Mid-Atlantic states
• Purpose – Invitation to develop a regional “Cap-and-Trade” system for GHGs
• Process – Start with power sector and CO2; then possibly expand to other sectors, GHGs, & offsets
• Timeline – Targeted April 2005
Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI)
• Nine states chose to participate– CT, DE, MA, ME, NH, NJ, NY, RI, VT– World’s 3rd largest economy
• 14% US GHG Emissions• 3.4% of Global GHG ( Germany)
• Others observing: PA, MD, DC, Provinces
• Staff Working Group created, plan developed, endorsed by energy & environmental chiefs
RGGI (continued…)
The Model Rule
Memorandum of
Understanding
The Groundwork
Data Assembly
IPM Modeling
REMI Modeling and
Benefits Analysis
Stakeholder Process
Post-Model Rule
Legislationand/or
Rulemaking
Regional Organization
Key RGGI Components
The RGGI Model Rule
Applicability: 25 MW+
Banking
Compliance Period
Offset Provisions
Early Action Credits
Monitoring & Reporting
Penalties & Enforcement
Regional Emissions Cap
State Allowance Budgets
New Source Allowance “Pool”
Opt-In Provision
The RGGI MOU
State-by-State Allocations of Allowances to Sources
Commit to Initiate Rulemaking
Recommendations on Collateral Energy Policies
Link with other Trading Systems
Method for Accounting for Additional States, or Subtracting States that Withdraw from RGGI
Emissions & Allowance Tracking/Regional Registry
Establish Regional Body
Future Offset Design
Prospective International Linkages
• Amendment to EU Trading Directive– “1a. Prior to third countries listed in Annex B to the Kyoto
Protocol ratifying the Protocol, agreements may be concluded with regional authorities in those countries to provide for the mutual recognition of allowances between the Community scheme and mandatory greenhouse gas emissions trading schemes capping absolute emissions established by those authorities.”
– Amend. 8, Article 25, adopted by Envir. Comm. 3/16/04
• Australian states starting a RGGI-like effort
• Link with Canada in registry/trading?
RGGI Next Steps
• Better to take a bit longer & get it right…• NY Times 8-24-05 Story
– “Generally accurate, but…”– 2009-2015: Stabilize at 2000-2004 levels– 2016-2020: reduce 10% lower
• Many issues remain:– Leakage, allowance allocations, offsets (type &
amount), consumer allocations/EE, etc.
• Stakeholder reaction & revision?• Legislative approval / regulatory processes• Litigation?
Thank you for your time and attention!
EC
ON
OM
ICE
FF
ICIE
NC
YL
ow
erH
igh
er
TIME
Energy Efficiency & Renewables Path(MORE jobs, reliable, secure, clean, andexportable)
Energy Intensity Path(LESS jobs, reliable,
secure, clean, andexportable)
Competitive AdvantageLost to Delay
Now Later
Sustainability
Old or New Energy Path?
Recommended