The Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative of the New England and Mid-Atlantic States

Summary:  The Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, including the six New England states and four Mid-Atlantic states, is the oldest greenhouse gas reduction regime in the U. S, using a cap-and-trade mechanism. Greenhouse gases are responsible for global warming occurring in recent decades.  It is also the most modest, affecting only emissions originating from electric power plants.  Since it began operating in 2009, it has collected large sums of money and has led to the creation of many new jobs and businesses.  While this modest beginning is praiseworthy, it is important to strive toward major, significant reductions in greenhouse gases, so that the increased level of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere can be stabilized.  

Introduction:  In recent years three regional initiatives have been set in place in the U. S. The Western Climate Initiative, formalized in February 2007; the Midwestern Greenhouse Gas Reduction Accord, set in place in November 2007; and the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI), established in July 2007.  RGGI is discussed in this post.  The three regional accords encompass 23 states in the U. S. as well as several Canadian provinces.  Additional states and provinces are “observers” of the various accords.

The American states participating in these three agreements, and their greenhouse gas emissions, are shown in the following map:

Map displaying the three regional greenhouse gas emission reduction programs in the U. S. (omitting Canadian provinces in WCI and the Midwest Group as well as their contributions to emissions).  WCI: Western Climate Initiative; Midwest Group: the Accord; RGGI: Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative.  MtCO₂e: Millions of metric tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions expressed in terms of carbon dioxide-equivalent greenhouse activity.  Percents are the portions of total U. S. emissions.  

Source: World Resources Institute (http://www.wri.org/stories/2007/11/midwest-greenhouse-gas-accord-numbers)

RGGI incorporates the ten states of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Rhode Island Massachusetts, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Delaware, and Maryland.  The notion of setting up this regime began with Gov. George Pataki of New York.  In 2003, he wrote the governors of 11 other states in the Northeast proposing to limit greenhouse gas emissions.  He recognized the success of cap-and-trade in combating the sulfur emissions from Midwest power plants that cause acid rain, and identified under the U. S. Clean Air Act.  

RGGI was formalized in July 2007 by the establishment of the nonprofit corporation RGGI, Inc., whose role is to coordinate and oversee the administration of the Initiative.  As with the other two accords, it is up to the individual states to enact the enabling laws for operation of the Initiative in the respective states.  A Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) among the member states was initially issued in December 2005 by seven of the ten states.  The remaining three joined by early 2007.  As such, RGGI is the first of the three regional greenhouse gas accords currently operating in the U. S.

The MOU recognizes that global warming due to man-made greenhouse gases is occurring, and that the resulting increase in average global temperature has negative effects on the states involved, including more severe droughts and floods, changes in forest composition, and increasingly damaging storm surges along the coast.  It also recognizes that reducing the need for imported fossil fuels will enhance energy security and will lead to development of new industries related to renewable and sustainable energy sources.

Contrary to the WCI and MGGRA which cover all major activities that produce greenhouse gases, the RGGI accord agreed on controls only for fossil fuels used in electric power generation, affecting facilities with greater than 25 megawatts (MW) generating capacity.  It covers 209 facilities across the region.  The member states agreed to create a CO2 Budget Trading Program within the region, with the goal of stabilizing and then reducing the overall emissions from this source.  Each state’s base emission amount was established at the outset, totaling 188 million tons of CO2, and is to remain fixed at that level from 2009 through 2014.  The emissions limits are implemented by selling emission allowances, where 1 allowance covers 1 ton of CO2 emissions.  Starting in 2015, the allowances for each state are to be reduced by 2.5% per year, so that by 2018 the emissions will be 10% below the starting level.  The Trading Program is in fact a cap-and-trade regime, in which the allowances are tradable in an auction market.  The auctions occur quarterly.  They ensure fair pricing of the right to emit greenhouse gases on an open market available to all parties.  RGGI estimates that the auction price increases the cost of electricity to the consumer by only 0.4% to 1%.

The MOU also allows for offsets that serve as substitutes for actual reductions of CO2 emissions from a particular source.  Instead of achieving reductions in emissions at an emitting site, the source may use a limited part of its CO2 allowances to purchase offsets from remote facilities that accomplish reductions of emissions or new increases in CO2 removal from activities such as afforestation.  Initially the offset facilities must be within the region covered by the Initiative, but can be expanded to be anywhere in North America.  Allowances granted are biased to favor using offsets within the region.

Each RGGI state uses two thirds of the proceeds from the sale of allowances to promote activities that contribute to further reduction in greenhouse gas emissions.  These include subsidizing energy conservation activities and promoting renewable energy industries.

The RGGI model presents itself as serving as an example for a) a functioning cap-and-trade regime, b) a program that will reduce greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuels, and c) identifying and promoting new ventures developing renewable energy sources and conservation.   As the oldest regional accord in the U. S., RGGI should serve as an example for the other regional greenhouse gas reduction accords, as well as for any federal regime that may emerge directed toward reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

Political Environment and Practical Results.  RGGI is the first regional initiative in the U. S. set in place to combat greenhouse gas emissions that cause global warming; as noted, it uses a cap-and-trade system to achieve its objectives.  Political supporters of such programs point out that the revenues received from allowances should be considerable, and will support development of new businesses and creation of new jobs.  Enterprises involved in energy conservation, and the development and installation of renewable energy sources, benefit from investment of these public funds in their activities.  Opponents of such programs, and especially cap-and-trade regimes, point out that consumers wind up paying the extra costs to cover the expense of buying allowances.  This extra expense, they argue, inhibits job growth and enterprise creation, leading to exporting jobs elsewhere.

These considerations, and others, have led to the failure to impose greenhouse gas restrictions at the federal level in the U. S.  It is reported, however, that as of December 2010 RGGI has been a success in most of the states covered by RGGI.  Nine auctions have been held, garnering $729 million.  The auctions have proceeded without problems, contrary to the early experiences of the European Union’s Emission Trading Scheme.  In New York, for example, every dollar spent promoting renewable energy spawns six dollars of overall new economic activity.  RGGI states have created hundreds to thousands of new jobs from these funds.  This modest success in RGGI (based on power plant sources only) suggests that the two other, newer, greenhouse gas initiatives, WCI and MGGRA, should also have positive effects.

Unfortunately, positive revenue balances in government accounts are always susceptible to attack.  In the present economic environment in which most U. S. states have severe budgetary deficits, such reservoirs look very attractive.  It is reported that Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey has diverted $65 million from RGGI revenues for general expenditures.  In Connecticut former Gov. Jodi Rell likewise diverted ratepayer funds for the energy Efficiency Fund; currently some may be restored (email from Clean Water Action). 

RGGI Leads the Way toward Stabilizing the World’s Atmospheric CO2 “Bathtub”.  The modest reductions in the emissions of greenhouse gases under RGGI are first steps toward achieving a leveling off of the atmospheric CO2 concentration.  Much more needs to be done, however. The global atmosphere, and its CO2 component, can be thought of as a "bathtub", having a "faucet" that adds new CO2, and a "drain" that removes CO2.  The present amount of CO2, about 390 parts per million (ppm), is already higher than in the past several thousand years, and the highest since the start of the industrial revolution.  The”faucet”, including increased burning of fossil fuels worldwide, is adding about 2 ppm CO2 each year; the “bathtub” is getting fuller.  (There are fewer balancing activities that “drain” CO2 and other greenhouse gases from the atmospheric “bathtub”.)  The stronger greenhouse effect from this CO2 leads to higher overall, long-term, global temperatures, which are also higher than in the past. 

Thus it is imperative not merely to reduce the rate of adding new greenhouse gases to the atmospheric “bathtub”, but rather to achieve zero world-wide emissions as soon as practically possible. 

References:

RGGI Fact Sheet http://www.rggi.org/docs/RGGI_Fact_Sheet.pdf.

RGGI CO2 Allowance Tracking System http://www.rggi.org/docs/RGGI_COATS_in_Brief.pdf

© 2011 Henry Auer

The Western Climate Initiative to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Summary:  The previous post discussed California’s greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction program mandated under its Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006.  In this post we present a description of the Western Climate Initiative (WCI).  WCI is an agreement to reduce greenhouse gas emissions encompassing seven states and four Canadian provinces extending from British Columbia to Quebec.  Its principal goal is to produce economy-wide reductions in emissions by 15% from the levels of 2005 by 2020, using a market-based cap-and-trade mechanism.  Implementation of the program is to begin in 2012, and proceed in two phases. So far, however, only two of the seven states in the U. S. have progressed toward placing the program in effect.  Prospects for the Canadian provinces may be stronger.

Introduction.  The Western Climate Initiative is a transnational collaboration of California Arizona, New Mexico, Utah, Oregon, Washington, and Montana in the U. S., and British Columbia, Manitoba, Ontario and Quebec in Canada (called “entities” in this report).  Initially the governors of California, Oregon, Washington, Arizona and New Mexico established the Western Climate Action Initiative, in February 2007.  Their agreement recognized the detrimental effects of greenhouse gas-induced warming arising from human activities, such as prolonged droughts, excessive heat waves, reduced snow packs, altered precipitation patterns and more severe wild fires.  The initiative agreed that interstate collaboration was needed, and supported market-based policies to reduce GHG emissions as a cost-effective mechanism to so.

Goals of the WCI include reducing emissions of greenhouse gases that lead to global warming, developing alternative industries that provide new economic activities while also combating global warming, and minimizing the risks associated with adverse effects of global warming such as mentioned above. Importantly, it was undertaken in recognition of the failure of substantive action on climate change at the federal level. 

Greenhouse gases covered in WCI are carbon dioxide, CO2, as well as other gases.  The heat-trapping ability of CO2 on a molecule-for-molecule basis is relatively weak; its overwhelming importance is due to the massive amounts emitted by burning the large amounts of fossil fuels used in the world economy.  Methane or natural gas, when not burned as a fuel, escapes into the atmosphere from many sources; molecule-for-molecule methane is about 25 more potent in heat-trapping effectiveness than CO2.  Another gas arising from human activity, nitrous oxide (N2O), is even stronger, about 300 times more potent than CO2; other industrial gases, including sulfur hexafluoride (SF6) and a set of hydrofluorocarbons and perfluorocarbons, range as high as 23,000 times more potent than carbon dioxide molecule-for-molecule.  Thus small amounts of these gases in the atmosphere have effects that are many multiples of those of CO2.  Numerical conversions are made when reporting data for those gases into a unit called a CO2-equivalent.

The WCI Cap-and-Trade Program.  The WCI establishes a cap-and-trade program to reduce GHG emissions, with the goal of achieving reduction of 15% of the regional emission level evaluated for 2005 by 2020 (see schematic projection to 2020 in the following graphic). 



WCI GHG reduction goal for 2020 not including Manitoba, Ontario and Quebec, as of August 2007.  Source:  http://www.westernclimateinitiative.org/component/remository/func-startdown/91/



It is designed to reduce emissions produced by 90% of the economic activities of the member entities.  Since each entity is legally independent, each has to set its system up by its own laws and rules. 

Briefly, the program relies on emissions reporting, granting of “emission allowances” by each entity whose number establishes the cap, or upper limit of emissions.  Each allowance permits the owner to emit 1000 metric tons of CO2-equivalent GHGs in a year.   The allowances can be bought by or sold to (traded) to other entities in a WCI regional allowance market.  They are issued to each industrial and commercial source of GHG emissions.  The result of this market system is that it establishes a price for emitting GHG, which in essence creates a penalty for emitting.  This provides an incentive for each source to innovate in order to reduce emissions, thus reducing its costs each year.  Additionally, offsets of 5% of total emissions are allowed with external, qualified operations that draw GHGs from the atmosphere, anywhere in North America. Offsets include activities such as reforestation.

The complete formulation of the cap-and-trade system to be implemented by WCI  was released in August 2008.  It includes detailed economic modeling and reports earlier experience gained with GHG cap-and-trade regimes in California and the European Union. An updated summary of the Design Program was issued in August 2010.

Need for High-Quality Emissions Data From Rigorous Reporting.  The WCI Program relies on a rigorous, authoritative quantitative survey of GHG emissions from each entity for 2005 in order to establish its numerical emissions goal for 2020.   Ongoing surveys, and reports to the WCI administration, are to be submitted every year to ensure compliance and track progress.  In addition, these monitoring activities have to be created with an eye toward future regulatory regimes that U. S. federal and Canadian national governments, through the Environmental Protection Agency and Environment Canada, are likely to impose in the near future.

Setting Program Emissions Limits. The program proceeds in two phases.  The first, covering 2012-2014, envisions estimating emissions for 2012 that omit transportation fuels and low-volume emissions from residential and commercial fuels.  This interim limit is subjected to reductions in allowances until the second phase begins in 2015, when estimates for the omitted fuels are added in.  This total is then further reduced year-by-year to 2020.  This is shown in the following graphic.



Source: http://www.westernclimateinitiative.org/component/remository/func-startdown/281/



Maintaining Competitiveness and Preventing Emissions Leakage.  In order to promote compliance with the program, WCI envisions promoting a high degree of competition to achieve cost-effective improvements in efficiency in a given economic activity or industry.  On the other hand, the program seeks to minimize “emissions leakage”.   Leakage is the avoidance of required reductions by shifting of apparent reductions in emissions to entities outside of the program that are not monitored by the program.  Those emissions would in fact increase, thus defeating the intent of the program.   One possible approach to preventing leakage is dispensing allowances without charge to those industries that are most subject to competition and that use large amounts of energy in their operations.   These operations are most likely to succumb to gaming the program.  WCI recognizes that this approach is also under consideration in the European Union, and has appeared in some U. S. congressional proposals.

Electricity Sector.  Electricity generation is uniquely distinguished by the interconnection of power plants with others outside the WCI by means of the electricity grid.  A provider of electricity in the program commonly purchases power from out-of-region generators.  The WCI program includes the emissions from such out-of-region generation in its survey of GHG emissions subject to its regulation.  In addition, voluntary development of renewable energy supplies is to be taken into account in surveys leading to granting of emission allowances.

Designing a Fair and Transparent Auction.  The WCI program envisions that an important way to distribute or reallocate emission allowances is by an auction.  Auctions will occur every three months using a single round of sealed bids in order to minimize counterproductive market manipulation of allowances.  A minimum auction price will be established which recognizes market factors at the time the auction takes place.  Auction trades will be posted for transparency and efficiency.  The market will be subject to upcoming rules that are being formulated both in the U. S. and Canada for the trading of commodities.  Kyle S. Smith, executive director for the Washington Wildlife Federation, has criticized the WCI allowance program because it has not made clear whether allowances will be free or must be purchased at the outset.  It is true that, at least for highly competitive industries, free allowances are indeed envisioned. (see above).  Security of allowances in the accounts is an important factor; news of the electronic theft of permits in the European Union in January 2011 has alerted the WCI and others to the need for protection against hacking.

Participation by Canadian Provinces.  The four provinces that have subscribed represent about 75% of Canada’s population.  As Ontario signed on to the WCI, Alberta and Saskatchewan decried the program at a meeting of provincial premiers in July 2008, calling the program a cash grab by Canada’s other provinces, which are less well off.  It has to be recognized that Alberta is the site of the massive crude oil production industry based on extraction from tar sands.  This mode of production requires far more fossil fuel input for extraction than does conventional oil production from wells drawing on deep geological reservoirs.  Alberta is responsible for the most GHG emissions of all the Canadian provinces.

Implementation in the U. S.  At the time of writing, only California and New Mexico, of the seven states participating in WCI, are on track to implement the accord.  In the November 2010 elections, California’s voters rejected a referendum initiative that would have ended implementation of California’s Global Warming Solutions Act (see the earlier post).  

New Mexico has issued rules to implement the program.  However, the new governor elected in November 2010, Republican Susana Martinez, is opposed to the program.  Earlier, in 2009, a committee of the state’s legislature failed to approve legislation to authorize carbon trading.  Furthermore, the state’s implementing rules may be challenged in court, and the new regulatory board to be appointed by Gov. Martinez may revoke the rules.  Oregon and Washington, even though generally pro-environment in outlook, have not developed rules for implementation, at least partly because of the difficult economic environment the U. S. is currently experiencing.

In February 2010 the Republican governor of Arizona, Jan Brewer, withdrew the state from the WCI.  This action is part of a statewide review of policies directed toward combating climate change.  Officials are concerned about the effect of the WCI on Arizona’s economic recovery.  The state legislature is strongly opposed to the cap-and-trade mechanism of the WCI, which requires legislation to place it in force.

Commentary on the program from Canadian bloggers appears more supportive of participation by Canada’s provinces than is the atmosphere in the U. S.   Some note the need for preserving, indeed strengthening, the limitations on GHG emissions in the WCI program.

Conclusion.  The California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 provides policies for reducing GHG emissions that fall within the WCI program.  As noted above, however, the political climate is an extremely difficult one for full implementation of the program elsewhere; so far in the U. S. only California and New Mexico have advanced toward its goals, while Arizona has dissociated itself from the initiative.  At the federal level in the U. S., strong opposition from the energy industry has influenced lawmakers, and the Congress has not passed legislation that limits GHG emissions.  As a result, an inefficient, variegated pattern of state and regional programs is coming into being. 

Passage of a single national energy policy directed to minimizing greenhouse gas emissions, leading hopefully to a stabilization of atmospheric greenhouse gas levels, would be far more preferable for economic and environmental policy on the national level, as well as on the international stage.  At the national level, a unified approach would help establish new industries and job opportunities, and relieve the U. S. from its critical dependence on foreign sources of fossil fuels. Ultimately, since this is a global problem, it requires a global approach.  Sound, concerted national policy by the U. S. and Canada would benefit all concerned interests.

© 2011 Henry Auer

California’s Global Warming Solutions Act: Bold Action on Greenhouse Gases

Summary:  California’s Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 represents an ambitious initiative to curtail emissions of global warming gases by the state in the U. S. having the largest economy.  The Act is especially significant in the present political environment, since the U. S. Congress has been unable to pass any legislation regulating emissions of greenhouse gases that exacerbate global warming.  It establishes the level of greenhouse gas emissions that occurred in 1990 as the goal, and mandates reducing the use of fossil fuels sufficiently to attain that level by the year 2020, a 15% decrease.  Implementation of the Act is exceptionally broad, affecting the greenhouse gas emissions of practically all aspects of California’s economy.

Introduction. A previous post on this blog reported that California voted to maintain in effect the state’s Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 in a November 2010 referendum.  A notable feature of this law is recognition  that “national and international actions are necessary to fully address the issue of global warming. However, action taken by California to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases will have far-reaching effects by encouraging other states, the federal government, and other countries to act.” (Chapter 2, section (d)).  California thus recognizes that many countries of the world, including the U. S. federal government, have failed for more than one decade to act decisively to curb greenhouse gas emissions and the resulting detrimental effects of worldwide global warming. 

The Global Warming Solutions Act.  In more detail, the Global Warming Solutions Act requires in part

(1)  complete and verifiable monitoring and annual reporting of all major sources of greenhouse gas emissions in the state;

(2)  accounting for greenhouse gas emissions arising in particular from the generation of electricity used in the state, whether generated within or outside the state;

(3)  establishing the level of greenhouse gas emissions that occurred in 1990 by January 1, 2008, and developing regulations to assure that greenhouse gas emissions be lowered to that level by 2020;

(4)  by January 1, 2011 adopting a greenhouse gas emission limit, as well as  measures to reduce emissions sufficiently to achieve that limit by 2020, by establishing regulations by January 1, 2012; the measures set up taking into account technological feasibility and cost-effectiveness in order to achieve the Act’s objectives, for electricity generation, petroleum refining and fuel supplies, subject to exclusions for small businesses whose emissions fall below a level to be determined; and

(5)  affording the option of adopting regulations that establish a market-based system with successively lower annual limits to greenhouse gas emissions in order to achieve the objectives of the Act.

The state Air Resources Board is mandated to implement the Act.  Current progress and the status of implementing the Act may be accessed here.  It’s generally understood that a market-based system in item (5) will be a cap-and-trade market mechanism, in which successively lower maximum limits for emissions are established periodically, and rights to emit those levels are traded on an open market.

Climate Change Scoping Plan. Under the requirements of the Act, the Air Resources Board issued its final Climate Change Scoping Plan in December 2008.  The Executive Summary notes that reductions of greenhouse gas emissions by the mandated amount of 15% of present levels to achieve 1990 levels by 2020 would actually correspond to a reduction of 30% of the level of emissions envisioned for 2020 if emissions growth would proceed until then according “business-as-usual”. 

Although the Act extends only to 2020, an Executive Order mandates a further reduction from the levels of 1990 by 80%, to be achieved by 2050.  The Scoping Plan envisions the bold, innovative initiatives required to meet this extended objective:

“Reducing our greenhouse gas emissions by 80 percent will require California to develop new technologies that dramatically reduce dependence on fossil fuels, and shift into a landscape of new ideas, clean energy, and green technology. The measures and approaches in this plan are designed to accelerate this necessary transition, promote the rapid development of a cleaner, low carbon economy, create vibrant livable communities, and improve the ways we travel and move goods throughout the state. This transition will require close coordination of California’s climate change and energy policies, and represents a concerted and deliberate shift away from fossil fuels toward a more secure and sustainable future. This is the firm commitment that California is making to the world, to its children and to future generations.”

As mentioned above, the Scoping Plan’s objectives for 2020 include expanding existing energy efficiency programs already in place prior to enactment of the Act, including residential and appliance standards; achieving use of renewable sources for electricity generation to one third of the total; a state-wide, economy-wide cap-and-trade program; lowering transportation-derived emissions including California’s existing clean car mandate and a Low Carbon Fuel Standard; and setting up a fee structure for various activities including use of manmade industrial chemicals having high global warming potential.

The Scoping Plan discusses most areas of California’s economic activity, which in addition to those just mentioned include lowering transportation-related greenhouse gases, a “million solar roofs” program, addressing medium- and heavy-duty vehicles, a high speed rail system in the state, environmental standards in construction, and agriculture.

Carbon Emissions Allowances.  Most recently, on December 16, 2010 the Air Resources Board released the regulations for California’s emissions trading program (see the news release), using a cap-and-trade regime. According to the news release, 80% of California’s greenhouse gas emissions are limited by the program.  The program is complemented by California’s initiatives in standards for energy-efficient vehicles, low-carbon fuel standards, and energy efficiency programs.

The regulation extends to 360 businesses representing 600 facilities.  It will unfold in two broad phases: the first, beginning in 2012, includes all major industrial sources along with utilities; and, a second phase that starts in 2015 and brings in distributors of transportation fuels, natural gas and other fuels. Initially over 2012-2014, allowances, each covering the equivalent of one ton of carbon dioxide emissions, are free to industrial sources.  Companies needing more may purchase them at state-run auctions.  For the electricity generation industry, allowances are also granted, and must be sold with the proceeds assigned to the benefit of ratepayers and used to promote the reduction objectives of the Act.  In subsequent years fewer allowances are distributed so that sources have incentives to optimize their operations to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases.  Compared to the present, by 2020 California should have lowered overall emissions by 15%. 

In addition to direct reduction of allowances leading to reductions in emissions, entities may also offset up to 8% of its emissions by purchasing allowances from state-qualified offset programs.  These programs include reforestation and forest development, dairy industry methane reductions (methane is powerful greenhouse gas), and destruction of ozone-depleting refrigerants under an older worldwide agreement.  California has already put in place contractual agreements with two tropical forest locales to participate in offsets.

California’s Important Role in Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions.  With an economy that represents about 17% of all the United States, California plays an exceptional role in any efforts to lessen the effects of global warming.  Implementation of its Global Warming Solutions Act with its interim goal set for 2020, and with the additional policy goal set for 2050, places California at the forefront of non-federal actions to reduce global warming arising from manmade greenhouse gases.  Some other states and regions in the U. S. have analogous programs in place with varying levels of goals to achieve.  California’s program, together with those of the other states, demonstrates what can be achieved by dedicated assertion of forward-looking programs.  These necessarily take into account the economic effects of the changing energy landscape that these efforts entail.  They clearly demonstrate that economic factors no longer provide a viable reason by which some people oppose greenhouse gas reduction programs.

Conclusion. Nevertheless, with several different plans arising across the country, energy policy is developing into a checkerboard on the regulatory and economic landscape.  Enactment of a single national energy policy directed to minimizing greenhouse gas emissions, leading hopefully to a stabilization of atmospheric greenhouse gas levels, would be far more preferable for economic policy on the national level, as well as working toward an important environmental objective nationally and on the international stage.  Ultimately, since this is a global problem, it requires a global approach.  Sound, concerted national policy by the U. S. would benefit all concerned interests.

© 2011 Henry Auer

California Voters Preserve the State’s Law Combating Global Warming

Summary:  Voters in California overwhelmingly defeated a ballot referendum that would have suspended the state’s law that combats global warming, in the election of November 2, 2010.  As a result, the law, the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, remains in effect.  The Act establishes the level of greenhouse gas emissions that occurred in the year 1990 as the goal, and mandates reducing the use of fossil fuels sufficient to attain that level by the year 2020.  The Act, and this referendum defeat, are especially significant in the present political environment, since the U. S. Congress has been unable to pass any legislation regulating emissions of greenhouse gases that exacerbate global warming.

Introduction.  In a previous posting on this blog, the campaign surrounding this ballot referendum, Proposition 23, was described. Proposition 23 on the ballot for November would have suspended the provisions of California’s AB 32 (2006), the "Global Warming Solutions Act" until unemployment falls below 5.5% or less for four quarters in a row.  Specifically, it would have suspended the statutory mechanisms established in the Act to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to levels prevalent in California in 1990 by the year 2020.  The unemployment rate in California has been in the range of 12% during 2010.  It was last at 5.5% or less during October 2005 through June 2007.  It is not likely to fall back to those levels for some years.

The Global Warming Solutions Act.  In more detail, the Global Warming Solutions Act requires in part

(1)   monitoring and annual reporting of all major sources of greenhouse gas emissions;

(2)   accounting for greenhouse gas emissions arising in particular from the generation of electricity used in the state, whether generated within or outside the state;

(3)   establishing the level of greenhouse gas emissions that occurred in 1990 and assuring that greenhouse gas emissions be lowered to that level by 2020;

(4)   establishing rules and regulations by Jan. 1, 2011, by means of public hearings and taking into account the technological feasibility and cost-effectiveness in order to achieve the Act’s objectives, for electricity generation, petroleum refining and fuel supplies, subject to exclusions for small businesses whose emissions fall below a level to be determined; and

(5)   affording the option of adopting regulations that establish a market-based system with successively lower annual limits to greenhouse gas emissions in order to achieve the objectives of the Act.

Current progress and the status of implementing the Act may be accessed here.  It’s generally understood that a market-based system in item (5) will be a cap-and-trade market mechanism, whereby successively lower maximum limits for emissions are established periodically, and rights to emit those levels are traded on an open market.

Donors Supporting the Referendum Initiative (seeking to suspend the Act).  According to records of the California Secretary of the State, a group called “California Jobs Initiative, A Coalition Of Taxpayers, Employers, Food Producers, Energy, Transportation And Forestry Companies” received donations of over $7,806,000 from out of state oil companies such as Valero, Tesoro Companies, Flint Hills Resources (owned by the oil billionaires, the Koch brothers), Occidental Petroleum, the National Petrochemical and Refiners Association, and other oil companies, as well as the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association (active in many California ballot initiatives to limit taxation), and the California Trucking Association (presumably a major consumer of oil products).  Thus, in spite of the referendum’s language seeming to be concerned with the plight of unemployed workers in California, the true interests behind the referendum appear to be oil companies.

Opponents of the Referendum Initiative (seeking to preserve the Act).  A large number of organizations is listed as opposing the Referendum.  The umbrella organization is called "Californians for Clean Energy and Jobs".  George Shultz, the former U. S. secretary of state during the Reagan administration, was the honorary co-chairman of the organization.  A large number of health organization, labor unions, organizations of African-Americans and of Latinos, municipal chambers of commerce, and alternative energy and technology associations all came out opposing the referendum.  Additional opponents included Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, now governor-elect Jerry Brown, his opponent Meg Whitman, U. S. Senators Barbara Boxer and Diane Feinstein, AARP, the League of Women Voters , the Union of Concerned Scientists, the Natural Resources Defense Council, the Sierra Club, and many others.  Major donors opposing the referendum include Thomas Steyer, Hedge Fund Manager, Farallon Capital Management; the National Resources Defense Council; the National Wildlife Federation; Ann and L. John Doerr (LJD is an investment partner with Al Gore); and the Environmental Defense Action Fund.  As of late October 2010, opposing groups had raised over $35 million.

The Referendum Initiative was Defeated by an overwhelming vote of 39% in favor, 61% opposed.  This is a resounding affirmation of the public’s understanding that global warming is a significant phenomenon adversely affecting the state’s economic and individual welfare, and that alternative sources of energy must be supported and developed.

Alternative Energy is Being Actively Promoted in California.  The state’s air quality regulator, the California Air Resources Board, adopted regulations requiring electric power generators to provide one-third of their power to California from alternative or renewable sources by 2020 .  This new requirement was handed down as part of the state’s mandate to meet the requirements of the Act.  This is an ambitious target, requiring major new investments in both generating capacity and new transmission lines.  Unfortunately, however, according to an analyst from the Union of Concerned Scientists, by working with a cap-and-trade regime, the Act would actually allow utilities to meet these requirements by purchasing greenhouse gas allowances from outside the state.  This would nullify a significant feature of the Act’s objective.

More generally, however, regions in the state are actively courting new construction for the manufacture of clean energy facilities (e.g. the Sacramento region).  Presumably this is why such a large number of municipal chambers of commerce opposed the Referendum.

Conclusion.  California’s voters acted resoundingly in support of efforts to combat global warming, and as an important secondary effect, in support of establishing new industries and enterprises statewide.  This new economic endeavor has the favorable result of providing new jobs for large numbers of workers in the state. 

California’s efforts complement those of many other states in the U. S.  The first was the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative http://www.rggi.org/home , a consortium of the six New England States plus New York, Pennsylvania, Delaware and Maryland.  In a common agreement, which nevertheless required favorable action by each state’s legislature and governor, the RGGI commits to reducing CO2 emissions from electric power generation sources by 10% by the year 2018.  RGGI operates by a cap-and-trade auction mechanism.  It does not cover CO2 emissions from transportation, nor from space heating and cooling.

These state and regional initiatives demonstrate the capability of the people of America to begin combating global warming in the absence of national energy policy originating from Congress and the executive branch.  In view of the imperative to eliminate use of all fossil fuels as soon as possible , these developments are significant first steps.