Tag: California

Québec Prepares to Start Emissions Trading as it Formally Adopts Cap-and-Trade Regulation

 
On December 14, 2011, Québec formally adopted the Regulation respecting the cap-and-trade system for greenhouse gas emission allowances (the Regulation), which came into force on January 1, 2012 and is based on the rules established by the Western Climate Initiative (WCI).

With the adoption of the Regulation, Québec officially steps to the starting line next to California. The first year of implementation of the system will be a transition year, which will allow emitters and participants to familiarize themselves with how the system works.  In particular, 2012 will provide emitters and participants with opportunities to register with the system, take part in pilot auctions and buy and sell greenhouse gas (GHG) emission allowances in the market. No reduction or capping of GHG emissions will be required during this transition year. Over the course of the year, emitters will also be able to make any adjustments that may be necessary to meet their emission reduction obligations, which will come into force on January 1, 2013.  Starting on January 1, 2013, some 75 operators in Québec (primarily in the industrial and electricity sectors) whose annual GHG emissions equal or exceed the annual threshold of 25,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e), will be subject to the capping and reduction of their GHG emissions.

It should be noted that starting in 2015, companies which import or distribute in Québec fuels that are used in the transportation and building sectors (and whose combustion generates an amount of GHGs greater than or equal to 25,000 tonnes of CO2e per year) will also be subject to the capping and reduction of their emissions.

For all participating WCI members, the adoption of a cap-and-trade regulation a cap is the first of two key steps towards the establishment of a regional North American carbon market. The second step will consist of concluding a series of recognition agreements, among the different partners, to link their systems together.

BC and Ontario in the meantime continue to dither on whether to join the cap-and-trade scheme and businesses in those provinces are losing out on key opportunities to participate in the transitional market, recently valued for 2012 at almost US$ 800 million by Thomson Reuters Point Carbon. By finalizing their cap-and-trade regulations in a timely way, BC and Ontario could continue to be leaders in regional efforts to reduce GHG emissions and to spur technological innovation in their provinces.
 
 

Court gives California Green Light to Proceed with Cap-and-Trade

 
On September 28, 2011, a California Supreme Court judge ruled that the state’s Air Resources Board (ARB) can proceed with implementation of the California’s cap-and-trade program. The ruling was issued in the case of California Air Resources Board vs. Association of Irritated Residents, in which anti-poverty environmental justice organizations have argued a market-based approach exposes poor and minority communities to higher levels of pollution.
The implementation of the cap-and-trade program, which is scheduled to begin in California in 2012, has been held up because of a March 2011 court ruling that required the ARB to further consider alternatives to cap-and-trade that might provide more effective ways of reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. ARB says that it has adequately considered alternatives such as a carbon tax, and is appealing the March 2011 decision in Superior Court. The September 28th ruling allows the ARB to move forward on cap-and-trade before the Superior Court rules.
California’s proposed cap-and-trade program is a major component of AB32, the state’s 2006 landmark climate change legislation. Under the law, California must reduce its GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. In addition, the legislation sets an overall limit on emissions from sources responsible for 85% of California’s GHG emissions. The cap-and-trade program is designed to work in collaboration with other complementary policies that expand energy efficiency programs, reduce vehicle emissions, and encourage innovation.
More information on the status of California’s cap-and-trade program is available on the ARB web site.
 

California to delay carbon trading program to 2013, but targets remain the same

On June 29, 2011, chairwoman of California’s Air Resources Board (CARB), Mary Nichols, announced that the state will delay enforcement of California’s cap-and-trade program until 2013. The announcement was made at a hearing on the status of California’s cap-and-trade system, which had been called to explore the implications of a law suit brought by environmental justice groups advocating policies other than cap-and-trade to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. In that law suit, a judge ruled in March that CARB had not sufficiently analyzed alternatives to cap-and-trade as required under the state’s Environmental Quality Act. CARB has appealed the decision and an appeals court ruled recently that officials could continue working on cap-and-trade regulations pending the court’s decision.  Ms. Nichols indicated that the law suit was not a deciding factor in her decision to delay the first carbon trading program in the U.S.

The delay in the cap-and-trade program, which was originally scheduled to come into force on January 1, 2012, was proposed because of the need for “all necessary elements to be in place and fully functional”. In particular, Ms. Nichols cited the need to protect the cap-and-trade system from potential market manipulation. The decision came after Ms. Nichols conferred with the state attorney general’s office as well as experts on California’s ill-fated foray into deregulated electricity sales which led to widespread fraud and rolling blackouts in 2000 and 2001. However, Ms. Nichols said that the postponement would not affect the stringency of the program or the amount of greenhouse gas reductions required to be made by industries.  Under the cap-and-trade program, 600 industrial facilities (including cement manufacturers, power plants and oil refineries) would be required to cap their emissions in 2012, with that limit gradually decreasing over eight years. The one-year delay will enable CARB to test the system and carry out simulation models.

Ms. Nichols said that quarterly auctions of emissions allowances that each regulated emitter must turn in would begin in the second half of 2012, rather than February 2012 as originally planned. Entities emitting more than 25,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent per year will begin trading credits at the end of 2012 to cover their emission reduction obligations for 2012 and later. Hence, the first three-year compliance period, which originally covered the years 2012 to 2014, will be shortened to two years. CARB has indicated that it will release draft regulations covering allowance distribution and details on offset protocols within the next two weeks. In addition, CARB has said that it is still on track to finish its cap-and-trade regulations by the end of October 2011.

It is likely that BC and Québec, California’s anticipated carbon trading partners, will follow California’s lead and delay their carbon markets until 2013 as well.

 

California to Appeal Superior Court Decision to Halt Carbon Market

On May 20, 2011, San Francisco Superior Court judge Ernest Goldsmith issued a decision requiring the California Air Resources Board (CARB) to halt action on implementing its planned emissions cap-and-trade program until it has explored alternatives to meet California’s emission reduction targets. The decision follows a ruling delivered in March 2011 in which the judge said CARB had violated the California Environmental Quality Act by failing to adequately assess alternative emission reduction mechanisms, such as a carbon tax. The ruling is the result of legal action brought by the Association for Irritated Residents and other environmental justice groups, which argued that the proposed cap-and-trade program could damage air quality in some parts of the state.

The cap-and-trade program is part of AB 32 (Global Warming Solutions Act), California’s landmark climate change law, which is designed to lower California’s greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. AB 32 also includes increased fuel efficiency standards and a renewable electricity target of 33% by 2020. Under the ruling, CARB must set aside its December 2010 decision approving the trading system for emitters over 25,000 metric tons per year, and must cease all rule-making and implementation activities related to cap-and-trade until it complies with the law. In particular, the judge said that CARB must go back and show why it made the decision to implement cap-and- trade. The trading program is designed to cover 85 percent of the state’s industrial emissions by 2020 and would include emissions from power plants, oil and gas refineries, transportation fuels and other heavy industries.

On May 23rd, California’s top attorney initiated an appeal of Judge Goldsmith’s decision. Depending on the length of the appeal process, the cap-and-trade program could be delayed, perhaps until 2013. In the meantime, California can continue with its renewable energy targets, low-carbon fuel standard and energy efficiency measures, all of which are unaffected by the judge’s ruling.

Study finds that SO2 Allowance Trading has not led to Environmental Injustice

In a new study entitled “Trading Equity for Efficiency in Environmental Protection? Environmental Justice Effects from the SO2 Allowance Trading Program”, Professor Evan Ringquist at the University of Indiana has found that efficiency gains from sulphur dioxide (S02) allowance trading have not come at the expense of the equitable treatment of minority and low-income groups.

In a study entitled “Trading Equity for Efficiency in Environmental Protection? Environmental Justice Effects from the SO2 Allowance Trading Program”, Professor Evan Ringquist at the University of Indiana has found that efficiency gains from sulphur dioxide (S02) allowance trading have not come at the expense of the equitable treatment of minority and low-income groups.

The study considered the environmental justice impacts of the SO2 allowance trading program, which was established pursuant to amendments to the Clean Air Act in 1990.  The program is aimed at reducing SO2 emissions, which cause acid rain and human health problems. In particular, Professor Ringquist considered the potential conflict between the efficiency of market-based tools for pollution control and social equity, and whether the SO2 program inadvertently transferred pollution into minority and poor communities. As part of his research, Professor Ringquist obtained trading records for all facilities participating in the SO2 allowance trading program between January 1995 and March 2009. He then used statistical models to determine whether allowance trading led to concentrated pollution in poor communities. Professor Ringquist concluded that it did not: “There is no inherent tradeoff between efficiency and equity when using market-based instruments for pollution control. Policy makers, however, might make an effort to design and implement future emissions trading programs in a manner that reduces the monitoring costs of tracking emissions trading. By reducing monitoring costs, policy makers may prevent the concentration of emissions in poorly educated communities while preserving the efficiency benefits of these instruments.”

This research could shed some light on the concerns expressed by the Association of Irritated Residents (AIR), which has brought a court challenge against the California Air Resources Board’s decision to use cap-and-trade as the mechanism to reduce California’s greenhouse gas emissions (Association of Irritated Residents, et al. v. California Air Resources Board). AIR believes that companies which buy the right to exceed emission limits will release greater amounts of pollutants in surrounding communities, mostly poor and non-white. As Professor Ringquist suggests, perhaps the most prudent approach would be to design an emissions trading program that makes it easier for the effects of the program to be monitored by local residents.

The study is available online at Link

California & EU Plan to Link Emissions Trading Markets

Europe’s commissioner for climate action, Connie Hedegaard, has confirmed plans to link the EU emissions trading scheme (ETS) with California’s carbon market which is scheduled to start trading on January 1, 2012. On April 5, 2011, Hedegaard met with California’s governor, Jerry Brown, and Mary Nicholls, chair of the California Air Resources Board, in Sacramento to discuss how the parties could cooperate to join together the world’s largest carbon market with what will be the world’s second largest carbon market.

Europe’s commissioner for climate action, Connie Hedegaard, has confirmed plans to link the EU emissions trading scheme (ETS) with California’s carbon market which is scheduled to start trading on January 1, 2012. On April 5, 2011, Hedegaard met with California’s governor, Jerry Brown, and Mary Nicholls, chair of the California Air Resources Board, in Sacramento to discuss how the parties could cooperate to join together the world’s largest carbon market with what will be the world’s second largest carbon market.

Hedegaard said: “We told Governor Brown that we would very much like to co-operate with them so that no matter how California constructs their scheme, it is linkable to the way we do things in Europe. It doesn’t have to be identical, just compatible.”

According to Point Carbon, the estimated value of transactions on the EU ETS was US $103 billion in 2010 and California’s cap-and-trade program could be worth US $10 billion by 2016.

While the EU ETS has been fraught with problems including over-allocation of allowances and allegedly fraudulent transactions worth US $7 billion, Hedegaard said schemes in other countries should learn from the EU’s example. Hedegaard also suggested that a successful carbon market in California could pave the way to a national US scheme in the future: “If the biggest American state, and 8th largest economy joins the growing crop of emissions trading schemes, it could break the ice in this field in the United States.” (F. Carus, The Guardian, April 7, 2011).

Implementation of California’s Cap & Trade Program Faces Potential Delay after Court Ruling

In a decision issued on March 18, 2011, a California Superior Court judge threw up a roadblock to the implementation of California’s cap-and-trade program by suspending the implementation of A.B. 32, the state’s landmark climate change law on the grounds that the California Air Resources Board (CARB) failed to properly consider alternatives to a cap-and-trade system.

In a decision issued on March 18, 2011, a California Superior Court judge threw up a roadblock to the implementation of California’s cap-and-trade program by suspending the implementation of A.B. 32, the state’s landmark climate change law on the grounds that the California Air Resources Board (CARB) failed to properly consider alternatives to a cap-and-trade system. While the Court upheld the validity of CARB’s Scoping Plan for implementing A.B. 32, thus saving CARB from having to revise the Scoping Plan, it found flaws with CARB’s environmental review of the Scoping Plan under the California Environmental Quality Act. As a result, not only has the proposed cap-and-trade program been put on hold, but at risk are other elements of the Scoping Plan, including the state’s low-carbon fuel standard and a 33% renewable portfolio standard for electricity by 2020. In his ruling, Judge Ernest Goldsmith of San Francisco Superior Court said that the CARB “seeks to create a fait accompli by premature establishment of a cap-and-trade program before alternatives can be exposed to public comment and properly evaluated.”

The ruling by Judge Goldsmith does not prohibit the CARB from adopting cap-and-trade or require the delay of the scheduled start of date of January 1, 2012, but Judge Goldsmith said that CARB must first analyze other options (such as a carbon tax) and explain why it did not choose such options. Given the tight timeline this year for finalizing the details of California’s climate change plan, the ruling represents a potentially significant hurdle in the timely implementation of the state’s greenhouse gas emission reduction initiatives.  The CARB’s spokesperson, Stanley Young, expressed dismay at the scope of the ruling, which requires the board to conduct an environmental review and invite public comment before taking further steps to implement the law. Mr. Young has indicated that the CARB will appeal the decision, which could result in pushing back the cap-and-trade program’s January 1, 2012 start date.  An alternative is for the CARB to seek a stay on the ruling that will allow it to implement the climate policies as planned until a final verdict is issued.  Also, the CARB could complete the necessary analyses as quickly as possible, but the results of this approach would be uncertain. For example, if the CARB is unable to satisfy the court’s concerns by October 2011 – which is the key deadline for adopting cap-and-trade regulations – this would most likely put the January 1, 2012 start date at risk.  If California’s cap-and-trade program is delayed, it is likely that other WCI jurisdictions such as B.C., Ontario and Québec, will also delay the implementation of their cap-and-trade programs until such time as California begins trading.

A.B. 32 was passed in 2006 and requires the state to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. The legal challenge to California’s cap-and-trade program was brought by environmental justice groups (the Association of Irritated Residents and other groups) that consider the plan too weak. In particular, they argued that the cap-and-trade program would result in increased pollutants in poor and non-white communities.  More mainstream environmental groups, however, have supported cap-and-trade and stayed out of the legal action.

The next likely step is that a Writ of Mandate will be filed within 10 days of the March 18 decision. The Writ is the plaintiffs’ interpretation of the decision and will include their preferred remedies. The judge will then decide on the final remedy. Any appeal to that decision would have to be filed within 60 days from the date the decision was entered.

At this stage, it is unclear what the court-ordered remedy will consist of and whether it will affect all work on measures to reduce greenhouse gas pollution – observers indicate that it most likely it will not. Following the decision, the Environmental Defense Fund issued a conciliatory statement that perhaps best captures the intent of the parties: “It is clear from examining arguments of both parties before the Court that CARB and the environmental justice groups bringing the action against the State are committed to improving California’s environment and fighting climate change and do not intend to bring AB 32 work to a halt.” Stay tuned as this story evolves.

California Adopts Cap & Trade Program after Landmark Vote

In a landmark 9-1 vote on December 16, 2010, California’s Air Resource Board (ARB) voted to adopt the first large-scale cap-and-trade program in the U.S.

In a landmark 9-1 vote on December 16, 2010, California’s Air Resource Board (ARB) voted to adopt the first large-scale cap-and-trade program in the U.S.  This vote represents the culmination of an eventful year for California’s AB 32 legislation, which aims to reduce the state’s greenhouse house gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020.  In California’s general elections held in November 2010, AB 32 survived a ballot measure that would have indefinitely delayed the program. California’s progress towards cap-and-trade comes as federal efforts to establish a nation-wide emissions trading program have stalled in Congress.

Under the proposed California cap-and-trade rules, the state would initially give away allowances to regulated industries. In later years, California would auction allowances. Industries that could show the regulations were putting them at a significant competitive disadvantage to companies in other, less carbon-constrained, jurisdictions could qualify for additional free allowances. The proposed rules would establish a $10 per metric ton auction floor price on carbon. Regulated emitters would be able to purchase carbon offsets, which are expected to trade at a discount to emission allowances, to comply with 8% of their annual emission obligations.

Offsets under the California Program

In addition to the regulations for the cap-and-trade program, ARB adopted four protocols that will be used to generate offsets for compliance, marking the first time forest carbon offsets will be included as a part of a compliance carbon market.

Offsets will come from early action efforts, compliance offsets and a category known as sector-based offsets, which will come from programs managed in developing countries.  Early action offsets include those from the 2005-2014 vintages of Climate Action Reserve (CAR) credits from projects in methane digestion, destruction of ozone depleting substances, forestry and urban forestry.

In anticipation of California’s cap-and-trade program, the carbon market has responded with a jump in offset prices. Analysts note that offset prices have doubled from about $4 per ton of to $8 per ton amid higher volumes of trading in recent weeks.

Analysts have also predicted a shortfall in the supply of offsets. CAR projects that the ARB-approved protocol types will be able to generate approximately 30 million tons of credits through 2014, which credits can be used in the California program.  However offset demand is projected to exceed 200 million tons through 2020.  Now that there is regulatory certainty, the market must now work to fill the gap between offset supply and demand.

New Mexico Approves its Cap-and-Trade Program

In other news, New Mexico narrowly approved its cap-and-trade program in early November 2010 as well as the state’s participation in the regional Western Climate Initiative market. These measures will not go into effect unless other U.S. states or Canadian provinces move ahead with similar systems for capping emissions. The New Mexico program would regulate approximately 63 large industrial sources.