cap-and-trade program – Page 2

Legal Challenges Unlikely to Delay 2013 Start of California’s Cap-and-Trade Program

According to a panel of legal experts, it is unlikely that recent legal challenges to California’s cap-and-trade program will delay the start of compliance with the system on January 1, 2013. Speaking at the Navigating the American Carbon World conference in San Francisco on April 12, 2012, lawyers said that state regulators have done a good job in designing a system that can withstand legal challenges from regulated industries including the oil, gas and power sectors.

“Even if lawsuits are filed, I don’t think we’re going to see anything between now and the end of 2012 that will actually delay it,” said Tim O’Connor, a lawyer with the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF). He added that: “There might be lawsuits that are continuing, but nothing that will actually derail it at December 31, 2012,” when compliance with the program begins. Other panel members agreed that it was difficult to envision a scenario where a lawsuit would knock the program completely off course.

The majority of the lawsuits filed so far against the California Air Resources Board (ARB), the state agency that designed and is implementing the program, have come from environmental groups, not industry.

A lawsuit by an environmental justice group known as the Association of Irritated Residents (AIR) last year contributed to the ARB’s decision to delay compliance with the program until 2013.

In March 2012, two employees at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), acting as private citizens, filed a lawsuit claiming the ARB overstepped its authority when it said offset credits could count for compliance with the system. State officials and independent legal experts at the conference said they were confident the state would prevail in that case.

One reason lawsuits from industry have yet to materialize may be because the state has designed a system that stands on firm legal ground, EDF’s O’Connor said: “I would hope that the reason we haven’t seen a lot of legal challenges so far is because there are a lot of options that have been taken off the table because of smart design and design that is in compliance with the law”.

(Sources include: Thomson Reuters Point Carbon)

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.

China Announces Carbon Trading Pilot Scheme

On July 17, 2011, China’s official state news agency, Xinhua, reported that the Chinese government is planning to introduce a carbon trading pilot scheme as part of the country’s measures aimed at reducing emissions from energy-intensive industries. The pilot scheme would be introduced with a view to eventually establishing a national carbon market. While no specifics were given on how and when the schemes would be implemented, Chinese officials have indicated previously that a pilot scheme would be introduced in a handful of major cities (including Guangdong, Hubei, Beijing, Shanghai, Tianjin and Chongqing) by 2013 and then expanded nationally in 2015.

Xinhua quoted Xie Zhenhua, vice-minister of China’s National Development and Reform Commission, as saying the scheme would result in more punitive electricity tariffs being imposed on energy-intensive industries in an attempt to encourage them to enhance their efficiency. The China Daily newspaper also reported comments from Xie suggesting that a new wave of carbon regulations would be introduced with the carbon trading pilot scheme. These regulations would be geared towards accelerating the development of a more standardized approach to energy efficiency and introducing tighter regulations on labeling low-carbon products. Furthermore, Xie said that the Chinese government would introduce further incentives for companies producing energy-efficient products and business models.

This move will not only provide an extra tool for China to achieve its Copenhagen commitment to reduce carbon emissions relative to economic growth by 40-45% below 2005 levels by 2020, but a Chinese carbon market could represent a major boost to the global carbon market.

Study finds that cap-and-trade more likely to trigger clean tech adoption than carbon tax

A study by Professor Yihsu Chen at the University of California Merced has found that a cap-and-trade system is more likely than a carbon tax system to trigger the adoption of clean energy technologies. The study, which was coauthored by Chung-Li Tseng of the University of New South Wales in Australia and that is published in the Energy Journal Volume 32, Number 3, 2011 (a quarterly journal of the International Association for Energy Economics) also found that the volatile pricing of a cap-and-trade system could lead to earlier adoption of clean technology by firms looking to hedge against carbon cost risks.

The study used economic models based on a framework of real options to determine the optimal timing for a coal-burning firm to introduce clean technologies using the two most commonly considered policies: (1) cap-and-trade, in which carbon emissions are capped and low-emission firms can sell excess permits to high-emission firms; and (2) carbon taxes, which employ a fixed monetary penalty for per-unit carbon emissions.

According to Professor Chen, “…cap-and-trade offers ‘carrots’ while taxes offer ‘sticks’. Cap-and-trade induces firms to explore profit opportunities, while taxes simply impose penalties to turn clean technology into a less costly option.”

For the study, researchers considered the scenario of a small firm that owns a coal-fired power plant and is obliged to supply power to its customers. They compared cap-and-trade and carbon tax models in determining when the firm would choose to add a natural gas power plant – a relatively clean energy resource – in order to meet its energy demands while maximizing its long-term profits. The study found that the cap-and-trade model triggered the adoption of clean energy technology at a lower overall carbon price than a tax policy did. Further, the study found that the volatility of non-fixed permit prices was the key difference that led the firm to add a natural gas plant earlier than it would have under a more predictable tax system. Professor Chen said that: “Based on our study, mechanisms designed to reduce cap-and-trade permit prices or suppress price volatility — which have been implemented in existing cap-and-trade programs like the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative — are likely to delay clean technology investments.”

Québec releases draft cap-and-trade regulation

On July 6, 2011, Québec’s Ministry of Sustainable Development, Environment and Parks announced the publication of a draft regulation to facilitate the implementation of its cap-and-trade system based on the Western Climate Initiative (WCI) guidelines. The regulation is now undergoing public consultation for a period of 60 days.

The regulation to be adopted following consultation will enable Québec to implement its carbon market as early as January 1, 2012. The first year will be transitional in nature, allowing emitters and market participants to familiarize themselves with how the system will work. They will be able to register as system users, take part in pilot project auctions and buy/sell greenhouse gas emission allowances through the market. This phase will also enable partners to make any required fine-tuning in order to make a smooth transition to their obligations under the cap-and-trade system that will come into force on January 1, 2013.

Industrial facilities that emit 25,000 or more tons of carbon dioxide equivalent annually will be subject to the system for capping and reducing their emissions.

The draft regulation is available here.

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 23^rd, 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.

Another Study links High GHG Emissions with Negative Impact on Company’s Value

A study by researchers at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, Georgetown University and the University of Notre Dame has found that high levels of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions can have a negative impact on a company’s value. According to the study – Voluntary Disclosures and the Firm-Value Effects of Carbon Emissions (April 2011) – a company’s value decreases on average by $202,000 for every additional thousand metric tons of emissions it produces.

Researchers used hand-collected carbon emissions data for 2006-2008 that Standard and Poor’s (S&P) 500 companies disclosed voluntarily to the Carbon Disclosure Project to examine two issues: (1) firm-level characteristics associated with the choice to disclose carbon emissions, and (2) relationship between carbon emission levels and firm value. With respect to the first issue, researchers found a higher likelihood of carbon emission disclosures by firms with superior environmental performance, conditional on firms taking environmentally proactive actions. However, researchers found no association between inferior environmental performance and the likelihood of disclosing carbon emissions, conditional on firms taking environmentally damaging actions. Furthermore, researchers found that companies are more likely to voluntarily disclose their carbon emissions as the proportion of industry peer firm disclosers increases. In connection with the second issue, the researchers found a negative association between carbon emission levels and firm value. From its sample of S&P 500 companies, the study found that a company’s value decreases on average by $202,000 for every additional thousand metric tons of GHG emissions it produces.

In the study, researchers also pointed out that according to the 2009 Goldman Sachs’ GS Sustain Report it is expected that the relationship between carbon emissions and global climate change will drive a redistribution of value from firms that do not control their carbon emissions successfully to firms that do.
The study may be accessed online

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.

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).