greenhouse gas emissions – Page 2

C40 and World Bank Sign Agreement to Form Climate Change Action Partnership

On June 1, 2011, the C40 Cities Climate Leadership Group (C40) and the World Bank signed an agreement that will help cities accelerate activities to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and adapt to climate change. The C40 is an organization of large and engaged cities from around the world committed to implementing meaningful and sustainable climate-related actions locally that will help address climate change globally. C40 cities account for 8 percent of the global population, 12 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions and 21 percent of global GDP. In 2006, the C40 partnered with the Clinton Climate Initiative to tackle climate change in cities.

The agreement was signed by C40 Chair New York City Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg and World Bank Group President Robert B. Zoellick during the C40 Cities Mayors Summit in Sao Paulo, Brazil. Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg said: “This unique partnership with the World Bank will help solve many of the problems that cities face in obtaining financing for climate-related projects, both from the World Bank and other lenders. It will also make it easier for C40 cities to access the resources of the World Bank.” World Bank Group President Robert B. Zoellick said: “This agreement will help us work with C40 cities to integrate growth planning with climate change adaptation and mitigation, with special attention to the vulnerabilities of the urban poor.”

The key objective of this new partnership is to enable megacities to expand mitigation and adaptation actions while at the same time, strengthen and protect economies, reduce poverty and protect vulnerable populations. In particular, it will address structural issues that make it difficult for cities to finance climate actions that have been identified by both C40 and the World Bank Group.

Under the agreement, the C40 and the World Bank will establish:

• A consistent approach to climate action plans and strategies in large cities to enable stronger partnerships between cities on shared climate goals, and to permit potential investors to identify opportunities across cities. The lack of a standard approach or process – such as exists for national government action plans – has made it difficult for investors and grantors to assess city action plans and thus has made them reluctant to fund projects.

• A common approach to measuring and reporting on city greenhouse gas emissions to allow verifiable and consistent monitoring of emissions reductions, identify actions that result in the greatest emission reductions, and facilitate access to carbon finance. This is necessary because carbon finance requires quantitative assessments of impacts, but currently no single standard for reporting citywide carbon emissions exists; the Carbon Disclosure Project’s Measurement for Management report identified several different protocols in use by C40 cities, with no single protocol used by a majority.

In addition, the World Bank will establish a single, dedicated entry point for C40 cities to access World Bank climate change-related capacity building and technical assistance programs, and climate finance initiatives by December 1, 2011. Furthermore, the C40 will identify and work with national governments who are interested in funding climate change projects and identify private sector partners to provide project financing in C40 cities. In turn, the World Bank will identify opportunities from among sources of concessional finance, carbon finance, and innovative market and risk management instruments as well as the private sector through the International Finance Corporation. These may be accessed by project developers supporting climate action in cities.

For more information on this partnership and other C40 initiatives, please refer to the C40 web site

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

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. 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.

Manitoba begins Consultation on Proposed GHG Legislation

The Manitoba government has launched a public consultation period to gather input on proposed cap-and-trade laws aimed at reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The consultation is part of Manitoba’s commitment, announced in December 2009, to move forward on enabling legislation to create a cap-and-trade system.

In June 2007, Manitoba joined the Western Climate Initiative (WCI). It is expected that Manitoba’s system would integrate with the WCI, meaning that Manitoba will be able to participate in the WCI trading system with BC, Ontario, Québec, California as well as other several U.S. states. The WCI’s goal is to reduce GHG emissions in the region by 15% below 2005 levels by 2020.

In 2008, Manitboa’s GHG emissions was 21.9 megatonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) or approximately 3% of Canada’s total GHG emissions. Manitoba’s GHG emissions profile is unique among Canadian jurisdictions. Unlike other Canadian provinces whose GHG emissions come from a small number of large emitters, the majority of Manitoba’s GHG emissions come from many smaller emitters across a wide range of sectors.

Manitoba’s proposed cap-and-trade program would affect approximately 18 emitters that release more than 25,000 kilotonnes each of GHGs per year. Another group of about 36 emitters that each release 10,000 kilotonnes of CO2e per year or more (but less than 25,000 kiltonnes) would only be required to report their emissions.

According to data from Environment Canada, in 2008 the Koch Fertilizer plant in Brandon was the largest emitter in Manitoba, followed by Manitoba Hydro, Winnipeg’s Brady Road Landfill, TransCanada Pipelines and HudBay Minerals.

Comments on the proposed cap-and-trade program can be made online through the Manitoba Conservation Department website until March 15, 2011.

BC’s Clean Energy Act Passed into Law

BC’s Clean Energy Act (the Act) received royal assent on June 3, 2010

BC’s Clean Energy Act (the Act) received royal assent on June 3, 2010. As previously reported in our Green News, the Act provides a foundation for the province to meet its stated goals of electricity self-sufficiency by 2016, job creation and reduced greenhouse gas emissions. The details of the various initiatives, including a feed-in tariff program, under the Act will be developed through regulations and it is anticipated that these regulations could be ready by as early as fall 2010.

U.S. EPA Issues Final Rule for GHG Emissions from Large Emitters

On May 13, 2010, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued a final rule for addressing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from stationary sources under permitting programs of the Clean Air Act (CAA). This rule follows the EPA finding in late 2009 that GHG emissions endanger human health, which allows the EPA to regulate GHGs under the CAA. The final rule sets thresholds for GHG emissions that define when permits under the New Source Review Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) and title V Operating Permit programs are required for new and existing industrial facilities. In particular, regulated facilities would be required to obtain permits showing they are using the best available technology to cut emissions when building new plants or modifying existing ones. The final rule is also referred to as the “tailoring rule” because it tailors the requirements of CAA permitting programs to limit which facilities will be required to obtain PSD and title V Operating Permits.

Starting in January 2011, facilities responsible for almost 70% of U.S. GHG emissions from stationary sources will be subject to permitting requirements. These facilities will include power plants, refineries, factories and cement production facilities that emit 75,000 metric tonnes or more of carbon dioxide equivalent, but will exclude small emitters such as farms, restaurants, hospitals and schools. Without the tailoring, small emitters would also be caught by the rule.

Waste landfills and factories that are not already covered by the CAA that emit at least 100,000 metric tonnes of GHGs per year would get a 6 month extension and would not be regulated until July 2011. Sources that pollute less than 50,000 metric tonnes per year would not be regulated until 2016, if ever, according to the EPA.

The final rule is aimed at giving momentum to the climate bill that was introduced by Senators John Kerry and Joseph Lieberman on May 12, 2010. A number of industry lawsuits have been launched which call into question the EPA’s authority to regulate GHG emissions, however it is President Obama’s hope that the final rule will push lawmakers in states heavily dependent on fossil fuels to support the Kerry-Lieberman bill. As currently drafted, the Kerry-Lieberman bill pre-empts automatic EPA regulations; in the event the Kerry-Lieberman bill is not passed by the Senate, the final rule sets up future regulations for large emitters.

For more information, please refer to the Fact Sheet (Final Rule: Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Title V Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule) issued by the EPA: link

B.C. and Federal Government take first step towards an Equivalency Agreement on Climate Change

On April 6, 2010, the federal Environment Minister, Jim Prentice, and B.C.’s Minister of State for Climate Change, John Yap, signed an Agreement in Principle on efforts to address climate change. This is the first step towards establishing a formal Equivalency Agreement under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 (CEPA 1999).

Section 10 of CEPA 1999 provides for Equivalency Agreements where provincial or territorial environmental legislation has provisions that are equivalent to provisions in CEPA 1999. The purpose of an Equivalency Agreement is to eliminate the duplication of environmental regulations. Equivalency is based on the following criteria: (i) equivalent regulatory standards; and (ii) similar provisions for citizens to request investigations. This will mean that B.C.-based businesses will not have to deal with competing regulatory requirements, such as for greenhouse gas emissions reporting, when it comes to climate change regulation.

Throughout 2009, the federal government consulted with the provinces and territories on Canada’s climate change strategy. According to Minister Yap: “We are building a strong template for acting on climate change here in B.C. and it is great to have the ongoing support of the federal government as we move forward. Climate change is the challenge of our generation and we need strong partnerships like this one to devise solutions that help us meet our legislative commitments while creating new economic opportunities for British Columbians.”

For more information, please refer to Environment Canada’s news release: Link

BC Introduces Legislation Aimed at Zero Net Deforestation

BC’s Minister of Forests and Range introduced Bill 5, the Zero Net Deforestation Act (the Act), to enshrine the BC government’s commitment to zero net deforestation (ZND) in the province.

On March 22, 2010, BC’s Minister of Forests and Range introduced Bill 5, the Zero Net Deforestation Act (the Act), to enshrine the BC government’s commitment to zero net deforestation (ZND) in the province. In doing so, BC is one of the first jurisdictions in the world to introduce a goal of ZND into legislation. In particular, the Act meets the commitment made by the government in its 2008 throne speech to pursue the goal of ZND, which will be achieved when the area of newly created forest land in BC is equal to or greater than the area of deforestation. To that end, the Act encourages the planting of an equal area of trees to offset any forestry lands that are permanently cleared for another use. The government must achieve ZND within BC by December 31, 2015. Pat Bell, the Minister of Forests and Range, said in a statement that “British Columbia is committed to achieving zero net deforestation by 2015 to help reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Forests absorb and store carbon, which make them important allies in the fight against climate change.”

Deforestation is a major contributor to greenhouse emissions worldwide, and results in the loss of forests that absorb and store carbon and provide other ecosystem services. Approximately 6,200 hectares were deforested in BC in 2007. Approximately 2,000 hectares were afforested the same year. BC’s objective is to reduce deforestation and increase afforestation to close the gap by 2015 and beyond.

The Act defines key terms and sets out the government’s reporting requirements. In particular, the Act defines deforestation as the permanent loss of trees from an area and requires the Minister of Forests and Range to regularly report on progress towards ZND. Under the Act, regulations may be established with respect to methodologies for calculating deforestation and afforestation, as well as requirements for the timing, form and content of reports.

It should be noted that because timber harvesting in B.C. is considered to be sustainably managed, it is not considered to be deforestation. The Ministry of Forests and Range has indicated that it plans to partner with a number of other groups and agencies to help encourage projects that will mitigate deforestation. Also, the Province will engage in consultations over the next few months with stakeholders, communities and First Nations for their ideas on best approaches to implement the ZND policy.

GHG Reporting

With the implementation of new reporting legislation and pending regulations in several jurisdictions, it is important to determine and understand your reporting obligations. This will enable you to comply with regulatory requirements and any specified reporting standards. The starting point is accounting for your actual greenhouse gas emissions, i.e. determining their source and the amount from each source, and calculating your total emissions based on accepted protocols.

Through the use of recognized international greenhouse gas accounting standards and our diverse team expertise, GHG Accounting Services can help you clarify your reporting obligations and work with you to fulfill these reporting obligations in an efficient and cost effective manner.

In addition to tracking, calculating, and reporting greenhouse gas emission using the requisite factors and protocols, GHG Accounting Services’ comprehensive approach will also allow you to effectively translate data into emission reduction plans and tangible energy savings, leading to overall improved business performance and cost reductions.