The United States’ resistance to ratify the Kyoto Protocol and the introduction of state and regional regulations rather than national carbon market have limited US activity in the global carbon market. However, the development of a voluntary carbon market in the US has occurred to compensate for the lack of a national, regulated carbon market. The US has been driving the global voluntary carbon market supplying the majority of voluntary carbon credits and providing the largest source of demand (Ecosystem market place, May 2009). Though the US voluntary carbon market has grown substantially to reach a transaction level of nearly 84 million tons in 2008, it accounted for only 3% of the transaction volume of EU Emissions Trading Scheme (EU ETS). In addition to the voluntary carbon market, a development of voluntary market for renewable energy as well as energy saving projects, indirectly supporting carbon emissions reduction, has taken place in the United States. While small on a global scale, these voluntary efforts have had a positive effect on carbon reduction and policy change in the United States.

(more…)

The Waxman and Markey Climate Change bill has to be finalized by 25^th of May on Memorial day 2009. The House is considering climate change legislation authored by a key subcommittee chairman, Rep. Ed Markey (D-MA). President Obama has said this is, “a rare opportunity to rise above parochial concerns to enact a bill with a profound national impact”.

The Waxman-Markey Discussion Draft provides for an economy wide cap & trade program: The cap reduces greenhouse gas emissions to 20 percent below 2005 levels by 2020, and 83 percent below 2005 levels by 2050. Offsets, (project based reductions) are limited to 2,000 million metric tons CO2 equivalent (MtCO2e) per year or 30% per cent of U.S emission reduction, split evenly between domestic and international offsets. Domestic offsets does not include Green Buildings offsets. There are provision for emissions reductions from reduced deforestation through allowance set-asides.

Waxman does not yet have support from House Republicans or moderate Democrats like Rep. John Dingell (D-MI) who are opposing the bill. Opposition concerns whether to give away or auction the permits to manufacturers, utilities, and other industrial sectors in a U.S Cap and Trade Emissions Trading scheme. The U.S is coming up against the same opposition from industry and parochial interests that the Europeans came up against, when they decided to give away the majority of permits in the early years of the European Emissions Trading scheme (EU-ETS). The U.S was originally highly critical of the Europeans for going down this path.   Al Gore has gone on the front foot calling for unity from the democrats on Climate Change against the resistance of some democrats wanting to protect local industry. Similar to the results of the EU-ETS, we found with the Carbonflow carbon game emission reductions were achieved even with giving away the permits in the first period. So, whatever the House decides on auctioning versus giving away permits that should not block the Draft bill’s passage through the house.

Some believe that Speaker Pelosi will make the House vote on a version of the Markey bill with 254 House Democrats, but important House Democrats like Mr. Dingell may make a similar case as House Republicans, that the bill should be opposed because of the higher energy costs for consumers.

The approach taken by the Waxman-Markey bill does not alleviate the problem whereby household consumers will pay higher energy costs because the regulatory approach to energy efficiency and renewable energy is insufficient. Under the bill energy efficiency and renewable energy is proposed to be achieved through regulation by establishing a renewable electricity standard, a low carbon fuel standard, and energy efficiency programs and standards for buildings, lighting, appliances and additionally further standards for vehicles, stationery sources and fuels.

According to  Donald Simon, an attorney for Wendel, Rosen, Black and Dean, BOMA International, The Real Estate Roundtable, U.S. Green Building Council and the California Business Properties Association, regulation does not achieve the result intended as, “Building codes typically affect only new construction, because existing buildings are “grandfathered” and new code requirements apply only to substantial renovations, which is  hugely problematic. Existing buildings account for the vast majority of real estate sector GHG emissions. Government incentives are helpful but inadequate and unreliable because they do not achieve sufficient market penetration and rely on limited government funding that can disappear in lean budget years”.

Simon goes on to say that, “in the world of Climate Change regulation, there are two major classifications of GHG emission sources - direct and indirect. Direct sources release GHGs directly into the air, like power plants and other smoke stack industries. Indirect sources are activities that consume what the direct sources produce, like buildings that consume electricity produced by power plants. The conventional wisdom among regulators globally is that market-based programs, like cap and trade, should be restricted to direct industrial sources, because there are fewer of them and they are already heavily regulated. This generally forecloses the possibility for green building projects to generate carbon credits, despite their cost-effectiveness. As a result, a valuable incentive for voluntary GHG reductions is lost, the low-hanging fruit of increasing energy efficiency in buildings goes unpicked, and industrial (direct) sources are required to shoulder a greater share of required GHG reductions, all of which increase the societal cost for addressing Climate Change and make it less politically feasible to accomplish”.

Not only do, Cap and Trade Green Building carbon credits provide a much larger funding source that could partially finance energy efficiency improvements if buildings are allowed to participate, they also actually benefit poorer communities by upgrading the existing building stock with energy efficient and renewable energy technologies at a much more accelerated rate as the private sector is incentivised from the price of carbon to go out and do projects on a large scale, providing whole districts and building owners with clean technologies funded by the credits. Regulatory approaches just take too long to retrofit the existing building stock and leave people stranded with high energy bills.

House moderate Democrats and Republicans correctly say ordinary people will incur higher costs of energy over-time because most people will not have had their homes and small businesses upgraded with clean technologies and they know the subsidies to poorer communities for energy costs will be short-lived and once removed all Americans will be left with higher energy costs. A householder or small business faced with a doubling of energy costs from USD 100 - USD 200 a quarter would probably just pay as there is not enough incentive to go out and retrofit the house nor do they have the trades expertise to do it.

The better outcome is that Green Building Carbon Credits are allowed and business, construction companies, project developers, engineers, architects do energy efficiency and renewable energy building projects using the funds from the credits and create the Green jobs President Obama is talking about.

In short proposed subsidies to less well off Americans waste money that should be going into making all American homes energy efficient and creating green jobs.

Policy-makers can encourage voluntary reductions by structuring carbon markets in a way that allows parties to convert their GHG reductions into carbon credits that they can sell to regulated sources to offset their emissions. Under the current plan the U.S would be in the anomolous situation of accepting international carbon offsets from energy efficiency and renewable energy but not accepting it domestically. This makes no sense. Domestio Green building offsets would allow regulated industries an alternative way to comply with regulatory obligations by letting them choose between reducing their own emissions or purchasing Green Building offsets from others who were able to reduce theirs at lower cost. This reduces the overall cost of Climate Change regulation by letting the free market exploit lowest cost GHG reductions.

Green Building carbon credits would be more transparent as they would have to be independently validated and verified, and open to public scrutiny, whereas money going to government agencies for programs may well end up being used on things other than greenhouse gas reductions projects. Even the double-counting issue can be managed as companies like Carbonflow, multi-party software designers for the carbon industry can easily retire end use building credits back to the Cap.

I believe however, if the house was not to get too hung up over auctioning or giving away permits in the first phases and secondly, to introduce Green Building Carbon Credits, it could solve all the problems that beset the Draft Waxman-Markey bill before the House on Memorial Day.

Some thoughts on domestic energy efficiency initiatives.

There has been considerable furore in the Australian papers recently as a case is being made that the  Government claims that domestic energy efficiency will not reduce Australia’s emissions - this is simply wrong. The claim is that any domestic energy efficiency outcome will immediately result in a corresponding increase in industrial or other emissions somewhere else, but still within the overall emissions cap. There is also the economic problem that domestic abatement is low in volume and high in cost, so the potential impact of an abatement sale is slight at best.

The solution to this problem in the NSW scheme is to credit the lifetime emission abatement for the project on the day that it is commissioned. This results in administrative efficiency, but means that the credits are non-fungible with any other scheme where abatement has to have occurred before any credits are issued for that abatement. I do not see this as an acceptable solution if one end result of the process is a freely functioning and liquid credit market.

There is a second (and there are possibly more) options. We have already presented that, in order to avoid double counting, an energy efficiency credit results in the cancellation of an emission permit, thus ensuring that the cap is unchanged. This, however, is the same result as is intended  in the Australian ETS - action to increase domestic energy efficiency does not reduce emissions below the planned cap. However, consider what would happen if each domestic energy efficiency credit was also rewarded with an additional one or more emission permits which were immediately bought back by the State and canceled. A domestic project would be approved and result in a verified abatement of (say) 10 tCO2-e. The project owner would receive:

1.       Abatement credit certificates to the value of 10 tCO2-e, balanced by cancellation of 10 emission permits.

2.       10 (or 20, or 30 …) emission permits which would be immediately purchased back by the State at the going rate and immediately cancelled.

The net effect is that the project owner receives 10 abatement credits to trade, cash to the value of the 10 (or more) emission permits cancelled and the ongoing benefit of reduced energy costs. From the perspective of the State, this is revenue foregone rather than new expenditure, as the cost for the energy efficiency permit cancellation program would be recovered from the normal auction process for abatement permits. The integrity of the scheme would be protected as the only tradeable credits would in fact be offset by a real reduction of that amount.

Of course, there would be some concern that this type of leveraged program would increase costs to industry by reducing the supply of permits too quickly. I would suggest that:

1.       The supply of domestic energy efficiency credits is unlikely to be excessive, as these projects are notoriously difficult to get going, in any case.

2.       The number of credits available for conversion using this process could be set as part of the program design, and managed using the project approval process.

3.       Different levels of leverage could be used to improve the uptake of different types of energy efficiency program - more leverage for more difficult implementations with a lower actual outcome, such as changes at the household level.

The San Francisco Carbon Collaborative was coordinate by David Pascal, Clean Technology and Green Business advocate for the City of San Francisco. The meeting was hosted by law firm Morrison and Forester on the 18th and 19th of February 2009. David Pascal thanked everyone who participated for “their enthusiasm and willingness to explore the possibility of anchoring the US environmental markets here in San Francisco”.

David has said that the City of San Francisco has a number of advantages including, “our legacy as a financial and IT centre, our position as an environmental leader, and our economic linkages with China and the rest of the Pacific Rim”. This is a case of think global and act local. San Francisco can host the carbon market players throughout the whole chain of carbon credit creation to trade credits within California, the United States and the rest of the world. Others are thinking along these lines too like Bill Joy, partner at KP who is advocating that the skills of Silicon Valley be put at the disposal of Carbon Valley. Bill Joy was Chief Scientist of Sun Microsystems.

Over 60 companies attended the afternoon and following morning including global carbon credit auditor - DNV, global carbon brokers - CantorCO2e, Evolution Markets, global carbon project developers - EcoSecurities, First Climate, California green building companies - Studley, California Green attorneys - Morrison and Foerster, Binghams, Gordon and Rees, U.S and California policy makers and registries - Center for Resource Solutions, UC Berkeley, CARB, Climate Registry, software providers - APX, Carbonflow, U.S. Carbon and Clean Tech investors Clean Pacific, Jane Capital, Vantage Point and Tech companies like Fluid Trade, Media - San Francisco Business Times, Climatebiz and Sustainable Industries. Additionally, local businessman Barry Hoffner of HFS is interested to set up a San Francisco Carbon Exchange.

This was the first meeting of the Carbon Collaborative with future meetings planned in March. David noted that, “The impact of the policy position of the U.S government and the California response to that took up much discussion” Furthermore he said that San Francisco must also develop a Consensus Opinion on AB32 the California Emissions Trading Scheme.

The most important discussion agenda item is the San Francisco City policy position and how it fits into the national U.S Cap and Trade, AB32 and finally to be truly global the international revised Kyoto Protocol to be undertaken in Copenhagen December 2009. The policy position will make or break the notion of San Francisco as an anchor for the carbon markets. This is the nexus between policy and innovation - it is just this juncture, which either leads to green business activity or not.  If for example a carbon tax was to be put forward it would not lead to the same outcome. A tax on carbon polluting industries does not lead to much change in behaviour - it is inelastic. Double your cost of electricity or petrol prices for your car - and you still do not go out and buy photovoltaic cells for your house or a new Toyota Prius, do you? You just pay the tax! Also a carbon tax is not in line with global positions on ways to combat Climate Change. See this blog on the Carbonflow Carbon Game, which showed that as long as you auction the carbon permits,(not grandfather them, meaning give away the permits, the criticism of the European Emissions Trading scheme),  Emissions Trading will lead to a move away from coal fired power stations.  Interestingly, the Bay Area emitters like PG & E did not attend. David indicated that, based on discussions with those parties prior to our meetings, they expressed interest, but appear to be taking a “wait and see” approach to our initial moves. Once a clearer picture of our coordinated activities begins to emerge, San Francisco city will re-approach them with more specific opportunities for engagement.

Also for future meetings, there was mention of reaching out to key SF-based organizations that represent carbon interests in China and India which were also not present. It appears, these organizations may be looking to the US to solidify their standards and practices before they would participate in any new, SF-based market initiative. The U.S position on the post Kyoto framework will have a great impact on Indian and Chinese policy. Will they accept a cap on their emissions or a sliding cap perhaps - a bit less than the industrialized world?

The City of San Francisco has secured a place to meet regularly and continue formulating policy responses and projects that the city can undertake.

• Policy and markets - 3/19 @ 8:30am
• Communications - 3/18 @ 8:30am
• On-going collaboration - 3/26 @ 5pm
• Capacity building - 3/25 @ 5pm
• Energy Efficiency - 3 / 30 @ 2pm

The working group on Energy Efficiency and Agricultural Offsets in the U.S Cap and Trade has been included at my request in order to maximize green business activity, create more green jobs, greater transparency and auditability. According to a study, Defining, Estimating and Forecasting the Renewable and Energy Efficiency Industries in the U.S and Colorado by The American Solar Energy Society, Boulder, Colorado, and published on Climatebiz it found that with appropriate federal and state government policies, Renewable Energy (RE) and Energy Efficiency (EE) could by 2030 generate over 37 million jobs per year in the U.S. The study goes onto report that the stronger the policy settings the stronger the job creation potential from RE and EE”. The inclusion of Rnewable Energy (RE) and Energy Efficiency (EE) in the U.S Cap and Trade will unleash the private sector to create the green businesses of the future around transport, energy efficiency and agriculture.

The consequence of good policy will be all the myriad of activities people want to see including a diverse range of companies prospering in a Carbon Valley hub of entrepreneurs, investors, policy people, educationalist and technology companies, which would support a  Carbon Valley Carbon Exchange.

To assist this process a web portal communication center or clearing house will be established by the City of San Francisco with education material focusing on carbon capacity building and communications. The Web portal clearing house would include the following content: Early Carbon Action / Showcase projects / Best practices / ANSI standards /Carbon policy / FAQ’s / Sharing of baseline data  / Summit - case studies (national and international), conferences / Website - city sponsored, blog, education, events, SF version of Open Carbon World / Cluster Building - incubators, think tanks, networking events/ Calendar of local events, local emission reduction projects / Use BC3 as network platform / Capital introductions.

Renewable Energy seems to be one of the big winners in the U.S. Stimulus package. The American Recovery & Reinvestment Act of 2009, an economic stimulus package with tax and spending provisions totaling nearly $800 billion, was signed into law on February 17. The act contains a number of tax provisions that provide significant value to companies and individuals that are focused on producing renewable energy or reducing energy use through efficiency. By extending, modifying and enhancing several renewable energy and energy efficiency incentives, the stimulus package creates many opportunities for taxpayers to get paid for going green according to an article in Greener Buildings.

In Washington, The U.S. Interior Department said it has created a special task force to speed the development of renewable energy projects on federal lands. “More so than ever, with job losses continuing to mount, we need to steer the country onto a new energy path,” said Interior Secretary Ken Salazar.

The government is on the right path from the point of view of creating employment. According to a study, Defining, Estimating and Forecasting the Renewable and Energy Efficiency Industries in the U.S and Colorado by The American Solar Energy Society, Boulder, Colorado, and published on Climatebiz it found that,

“U.S. RE and EE in 2007, generated $1,045 billion in sales and created over 9 million jobs – including $10.3 billion in sales and over 91,000 jobs in Colorado. The U.S. RE and EE revenues represent substantially more than the combined 2007 sales of the three largest U.S. corporations - WalMart, ExxonMobil, and GM ($905 billion) before the melt-down. RE and EE are growing faster than the U.S. average and contain some of the most rapidly growing industries in the world, such as wind, photo-voltaics, fuel cells, recycling/re-manufacturing, and bio-fuels. The study further noted the importance of policy settings to the industry and said that, with appropriate federal and state government policies, RE and EE could by 2030 generate over 37 million jobs per year in the U.S. – including over 600,000 jobs in Colorado. The study goes onto report that the stronger the policy settings the stronger the job creation potential from RE and EE”.

Mr Salazar has said that, “We will assign a high priority to identifying renewable energy zones and completing the permitting and appropriate environmental review of transmission rights-of-way applications that are necessary to deliver renewable energy generation to consumers. We have to connect the sun of the deserts and the wind of the plains with the places where people live.” Furthermore, “the task force will identify specific zones on public lands where the department can act rapidly to create large-scale production of solar, wind, geothermal and biomass energy”.

I have a concern about this approach, which is that although creating large-scale renewable energy projects on government land, maybe more administratively easier, it may lead to local opposition to fields of solar collectors and wind farms. I think the application of this policy should be integrated into communities in a more subtle way.

I have suggested that rather than create renewable energy parks, the better concept is take an integrated approach and create entirely sustainable communities, which I described on this blog - “Convert the suburbs to Sustainable Communities and Bank the Credits”  - In this post I was also suggesting that energy efficiency, sustainable water and waste management be included in the mix of energy solutions such that whole communities could become entirely sustainable. Put another way it involves a move away from the monoculture approach to development and requires the adoption of strategies that mimic nature, based on bio-diversity.

On another blog on Multiple Crises, which concerns sustainable agriculture, I have drawn on the work of Dr Lietaer who takes up the notion of bio-diversity for the banking system. I am applying it to renewable energy systems and I believe that that the more diverse the renewable energy systems are the more resilient the community will be.

The conceptual breakthrough, which applies to all systems whether they be energy, financial or agricultural systems identified by Bernard Lietaer and his colleagues, “takes its evidence from balanced, structurally sound, and highly functioning eco-systems is that that all complex systems, including our energy, monetary and financial ones, become structurally unstable whenever efficiency is overemphasized at the expense of diversity, inter-connectivity and the crucial resilience they provide. The surprising systemic ‘a-ha’ insight is that sustainable vitality involves diversifying systems”.

The interior department is in a good position to do this as it manages one-fifth of the U.S. landmass and over 1.7 billion offshore acres. It needs to create diversity at the core of the sustainable communities it wishes to create and not make the same mistakes with the new renewable energy solutions that we made with the old ones.