ghgblog

Emerging national positions leading into Copenhagen

Karla Bell — Mon, 12 Oct 2009 04:10:10 +0000

Recently in Go-Media. The U.S position on Climate Change is overshadowing all other discussions in the lead up to Copenhagen, even at a conference I recently attended in Melbourne Australia - the 5^th Australia-New Zealand Climate Change & Business Conference, August 24-26^th. The Australian position requires global consensus for a greenhouse gas emissions target by 25% with a successful Post 2012 Agreement in place, but only 5% if that is not concluded. It all depends on what the U.S does in Copenhagen according to their minister Penny Wong

The European Union is the only group that will continue with strong commitments independent of the U.S position with a 20% reduction of greenhouse gases on 1990 levels by 2020 and 30% if a global agreement is concluded.

Katy Cecys of the Pew Centre on Climate Change, stated that, the American Clean Energy and Security Act sets a target to reduce GHG emissions to 17% below 2005 levels by 2020, and 83% below by 2050. Offsets (project-based reductions) are limited to 2,000 million metric tons equivalent per year, or 30% of U.S. emissions reductions, split evenly between domestic and international offsets.

Ms Cecys said, “President Obama has the right to expand the international offsets flowing into the U.S. to 1.5 billion tons of offsets”. This means that due to the U.S position international offsets will continue under the Post 2012 agreement - it may not be called CDM in the new agreement.

In fact expanded offset provisions are anticipated as the U.S has also included provisions for an additional 5% set aside to import REDD credits (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation). There is also 1% set aside for adaptation and 1% set aside for Technology transfer.

Ms Cecys, raised two other issues, which will help the U.S Senate pass the Bill - the first is finding a strong advocate like Waxman in the House to drive the Bill through the Senate - the proposed champions are Senator Barbara Boxer or Senator John Kerry with a moderate republican yet to be nominated. The second point is that if the Senate fails to pass the legislation the U.S EPA can legislate as greenhouse gases have now been nominated as noxious substances, such that some fear the U.S EPA may rule even more strongly than the Senate. So there is a view the Senate will pass the Bill either before or after Copenhagen.

The Pew Centre assessment is that a fully ratified Post 2012 agreement is unlikely, rather an interim agreement with a post 2012 architecture in place including a range of developed world targets and indications of advanced developing levels of support, which will be developed in follow up meetings similar to the Marrakesh accords that followed the Kyoto Protocol.

Developing nations should take responsibility

The U.S and EU has stated all economies should take on commitments as China is set to be the largest greenhouse gas producer in the future.

The developing world response

Alex Wyatt from Climate Bridge, articulated the fundamental approach of the developing world. China and India believe that historical emissions are the way to allocate the burden of responsibility, as they did not create the problem. ” It is a human rights issue - they have the right to lift their people out of poverty,” said Wyatt. He indicated that the developed nations are asking countries to take on responsibilities for greenhouse gas reduction, in nations where 40% of the population live on less than $1.25 per day and 50% on less than $2 per day.

China is not doing nothing, it is quite proactive and recognises the problem of growing greenhouse emissions. It has adopted renewable energy targets of 20% by 2020 and of the $586 billion stimulus package to be spent in the next 2 years, $260 billion is going to the Clean Tech sector according to Wyatt.

A compromise position is one whereby, ‘emerging’ developing countries would ‘graduate’ in terms of their greenhouse gas reduction responsibility. Some least developed countries (LDCs) like Bangladesh concur. LDCs like Africa should not be treated on the same basis as the emerging nations of Brazil, Russia, India and China (BRIC nations). They should be assessed in the post-2012 period on the basis of their level of economic development; capacity to act; contribution to global GHG emissions per capita; GDP per capita; current OECD membership and mitigation potential.

Advanced developing countries measures could include national emission caps; intensity targets; energy efficiency commitments; and sectoral intensity targets. India, Saudi Arabia, and China are firmly against reclassification, rejecting the idea of differentiation based on contemporary levels of development, rather seeing differentiation based on historic responsibility.

National caps are unlikely, but the compromise could be that sector caps will be applied to the BRIC nations. If this occurred the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) would remain outside the capped sectors in the BRIC nations but remain intact in the least developed countries like Africa, Bangladesh and the Pacific. ACES provisions allow for the purchase of international offsets (CDM) from developing countries in order for the U.S to reach its targets at the least cost of abatement.

A new program called REDD (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation) will assist the advanced developing countries move into the Post 2012 Agreement as well as adaptation measures, technology transfer, and finance. A REDD mechanism means developed countries pay developing countries to reduce deforestation, as de-forestation in the tropics represents about 50% of forest-related greenhouse gas emissions. Brazil and Indonesia will be major beneficiaries of REDD credits. Brazil has also developed a large-scale hydro and bio-fuels industry such that sector caps are not taboo. It is moving towards the developed world position as a result.

The need for continued improvement in the offset market

The Conference also dealt with an evaluation of the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) and a number of speakers like Michael Wiener of Perennia and Martijn Wilder of Baker and McKenzie in Sydney recommended changes to the management of the CDM and advice for creating new mechanisms like NAMAs and REDD going forward under Copenhagen.

Martijn indicated that there had been a lot of criticism of the CDM but reminded everyone that it is the only instrument that drives private sector development and is the global carbon currency. The CDM rulebook has established the global benchmark for offset projects and has become the de-facto standard for all offset projects in the compliance and voluntary markets. The criticism is that the system is too complex with rules from the United Nations CDM Executive Board and in some cases additional host country rules as in China. Michael Wiener noted the lack of sustainability outcomes also. Complaints about the length of time the process takes from project origination to registration through validation and verification, including host country approvals were made by Mina Guli of Peony Capital, who finances CDM projects in China. “Two hundred days for a completeness check is too long - and that is just one part of the chain of getting a project through and a certified emsission reduction (CER) sold into the market’ she said. Additionally, in the first phase China dominated the CDM market with industrial gas projects such as HFC 23 and N20. On the plus side there are 1700 carbon project entrepreneurs in India.

The criticism of CDM by Wiener and Wilder can be summarised as too few countries participated; not a broad enough range of project types were represented; a backlog of projects to be assessed in the CDM pipe-line; a lack of auditors and consistency of decision-making; lack of sustainability outcomes and Post 2012 uncertainty.

Michael Wiener stated that all these criticisms are process issues that need to be solved as the Post 2012 agreement will be relying heavily on the international revised CDM and REDD offset market to reach global greenhouse gas reduction targets. As a founder of Carbonflow Corp, I think technology can assist these markets evolve and adapt, become more reliable faster and efficient, more transparent and user-friendly.

Recently published in Go Media

ABCCarbon - Australian ETS could follow U.S proposed Senate Bill

Karla Bell — Mon, 12 Oct 2009 03:47:03 +0000

A recent article by ABC Carbon on the Australian Emissions Trading Scheme. Ken Hickson of ABC Carbon did this interview and Profile of me: Karla Bell.

The driving force for “greening” the Olympic Games, Fiji-born, Australian educated Karla Bell wants to see voluntary carbon offsetting incorporated into emission trading schemes, more use of agricultural offsets, as well as green building retrofitting for energy efficiency and job creation. She’s the co-founder of Carbonflow Corp a software company based in San Francisco, the only multi-party software company in the CDM markets under the Kyoto Protocol.

The insight of this initiative was that policy drives the technology and technology can be used to reduce cost and speed up the transaction process involved in creating a carbon credit or CER (certified emission reduction) from the origination of a project, the validation, registration, verification and on-going monitoring process.

Karla is speaking at Carbon Forum Asia in Singapore in the end of October on the innovators panel, another initiative that is to include Green Building offsets into the offset market in the U.S but more generally in the offset market globally particularly in the developed world, as it already exists in CDM.

Karla had this to say to ABC Carbon on the concerns expressed in Australia about lack of Government recognition for the Voluntary Carbon Market:

“I would support the Voluntary Carbon Market being grand-fathered into an Australian Emissions Trading scheme as the U.S national draft Kerry-Boxer Bill has proposed. The Voluntary Carbon Standard follows the same architecture as the current CDM mechanism under the Kyoto protocol, the current de-facto standard for the development of the global offset market.

“Additionally, I would support, as the proposed U.S Kerry- Boxer Senate legislation does, the wide-ranging use of offsets in both the proposed international and domestic offset market. The U.S bill has a proposed 75% domestic and 25% international split, whereas the majority of offsets being considered in Australia are international offsets, most likely REDD credits.

“The method of creating offset project types is positive in that anyone from the President to an individual project developer can propose a project type by creating a methodology and have it approved. The following project types have been so far named, including Coal mine and landfill methane collection and combustion; the capture of venting, flaring and fugitive emissions from oil and natural gas.

“From Australia’s point of view, if we are to adopt any similar parts of the proposed U.S. Bill, we should definitely consider the range of agricultural offsets that are proposed, which are wide-ranging from Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use (AFOLU) activities: including Afforestation/Reforestation, Improved Forest Management, agro-forestry, reduced deforestation, altered tillage (no-till farming), changes in animal management practices, among others.

“My own particular interest in Green Building offsets is not included but under the process of nominating a project type, submitting it for approval, there would be nothing to stop a project developer taking that path under the Bill.

More words from Karla Bell from two recent articles which appeared in Sustainable Industries publication:

The real issue is the US bill does not go far enough. It needs to create an “energy-efficiency and renewable energy set aside” – or green building carbon offset program – which rises above the regulatory approaches to energy efficiency. The Waxman-Markey bill provides for an economy-wide cap-and-trade program. The cap reduces greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to 17% below 2005 levels by 2020, and 83% below by 2050. Offsets (project-based reductions) are limited to 2,000 million metric tons CO2 equivalent per year, or 30% of U.S. emission reductions, split evenly between domestic and international offsets. Domestic offsets do not include offsets from green buildings.

However, federal regulators are closely watching California, which is holding public hearings about AB32 implementation. Members of the San Francisco Carbon Collaborative, including Carbonflow, have made significant progress with the regulators on getting an “energy efficiency set aside” into the discussion for possible inclusion in AB 32. This is an important first step, as California is known as a global leader in energy related legislation.

Simultaneously, at the recent CarbonExpo in Barcelona, many expressed interest in a Global International Protocol on Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy set asides. Under the Waxman-Markey bill, energy efficiency would be achieved through a renewable electricity standard, a low-carbon fuel standard, and energy efficiency programs and standards for buildings, lighting, appliances, as well as vehicles and stationery sources and fuels.

These are all good initiatives. But according to Anne-Marie Warris, author of the Voluntary Carbon Standard, “the problem is that it relies on energy efficiency measures to be applied as the natural turnover of building stock takes place,which is estimated to take anything from 500 to a 1,000 years….which is time we simply do not have to prevent climate change,” Warris says.

Indirect sources of emissions

The Waxman-Markey bill relies on capping direct sources of emissions such as power plants and other smokestack industries. The bill’s definition of domestic offsets includes agriculture, landfill, waste-to-energy projects and biomass. But, it does not include green building offsets. The conventional wisdom is that cap-and trade should be restricted to direct industrial sources, because there are fewer of them and they are already heavily regulated. The bill follows the reliance on reductions from direct sources and forecloses on the possibility to achieve reductions from indirect sources, such as buildings that consume electricity 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 sources are required to shoulder a greater share of required GHG reductions, all of which increase the societal cost for addressing climate change and makes it less politically feasible to accomplish,” says Donald Simon, an attorney for Wendel, Rosen, Black and Dean.

Huge potential with existing buildings

Existing regulation leading to emissions reductions through “green” construction techniques usually comes in the form of building codes that reach only new construction and substantial renovations. Yet the majority of GHG in the built environment come from existing buildings. Current government incentives “are helpful but inadequate because they do not achieve sufficient market penetration and rely on limited government funding that can disappear in lean budget years,” Simon says. Domestic green building offsets would allow regulated industries to choose between reducing their own emissions or purchasing offsets from others who are able to reduce theirs at lower cost.

This would reduce the overall cost of climate change regulation for consumers because the market would exploit the lowest cost GHG reductions. Green building carbon credits would provide a large funding source that partially finances energy efficiency improvements. Poorer communities would benefit, as credits would fund energy efficient and renewable energy upgrades to existing building stock at a more accelerated rate than building codes currently create.

Making energy upgrades affordable

Moderate House Democrats and Republicans say that under a cap-and-trade program, ordinary people would incur higher energy costs over time because most have not upgraded their homes and small businesses with energy-efficient technologies.

However, by allowing green building offsets into the federal cap-and-trade system, subsidies to poorer communities for increased energy costs would not be necessary. Their buildings would be retrofitted by the private sector using the dollars from green building offsets. Ultimately, these people would consume up to 50 percent less energy, with no net energy cost increase. Green building offsets would allow construction companies, project developers, engineers and architects to initiate energy efficiency and renewable energy building projects. And, revenue from the sale of the credits would fund projects and create new “green” jobs. Without this small inclusion to the Waxman-Markey bill, the Democrats may miss a chance to pass sweeping climate change legislation in 2009.

Creating more green-collar jobs

Two complementary recent reports prepared by the Political Economy Research Institute at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst (PERI), Center for American Progress (CAP), Green For All, and the Natural Resources Defence Council (NRDC) outline how investment in a clean-energy economy will produce significant economic and job creation benefits. These include the generation of roughly three times more jobs than would be generated by the same investment in the existing fossil fuel infrastructure.

NRDC reports the American Clean Energy and Security bill will create 1.7 million jobs throughout America, 614,000 of which will be available to people without college degrees or extensive work experience. This will lead to a tripling of gross domestic product by 2050 and even opponents of the bill predicted a doubling of GDP by 2050.

“Clean-energy jobs are more labor intensive and require more domestically made material than the fossil-fuel industry,” says Frances Beinecke, President of NRDC. “In fact, for every $1 million spent on clean energy, we can create 3-4 times as many jobs as the same money spent on fossil fuels,” she claims.

A few states have been singled out in these reports: Almost 70,000 jobs could be created in Ohio for wind turbine manufacturing, solar panel installation and building retrofitting. In Missouri, 25 moderate-scale wind farms would result in 550 permanent construction jobs and $75 million in ongoing economic impact and in Missouri locally grown biomass would create 11,000 jobs.

These jobs are just the tip of the iceberg in terms of the green jobs potential of ACES, which is expected to kick-start the U.S. economy and drive the world economy. Follow up work on a state-by-state basis should occur concerning the green-collar job opportunities across the 50 states.

State-by-state forecast

New York, California and Texas are likely to continue to be hubs for carbon technology jobs, as the states are rich in venture capital funding, high-tech workers and smart-grid, initiatives. However California and Texas can develop manufacturing and installation jobs with solar wind, wave and tidal plants. In Texas, old oil rigs could be converted to wave or tidal power.

Manufacturing jobs can re-energize existing industrial towns. Installation jobs will follow solar, wind and wave power resources. Solar, wind and wave mapping is a new science, which will help dictate where solar, wind and wave farms or bio-fuels plants will be located.

Other states could offer opportunity. Coal states, such as Tennessee, Kentucky, West Virginia, Virginia, Southern Ohio and Southern Indiana, could innovate in carbon capture (clean coal).

Energy-efficiency projects across the United States will create jobs and are potentially more attractive to conventional coal states where energy has historically been inexpensive and standards lower than the west or east coast.

If passed by the Senate before the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen in December 2009, the Waxman-Markey bill could pressure other resource-rich nations to conclude their climate legislation before Copenhagen.

Source: www.carbonflow.com and www.sustainableindustries.com

Add comments

The US Voluntary Carbon Market

Nelli Theyel — Wed, 09 Sep 2009 01:09:17 +0000

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.

The voluntary carbon market is playing an important role in the development and capacity building of low-carbon projects (Sjardin, New Carbon Finance, 2009). In 2008, the global voluntary carbon market doubled in transaction volume accounting for 123 million tons (Mt) of carbon credits and a value of US$705 million. A voluntary but legally binding market for greenhouse gas credits managed by the Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX) tripled in volume to 69 Mt overtaking the voluntary over-the-counter (OTC) market that grew by 26% to 54 Mt. The US voluntary carbon market transactions represented almost 70% or 84 Mt of the global voluntary carbon market including the total transaction volume of the CCX as well as 28% of the OTC market. Being a leading country to supply voluntary carbon credits, the US also led on the demand side of voluntary carbon credits accounting for 40% of the total market. (Ecosystem market place, May 2009) Asia supplied 45% of all carbon credits bought on the OTC market in 2008, while the EU and Eastern Europe voluntary carbon credit supply reduced sharply from 13% in 2007 to 1% in 2008.

Despite of the rapid growth of the US voluntary carbon market, its market size remains small relative to the transaction volume as well as value of the global regulated carbon market. According to the “State and Trends of the Carbon Market 2009” report published by the World Bank, the trading of the EU Emissions Trading Scheme (EU ETS) totaled 3,093 Mt in 2008 having grown 50% from 2007 and was valued at US$ 91.9 billion in 2008. The US voluntary market represented only 3% of the EU ETS transaction volume and half of a percent of the EU ETS market value in 2008.

In the US, there is only one regulated, regional initiative that has started executing a cap-and-trade program - the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI). Given its small size of the RGGI at less than 10% of the EU ETS market, the US will continue to play a minor role in the regulated carbon market for some time. (Cleantech, July 10, 2009) Even if the US Senate passes the Waxman-Markey legislation in 2009, the reduction targets would reach only approximately 3200 Mt of CO2 emissions by 2030, and US industries would not be obligated to cut emissions prior to 2012 (3% by 2012), with significant reduction targets being imposed after 2020 (20% by 2020, 42% by 2030, and 83% by 2050) (ASEC, 2009).

According to the National Renewable Energy Laboratory’s (NREL) “Green Power Marketing Report“, renewable portfolio standards have encouraged utilities to procure about 16 billion kWh (TWh) of new renewable energy generation (Barbose, 2008) compared to about 18.1 TWh sold into the voluntary green power market in 2007. The US voluntary market for green power has exceeded the compliance market since 2004 because of companies’ and individual consumers’ willingness to pay a premium for green power products. Industrial and commercial customers tend to drive voluntary market volume because they are capable of buying a large amount of power. In 2007, non-residential customers represented three-quarters of voluntary market sales with similar expectations for the future.

The NREL report divides the voluntary green power market into three segments: Utility Green Pricing Programs (UGPPs), Competitive Markets (CMs) and Renewable Energy Certificates (RECs). The UGPPs offer customers the opportunity to purchase green power for a certain percentage of their electricity use at a premium price. In 2007 UGPPs accounted for 24% of the green power voluntary market with the 2007 purchases dominated by a relatively small number of utilities such as Austin Energy, Portland General Electric and PacifiCorp.(NREL, 2009). The CMs were created by the states that introduced retail service competition allowing electricity consumers to purchase competitively marketed green power. Initially, buying green power entailed switching electricity service from the incumbent utility to a green power supplier. However, because customers were hesitant to switch electricity supplier, a number of states mandated the incumbents to offer green power options. In addition, several utility suppliers have voluntarily teamed with a single green power marketer to offer a green power option to their customers. CMs grew substantially in 2007 representing 18% of the green power voluntary market.

RECs comprise the fastest growing and largest segment of the voluntary green power market increasing by nearly 50% from 2006 to 2007 and representing 60% of the voluntary industry sales in 2007. RECs, also known as “green tags” or tradable renewable certificates, represent the “green” attributes of renewable energy generation and are sold separately from commodity electricity. RECs appeal to customers because they may be supplied from a variety of renewable energy projects being installed throughout the US and sold to customers anywhere in the country. More than 25 companies offer REC products to retail customers including 3 Phases Renewables, 3Degrees, MMA Renewable Ventures and Bonneville Environmental Foundation (EREE, May 2009).

The REC purchasers seek certification to avoid “double counting” which would mean one kWh is counted for more than one purpose. The Center for Resource Solutions (CRS), which manages the Green-e Energy certification program, started to require that all certified products be supplied exclusively from new renewable energy projects in January 2007. Green-e Energy has become widely popular in the USA among REC retailers. The total sales of Green-e Energy certified renewable energy reached nearly 15.7 TWh in 2007, an increase of nearly 60% from 2006. (NREL, 2008)

In addition to the Green-e Energy certification program, the CRS introduced Green-e Climate in 2007. Green-e Climate is a program which sets consumer-protection and environmental-integrity standards for carbon offsets sold to consumers on the retail market. However, the voluntary market players have been slow to embrace Green-e Climate program in contrast to the strong popularity of the Green-e Energy certification program. According to the Green-e Governance Board Meeting from November 2008, within the first year of the program existence, only 10 companies started to participate in the Green-e Climate program, with another 10 waiting to be considered for eligibility.

The Environmental Resources Trust certification program called EcoPower also verifies new renewable projects (Winrock International, 2009). The lack of current, publically available EcoPower information may indicate that this program has been discontinued. In addition to EcoPower, Winrock International also manages the GHG Registry, which was launched by the Environmental Defense Fund in 1996. Currently known as the American Carbon Registry (ACR), the registry has issued over 30 million project-based carbon offsets generated from projects including forestry, fuel switching, land-use change, agriculture and landfill methane, and geologic sequestration. The ACR electronic registry system registers and records the purchase, sale and retirement of project-based offsets and provides carbon technical services.

In addition to RECs, the US has been adopting Energy Savings Certificates (ESCs) for the past several years. One ESC represents a measured and verified unit of energy savings (e.g. 1 MWh). NREL’s “Green Power Marketing Report” states that ESCs have the potential to bring the same market-based flexibility to energy efficiency that RECs have brought to renewable energy. ESCs may pose competition for the voluntary REC market if they are traded for a lower price. The development of ESCs has been driven by legislation in several states including Connecticut, Nevada, Pennsylvania and New Jersey. These states allow third parties, such as commercial and industrial customers, to generate ESCs and sell them to utilities that are seeking to comply with energy efficiency targets. In 2005, Connecticut created an ESC compliance market requiring electric utilities to supply 1% of their electricity from energy efficiency and Combined Heat and Power sources by January 1, 2007 and 4 % by January 1, 2010 (Center for Resource Solutions, May 2007).

The strong year-to-year growth of the US voluntary carbon and green power markets indicate market potential as well as its growing role in the project development and capacity building of low-carbon projects. It is very likely that the US voluntary carbon market will continue to grow at the similar growth rates in the future but still add up to a small percentage of the global carbon market due to the already existing large volume of the compliance carbon market that is also likely to grow at a high rate. The US needs to introduce not only a national carbon regulation but also more rigorous targets with shorter implementation deadlines in order to become a more significant participant in the global carbon community and reduce carbon output at a level more commensurate with its carbon emissions.

The State of the US Carbon Market

Nelli Theyel — Sat, 22 Aug 2009 00:56:09 +0000

The carbon market in the United States has developed slowly due to government opposition to regulating greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and resistance to endorse the Kyoto Protocol. As a result, the US emitted 17 percent more CO2 emissions in 2008 compared to 1990, according to the German Renewable Energy Industry Institute (IWR). In contrast, a carbon market has flourished in Europe leading to Germany reducing its CO2 emissions by 17 percent and the United Kingdom achieving a 6 percent reduction over the same time period. However, the lack of federal regulations for reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in the US has stimulated the development state-based and regional carbon markets as well as voluntary carbon markets.

Many US states have introduced indirect GHG emissions regulations, including renewable portfolio standards (RPS), financial incentives for the installation of renewable energy, energy efficiency standards, building energy codes, and other government mechanisms to accelerate the development of renewable energy and the reduction of energy consumption. However, only one regional effort has started executing a cap-and-trade program while one state and two other regional initiatives have introduced policies to develop a cap-and-trade program in the future.

California was the first state in the US to introduce direct regulations for GHG emissions reductions. In 2002, the Pavley Bill required the California Air Resource Board (CARB) to limit the amount of GHG, especially CO2, emitted in auto exhaust. While CARB did introduce the regulations called Assembly Bill (AB 1493) in 2004, the opposition by the automotive industry and the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) resulted in legal proceedings which prevented the implementation of the California legislation. Florida is the second state that introduced GHG regulations. In June 2008, the state enacted the Florida Climate Protection Act, which authorizes the Department of Environmental Protection to develop an electric-utility cap-and-trade program. Pending legislative approval of the final plan, the cap-and-trade program may begin operation as soon as January 1, 2010. (PEW, July 2009)

The first direct regional mandatory and market-based carbon cap and trade policy in the US, the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI), was introduced in December 2005 by the governors of seven Northeastern and Mid-Atlantic states: Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York and Vermont. Since then, three other states - Massachusetts, Rhode Island and Maryland - have joined the initiative which mandates capping the regional power sector’s CO2 emissions from 2009 through 2014 at the annual level of 188 million tons of CO2 and reducing it by 2.5% per year (total 10%) during the 2015-2018 period. The RGGI apportions CO2 allowances among signatory states based on historical emissions and allows signatory states to allocate 75% of their allowances as they choose and attribute the rest to consumer benefit programs. The signatory states are not likely to allocate the allowances to electric generators for free, but instead sell them in a regional auction recognizing that generators are likely to pass the cost of allowances onto consumers, whether the allowances are received for free or purchased. The allowance auctions, where electric power generators buy, sell and trade CO2 emissions allowances, are scheduled to take place on a quarterly basis, with the next auction scheduled for September 9, 2009. More than 110 million allowances have been auctioned raising a total of $366.5 million since the first RGGI auction in September of 2008. During the fourth auction in June 2009 the clearing price of CO2 allowances amounted to $3.32 per allowance for the 2009 - 2011 control period and $2.06 per CO2 ton of allowances for the 2012 - 2014 control period. These prices are much lower in comparison to the August 2009 EU Emission allowances spot prices of around EUR 14.4 or US$20.6 per CO2 ton (European Energy Exchange, 2009).

In February 2007, another regional initiative, the Western Climate Initiative (WCI), was introduced to design a market-based approach for reducing GHG emissions involving California, Arizona, New Mexico, Oregon and Washington. Since 2007, Montana and Utah, together with the Canadian provinces of British Columbia, Manitoba, Ontario and Quebec, have joined the initiative. The cornerstone of the WCI strategy is a regional cap-and-trade program to be fully implemented in 2015 covering almost 90 percent of the GHG emissions in WCI states and provinces. WCI partners intend to develop implementation details for the WCI regional cap-and-trade program throughout 2009 and 2010, start reporting greenhouse gas emissions in 2011 for emissions that occur in 2010, and introduce the first phase of the cap-and-trade program on January 1, 2012, with a three-year compliance period. The second phase of the program will begin in 2015, when the program will be expanded to include transportation fuels and residential, commercial and industrial fuels, in addition to electricity fuels covered in the first phase.

On November 15, 2007, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Canadian Province of Manitoba established the Midwestern Regional Greenhouse Gas Reduction Accord, the third regional initiative addressing carbon emissions reductions in the USA and Canada. Under this agreement, they agreed to establish regional GHG reduction targets consistent with the 60 to 80 percent recommended by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and develop a multi-sector cap-and-trade system to support meeting the targets. The Governors of Indiana, Ohio, South Dakota and Ontario joined the agreement as observers to participate in the development of the cap and trade system. In June, 2009 the advisory group finalized their recommendations and these are yet to be endorsed by individual state and providential leaders.

Currently the US Senate is reviewing the 2009 American Clean Energy and Security Act (ACES) which was passed by the US House of Representatives on June 26, 2009. If the Senate passes the ACES, also called the Waxman-Markey bill, what would happen to the state- and regional-based incentives?

The ACES proposes a cap and trade system with a ceiling on CO2 emissions at the 2005 level of 7,602 million metric tons, a reduction of 3% by 2012, 20% by 2020; 42% by 2030, and 83% by 2050. The national cap-and-trade system would oversee and regulate carbon allowances and offsets and penalize entities such electric utilities and other energy-heavy industries deriving at least 30 percent of their annual heat input from coal, petroleum coke, or any combination of these fuels (ACES, section 116, page104). The ACES also includes a national combined renewable electricity/energy efficiency standard (RES). Under the RES, large electricity suppliers would be required to invest in renewable energy and energy efficiency submitting federal renewable electricity and electricity savings credits to meet the RES goal for each compliance year (ACES, section 610, page 16).

The ACES takes a significant step forward towards the implementation of a new and stronger system for the development of a low-carbon economy by accelerating the installation of renewable energy, energy efficiency and low carbon technologies. It is likely that the majority of the state and regional carbon market programs will follow the national policies and programs, even though their requirements might be more environmentally rigorous. However, the state and regional programs offer a trial and innovation opportunity for federal policies and programs.

The next blog will discuss how a voluntary carbon market has developed in the US alongside the state and regional carbon markets for the reduction of GHG emissions.

Green Building offsets offer big returns

Karla Bell — Tue, 11 Aug 2009 01:19:53 +0000

Copy from my Column from Sustainable Industries July 2009

The American Clean Energy and Security Act, known as the Waxman-Markey bill, is “a rare opportunity to rise above parochial concerns to enact a bill with a profound national impact,”according to President Barack Obama. Republican critics are attacking Democrats as pro-business and anti-consumer and small business, which is ironic as the GOP is the “The Party of ExxonMobil (NYSE: XOM) and Peabody coal. “Using this tactic, the GOP wants to hold the line against the climate change bill, even though Duke Energy (NYSE: DUK), Johnson & Johnson (NYSE:NJN) and Shell Corp., along with other businesses and environmental organizations, are backing the bill. “I find it extremely amusing that suddenly the Democrats are being attacked for being too friendly to business creation,” Senator Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), chairwoman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, has said. The GOP argues that the Waxman-Markey bill would create higher energy costs for small business and consumers.

The real issue is the bill does not go far enough. It needs to create an “energy-efficiency and renewable energy set aside”-or green building carbon offset program-which rises above the regulatory approaches to energy efficiency. The Waxman-Markey bill provides for an economy-wide cap-and-trade program. The cap reduces greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to 17% below 2005 levels by 2020, and 83% below by 2050. Offsets (project-based reductions) are limited to 2,000 million metric tons CO2 equivalent per year, or 30% of U.S. emission reductions, split evenly between domestic and international offsets. Domestic offsets do not include offsets from green buildings.

However, federal regulators are closely watching California, which is holding public hearings about AB32 implementation [see "California gives legs to AB32, Sustainable Industries, December 2007]. Members of the San Francisco Carbon Collaborative, including Carbonflow, have made significant progress with the regulators on getting an “energy efficiency set aside” into the discussion for possible inclusion in AB 32. This is an important first step, as California is known as a global leader in energy related legislation.

Indirect sources of emissions

The Waxman-Markey bill relies on capping direct sources of emissions such as power plants and other smokestack industries. The bill’s definition of domestic offsets includes agriculture,landfill, waste-to-energy projects and biomass. But, it does not include green building offsets. The conventional wisdom is that cap-and trade should be restricted to direct industrial sources, because there are fewer of them and they are already heavily regulated. The bill follows the reliance on reductions from direct sources and forecloses on the possibility to achieve reductions from indirect sources, such as buildings that consume electricity despite their cost effectiveness.

Huge potential with existing buildings

Making energy upgrades affordable

Alternating political moods toward a carbon offset market in the United States

Nelli Theyel — Fri, 31 Jul 2009 21:50:45 +0000

Over the past 10 years, US political leaders have played only a minor role in the global carbon offset market, changing their views about climate change and global warming with each new administration. Once a forerunner of the Climate Change Conference held in Kyoto, Japan in 1997, the United States failed to stay on the track, allowing the European countries to drive the development of a carbon offset market.

In the 1990s, the Clinton administration was involved in the crafting of the Kyoto Protocol, proposing the Joint Implementation Scheme to encourage international partnerships to enable low-cost reduction in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Though the Clinton administration supported the Kyoto Protocol, it was not submitted for ratification after the Republican-led Senate made a statement that it would not ratify any treaty which did not include binding targets for developing nations expecting to be responsible for the majority of emissions in the future.

During the U.S. presidential campaign in 2000, George W. Bush promised to set mandatory targets for the reduction of CO2 emissions but expressed his reservation about participation in the Kyoto Protocol.(Dietrich, 2005) Later as president, he did not introduce domestic CO2 reduction targets. The U.S. also pulled out of the Kyoto Protocol discussions, with the Bush administration stating that the Protocol did not impose compliance on the countries responsible for the majority of CO2 emissions globally, and therefore, participation in such treaty could only cause serious harm to the US economy. The Bush administration also emphasized the importance of further scientific research about global warming, and proposed the use of alternative energy sources and “market-based incentives” such as a voluntary approach and energy-efficiency programs to reduce GHG emissions.(Dietrich, 2005)

The Kyoto Protocol required ratification by 50 nations in order for it to be recognized as a major international agreement according to United Nations. After Russia ratified the agreement in 2004, the Kyoto Protocol entered into force in 2005 without any reliance on US support. The Bush administration stayed isolated from the global debate on climate change throughout its eight-year term, continuing to favor an “aspirational” approach instead of mandatory CO2 caps to combat climate change. (Bohan, 2007).

President Barack Obama has been very outspoken about the importance of US involvement in climate change issues and the development of national regulations to reduce GHG emissions, lower energy consumption and accelerate the adoption of alternative energy technologies. However, Obama was not always supportive of the Kyoto Protocol. In 1998, as an Illinois senator, he voted for the bill condemning the Kyoto treaty and disapproving GHG emissions regulations in the state of Illinois to protect the coal industry, as Dilanian (2008) conveys in his article “Obama shifts stance on environmental issues”. The article states that Obama continued expressing his favoritism towards the coal industry during his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004 proclaiming that “there’s always going to be a role for coal” in Illinois. Dilanian (2008) points out that during Obama’s campaign for president, he addressed his opposition towards the bill by saying that the Kyoto treaty did not have “meaningful and achievable emissions targets,” and that he “did not believe that state agencies in Illinois should unilaterally take steps to implement a global policy on their own …”

However, in the U.S. Senate Barack Obama showed his favor towards environmental friendly policies by opposing then-President Bush’s air-pollution proposal for relaxing federal air pollution control restrictions. Although Obama continued sponsoring bills that provided coal subsidies, he shifted towards broader public interest the closer he moved towards the presidential elections.

In October 2007, Senator Barack Obama presented a plan to decrease the US dependence on foreign oil and fight global warming with a national “cap and trade” system across the economy to reduce greenhouse gas emissions including an auction system requiring power companies and other energy-intensive industries to pay for their pollution. He continued to encourage mandatory policies throughout his presidential campaign.

Thanks to growing global awareness of climate change issues and Obama’s emphasis on low carbon economy, the United States now is actively pursuing implementation of enforced reductions for GHG emissions and stronger energy efficiency legislation. As a result, the U.S. House of Representatives recently passed the Waxman-Markey bill (also known as American Clean Energy and Security Act - ACES) as a first step towards a regulated carbon market. The new legislation proposes national energy efficiency targets for residential and commercial buildings as well as a cap-and-trade mechanism mandating a reduction of 2005 emissions levels by 20% by 2020. The cap-and-trade system is set up to regulate carbon allowances and offsets for electric utilities and other energy-intensive industries. The Obama administration has repeatedly promised to pass federal legislation that would limit CO2 emissions in the United States, and continues to pressure the Senate to follow the House’s lead - emphasizing that the Waxman-Markey bill would create jobs, lower the cost of renewable energy and reduce oil dependency. In his speech at the first meeting of the Strategic Economic Dialogue between the United States and China on July 27, President Obama stressed the importance of the cooperation of world’s two largest emitters of greenhouse gases on climate issues.

The Kyoto Protocol expires in 2012. This December 2009, the UN and international government officials will meet in Copenhagen (UNFCCC COP15) to discuss the final details of a new climate agreement. The Obama administration plans to be actively involved in the negotiations of a new treaty trying to regain leadership in the international climate debate. It remains to be seen whether Obama will act upon his words to become national and international leader in the fight against climate change.

The past resistance of the US government to establish national carbon reduction targets and to participate in the Kyoto Protocol has significantly slowed down the development of a carbon market in the United States. The next posting will describe how the carbon market has developed in the US in light of the resistance of the US government.

Green Building guide to Waxman

Shari Shapiro — Sun, 12 Jul 2009 04:23:03 +0000

Reproduced from Renewfund Fri, 06/26/2009 - 15:32 - By Shari Shapiro and Chris Cheatham

Today, the Waxman-Markey bill, otherwise known as the American Clean Energy and Security Act (H.R. 2454) is set to be voted on in the House of Representatives. The very fact that the vote is occurring means this bill will pass in the House. This monumental bill would establish a cap-and-trade program to cut global warming pollution. Of course, a cap-and-trade program faces an even more difficult path in the Senate.

So what is a cap-and-trade program exactly?

The cap: Each large-scale emitter, or company, will have a limit on the amount of greenhouse gas that it can emit. The firm must have an “emissions permit” for every ton of carbon dioxide it releases into the atmosphere. These permits set an enforceable limit, or cap, on the amount of greenhouse gas pollution that the company is allowed to emit. Over time, the limits become stricter, allowing less and less pollution, until the ultimate reduction goal is met.

The trade: It will be relatively cheaper or easier for some companies to reduce their emissions below their required limit than others. These more efficient companies, who emit less than their allowance, can sell their extra permits to companies that are not able to make reductions as easily.

Companies will be required to purchase the emissions permits from the federal government, which in turn results in a sizeable revenue stream to the federal government. Much of the back room politicking that has occurred over the last few weeks regarding the Waxman-Markey bill has involved how this revenue stream will be allocated to government programs.

In addition to establishing an overall cap-and-trade program for carbon emissions, the Waxman-Markey bill contains several provisions which involve green building, and many green building and energy efficiency programs will be funded by the cap-and-trade revenue. Below is a summary of some of the major provisions regarding green building contained in the Waxman-Markey bill.

Section 201: National Energy Efficiency Building Codes

Section 201 of the Waxman-Markey Act calls for the development and adoption by state and local governments of a national energy efficiency code. A summary of the main provisions are as follows:

1. Establishes a “national energy efficiency building code” for residential and commercial buildings, sufficient to meet each of the national building code energy efficiency targets.

2. Sets energy efficiency targets for the national building code: “on the date of enactment of the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009, 30 percent reduction in energy use relative to a comparable building constructed in compliance with the baseline code…effective January 1, 2014, for residential buildings, and January 1, 2015, for commercial buildings, 50 percent reduction in energy use relative to the baseline code; and…January 1, 2017, for residential buildings, and January 1, 2018, for commercial buildings, and every 3 years thereafter, respectively, through January 1, 2029, and January 1, 2030, 5 percent additional reduction in energy use relative to the baseline code.”

3. If consensus based codes provides for greater reduction in energy use than is required under the ACESA, the overall percentage reduction in energy use provided by that successor code shall be the national building code energy efficiency target.

4. Requires that states and local governments comply with or exceed the national energy efficiency building code, and provides for enforcement mechanisms for states which are out of compliance.

The federalization of building codes has the potential to save consumers large amounts of money on their energy bills by enhancing the energy efficiency of buildings nationwide, as well as addressing the 38 percent of carbon emissions generated by buildings in a comprehensive manner. On the other hand, it represents a major shift in the balance of power over building and land use regulation. Traditionally, building codes, like almost all land use regulation in the United States has been a local (in some cases, state) issue. This makes for a patchwork of different codes across the nation. Indeed, thirteen states have no statewide commercial building codes, and fourteen states have no statewide residential building code.

Proponents of local control of regulatory authority argue that local government can more appropriately respond to local conditions and can experiment more freely with different types of regulations than would be possible at the federal level. On the other hand, federal control of building codes provide uniformity across the country for a problem which does not respect state and local borders, prevents local challenges to individual energy efficiency efforts (like AHRI v. City of Albuquerque) and, given the large number of states which do not have a current building code at all, provides more effective regulation of this important source of carbon emissions.

Section 131, 132: SEED funds

According to analysis completed by the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy,

“allocations detailed in Section 782g direct 9.5 percent of allowances in 2012 (and decreasing amounts thereafter) to go into a State Energy and Environmental Development (SEED) account to be used by state and local governments for efficiency and renewables projects.”

The allocation of SEED money will be at the discretion of local and state authorities.

One of the programs that can be funded by these allocation are Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) Bonds. PACE bonds involve loans to commercial and residential property owners to finance energy retrofits. Through the interest generated on these bonds, a revolving fund is established to allow for even more retrofits to occur. Already, California and Missouri have announced plans to use funding from the Department of Energy State Energy Program to establish PACE bond programs. Look for more states to jump on the PACE bond bandwagon and use cap-and-trade revenue to fund similar programs.

Section 202: REEP Program

With the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, the Department of Energy’s State Energy Program received billons of dollars. Under the Waxman-Markey bill, the State Energy Program will again receive billions of dollars for more energy efficiency retrofits. From the Pew Center on Climate Change (PDF):

“This section requires the Secretary of Energy to develop a Retrofit for Energy and Environmental Performance (REEP) program to facilitate building retrofit programs for energy efficiency and efficient water use. Funding will be made available through REEP to the State Energy Programs for state and local efforts, including audits, incentives, technical assistance, and training. States are permitted to choose funding mechanisms, with options including credit support, such as interest rate subsidies or credit enhancement, providing initial capital, and allocating funds for utility programs.”

The REEP program has not been created yet so it is unclear what the program will look like. Based on the DOE’s previous support for PACE bond programs when allocating ARRA funds, don’t be surprised to see even more of these programs established through REEP.

Green Act: H.R. 2336-Amendment to Waxman-Markey

On May 7, 2009, Rep. Ed Perlmutter (D-Colorado) introduced H.R. 2336, the Green Resources for Energy Efficient Neighborhoods Act of 2009 (”GREEN ACT”). According to Perlmutter’s office, “The GREEN Act provides incentives to lenders and financial institutions to provide lower interest loans and other benefits to consumers, who build, buy or remodel their homes and businesses to improve their energy efficiency and use of alternative energy.”

In essence, the Act:

1. Encourages energy efficiency in HUD housing by offering block grants and credit for energy improvements in the underwriting of mortgages;

2. Provides that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac will have a duty to serve very low, low and moderate income communities while developing underwriting standards to facilitate a secondary market for energy-efficient and location efficient mortgages;

3. Requires federal banking regulators to establish incentives for the development and maintenance of “green banking centers” for the purpose of providing information to customers seeking information about acquiring green mortgages.

Interestingly, Perlmutter’s GREEN Act passed the full House of Representatives as part of HR 6899, the Comprehensive Energy Security and Consumer Protection Act in September 2008, but the Senate failed to take action on this legislation. The GREEN ACT was added this morning to the manager’s amendment to the Waxman-Markey bill.

Shari Shapiro, J.D., LEED AP, is an associate with Obermayer Rebmann Maxwell & Hippel LLP in Philadelphia. And attorney Chris Cheatham, J.D., LEED AP, is an associate at Watt, Tieder, Hoffar & Fitzgerald, LLP in the Washington, D.C., Metro Area.

This post originally appeared on their blogs: Shapiro’s Green Building Law and Cheatham’s Green Building Law Update.

Reuters: The Green Building Guide to Waxman-Markey

Fri, 06/26/2009 - 15:32 - kelley@renewfund.com

By Shari Shapiro and Chris Cheatham

So what is a cap-and-trade program exactly?

Section 201: National Energy Efficiency Building Codes

Section 201 of the Waxman-Markey Act calls for the development and adoption by state and local governments of a national energy efficiency code. A summary of the main provisions are as follows:

1. Establishes a “national energy efficiency building code” for residential and commercial buildings, sufficient to meet each of the national building code energy efficiency targets.

4. Requires that states and local governments comply with or exceed the national energy efficiency building code, and provides for enforcement mechanisms for states which are out of compliance.

Section 131, 132: SEED funds

According to analysis completed by the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy,

The allocation of SEED money will be at the discretion of local and state authorities.

Section 202: REEP Program

Green Act: H.R. 2336-Amendment to Waxman-Markey

In essence, the Act:

1. Encourages energy efficiency in HUD housing by offering block grants and credit for energy improvements in the underwriting of mortgages;

This post originally appeared on their blogs: Shapiro’s Green Building Law and Cheatham’s Green Building Law Update.

Huge potential with existing buildings
Existing regulation leading to emissions reductions through “green” construction techniques usually comes in the form of building codes that reach only new construction and substantial renovations.

Yet the majority of GHG in the built environment come from existing buildings. Current government incentives “are helpful but inadequate because they do not achieve sufficient market penetration and rely on limited government funding that can disappear in lean budget years,” Simon says.

Domestic green building offsets would allow regulated industries to choose between reducing their own emissions or purchasing offsets from others who are able to reduce theirs at lower cost. This would reduce the overall cost of climate change regulation for consumers because the market would exploit the lowest cost GHG reductions.

Green building carbon credits would provide a large funding source that partially finances energy efficiency improvements. Poorer communities would benefit, as credits would fund energy efficient and renewable energy upgrades to existing building stock at a more accelerated rate than building codes currently create.

Making energy upgrades affordable
Moderate House Democrats and Republicans say that under a cap-and-trade program, ordinary people would incur higher energy costs over time because most have not upgraded their homes and small businesses with energy-efficient technologies.

U.S Cities edging forward of EU in programs to reduce GHG leading into Copenhagen Post 2012

Karla Bell — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 03:29:05 +0000

I have been away and attended a conference Carbon Expo, the Global Carbon Market, Fair and Conference, May 27th-29th 2009 in Barcelona, the most important conference in the Carbon Calendar and under new market initiatives in the Voluntary and Regulatory market there is now a “Cities & Carbon Finance Stream Workshop”. This shows the force of Cities gearing up to participate in the Post 2012 Climate Change Agreement. This is unusual as Nation States participate in International Treaties not city states. Climate Change is impacting on global governance issues as all levels of government are involved in Climate Change emissions, reductions, impacts and mitigation. Even a few years ago the role of Cities and local government at international meetings was questioned. Mayor’s of the world are responding spontaneously such that City states are now involved with the lead up meetings like Carbon Expo to Copenhagen for the Post 2012 Agreement. For example in the U.S, I have recently heard that Governor Schwarzenegger of California state may well be present along with Global Presidents and Prime Ministers in Copenhagen. Eventually organizations on behalf of cities will have to be represented at these Global meetings, as the numbers and levels of government simply become unwieldy.

According to the Carbon Expo program, there is “increased awareness and growing commitment of city decision makers to city climate strategies and implementation of GHG mitigation in policies and measures in both developed and developing country cities. However, currently there is limited access to information, knowledge on technologies and innovative financial solutions are some of the barriers preventing local leaders, entrepreneurs and business groups from seizing an overabundance of low carbon win-win options in urban centers. Hence the Cities stream aimed to facilitate and promote dialogue, knowledge sharing, networking and business communication within relevant stakeholder groups to be a part of an essential measure to foster a transition to low-carbon city development. The streams covered:
- Beyond Carbon Trading - Policies & Measures at the local level for financing low carbon development in cities
- Carbon finance in cities post-2012- Scaling up GHG reductions and enhance urban development co-benefits
- CDM/JI in Cities - What has worked and what has not
- Creating Urban Carbon Assets: From Concepts to action
- Leveraging Greater Energy Efficiency in Buildings with Carbon Finance - How can we make it happen?
- The Role of Carbon Finance in the transport sector in urban areas

U.S Cities are moving fast to catch up with European initiatives and are closer to taking over - they are well organized and spear-heading major initiatives around GHG reduction at the city level. The San Francisco Carbon Collaborative is part of a broader groundswell of spontaneous activity by the World’s Mayors.The City of San Francisco Urban EcoMap, an Internet-based tool that enables cities around the world to provide smarter climate change information for their citizens. Urban EcoMap provides information on carbon emissions from transportation, energy and waste among neighborhoods, organized by ZIP/ Post codes.

On PBS March 23rd 2009, it was announced that the U.S Conference of Mayor’s established 4 years ago by Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels reached the 900-mayor milestone. The 900 mayors represent 80 million Americans, and they illustrate the increasingly prominent role that cities and towns are playing in combating climate change.

According to Seattle Mayor, Greg Nickels, “cities cover less than one percent of the earth’s surface, but hold half its population and produce about 80 percent of greenhouse gasses. And cities will have to deal with the effects of climate change, from sea level rise in coastal cities to heat waves, strong storms and other extreme weather”.

Seattle has aims to reduce its carbon emissions by 30 percent below 1990 levels by 2024 and 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. The plan includes transportation goals — such as building a light rail system, improving bicycling infrastructure and using more “clean vehicles” in the city’s fleet — and improvements in building energy efficiency.

Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg and Council Speaker Christine C. Quinn on April 26th 2009 announced the world’s most comprehensive package of legislation to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from existing government, commercial, and residential buildings. According to the PlaNYC inventory of greenhouse gas emissions, almost 80 percent of New York City’s carbon footprint comes from buildings’ energy use.

A six-point plan, when enacted as part of PlanNYC, will dramatically reduce the City’s energy usage and save consumers money, while simultaneously creating thousands of well-paying jobs and significantly reducing New York City’s carbon footprint. The six-point plan consists of four pieces of new legislation and two PlaNYC programs that will achieve carbon reductions, train workers for the estimated 19,000 construction jobs that will be created, and help finance energy-saving improvements using $16 million available from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. The plan will also result in cleaner air, since emissions from boilers, furnaces, and local power plants will also be reduced.

“Today we’re introducing the greener, greater buildings plan, a far-reaching package of new local laws that will dramatically improve New York’s energy efficiency and reduce energy costs by some three-quarters of a billion dollars a year,” said Mayor Bloomberg. “This will significantly improve our economic competitiveness, put thousands of New Yorkers to work in green jobs, and do more to shrink our own direct impact on global warming than any other actions imaginable.”

According to the PlaNYC inventory of greenhouse gas emissions, almost 80 percent of New York City’s carbon footprint comes from buildings’ energy use. Once implemented, the legislation announced today will reduce citywide emissions by 5 percent….

The reductions will be achieved through the six point green buildings plan unveiled today:
* Legislation that creates a New York City Energy Code that existing buildings will have to meet whenever they make renovations;
* Legislation that requires buildings of 50,000 square feet or more to conduct an energy audit once every ten years and make any improvements that pay for themselves within five years;
* Legislation that requires commercial buildings of 50,000 square feet or more to upgrade their lighting to more energy-efficient systems that pay for themselves through energy savings;
* Legislation that requires buildings of 50,000 square feet or more to make an annual benchmark analysis of energy consumption so building owners can better understand what steps they can take to increase efficiency;
* A jobs program that will work with the real estate and construction industries to train the workforce that will fill the estimated 19,000 construction jobs the legislation will create; and
* An innovative financing program that uses Federal stimulus money to provide loans for property owners to pay the upfront costs for the efficiency upgrades that eventually pay for themselves.

Invite to Carbonflow booth @ Carbon Expo

Karla Bell — Sun, 24 May 2009 12:45:45 +0000

Carbonflow is the first web-based multi-party carbon record system, will participate at Carbon Expo in Barcelona. Designed from the ground up to manage carbon projects, including CDM/JI and the voluntary market, Carbonflow works in rapidly changing multi-party project environments.

Carbonflow drastically lowers the cost and time it takes to create carbon credits. It improves the velocity and transparency of this growing market, while enabling the expansion of the carbon credit supply.

CARBON EXPO
May 27 - 29, 2009 Barcelona

You can’t afford not to use CarbonCompare.

Reunirse con nosotros en Barcelona.
(Meet us in Barcelona.)

Carbonflow^TM, the first web-based multi-party carbon record system, will participate at Carbon Expo in Barcelona. Designed from the ground up to manage carbon projects, including CDM/JI and the voluntary market, Carbonflow works in rapidly changing multi-party project environments.

Compare over 4,500 CDM projects by country, methodology, project status, and technology type
Select, sort and filter up to 50 different identifiers and variables and 20 different calculated analyses
Interactive data allows you to input and benchmark your data against the selected data set of existing public projects
In one glance, see how any project, including your own target project, measures up against its comparison group
Create even more detailed customized reports and export to spreadsheets

Visit our booth #F051 from May 27 through 29, and ask for a demonstration of Carbonflow and CarbonCompare. For immediate information, contact us at info@carbonflow.com or +44 208 816 7099.

©2009 Carbonflow, Inc. All rights reserved. Carbonflow^TM and CarbonCompare^TM are trademarks of Carbonflow, Inc. Carbonflow offsets its own air travel by purchasing carbon credits. *CarbonCompare beta offer expires 8/31/09.

Waxman-Markey Draft Bill Amendments on Climate Change Bill

Karla Bell — Thu, 14 May 2009 22:31:51 +0000

This announcement by Steven. T.Dennis, seems to indicate that, “Waxman has agreed to give utilities free initial allocations on nearly all of their greenhouse gas emissions. Boucher had sought to give utilities the credits to avoid rate hikes for consumers”. They have still not addressed the issue in the long-term of how to not incur rate-hikes for consumers, see my previous blog. The other change from the Draft bill seems to be a reduced interim target to 17% down from 20% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions out to 2020. It is a good start though and hopefully the Bill will be passed today.

Democrats on the House Energy and Commerce Committee have reached a deal on the most contentious aspects of cap-and-trade legislation for carbon emissions and plan to unveil the bill on Thursday, Chairman Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) said Tuesday night.

“We have resolved a good number of the issues,” Waxman said after a meeting with committee Democrats, adding that the bill remains on track to clear his panel next week. Opening statements are planned for Thursday with a marathon markup beginning on Monday.

“I am optimistic. I believe we will have the votes to pass the bill [next week],” Waxman said.

Waxman had to compromise with Rep. Rick Boucher (D-Va.) on one of his key goals -the overall level of carbon reductions by 2020. Waxman had wanted a 20 percent cut; Boucher has worried such a steep cut would outpace the development of new technologies like carbon capture from coal-fired power plants. They settled on a 17 percent cut instead.

Waxman also agreed to give utilities free initial allocations on nearly all of their emissions. Boucher had sought to give utilities the credits to avoid rate hikes for consumers.

The Energy Committee chairman added that details have not yet been worked out on all of the allocations, including those for refineries, but said he expected that they would be reached quickly.

A smiling Boucher also acknowledged that some details still need to be completed. “It’s still a work in progress,” he said.

Members also reached a deal on renewable electricity requirements. Energy and Environment Subcommittee Chairman Ed Markey (D-Mass.) said the legislation would require that 15 percent of electricity be renewable by 2020, although up to 8 percent could come from efficiency measures.

The agreement also includes additional help for automakers on top of the “cash for clunkers” provision announced last week at the request of Rep. John Dingell (D-Mich.).