Download The United States and International Climate Change Policy

Federalism to the Rescue:
U.S. State and Municipal
Climate Change Policy
Spring 2011 Jean Monnet Symposium
The Nexus of Global Climate Change and Energy:
Transatlantic Perspectives
Stanley J. Kabala, PhD
Center for Environmental Research and Education
Duquesne University
412-396-4233
[email protected]
Where We Find Ourselves
…On July 28, 2003, I called the threat of
catastrophic global warming the "greatest
hoax ever perpetrated on the American
people…“
U.S. Sen. James M. Inhofe
(R-Okla), January 4, 2005
Where We Find Ourselves
McConnell Amendment to S. 493
Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky)


Identical to:
– S. 492 Energy Tax Prevention Act
– H.R. 910 Energy Tax Prevention Act
Possible vote on March 30, 2011
Where We Find Ourselves
Energy Tax Prevention Act of 2011 (HR 910)
Rep. Fred Upton (R-Mich), Chair, Energy and Commerce Committee




Exempts CO2 and other heat-trapping gases from
CAA definition of “air pollutant”
Thus, in effect, overturns Massachusetts v. EPA
[Section 2, adding CAA Section 330(a), (b)(1)]
Repeals EPA’s ”endangerment” determination
[Section 2, adding CAA Section 330(b)(4)(A)]
Blocks EPA carbon pollution performance standards for:
– Power plants: 2.4 billion T C02/y (40% U.S. total)
– Oil refineries: hundreds of millions of tons
– Any industries
[Section 2, adding CAA Section 330(b)(1)(A), (b)(4)(K)]
Massachusetts v. EPA
Background

1999 petition to EPA
– regulate new vehicle GHG
– CAA “endangerment” of public health & welfare

2003 EPA denial of petition: No CAA authority to do so

D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals
– Plaintiff: 2 states, 3 cities, 2 terr., several NGOs
– Opposing: USEPA, auto and truck related groups
– Suit rejected because:
EPA Administrator has discretion re CAA
Plaintiffs lack standing
Massachusetts v. EPA

Supreme Court 5 - 4 decision April 2, 2007

Massachusetts had standing to sue

Ruling favor of petitioners on all 3 issues
– “Injury”:
Massachusetts loss of shoreline
– “Causation”:
Traceable to defendant
– “Redressability”: Regulation to reduce warming


Discretion: EPA Administrator’s judgment to on
policy issues
CAA Sec. 202 “sweeping definition”
– any air pollutant
– any substance
U.S. EPA Mandatory Reporting
of Greenhouse Gases Rule
(CFR 40 Part 98)






12/17/10
85 - 90% of U.S. GHG emissions
Emitters >25,000 MT/year
2010 reports due 9/30/11 (initially 3/31/11)
Data to be made public by end of 2011
“…Provide high-quality data” (to) help
industries & businesses…be more efficient and
save money, and be useful to Congress, state
agencies, NGOs, & public.” (SJK, ed.)
U.S. responses to Kyoto Protocol
1998 – 2006
1998 Byrd-Hagel Senate Resolution (S. Res. 98)




No harm to U.S. economy
Require action by LDCs
Adopted 95-0
“Don’t bother to send treaty to Senate for ratification”
2002
Bush Administration: Reduce GHG intensity 18% by 2012
2003
McCain-Lieberman Climate Stewardship Act
Cap GHG emissions
2006 Senate Amendment 866 (Bingaman, D-NM) adopted 53/44
National, mandatory, market-based limits to
slow, stop, and reverse growth of GHG emissions
without harming the U.S. economy
U.S. State Responses
The California Lead
2000: The Pavley Act
Premise:
40% California GHG emissions due
to passenger vehicles & light trucks
Goal:
30% GHG reduction over 8 years
for new autos and light trucks
Activation: Adopt by 1/1/2005
Enforce by 1/1/2006
In effect:
2009 model year
U.S. State Responses
The California Lead
June 2005: Executive Order of the Governor
GHG Emissions Reduction Targets
– 2010: 2000 Level
– 2020: 1990 Level (~25% below 2005)
– 2050: 20% of 1990 Level
U.S. State Responses:
The California Lead
Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006





Cap on GHG from major industrial sources
GHG listed in Kyoto Protocol
Penalties for non-compliance
Emissions reduction to 1990 level by 2020
CARB cap-and-trade program 2012 - 2020
U.S. Regional GHG Initiatives



New England Governors’ CCAP (2001)
GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2010
and 10% < 1990 levels by 2020
Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (2003)
Stabilize CO2 emissions at 121.3 short tons
by 2015, reduce <105 short tons by 2020
Western Climate Initiative (2007)
GHG emissions 15% < 2005 levels by 2020
Regional
Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI)

Cooperative effort:
Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland,
Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey,
New York, Rhode Island, Vermont



$860.9 million of CO2 permit sales
proceeds going toward strategic energy
programs
http://www.rggi.org/rggi
http://www.rggi.org/rggi_benefits
RGGI
Program design and approach
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Multi-state cap-and-trade program
Initial focus: CO2 only
Target: electricity generators >25 MW
Scheduled cap reduction: 2.5%/year
Reduction by 2018: 10%
Energy affordability and reliability considered
Tool: interstate trading of carbon credits
Expandable: more states, more allowances
Western Climate Initiative

Regional cap-and-trade system

Reduce GHG 15% below 2005 levels by 2020

State-specific goals and climate action plans


Signatories:
Arizona, British Columbia, California,
Manitoba, Montana, New Mexico, Oregon,
Ontario, Quebec, Utah, Washington
Implementation anticipated in January 2012
Western Climate Initiative
Western Climate Initiative
State GHG Emissions Goals
Short term
2101 – 2012
Medium term
by 2020
Long term
2040 – 2050
Arizona
-----
2000 levels
50% 2000 by 2040
Br. Columbia
-----
33% below 2007
-----
California
2000 levels
1990 levels
by 2010
80% 1990 by 2050
Manitoba
6% below 1990
6% below 1990
-----
New Mexico
2000 levels
by 2012
10% below 2000
75% 2000 by 2050
Oregon
Arrest growth
10% below 1990
75% below 1990
by 2050
Utah
-----
Set goals by 6/08
-----
Washington
-----
1990 levels
50% of 1990
by 2050
Safe Climate Act of 2007
HR 1590 (Henry Waxman, D-Ca.)
Emissions



2009
Frozen
2010 – 2020 Cut 2% per year, to 1990 levels
2020 – 2050 Cut 5% per year, to 80% < 1990 levels
Actions




Cap-and-trade program for largest polluters
Allowance sales proceeds to Climate Reinvestment Fund
EPA standards for vehicle GHG =/> California’s, tightened in
2014 and periodically thereafter
DOE national standards for electricity requiring:
– share from renewable sources to reach 20% by 2020
– utilities to obtain each year 1% of energy supply via
efficiency improvements to customer facilities
Renewable/Alternative Energy
Portfolio Standards
33 states and D.C
Colorado (2004)
California
30% by 2020
20% by 2010
33% by 2020 (3/28/11)
Maine
40% by 2017
New Jersey
22.5% by 2021
New York
29% by 2015
Penna. (2004)
18% by 2020
 8% from tier 1 sources
 10 % from tier 2 sources
Pennsylvania
Climate Change Response
Act 35 (2007)
 850MW of solar power generated in Pa. by 2020
 Utilities plan to meet alternative energy target
 Alternative energy credits remain the property of alternative
energy system generating them
Pa. Climate Change Act, Act 70 (2008)





PADEP periodic reports
GHG emissions inventory
Climate change Advisory Committee
Voluntary GHG registry
Climate change action plan
Pa. Climate Change
Advisory Committee






Non-binding 2020 goal: GHG 30% < 2000
“Robust” 2020 policies: GHG =/< 38% 2000
Improved building energy efficiency
Expanded energy effic./conserv. programs
Improved/expanded public transportation
Enhanced land conservation, urban forestry
U.S. Mayors
Climate Protection Agreement



Launched 2/16/2005 (the day the
Kyoto Protocol came in to effect)
500 Mayors signed by 2007
Cities whose
mayors signed
the agreement
U.S. Mayors
Climate Protection Agreement

Participating cities commit to:
– Meet/beat Kyoto Protocol targets via anti-sprawl land-use
policies, urban forest restoration, information campaigns
– Urge state and federal action to meet/beat Kyoto Protocol
GHG emissions reduction for U.S.: 7% < 1990 by 2012
– Urge Congress to establish a national GHG emissions
trading system

http://www.usmayors.org/climateprotection/agreement.
htm
U.S. Climate Action Partnership
http://www.us-cap.org/

Members:
– Corporations
– Environmental
organizations

Goal:
– Strong federal legislation
requiring significant
reductions of GHG

Tool:
– Principles and
recommendations on on
climate change policy
U.S. Climate Action Partnership
Members

NGOs
– Environmental Defense
Fund
– Natural Resources
Defense Council
– Pew Center on Global
Climate Change
– The Nature
Conservancy
– World Resources
Institute

Corporations
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
AES
Alcoa
Alstom
Boston Scientific Corporation Chrysler
The Dow Chemical Company
Duke Energy
DuPont
Exelon Corporation
Ford Motor Company
General Electric
Honeywell
Johnson & Johnson
NextEra Energy
NRG Energy
PepsiCo
PG&E Corporation
PNM Resources
Rio Tinto
Shell
Siemens Corporation
Weyerhaeuser
Pittsburgh Climate Initiative





Adopted by City Council in August 2008
2003: Pgh. emitted 6.6 million tons CO2
Goal: Cut GHG emissions 20% by 2023
Collaborative, multi-sectoral
– Municipal
– Community
– Business
– Higher Education
http://pittsburghclimate.org/
Local Response
ICLEI 5 milestone approach:
1.
Baseline emissions
inventory and forecast.
2.
Emissions reduction
target.
3.
Climate Action Plan.
4.
Policies/measures.
5.
Monitoring and
verification
PADEP Response
Local Government Greenhouse Gas Pilot Grant
Program
– ALLEGHENY COUNTY


Wilkins Township (with Forest Hills and Penn Hills)
Mt. Lebanon
– BUCKS COUNTY

Bucks County Multi-Municipal Program
– BUTLER COUNTY

Cranberry Township
– CENTRE COUNTY

Centre Region Greenhouse Gas Pilot Grant
– CRAWFORD COUNTY

Meadville
– DELAWARE COUNTY

Swarthmore Region
Wilkins Township et al

Municipal clients
Wilkins Twp., Pa.
Penn Hills, Pa.
Forest Hills, Pa.

Technical support
Duquesne University CERE

Products:
GHG inventories
Climate Action Plans
Local Response
Wilkins Township