Planning for a Voluntary Midwest Regional Greenhouse Gas Registry Michael Koerber Lake Michigan Air Directors Consortium July 18, 2006

Midwest States

Objectives Provide credible GHG emissions reporting platform Support multiple policy objectives Use best practice GHG accounting standards Facilitate corporate GHG management strategies

Guiding Principles Strive for consistency with other registries Consider Eastern Climate Registry and California Registry approaches in assessing design issues Consider existing requirements of other registries and GHG Protocol Standards Maintain Midwest identity Sector-specific calculation protocols (e.g., agriculture) Relevant to region’s economic, policy, and business context

Accomplishments Formed workgroup of state representatives (IL, IN, MI, OH, WI, plus IA, MN, MO) Consulted with Eastern Climate Registry and California Registry Hired contractor (WRI) to provide technical support Prepared papers on major design topics: Options Paper Linkages and Collaboration with Other Registries Considering DOE 1605(b), EPA Climate Leaders, and CCX Held three meetings with interested stakeholders (April 12, June 9, July 11)

Papers Options Paper (February 17, 2006) Addresses program design issues, and database and calculation issues Linkages and Collaboration with Other Registries (March 22, 2006) Examines two main approaches for linking with other registries: stand-alone or multi-state registry (aka Registry Alliance) Considering DOE 1605(b), EPA Climate Leaders, and CCX (June 2006) Compares objectives of MW registry with those of other existing programs

Comparison w/ Other Registry Programs Multiple PublicAccepted Policy ReportingAccounting Program Objectives PlatformStandards MW Registry X X X DOE 1605(b) (track GHG reductions) X EPA Climate Leaders (track GHG manage- X ment strategies) CCX (track allowance X trading)

Advantages of a Multi-State Climate Registry Increase participation Increase credibility Standardize best practices Create common “currency” Leverage resources Facilitate development of innovative state programs

Stakeholder Involvement Meetings Survey (re: establishment of MW registry) Mixed reaction Things to work on…. Identify/promote incentives for participation »What’s in it for me (PR, social responsibility, etc.) »Local/state connection (“states must be engaged and have some skin in the game”) »State support and assistance »Minimal reporting requirements (link to existing program) »Minimal fees (cannot expect participants alone to foot the bill) Reach out to other sectors (e.g., public/government, and agriculture)

Funding Received first grant for $100K from Joyce Foundation on July 21, 2005 (project period: Aug 2005 – Aug 2006) Received second grant for $35K from Energy Foundation on June 20, 2006 (project period: Sept 2006 – Feb 2007) Need additional funding for implementation phase

Next Steps Continue to work with Eastern Climate Registry and California Registry Participate on technical workgroup for multi-state registry Continue to meet with interested stakeholders Pursue funding

For additional information…. Michael Koerber