1. Regional Climate Alliances Spring 2008
2/27/2007
15% below 2005 by 2020
cap and trade
11/15/2007
set emissions targets by 11/15/08
~60-80% cuts by ???? (2040?)
cap and trade; C inventory, reporting
full implementation by mid-2011
12/20/2005
cap emissions at
current levels
by 2009, reduce
by 10% by 2019

2. Regional Climate Alliances Spring 2010 Dec 20, 2005, eff. 1/1/09
Nov 15, 2007, in devt
Feb 26, 2007, eff. 1/1/12 (goal = -15% of 2005
levels by 2020)
June 25, 2008, not eff. yet

3. Regional Climate Alliances Spring 2012
Transportation Climate Initiative
(2010 declaration from 11 states)

4. X X X X X X Regional Climate Alliances Spring 2013
* no action since 2010
* now only CA and Canadian provinces

5. Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI)
set regional limits on GHG emissions from electric power plants & transportation
based on “Model Rule”, but each state can design their own strategy
for implementation (state targets set for 2009 emissions)
came into force in 2009
power plant emissions remain constant through 2014, fall by 10% by 2018
“cap & trade” mechanism: each state will set GHG limits and then issue
permits equal to the tons of CO2 allowed by the cap

6. Basic elements of Model Rule:
applicability: applies to fossil fuel-fired electric generating units >25MW
(covers 25% of regional GHG emissions)
2) size & structure of cap:
a) states must stabilize power sector CO2 emissions at emissions during implementation ( )
b) then reduce emissions by 2.5%/yr for
(total reductions of 10% below 2009 levels by 2018)
3) permitting: each CO2 source must have approved CO2 budget emission monitoring plan (EMP); developed by state energy regulators
4) allowance allocation: most CO2 allowances auctioned off (vs. ETS)
25% allowances to support consumer benefit programs
5) temporal flexibility mechanisms:
facilities can “bank” or “rollover” CO2 allowances
early reduction allowances granted for early demonstrated reductions
extended compliance period
6) price triggers:
stage 1: if CO2 allowance cost >$7, CO2 offsets can increase
stage 2: if CO2 allowance cost >$10, CO2 offsets increase more,
compliance period extended, international CO2 credits allowed

7. Basic elements of Model Rule: (cont)
emissions monitoring: CO2 unit must install and certify monitoring system, report quality-controlled data (borrows from EPA acid rain program)
offsets: awards CO2 offset allowances to projects outside capped sector that sequester/reduce CO2 emissions (limited to 3.3% of unit’s total compliance obligation)
- must prove “additionality”
Who stands to gain here?
Who stands to lose?
Or is it that simple?
What would you do as a power company in a RGGI state?
What is leakage? and how does it impact RGGI?

8. LEAKAGE
- a shift of electricity generation from capped sources subject to RGGI to higher-emitting sources not subject to RGGI.
-impossible to predict ahead of time (market and political forces unknown)
-RGGI proposes to:
track load vs. generation
monitor C-intensive nature of non-RGGI power
policy options: 1) reduce electricity demand (efficiency), so indirectly reduce leakage
2) limit the amount of CO2 (<xx lbs CO2/MWh) that could be “emitted” through long-term purchasing agreements between RGGI utilities and regional power plants
3) emissions portfolio standard

9. How did the states dole out allowances?
different than ETS, most allowances auctioned off;
last auction in December, 2012: 100% of allowances auctioned off

10. How much money did they make?
Across three past CO2 allowance auctions, cost ~$1.93/ton

11. How much did it cost the average customer?
Distributing the CO2 allowance costs around the ratepayers in those
States, RGGI costs added $0.43/month to the average electric utility bill.
Where did all this money go?

13. Has RGGI reduced emissions? [does it matter?]

14. source: rggi.org

15. Improvements Feb
will cut 2014 allowance by 45%, decrease by 2.5% thereafter
(goal is to reduce emissions by 45% below 2005 levels by 2020)
cost containment = $4/ton in 2014, $6 in 2015, up to $10 in 2017
(estimate additional $2.2billion in funds for reinvestment)
new forestry offset protocol
better tools to address “leakage”