RGGI's 7th Auction Brings Total Proceeds to Over a Half Billion Dollars for RGGI States' Projects

Posted on March 12, 2010 by Amy Boyd

Despite the relatively low clearing prices in the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative’s (RGGI) seventh auction of CO2 credits on March 10th -- $2.07 for 2009-2011 allowances, and the auction floor price of $1.86 for 2012-2014 allowances – cumulative RGGI proceeds to be used by the 10 participating states for renewable energy, energy efficiency and low-income energy assistance programs now total $582.3 million.

As reported in today’s announcement of the auction results, this half billion dollars is being funneled into state-run programs that make investments in energy efficiency, accelerate the deployment of renewable energy, and, at the bottom line, create thousands of jobs. In the report, RGGI highlights success stories from regional companies in sectors such as energy audits and weatherization, and the US Department of Energy’s statistic that every million dollars invested in building weatherization creates more than 50 jobs in installation and another 10 to 20 jobs in the production of energy efficient building materials.  Also notable for Massachusetts is DOER Commissioner Phil Guidice’s statement that energy efficiency programs funded in part by RGGI are expected to create or maintain nearly 4,000 jobs in Massachusetts in the coming three years.

This auction was RGGI’s first in 2010, and the first to offer new years’ allowances for sale. Participation increased in both auctions, perhaps as a result of the green shoots of the new economic recovery. 

Participation in the auction of 2010 vintage allowances, which may be used to cover CO2 emissions from power plants in the first compliance period of 2009-2011, was robust, with 51 entities submitting bids to purchase 2.3 times the available supply of 40.6 million allowances. The clearing price of $2.07 is up from December’s low of $2.05, even though this auction offered 40.6 million allowances for sale, a significant increase from the prior two auctions offerings of roughly 28.5 million each. Eighty-five percent of the 2010 vintage allowances were purchased by entities regulated under RGGI or their affiliates.

Participation also increased in the auction of allowances to be used in RGGI’s second control period (2012-2014). Although Wednesday’s auction marked the second time that supply outpaced demand for these allowances, the quantity of allowances for which bids were submitted increased 31% from December’s Auction 6 of 2012 vintage allowances. Ninety-eight percent of the 2.1 million 2013 vintage allowances offered for sale sold to nine generators regulated under RGGI at the $1.86 mandated auction floor price. As with the unsold allowances from December, the additional allowances may be sold at future auctions, or a state may choose to retire them. 

 

 

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Massachusetts Finalizes Global Warming Solutions Act Reporting Regulations

Posted on July 7, 2009 by Amy Boyd

The Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) yesterday published a final amendment to the first set of Global Warming Solutions Act regulations, 310 CMR 7.71.  These regulations set a baseline for Massachusetts' 1990 emissions and create a reporting system that will track emissions going forward, providing a framework for economy-wide reductions of 10% to 25% by 2020 and 80% by 2050.  The regulations are the first phase of implementation of the Global Warming Solutions Act, passed last August, which, at the time, called for the largest cuts in greenhouse gas reductions seen in the nation.

In short, the reporting regulations require any facility that emitted more than 5,000 short tons of CO2 equivalents from stationary sources (whether from fossil fuel combustion or biofuels), and any facility that is required to have an air permit under Title V of the Clean Air Act to report annually its greenhouse gas emissions.  The regulations begin with reporting 2009 emissions of CO2 from the combustion of fuels, and ramp up in 2010 to require reporting of emissions for all six greenhouse gasses (CO2, methane, nitrous oxide, chlorofluorocarbons, per fluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride), whether or not they were produced by the combustion of fuels. Most reporting entities will also have to report emissions from vehicles (both off-road and on) that are owned or leased by the company and used in support of a facility.  As DEP provided in its response to comments, this could include cars given to executives for commuting.  

The final regulations make substantial changes from the emergency regulations, issued in December, 2008.   Among them, reporters must certify their emissions and have independent third-party verification of emissions every three years.  Also notable is the provision that requires every retail seller of electricity in Massachusetts to report the megawatt hours it sold the previous year and the greenhouse gas emissions that are associated with that power.  To calculate the emissions, DEP will create four emissions factors every year -- one based on fossil fuel-powered generators in Massachusetts, one based on biofuel-powered generators in Massachusetts, and two that are based on New England-wide emissions.

Now that the 1990 baseline has been officially set at 94 million metric tons, DEP must next establish a firm target for reductions of between 10% and 25% below that baseline to be reached by 2020, and issue an economy-wide plan to achieve that target by January 2011.   DEP estimates that 300 facilities in Massachusetts will report their emissions under 310 CMR 7.71.  It will be interesting to see the percentage of the reduction the Commonwealth will call upon those 300 entities to achieve.  If the Commonwealth looks solely to those entities to achieve the reductions, then there will surely be complaints about both fairness and efficiency.  If the Commonwealth looks beyond the 300, then there will be questions as to how compliance will ultimately be monitored. 

Tags: , , , , , , ,

(Possibly) Coming Soon: House Floor Vote on Waxman-Markey Energy Bill

Posted on June 12, 2009 by Amy Boyd

According to a quote from House Energy and Commerce Chairman Henry Waxman in an E&E article this morning, the Waxman-Markey bill could reach a floor vote inside of 3 weeks.  Speaker Pelosi had set a deadline of next Friday, June 19, for the 8 House Committees still evaluating HR 2454 to conclude their review, but has not indicated when Democrats will bring the legislation to the House floor.  Waxman said yesterday that he wants debate to begin on June 22 and the bill to go to a vote before the July Fourth recess -- "I think the speaker and the majority leader and the administration agree with that timing, and we're going to do all we can to stick to it because after we come back from the July Fourth recess, it is health care for the rest of the month."

The tension in scheduling the Administration's dual priorities of energy and health care seems to be an issue.  Ways & Means Chairman Charles Rangel reported that in the Democratic committee members' meeting with the President this week , the President did not give lawmakers a specific deadline for sending him a climate bill -- a marked contrast with the firm deadline for health care legislation.  Rangel told reporters that in order to concentrate on both climate and health care, the Ways & Means Committee might skip markup of the climate bill and instead work out their concerns with Chairman Waxman before a floor vote or during floor vote, via amendments.

What the bill will look like when when it reaches the floor is still under discussion.  One committee expected to offer substantial amendments on hot-button issues like biofuels and offsets is the House Agriculture Committee.   While the offsets debate may be even more heated than that for the allocation of credits, biofuels may be the first amendment offered.  As Climate Wire reported Wednesday, House Agriculture Committee members are considering a legislative fix for EPA's proposed regulation of biofuels.  At EPA's public hearing on the recent proposal, which involves the requirement of a 100-year long lifecycle analysis for biofuels international impact, testimony from both biofuel advocates and environmentalists urged changes.  Particularly since the lifecycle emissions of petroleum production are not evaluated in the same way, calculation of biofuels' carbon footprints will have a huge impact on whether the Congressional mandate to ramp up biofuel use to 36 billion gallons a year by 2022 can be met. 

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The House Climate Bill: More Details on Federal Cap and Trade

Posted on April 3, 2009 by Amy Boyd

 As we mentioned yesterday, the discussion draft of the Waxman-Markey “American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009” which was released on Tuesday is notable both for what it includes and the significant portions it leaves to be decided at a later date. 

In summary, the bill contains four titles:

1) a “clean energy” title, which promotes renewable energy through a portfolio standard of 6% in 2012 rising to 25% by 2025, additional funding for carbon capture and sequestration, a low-carbon transportation fuel standard, and authorization for federal agencies to enter into long-term contracts with renewable energy providers;

2) an “energy efficiency” title, which calls for a nationwide building efficiency code, and directs EPA to set emission standards for locomotives, marine vessels and non-road sources;

3) a “global warming” title, which specifies that greenhouse gases are not to be treated as criteria pollutants or regulated in new source review under the Clean Air Act (the authorities currently viewed to be EPA’s best tools in regulating greenhouse gases), lays out up to 83% cuts in greenhouse gas emissions from 2005 levels by 2050 and creates the framework for a cap-and-trade auction system to be overseen in part by FERC, but does not specify how allowances would be allocated or auctioned, nor how auction proceeds would be spent, other than giving a portion to preventing international deforestation; and

4) a “transitioning” title which establishes a new council within NOAA to prepare an adaptation plan and fund, but does not provide details on where the funds come from, and lays out various programs creating release valves to be triggered by increasing prices, but again withholds critical details, such as how the programs will provide assistance to consumers.

After the jump, we provide more detail about Title 3, the Global Warming section.

 

Here are more specifics on Title 3, the Global Warming title:

  •  Modeled closely on the recommendations of the US Climate Action Partnership (USCAP), a coalition of electric utilities, oil companies, chemical companies, automobile manufacturers and environmental organizations
  • Preemption: the bill explicitly preempts state and regional cap-and-trade programs after 2012, but provides for the exchange of existing allowances. The bill also specifies that CO2 and other greenhouse gases may not be regulated as criteria air pollutants or hazardous air pollutants on the basis of their effect on global warming, nor would they apply to New Source Review.
  • Cap + Trade Program:
    • Who: the electric utilities, fuel distribution companies, geological sequestration sites, and large industrial sources included under the cap are similar to those included in EPA’s recently released reporting regulations, individually emit more than 25,000 tons of CO2e, and are collectively responsible for 85% of US global warming emissions
    • What: must annually surrender allowances equivalent to their emissions, beginning with the first tier of entities’ 2012 emissions, or pay a penalty equal to twice the market value of the missing allowances, plus offsetting those emissions within the next year. The downward trajectory of the cap begins with 3% reductions from 2005 levels by 2012.
    • How to get allowances: the bill sets up the framework for quarterly auctions, similar in details to the RGGI auctions now occurring, except that the names and amounts of winning bids would be announced. The program allows unlimited banking and borrowing from the next year’s vintage allowances. The bill leaves blank the proportions of allowances that would be sold at auction and those that might be allocated directly to covered entities.
    • Alternative Compliance: offsets may be surrendered at 5:4, but nationwide use is limited to 2 billion tons; the bill also allows use of international allowances and compensatory allowances (for instance, from the destruction of CFCs)
    • Safety valves: the draft directs EPA to create a “strategic reserve” of 2.5 billion allowances (equivalent to 1/3 of US annual emissions), from which allowance will be made available through closed auctions to covered entities, if allowance prices rise to high levels. The proceeds of the auction will be used to purchase allowances to replenish the reserve.
  • Additional Deforestation Initiative: a portion of the allowances/proceeds will go to creating supplemental reductions through agreements to prevent international deforestation. By 2020 the reductions must be equivalent to 10% of US’s 2005 emissions.
  • New Regulations for Hydroflurocarbons (HFCs) and Black Carbon: the bill authorizes EPA to act under the Clean Air Act to create new regulations specifically for these contributors to global warming
  • Citizen Suits under CAA: adds a citizen suit provision to section 304 of the Clean Air Act allowing anyone who is harmed by air pollution or climate change (even a general harm) to bring suit against the EPA for a failure to act
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

100% Auction For CO2 Allowances Takes A Hit

Posted on March 9, 2009 by Amy Boyd

As the New York Times reported on Friday, New York Governor David Paterson may increase the number of carbon allowances that New York gives to power plants for free, creating a significant policy departure from New York's earlier approach to RGGI.   New York, together with seven other RGGI states, had earlier committed to auction nearly 100% of its allowances.  As such, New York gave away only a small portion of its allowances this year (1.5 million out of 62 million) through a program designed to lessen the impact of RGGI on the price of electricity. Paterson's proposed adjustment would increase that number four-fold, giving away 6 million allowances to regulated power plants, at an estimated value of $21.9 million per year.  That money could have otherwise been used by the state to fund energy efficiency programs.  

If New York were to change its allocation structure, the state would have to reopen its regulations, and any change would require notice and public comment.  As a result, any changes would not impact the next auction, scheduled for March 18th, or, apparently, the following two in June and September.  Although New York controls 31% of the allowances in the RGGI program, this potential shift would not affect overall carbon emissions from power plants.  Both the amount of allowances allocated to New York and the total number of allowances in the RGGI program are capped. 

Regardless of the number of allowances now to be allocated, the change is potentially politically significant. The statement from the Governor's office is framed in neutral language -- "we have an obligation to monitor how a program is working and advance any needed changes to make the program more effective."  Nonetheless, one wonders whether the lawsuit filed last month by Indeck against New York, alleging that the state agencies did not have the authority from the New York legislature to implement the program, played any part in the Governor's decision.  That lawsuit and this potential change in New York's allocation structure are both underpinned by the idea that New York's implementation of RGGI adversely affects against electric generators that are bound by long-term fixed-price contracts, and cannot pass the added price of allowances on to consumers. 

New York's shift might also make it more difficult for the other RGGI states to stick with their 100% auction, in face of pressure from industry groups to increase allocation, though, as ClimateWire reports, some state leaders have discounted the potential impact. It also remains to be seen what effect this will have on the national debate.  As we noted last week, the debate over how a cap-and-trade or carbon tax would operate is beginning to heat up.  Since RGGI is the nation's first CO2 cap-and-trade system to be implemented, experiences with RGGI are likely to have a significant impact on national legislation.

Tags: , , , , , , ,

Obama Budget Proposal Includes Revenue From Auctioning 100% of CO2 Allowances Under a Cap and Trade Plan

Posted on February 26, 2009 by Amy Boyd
In the budget proposal that President Obama will send to Congress today, the administration has included revenue from auctions of 100% of allowances that will be issued as part of   an economy-wide, mandatory cap-and-trade program. It's a lot of money and the administration has big plans for it. 
 
As highlighted in the President's joint address to Congress on Tuesday night, the cap-and-trade program is expected to bring in billions of dollars per year.  Today's budget proposal adds the detail that the President intends to direct $15 billion per year from these funds towards renewable and alternative sources of energy such as wind and solar, and wants the money to start flowing in fiscal year 2012.  It's also the first time that the President has called for a 100%, economy-wide auction.
 
The budget proposal also includes specifics on the caps the President wishes to see -- a somewhat odd place to introduce his proposal for legislation that reduces greenhouse gas emissions 14% below 2005 levels by 2020 and 83% below 2005 levels by 2050.  
 
It may be that the President's approach is intentional.  If the proposal were accepted, it would form the fiscal year 2010 budget resolution, a bill that only needs a simple majority to pass. The budget resolution is nonbinding, but still sends a strong statement on the legislative priorities it funds. If Congress were to then pass a law known as a budget reconciliation, it would require key House and Senate committees to pass a climate bill which accounts for the budget resolution's projections on cap-and-trade funding.  This strategy, too, would need only a simple majority, as budget reconciliation bills cannot be filibustered in the Senate.  With such a tactic, cap-and-trade advocates would not need to cross the 60-vote threshold that is viewed as a hurdle to passage of other cap-and-trade legislation.
 
This tactic is not new:  four years ago, the Republican majority attempted to open up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling through the budget reconciliation process, a move that failed in the House when moderate Republicans joined with Democrats to oppose the bill on other grounds. 
 
Whether this is actually what the President has in mind is not yet clear.  However, regardless of the administration's ultimate strategy for enacting a cap and trade program, the budget lays down a very large marker on the side of auctioning 100% of allowances. 
Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

Insurance Goes Green. Yes, Really

Posted on February 25, 2009 by Amy Boyd

Strange as it sounds, the next industry group to take substantive action on climate change might just be insurers.  In Tuesday's key vote by the Climate Change and Global Warming Task Force of the National Association of Insurance Commissioners, 18 state insurance commissioners voted to approve rules requiring insurers to disclose the impacts of climate change on their business decisions. If the rules are approved by the full committee in March, and each state adopts them, reporting could begin as early as May 2010.

The survey approved by yesterday’s vote asks insurers to annually answer eight questions involving what the company is doing to measure and mitigate its own emissions, how it identifies climate risks in its portfolio, how emerging climate risks could affect coverage, whether the company has altered its investment strategies in light of climate change risks, and what the company is or could be doing to change the behavior of millions of Americans, and reduce our overall risk from climate change.  The survey is based on the Carbon Disclosure Project questionnaire, the tool through which over 1550 companies voluntarily reported their emissions in 2008.

The proposed survey is not without controversy. In December, the Task Force agreed to remove a requirement that would have mandated survey answers to be included in each company's annual financial statements, and made the questions more general to avoid requiring companies to disclose confidential competitive information.

The Task Force is also working on guidance to help insurers answer the questions, and examples of how insurers can change their procedures to reach climate change goals. One idea that has been mentioned is pay-as-you-drive insurance, a policy that could reduce car emissions by rewarding motorists for driving less.

The next step for the proposed survey is a final vote by the full association at the national meeting in March. The National Association of Insurance Commissioners is a voluntary organization of the insurance regulatory officials of all 50 states, the District of Columbia and five U.S. territories (American Samoa, Guam, Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands).  As insurance is actually regulated by each state independently, there is no guarantee all states will adopt the survey. Nonetheless, it seems likely that at least some reporting requirements for insurers are on their way, and with them, probably other companies, too.

Tags: , , , , , , ,

RGGI's Third Auction Looks Into the Future

Posted on January 12, 2009 by Amy Boyd

RGGI, Inc. announced today that its third auction of CO2 allowances will be held on March 18, 2009, and will offer allowances from all ten states participating in RGGI -- Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island and Vermont. The sealed bid format and the reserve price of $1.86 remain the same as the previous two auctions, but one big change is in the works.

New for this auction:  the participating states will offer approximately 2.2 million allowances from vintage 2012, in addition to the 31.5 million CO2 allowances from 2009. These 2.2 million allowances from 2012 comprise about 5% of that year's cap, and will be sold in a separate, but parallel offering from the 2009 allowances.  The offerings occur simultaneously from 9 AM to 1 PM on March 18, a bidding window that is 1 hour longer than in previous auctions. 

The sale of 2012 allowances could offer an interesting insight into how bidders perceive the future of carbon cap and trade and RGGI itself. Will the 2012 allowances go for a higher price than the 2009 vintage? On one hand, since RGGI allowances may be banked without limitation into future years, a 2009 allowance is arguably the most valuable of them all.  On the other hand, 2012 allowances are our first taste of allowances within RGGI's second three-year compliance period (2012-2015), a period which spans 2015, the first year that the RGGI cap decreases by 2.5%.  Then there’s the question of RGGI’s future amid federal legislation. We might have a national cap-and-trade system by 2012, or some other system entirely, and it might (or might not) allow for the exchange of RGGI allowances.

We shall see. RGGI, Inc. plans to announce the results of the third auction on March 20.

Tags: , , , , ,