Los Angeles GHG Credit Program Announced

GHG credit markets are taking on a local flavor.

At its February 1, 2008 meeting, the South Coast Air Quality Management District governing board approved a workplan for implementing a voluntary GHG emission reduction credit program, known as SoCal Climate Solutions Exchange Program.

An overview of the Program and workplan are available here: www.aqmd.gov/hb/2008/February/08023Aa.html

One likely use of the GHG credits would be in conjunction with the mitigation requirements imposed by CEQA.  Concerns are already being raised about the compatibility of this Program with the cap-and-trade system being developed by the California Air Resources Board.

District staff intend to develop the contours of this Program, including protocols for measuring emission reductions, over the coming months with the goal of presenting the final plan to the District governing board for approval in September 2008.

- Brett

Fees for GHG Emissions

The Bay Area Air Quality Management District has proposed a fee for emissions of GHGs from all facilities with stationary sources in its jurisdiction. The proposed fee has been cited in the press as in essence a carbon tax, but it is not. It is a cost-recovery fee to fund the Air District's GHG programs, principally developing an inventory of GHG emissions. The amount of the fee -- $0.042 per ton of CO2 equivalent -- is so low that it is not likely to have a significant effect on GHG emissions. The largest emitter of CO2 in the Bay Area will, according to the Contra Costa Times, pay less than $200,000 per year. Nevertheless, the fee is significant because it will be the first such fee imposed on CO2 emissions in California. More are sure to come.

-Morgan

CEQA Significance Determinations

CEQA significance determinations have been the focus of much of the early climate change litigation in Calfiornia. The California Air Pollution Control Officers Association has a new white paper on how to determine whether greenhouse gas emissions from a project are significant under CEQA, how to measure GHG emissions, and how to mitigate GHG effects. The white paper is written as a guide for local agencies, but it may also interest project proponents. The white paper is available at http://www.capcoa.org/.

-Morgan

Fiat or Collaboration?

We were recently contacted by PENNumbra, www.pennumbra.com, the University of Pennsylvania Law Review's online supplement about a debate it is featuring on the process of making environmental law -- should we continue the current regulatory process, in which regulated entities are subject to environmental requirements that are imposed by fiat and that usually cannot be negotiated, or should we adopt a collaborative process, in which regulated entities negotiate the requirements that will apply to their businesses? You can check out the debate between Professors Eric W. Orts, of Penn's Wharton School, and Cary Coglianese, of Penn's Law School here: http://www.pennumbra.com/debates/debate.php?did=13 Professor Orts's skepticism of the independence of political and other governmental actors in a world in which "lobbyists and campaign financiers . . . play large and often decisive roles in th[e public policymaking] process" leads him to conclude that "in many situations, it makes better sense to trust less in the traditional centralized process of environmental lawmaking and to consider . . . the alternative of engaging in collaborative environmental law." Professor Coglianese responds that, by making agreement the primary aim of policymaking, collaborative environmental law actually conveys a willingness to give in to interested parties in pursuit of the "holy grail" of consensus.

This debate is an interesting academic accompaniment to the current process of developing GHG regulations in California, in which the Air Board is conducting an unprecedented number of public workshops soliciting every type of public input regarding the development of regulations to implement California's Global Warming Solutions Act. In this case, the State is attempting to get as much buy-in as possible for regulations which will inevitably run into significant political
opposition. The State's top-down process is not in fact "collaborative" but the State is trying to give the process the trappings of a collaborative approach. It remains to be seen how much goodwill that process will generate.

-Morgan

Climate Change Effects

In November, the California Air Resources Board staff held a workshop on the development of ARB's scoping plan under AB 32. One of the slides from that presentation describes the likely effects of climate change on California by the years 2070 to 2099. Even assuming the best case (meeting the Governor's target of an 80 percent reduction in emissions, presumably worldwide), California sea levels will rise 6 to 14 inches and there will be a 30-60 percent loss of the Sierra snow pack. With no reduction in emissions, sea levels will rise 2 to 3 feet, and there will be a 90 percent loss of the Sierra snow pack. You can see the slides for yourself here (they are posted on the ARB's scoping plan website).

-Morgan

Proposed Reporting Regulations

The proposed reporting regulations make interesting reading. You can review the ARB staff's Initial Statement of Reasons and draft regulations here.

Interestingly, the ARB staff estimates a fairly low cost of compliance for the reporting obligations that the new regulations will impose -- on the order of $3,000 to $300,000 per facility, with the higher costs imposed on the larger more complicated facilities (see pages 82-85 of the PDF). The economic impact of AB 32 will not result from reporting GHG emissions, but from reducing them.

- Morgan

Will the IPCC and the Nobel Committee decide the next US Presidential election?

Today, two related news stories broke that could decide the next US Presidential election.

First, greenhouse gases, which were not expected to cross the critical 450 ppm threshold for another decade, in fact are already at 455. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) will report next month that earth passed the 450 threshold in mid-2005, according to Tim Flannery, an award-winning climate scientist who has reportedly seen the report's underlying data. Dr. Flannery was quoted by Reuters and the Christian Science Monitor as saying, "What the report establishes is that the amount of greenhouse gas in the atmosphere is already above the threshold that could potentially cause dangerous climate change." See http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/1011/p11s01-wogi.html for the Monitor's story.

Second, the Norwegian Nobel Committee announced that the Nobel Peace Prize for 2007 has been awarded jointly to the IPCC and Al Gore "for their efforts to build up and disseminate greater knowledge about man-made climate change, and to lay the foundations for the measures that are needed to counteract such change." See http://nobelpeaceprize.org/. The Committee went on to say:

"Al Gore has for a long time been one of the world's leading environmentalist politicians. He became aware at an early stage of the climatic challenges the world is facing. His strong commitment, reflected in political activity, lectures, films and books, has strengthened the struggle against climate change. He is probably the single individual who has done most to create greater worldwide understanding of the measures that need to be adopted.

"By awarding the Nobel Peace Prize for 2007 to the IPCC and Al Gore, the Norwegian Nobel Committee is seeking to contribute to a sharper focus on the processes and decisions that appear to be necessary to protect the world’s future climate, and thereby to reduce the threat to the security of mankind. Action is necessary now, before climate change moves beyond man’s control."

The Peace Prize is awarded by an Oslo-based committee of five, coincidentally the same number of (Washington-D.C.-based) people who decided the 2000 US Presidential election against Mr. Gore.

-Brian