That surprised me. First, because being in Copenhagen was extrordinarily inspiring. It was a privilege and a pleasure to be among the tens of thousands of delegates and activists from around the world working to help address this overwhelming threat.
Second, because being in Copenhagen gave me a sense of the enormity and difficulty of the task before us. Think of it. We are trying to get nearly 200 nations around the world to come together to make a commitment to deep and lasting changes in virtually every aspect of the global economy. This is an extrodinarily challenging undertaking that will require decades of sustained commitment.
Before I left for Copenhagen, a friend asked me how the COP process works. The answer is that there is no blueprint for reaching a global consensus agreement on climate change. Nothing of this scale and scope has ever been attempted.
I sympathize with those who see the Copenhagen Accord as inadequate to the task. Much, much more needs to be done. But as detailed by my NRDC colleagues (here, here, here, and here), the Copenhagen Accord is a big step forward that provides for real reductions in carbon pollution by the world’s biggest emitters, establishes a transparent, international reporting framework, and provides billions of dollars of assistance to those most threatened by climate change. There is plenty of work to do in the weeks, months and years to come. But make no mistake, we took a big step forward last week in Copenhagen.
Just now emerging is the story of the role that President Obama played in the final stages of the negotiations. He arrived to a process that threatened to break down in chaos and recrimination. Through his direct personal involvement he helped forge a global agreement among all but five of the 192 nations present.
I don’t mean to undervalue the extrodinary efforts of so many others – including the 119 heads of state that participated, the largest gathering of world leaders ever. But over the course of only eleven months in office, President Obama has managed to get the U.S. ship of state to make a 180 degree change of course and start steaming in the right direction. As an American, I am impressed and proud of what he has been able to accomplish.
Thank you, Mr. President.
]]>What is an offset? An offset is an emission reduction in an uncapped sector that is used for compliance with an emissions cap in lieu of a reduction in a capped sector.
There are two parts to that definition. The first is an emission reduction in an uncapped sector, such as forestry or agriculture. The second is the use of those reductions as a substitute for reductions in a capped sector under a compliance regime.
I believe it is important to distinguish between these two parts of offsets. Why? Because while there are reasonable disagreements about the appropriate role that offsets should play in a compliance regime, there is widespread consensus that we need to achieve significant emissions reductions in the uncapped sectors. In particular, NRDC believes that we should be trying to maximize the contribution of the forestry and agriculture sectors. In order to do that, we need to have credible, high-quality mechanisms to measure, report, and verify the impact of emission reductions activities in those sectors.
Once we have accounting standards and verification mechanisms in place to ensure that credits are only earned for real reductions, then it becomes feasible to incorporate the use of offsets into compliance regimes without threatening their integrity. It also becomes possible to implement a range of other policies to achieve those emission reductions, including incentives using, for example, allowance auction revenues, and direct regulation.
To date, offsets have suffered from an unfortunate dynamic in which offsets are seen as nothing more than an opportunity for easy credits and cheap compliance. Proponents work to make the rules as lax as possible, thereby undermining credibility. Opponents work to make the process as difficult and restrictive as possible, thereby undermining practicability. What is left are low quality, impractical offsets with no environmental credibility. This is a dynamic that we must surmount by working together. Credible, high-quality offset accounting mechanisms are in the interest of all parties, including NGOs, industry, and government.
From my perspective, there are four key components to a credible, high-quality, offset accounting program.
And, for activities that require retention of sequestered carbon, an effective mechanism to ensure permanence.
]]>The key issue addressed in this legislation was finding a balance between flexibility and encouraging in-state development. Utilities, developers, and the grid operator want flexibility to help them achieve the overall goal and minimize costs. Labor, consumer groups, and environmental justice advocates want in-state construction to create jobs and economic development.
Both of these goals are important. We must create adequate flexibility to allow utilities and renewable developers to achieve these goals at a reasonable cost. But we must also work to ensure that California benefits from the jobs and economic development that this investment will create.
In the legislation, this balance is achieved by requiring that at least 70% of renewable energy actually is delivered to California customers. The bills allow for the remaining 30% of renewable generation to be "undelivered electricity," which can be met through the purchase of renewable energy certificates that verify incremental renewable generation somewhere else in the western U.S. electricity grid. (Not coincidentally, the 30% REC limit is what Governor Schwarznegger asked for in his legislative request. ) Overall, these rules would allow perhaps 50% or more of renewable power to come from out-of-state facilities.
Opponents of the legislation argue that even this level of flexibility is inadequate. But claims that the bill would require too much of the new renewable generation to be built in California may not be well received by the State's citizens who want investments in renewable energy to produce good paying jobs in their communities as well as help protect the planet from global warming. Where some see protectionism, others see an effort to protect and rebuild California's economy.
The 33% RPS legislation also includes a cost containment mechanism to protect consumers from excessive costs. This provision requires that the total net cost of the program not raise rates by more than 6%. That's far less than the expected increase in rates over the next decade for non-renewable investments and less than the 7% that was estimated by PUC staff to meet the 33% goal. The cost cap will impose significant cost discipline on developers and regulators, encouraging competition and efficient implementation. If we're successful and renewable technology costs decline over the coming decade, the goal could be achieved at substantially lower cost or even at a net savings.
]]>Here, then, is a clear difference between Governor Schwarznegger's signature on an executive order and his signature on RPS legislation.
If all we have is an executive order, then the RPS program could be brought to an abrupt halt by a future governor. If all we have is an executive order, the millions of dollars that will be devoted to developing and reviewing projects and the dedicated efforts of private companies and state employes devoted to developing procurement plans and program guidelines will be at much greater risk. If all we have is an executive order, it will be much harder, and perhaps impossible, to create the decade-long, stable policy environment that will be necessary to attract and support billions of dollars of investment in clean energy infrastructure. If all we have is an executive order, then Governor Schwarznegger's vision of California as a global leader in renewable energy development may never be realized.
If, instead, Governor Schwarznegger signs the RPS bills that were passed by a solid majority of the state legislature just one week ago, then the clean energy economy can be built on a strong legal foundation. If the governor signs the RPS legislation, then rather than the precipitous action of a single individual, changes to the RPS program would need to gain the support of a majority of California legislators, many of whom could still be in office well into the coming decade. If the governor signs the RPS legislation, then it will be possible to give investors confidence that their dollars and their efforts will not be squandered. If the governor signs the RPS legislation, then the thousands of students now studying how to install solar panels and erect turbines can be confident there will be jobs for them when they graduate. If the governor signs the RPS legislation, his vision of a clean and secure energy future for California has a chance of becoming a reality.
Please contact Governor Schwarznegger and urge him to sign the RPS legislation.
]]>On Saturday, the tired but optimistic supporters were looking forward to asking Governor Schwarznegger for his signature. The Governor had himself asked for RPS legislation just a few months earlier and the final compromise met most, though perhaps not all, of his objectives. While the bills are not perfect and no stakeholder got everything they wanted, the final product is a strong, balanced step forward.
But less than half a day after the legislation passed, Governor Schwarznegger's spokesman announced that he would veto it when it reaches his desk. Instead, on Tuesday, he signed an executive order directing the Air Resources Board to develop and adopt regulations to implement the 33% RPS. The reasons he cited were that the legislation didn't allow adequate flexibility and could result in excessive costs for utility customers.
In making his announcement so quickly, it felt to me as though the Governor had jumped two steps ahead, skipping past the legislative foundation, and going straight to the development of the detailed regulations that will be necessary to fully implement the program. But implementation of a 33% RPS through regulation without legislative backing raises important legal issues that could increase uncertainty and whose resolution may delay implementation.
Despite the Governor's announcement, supporters of the legislation are continuing to make their case for signing the 33% RPS bills. We're working to convince the Governor that the legislation meets his substantive concerns and that any remaining issues can be dealt with through follow-up legislation or administrative rulemakings.(e.g. group letter)
We also need to convince the Governor that signing the legislation and revising his executive order, even if he sees it as taking a step backward, is justified. At least in this case, we're working to convince him that two steps forward and one step back represents real progress for California.
]]>California's history of supporting renewables development through RPS requirements began with SB1078, authored by Senator Byron Sher in 2002, which required utilities to meet 20% of their electricty demand with qualifying renewable energy resources by 2017. Four years later, the California Legislature passed SB107, authored by Senator Joe Simitian, which accelerated the RPS timetable and required the state's utilities to reach the 20% renewables requirment by 2010. SB107 included flexible compliance provisions that allow for a 3-year window to meet procurement goals. Utilities in the state are generally on track to meet the SB107 goal by 2013, as permitted by law.
In 2006, the California legislature also passed AB32, authored by Senator Fran Pavley. This landmark legislation imposed a cap on statewide emissions of greenhouse gases at 1990 levels by 2020. The AB32 Scoping Plan, adopted by the California Air Resources Board in 2008, includes an increased RPS requirement of 33% by 2020 as a key component of a comprehensive strategy addressing emissions across a wide range of economic sectors. CARB estimates that the 33% RPS will reduce California's GHG emissions by 21.3 million metric tons of CO2 per year in 2020, accounting for more than 12% of the total reductions needed to meet the AB32 goal.
Governor Schwarznegger has also made meeting a 33% RPS by 2020 one of his administration's policy goals. In November 2000, Governor Schwarznegger signed an executive order which administratively established the 33% RPS and directed state agencies to implement reforms to facilitate achievement of the goal.
However, legislation is essential to establishing a legal mandate and framework for compliance and for ensuring adequate funds are available to realize the goal of a 33% RPS. Since the start of the 2009-10 legislative session, lawmakers have been working with a broad array of stakeholders to draft legislation to establish the 33% target as state law. In January, Senator Simitian and Assemblymember Paul Krekorian introduced parallel bills in the Senate and Assembly. These two bills, SB14 and AB64 have passed through their house of origin and through the policy committees in the other house with strong support. Over the coming two weeks, the authors will be working with legislative leaders, the governor's office and key stakeholders to refine and finalize them, with the intent of crafting a final package that can garner the support of the full legislature and the governor for enactment into law this fall.
]]>Apparently, a retired USGS geologist has determined that sulfur is primarily responsible for climate change rather than carbon dioxide. According to the story in Greenwire, Peter Ward of Jackson Hole, Wyoming has correlated atmospheric concentrations of sulfur (based on ice core data) with global temperatures and concluded that sulfur dioxide is more important than carbon dioxide in driving global temperature.
I don't subscribe to the journal Thin Solid Films where it will be published (although I love the title) and the article hasn't been published yet in any case, but I think this is a great example of bad reporting.
The first thing you learn in a statistics class is that correlation is not causation. In order for this analysis to hold up, Ward has got to show a mechanism whereby atmospheric sulfur increases temperature. He's also got to show that it's the sulfur causing the temperature rise, rather than something else that is correlated with the sulfur, e.g. black carbon emissions from the same volcanoes that emitted the sulfur. Even if it turns out that, contrary to the existing understanding of atmospheric chemistry, sulfur dioxide is a potent GHG, that doesn't negate the research showing CO2 is a potent GHG.
As I said, I haven't read the paper, but I'd bet dollars to doughnuts that Ward is wrong. Not that I fault him for doing his research and coming up with an innovative hypotheses that runs contrary to accepted science. The problem isn't the blind canyons scientists often find themselves in, but reporters who are willing to run with any man bites dog story they can find.
]]>
Thank you all for the opportunity to be with you today. As a native of his Assembly district -- St. Joseph's hospital in Burbank -- I particularly want to thank Assemblymember Krekorian for the invitation.
Understandably, with the economic crisis, we are all intently focused on the immediate future. Rightly so. This is the beginning of what will be an ... interesting legislative session and a busy one.
But, since it is still just early January, I want to ask you to pause and take a step back for a moment. With your permission, with the 5 minutes I've been allotted, I want to try to offer a long-term perspective, such as I can, on the Renewable Portfolilo Standard legislation - AB64 - that is before us this morning.
In 1974, the Legislature passed, and Governor Reagan signed, the Warren-Alquist State Energy Resources Conservation and Development Act. Charles Warren of Warren-Alquist served in the Assembly. I was in high school.
The Warren-Alquist Act grew out of the battle over power plant siting. The first oil crisis was in 1973 and the utilities wanted to build nuclear power plants up and down the coast. Meanwhile environmental activists were doing whatever they could to block the utilities.
The Warren-Alquist Act marked an historic compromise between the utilities and environmentalists. Basically, the utilities agreed to support a process by which the need for new power plants would be tested against opportunities to reduce the demand for energy and renewable resources would be encouraged and supported. In exchange, power plant citing would be facilitated by a centralized processs at a new agency, now known as the Energy Commission, still in that "freezing cold in the winter building" up at 9th and P.
The passage of the Warren Alquist Act also marked the beginning of a decision by this state to exercise national leadership on energy policy. Since then, California has led the nation and, to a significant degree, the world. Since the mid-70s, per capita electricity consumption in California has remained flat, while it increased by 60% for the U.S. as a whole. The electricity consumption of a new refrigerator has dropped by 2/3, as a result of appliance standards adopted over at 9th and P. And California was one of the first states to adopt an RPS. We now have in place one of the most ambitious RPS policies in the nation - 20% of our electricity from renewable resources by 2010.
I started working for NRDC in 1984. While energy issues have momentarily captured the attention of federal policymakers over the years, here in California we've had an energy policy on the books and in the field for over 30 years. We have progressive utilities, a highly supportive populace, and the best techological innovation infrastructure on the planet. You've probably noticed that the State is also rife with environmentalists. Which brings us to the present day.
Given the cavalcade of events and the financial mayhem in the world today, it's difficult to take your eyes off your Blackberry long enough to look much beyond the latest crisis. But when you do, I believe that it's abundantly apparent that bold policy on renewable energy is a key part of the solution to our climate crisis, our energy security crisis, and to our economic crisis.
We have an historic opportunity before us, bringing to bear our experience and the public resources we've developed over 30 years, to exercise global leadership in order to build a cleaner, a safer, and a more prosperous future for our state, for our country and for our world. We won't agree on everything. Between the utilities, the renewable developers, the local communities and the environmentalists no one is going to be totally happy. But we are all commited to working towards the same end. With your leadership you can -- and you should -- pass a 35% RPS this year. By doing so, we can make an enormous difference.
Thank you.
]]>I've got a copy of the MOU and that is absolutely untrue. The MOU generally commits the signatories to coordinate efforts and promote collaboration with the goal of reducing deforestation and increasing sequestration of forest carbon. As part of that effort, the parties have agreed to collaborate on the development of rules to ensure that forest projects are real, measureable, verifiable, and permanent at the same level of stringency as required by the California Air Resources Board.
There is no agreement that such reductions will be accepted under AB32 nor could there be. The California Air Resources Board is currently managing an extensive multi-year public process to implement AB32. Any and all decisions about how entities will comply with their emission reduction obligations will be made through that public process.
]]>Here's the problem: There is lots of skepticism about international forest offsets and much of this concern is justified. In order to incorporate emission reductions from reduced deforestation, we need to be convinced that those reductions are real and lasting.
That's not easy to do. The tropical forests in countries like Brazil and Indonesia are both vast and remote. In many cases, legal frameworks are poorly developed and inadequately enforced. There are conflicts between indigenous peoples and migrants both of whom are understandably more focused on feeding their families than protecting the global climate. Powerful private companies often overrule or control local governments.
Even in the best of circumstances, these efforts require determination of a baseline that defines what would have otherwise occurred. But defining a credible baseline is always difficult, and particularly so for regions afflicted with political instability and illegal logging. Similarly, adoption of agreements to reduce deforestation must be accompanied by mechanisms to ensure that those agreements will be complied with over many years into the future. But regularly and accurately measuring forest carbon across a vast remote region is an extremely daunting task.
On the other hand, anyone who has considered what is at stake realizes the urgency of trying to make a difference. We can't walk away from the potential loss of the world's remaining tropical forests both because of the enormous increase in global warming emissions their destruction would entail and because of the loss of irreplaceable biodiversity.
I believe that the solution to this conflict lies in focusing on where we are rather than on where we might want to be one day. Given the unsolved problems of measurement, baseline, and verification, we're not ready today to implement a international carbon market in which emission reductions from avoided deforestation in distant tropical forests offsets investments in renewable energy or more efficient cars here in California. And, frankly, we may never be. But we are ready to collaborate with people and organizations across the globe to develop measurement protocols, crediting approaches, and verification mechanisms that will allow us to begin to act with confidence and credibility to reduce tropical deforestation as part of the international policy response to climate change.
]]>I'm at the Summit with NRDC's new Western Director, Felicia Marcus, who as far as I can tell knows (and is loved by) virtually everyone at the Summit. Though she's only been on staff two weeks, it's apparent she's a tremendous addition to our staff. Also from NRDC at the Summit are Audrey Chang and Kristin Grenfell who work on energy and climate issues from the San Francisco office. It's a pleasure to work with three such competent and intelligent women.
For me, the most striking thing about the Summit so far is the sense of eager commitment and collaboration among the attendees. I think the impending adoption of the AB32 Scoping Plan next month combined with the election results (a mere two weeks ago) have given the climate community a renewed sense of energy and possibility. Lots of speakers at climate change conferences begin their presentation with the claim that, despite the challenges, they're an optimist. I've always thought of it as something of a throwaway line, but today? Not so much.
]]>I came down from our San Francisco office yesterday to participate in the meeting of the California Climate Action Registry (CCAR), of which I am a boardmember. CCAR is a nonprofit organization that develops the rules for counting greenhouse gas emissions. It's basically carbon accounting and while just the mention of the word "accounting" could drive off most readers, it is one of the essential building blocks to solving the climate crisis. At yesterday's board meeting we adopted revised accounting protocols for landfill gas projects and got an update on the revisions to the forest protocols that are being developed. For more info check out the website: www.climateregistry.org
The agenda for today's summit is packed, beginning with a welcome by Governor Schwarznegger and a surprise video address from President-elect Obama (you heard it here first!). NRDC's Felicia Marcus will be participating in a panel discussion this afternoon on forestry and agriculture along with the Governor of Aceh, Indonesia and the Governors of Amapa, Amazonas and Para, Brazil.
]]>