Tag Archives: AB32

California’s New 2030 Climate Target Aims to Reduce Emissions by 40%

May 1, 2015 |

 

This week, California Governor Jerry Brown issued an ambitious new emissions reduction target of 40% below 1990 levels by 2030. It’s being lauded as one of the most aggressive climate targets in North America.

The new target is as an important step between California’s goal of reducing emissions to 80% below 1990 levels by 2050, set in an earlier executive order, and the interim target of 1990 levels by 2020, set under California law AB32 in 2006.

In 2013, AB32 launched one of its key policies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and meet these targets – the Cap and Trade program. Unlike many such programs around the world, California’s Cap and Trade program acts as a backstop to a series of complementary policies that cover major emitting sectors in the state with the goal of returning California emissions to 1990 levels by 2020.

CPI’s California Carbon Dashboard continues to offer the latest on AB32 and California’s Cap and Trade program, including current and historic carbon prices in California, emissions caps and history by sector, and relevant updates from the California Air Resources Board. It also provides a comprehensive overview of AB32 and complementary policies, as well as the role of the Cap and Trade program in meeting the emissions reduction target.

CPI analysis shows that the carbon price is making a difference. A 2014 study explored how industrial firms, which are responsible for 20% of statewide greenhouse gas emissions and are required to buy allowances to cover some of their emissions, are making decisions under the Cap and Trade Program. We focused on the cement industry, which is the largest consumer of coal in California, and found that the carbon price is making a difference in how cement firms approach business decisions about actions that would reduce emissions, such as investing in energy efficiency or switching to cleaner fuel.

It’s clear that California is well on its way to achieving the 2020 target, but meeting the 2050 target would require reducing emissions five times faster than the current pace. Governor Brown’s new 2030 target will put pressure on the state to pick up the pace. The next step is for California’s legislature to put in place a legal framework for post-2020 emissions reductions. CPI will update the California Carbon Dashboard once a post-2020 framework is in place.

Read More

Paving the way for emissions reductions in California

July 1, 2014 |

 

California’s budget for the next fiscal year, signed by Governor Brown on June 20, includes $832 million in auction revenues from the Cap and Trade Program, which will go toward high-speed rail, public transportation, energy efficiency, and other projects to support low-carbon, sustainable communities. Where did that money come from? In some cases, from industrial firms like cement producers and food processors, which are responsible for 20% of statewide greenhouse gas emissions and are required to buy allowances to cover some of their emissions.

Our new study, Cap and Trade in Practice: Barriers and Opportunities for Industrial Emissions Reductions in California, explores how those industrial firms are making decisions under the Cap and Trade Program. More specifically, we wanted to know if industrial firms, given their typical decision-making processes, would invest in the emissions reductions options that are most cost-effective on paper — and if not, what are the barriers? We focus on the cement industry, which is a major player in the industrial sector and is also the largest consumer of coal in California.

The carbon price is making a difference

We find that the carbon price is making a difference in how cement firms approach business decisions about actions that would reduce emissions, such as investing in energy efficiency or switching to cleaner fuel. Firms are considering the carbon price when they make investment decisions, and our modeling shows that the carbon price significantly changes the financial attractiveness of several abatement options.

As an example, this graph shows how the carbon price adds to the value of an investment in energy efficiency. The additional savings from reducing the firm’s obligations under the Cap and Trade Program would add around 50% to the value of the investment if the carbon price is near the price floor — or could more than triple the value of the investment if the carbon price is at the top of its target range.

Cap and Trade - Lifetime Value of Energy Efficiency Investment

The Cap and Trade Program magnifies the value of an energy efficiency investment

Read More

The Clean Power Plan means changes for coal, but not the ones you might expect

June 18, 2014 |

 

Under President Obama’s recently announced Clean Power Plan, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposed that states cut greenhouse gas emissions from existing power plants by 30 percent from 2005 levels.

Commenters on both sides of the aisle say this rule means big changes for the coal industry.

But before we get fired up about the changes, it’s important to take a look at the facts: While states will need to retire coal plants at the end of their useful lives to meet the proposed limits, EPA’s rule would give states a great amount of flexibility to avoid coal asset stranding and still meet emissions reduction targets. In fact, valuing the right services from coal plants will prove the more important question for a low-cost, low-carbon electricity system.

Let’s look at why.

First, we need to understand what the rule really means for coal asset stranding. An asset is “stranded” if a reduction in its value (that is, value to investors) is clearly attributable to a policy change that was not foreseeable by investors at the time of investment.

In our upcoming analysis of stranded assets, Climate Policy Initiative finds that if no new investments are made in coal power plants and existing plants retire as planned (typically, 60 years for plants with pollution control technology investments and 40 years for plants without), the U.S. coal power sector stands to experience approximately $28 billion of value stranding from plants that are shut down. While that’s a big sounding number at first glance, it’s very small relative to the size of coal power sector. As the figure shows, that retirement schedule puts the U.S. coal power sector on track to come close to the coal power capacity reductions called for in the IEA 450 PPM scenario to limit global temperature increase to 2°C.

U.S. Coal Power w emissions (2)

Read More

California’s Climate Credit is Worth Watching

April 17, 2014 |

 

This month, many Californians will see something new on their electricity bills: The first bi-annual Climate Credit, a payout to customers of investor-owned utilities like PG&E and SCE through California’s Cap and Trade program. The Climate Credit is worth around $30-$40 and will recur every April and October for most customers. However, for customers of some small utilities it will reach nearly $200, while certain small businesses, schools, and hospitals will receive their credit every month.

National and international climate communities are already keeping a close eye on California’s AB32 Global Warming Solutions Act, which includes the Cap and Trade Program as part of a package of policies aimed at cost-effectively reducing California’s emissions. The impact of the Climate Credit — the first of its kind — is worth watching to determine if similar mechanisms could be used successfully elsewhere. In particular, the Credit’s impact on both energy efficiency and public support for the Cap and Trade program will be especially interesting to follow.

Read More

The promise and pitfalls of shareholder incentives: Lessons from California’s high-stakes test

February 19, 2014 |

 

This post originally appeared on Intelligent Utility.

How many millions of dollars does it take to change a state’s light bulbs?

This sounds like the start of a joke, but for the last seven years, it’s been anything but to California utilities and regulators. The crux of the dispute, which has had stakes in the hundreds of millions of dollars, has been an ambitious—but controversial—shareholder incentive designed to motivate California utilities toward greater energy efficiency.

The policy, called the Risk/Reward Incentive Mechanism, or RRIM, targeted California utilities. However, the concept of a shareholder incentive is one that 20 other states have adopted in recent years. It’s also under discussion at the federal level as part of President Obama’s proposed Race to the Top Energy Efficiency Initiative.

So what can utilities in other states learn from California’s experience? Climate Policy Initiative’s recent analysis, “Raising the Stakes for Energy Efficiency: California’s Risk/Reward Incentive Mechanism,” draws a few lessons that stand out.

Read More

Will California’s AB327 help or hinder renewable energy? The devil is in the details

November 18, 2013 |

 

California Assembly Bill 327 (AB327), signed into law October 7th, 2013, drew fire from solar and energy efficiency proponents, The Sierra Club, and other environmental groups over the rate-setting powers it would give the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC). These opponents worry that the bill allows changes in rate and regulatory structure that could discourage renewable energy investment in California. However, local governments, industry groups, utilities and some consumer groups argue these same powers could, used wisely, make electricity rates more equitable, protect consumers and help utilities adapt to an increasingly renewable and distributed grid. Climate Policy Initiative’s analysis suggests they could also create a very fertile and cost-effective environment for renewable energy for years to come.

AB327 allows the extension of the Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) and requires the extension of the Net Energy Metering program, both of which Climate Policy Initiative analysis has shown to be significant drivers of renewable energy growth in California. Many of the details of their implementation are left to the CPUC, though, and these details will decide the ultimate impact of AB327 on renewable energy in California.

Read More

Introducing California Carbon Dashboard: All your questions about AB32 answered in one place

October 24, 2013 |

 

This blog was co-authored by Andrew Hobbs and Karen Laughlin.

This week CPI is pleased to launch our new beta California Carbon Dashboard—a one-stop site for information on California’s portfolio of climate policies, current carbon prices, and news aggregation.

The California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (AB32) set into motion a suite of policies to reduce California’s economy-wide greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020—and set California, again, out in front as a climate policy test bed for the United States. AB32 established a cap and trade program for California as well as many sector-specific complementary policies to achieve the 2020 state target.

California’s climate package is leading edge, so there is plenty of information out there on AB32’s policies and processes. Locating the quick or in-depth information you want or need, however, can be a challenge. So, as we gathered information for our more in-depth analyses on California’s climate policy effectiveness, CPI decided to build a one-stop dashboard to provide policymakers, stakeholders, and the public—in California, in the U.S., and the world—a user-friendly tool to learn about how California’s climate policies fit together and to get current updates.

Let us give you a quick tour to highlight the Dashboard features that you might find useful:

Read More

Obama’s climate plan and what it means for states

June 28, 2013 |

 

This post originally appeared on The Huffington Post.

In his climate speech this week, President Obama gave the go ahead for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to develop national greenhouse gas standards for both new and existing power plants — making carbon regulation under the Clean Air Act the primary action of his broader plan to reduce U.S. carbon emissions.

Read More

Renewable energy in California: What has policy brought us?

September 21, 2012 |

 

Government support for renewable energy is a subject of national debate. In particular, many are scrutinizing the Federal Production Tax Credit for wind energy – absent legislative action, it expires in December.

Policymakers across the political spectrum are asking questions like “has government support of renewable projects been effective?” and “should government support be continued or scrapped?” Investors in renewable energy are similarly interested in how policies can best provide stable support to help the industry mature.

With those questions in mind, our team looked back at what state and federal renewable energy policies have meant for California’s renewable energy deployment up to now.

A brief history of California renewable energy policies

As this graphic shows, renewable energy deployment in California has been concentrated in two waves. The first, in the 1980s, was due to a combination of the Public Utilities Regulatory Policies Act (PURPA), high natural gas prices, and new technologies. The second, which started around 2001, coincided with California’s renewable portfolio standard as well as state and federal incentives.

Read More

California’s Low Carbon Fuel Standard will likely spur innovation

July 12, 2012 |

 

California’s Low Carbon Fuel Standard (a provision of AB 32 requiring refiners and transportation fuel distributors to reduce the carbon intensity of fuels by 10% by 2020) faces legal challenges and its future is uncertain. Adding to the recent debate, on June 19 the Western States Petroleum Association (WSPA) hosted a forum centered on their release of a study from Boston Consulting Group (BCG) projecting severe, negative impacts on jobs and economic activity. The study’s pessimistic assumptions and limited scope mean it does not give a complete picture of the policy’s likely costs and benefits.

Read More