November 1, 2011 20:39
Subchapter 10 Climate Change, Article 5, Sections 95800 to 96023, Title 17,
California Code of Regulations, to read as follows:
Article 5: CALIFORNIA CAP ON GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS AND
MARKET-BASED COMPLIANCE MECHANISMS
Note: All text is new.
"All text is new." And so it is and so begins a new chapter in California's odyssey into the regulation of greenhouse gas emissions, which began over 5 years ago with the passage of AB 32, the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006. Under that law, greenhouse gas rules - including market controls - adopted by the California Air Resources Board are required to take effect by January 1, 2012. Thus, market control regulations - a cap and trade program - were adopted unanimously by the CARB on October 20 and submitted to the Office of Administrative Law by last Friday, October 28.
Cap and trade has two parts. What does the cap look like? The CARB's implementing resolution explains that the regulation
"Establishes a declining aggregated emissions cap on included sectors. The cap starts at 162.8 million allowances in 2013, which is equal to the emissions forecast for that year. The cap declines approximately 2 percent per year in the initial period (2013–2014). In 2015, the cap increases to 394.5 million allowances to account for the expansion in program scope to include fuel suppliers. The cap declines at approximately 3 percent per year between 2015 and 2020. The 2020 cap is set at 334.2 million allowances[.]"
An "allowance" is a "limited tradable authorization to emit up to one metric ton of carbon dioxide equivalent." Cal. Code Regs. tit. 17 § 95802(a)(8). Initially large industrial facilities will receive a free allocation, with auctioned allowances to come. Electric utilities will receive their allowances for free, with ratepayers to receive the benefit of the value of those allowances.
Trade is what one does if one does not have the right number of allowances. Allowances can be bought and sold in the present, or banked for future needs (such as to guard against shortages and price swings), or even retired.
Let there be no mistake. This is not a small program. The regulations run on for 260 pages with 43 pages of definitions. They cover 350 businesses operating 600 facilities. By 2013 electric utilities and certain large industrial facilities will be obligated to comply. Distributors of transportation, natural gas and other fuels will see themselves subject to regulation in 2015. California's goal is to return to 1990 levels of greenhouse gas emissions by 2020. The cap and trade program "sets a statewide limit on sources responsible for 85 percent of California’s greenhouse gas emissions, and establishes a price signal needed to drive long-term investment in cleaner fuels and more efficient use of energy."
The program is comprehensive. Besides specifying the calculation of allowances and describing the operation of allocation and auction schemes, the program also sets forth in detail the use of offsets ("a GHG emission reduction or GHG removal enhancement that is real, additional, quantifiable, permanent, verifiable, and enforceable" Cal. Code Regs. tit. 17 § 95970). Perhaps most interesting because it suggests a self-replicating paradigm in the minds of the California authorities, is the set of provisions recognizing "compliance instruments from external GHG emission trading systems." Cal. Code Regs. tit. 17 §§ 95940-43. In other words, if a cap and trade program is implemented elsewhere, California can take notice and give credit. And since that will enhance business activity with California, other jurisdictions (such as those in the Western Climate Initiative and in Canada) have an incentive to replicate California's model.
Will any of this work? CARB will not learn by happenstance. Its implementing resolution requires annual updates, which will measure, among other things the effectiveness of the cap-and-trade program, its stimulation of investment and innovation in clean technology, shifts in transportation fuel use and supply, the working of offset protocols, carbon capture and sequestration technology, and, last but not least "federal greenhouse gas activities, including federal equivalency for a State program." Our last post concerned a House bill that forbade American air carriers from participating in the the EU Emissions Trading System (Europe's cap and trade program). We wonder what the response in Washington will be to these efforts by the world's eighth largest economy? We suspect they will tread gingerly and note that California voters had a chance to rein in AB 32 last November but rejected a ballot initiative (Proposition 23) that would have done just that.