Climate 411

California and Quebec have a major opportunity to raise the ambition of their linked carbon market

Photo of a solar farm in California

When the California Air Resources Board (CARB) finalized its Scoping Plan last year, it marked a critical milestone in charting an ambitious – but achievable – path toward a safer, climate future for communities across the state. Now, it’s time for CARB to put that plan into action.

The good news is that air regulators are taking a key step forward with a new joint workshop between California and Quebec on June 14 that will focus on potential amendments to the linked cap-and-trade program. The workshop will discuss the status of the current regulation and, critically, the scope of potential updates to bring the regulation in line with CARB’s 2022 Scoping Plan, which sets a goal of 48% emissions reductions by 2030 – an essential target to ensure California reaches its long-term reduction goals.

Read More »

Also posted in California, Carbon Markets, Cities and states, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, News, Policy / Comments are closed

Washington state’s second cap-and-invest auction shows strong demand

Photo of Olympic National Park

Photo Credit: Wendy Olsen Photography

Blog co-authored by Kjellen Belcher, Manager, U.S. Climate

Today’s results from Washington’s second cap-and-invest auction – most notably selling 100% of allowances – continue to signal strong demand for allowances and confidence in the program, bringing significant revenue for the state to reinvest in Washington communities. This is only the second auction held for the cap-and-invest program, following on a strong debut auction which also sold-out and raised almost $300 million in revenue which will be put towards efforts to further decrease Washington’s climate pollution and increase resilience to climate change.

Read More »

Also posted in California, Carbon Markets, Cities and states, Energy, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Policy / Read 3 Responses

The lowdown on linkage: Why Washington and California should link their carbon markets

It’s been two months since the debut auction of Washington’s cap-and-invest program — the nation’s most ambitious climate program to date — which puts a firm, declining limit on climate pollution across the state’s economy. Since then, state leaders have turned their attention to the next major decision facing the program: whether to link up Washington state’s carbon market with California-Quebec’s market, a.k.a. “Linkage.” Put simply, linkage refers to joining carbon pricing systems — like cap-and-invest or cap-and-trade systems — across borders, whether those borders are state or national. In a linked market, all participating jurisdictions pool their supply of allowances, and conduct shared auctions.

Washington’s Department of Ecology recently concluded their public comment period on the issue of linkage, the first step required for pursuing linkage as laid out by the state’s Climate Commitment Act, with a goal of linking Washington’s carbon market with the joint California-Quebec carbon market by 2025. After Washington decides whether or not to pursue linkage — likely later this summer — California and Quebec will need to undertake their own processes to decide whether to link.

Washington, California and Quebec have a lot to gain from linkage. It can drive deeper cuts in climate pollution, lower prices and increase the stability of the carbon market. The programs in these jurisdictions are already aligned in the central ways needed to function as a linked market — but to unlock the greatest benefits of linkage, leaders need to align key aspects of these carbon markets in their respective processes.

Here’s what you should know about linkage and four key opportunities Washington and California-Quebec have to align their programs.

Read More »

Also posted in California, Carbon Markets, Cities and states, Energy, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Policy / Comments are closed

How our clean energy laws can support a fair transition for workers and communities

photo of a coal plant

Our country is going to rapidly deploy and manufacture clean energy technologies to a scale never seen before, thanks in large part to historic laws passed by the Biden-Harris administration and Congress.

This shift is already unleashing new jobs and economic opportunities around the country, but many communities reliant on fossil fuel production – coal, oil and gas – are rightfully concerned about how it will affect their lives and their futures.

Last month, the Biden-Harris administration announced a sweeping set of new investments under the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law and Inflation Reduction Act aimed at revitalizing communities dependent on coal and fossil fuels. It’s a recognition that the clean energy transition cannot succeed unless it’s fair and equitable.

For over 150 years, coal and other fossil fuel workers have worked to power our economy. As natural gas and clean energy outcompeted coal in the last decade, hundreds of coal plants and mines across the country have shuttered, while the communities that depended on them have often been left behind – facing job loss, with funding for schools and roads running dry, and a legacy of local pollution to reckon with.

Recognizing the challenges facing fossil fuel communities in transition, the administration responded with a “whole-of-government” approach, bringing 12 different agencies together through the Interagency Working Group on Coal and Power Plant Communities and Economic Revitalization. In the past two years, the group has driven $14 billion in targeted investment to these communities.

The latest set of actions takes that support to new levels, not just by dollar amount, but in how it deploys a suite of different policies to help make communities whole – from job and benefits programs for individual workers to large-scale economic development that can sustain communities. While more support will be needed, this kind of comprehensive approach has been recommended by many groups, including joint research from EDF and Resources for the Future, as well as by the BlueGreen Alliance and Just Transition Fund.

Here’s a quick look at how some of these new investments take aim at critical challenges facing energy communities, and what needs to happen next:

Read More »

Also posted in Cars and Pollution, Cities and states, Energy, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Health, Innovation, Jobs, News, Policy / Comments are closed

New York lawmakers have a chance to lead on climate. They must take it.

Photo of the New York state capitol building

As the New York legislature’s budget deliberations drag well into April, they still have the opportunity to pass a budget that would pave the way for the state to have one of the most ambitious and equitable climate programs in the country.

Right now, a bold cap-and-invest program is on the table as part of the state’s ongoing budget discussions. In December 2022, the Climate Action Council, a group of experts and stakeholders charged with developing a plan to meet New York’s climate goals, chose cap-and-invest as a key option to advance because it marries ambition, affordability and equity. The program would set an overall limit—or cap—on the state’s emissions that lowers over time, with the aim of reaching New York’s statutory climate goals, a 40% reduction in emissions by 2030, and at least 85% from 1990 levels by 2050. Major polluters under the cap would pay for their limited emissions through allowances. As the cap lowers over time, so would the number of available emissions allowances, incentivizing businesses to make cost-effective decisions on how to cut their pollution—which supports the overall affordability of meeting NY climate targets—such as investing in cleaner sources of energy. Alongside tackling climate change, the program can center equity by putting in place guardrails that protect disadvantaged communities (DACs) from local pollution and by directing revenues raised to these communities and other low- and middle-income communities.

The Assembly should support legislation in the budget that directs the Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) to make this proposal a reality and develop a robust cap-and-invest program with built-in programs to ensure affordability, protect and prioritize DACs and support clean energy investments alongside other critical climate policies like NY HEAT. 

Here are three reasons why acting now can create a safer, healthier, and more affordable future for New Yorkers.

1.  Legislative direction on the use of cap-and-invest revenues is the best way to ensure affordability and equity.

Passing a budget that provides clear direction regarding how to spend cap-and-invest revenues is critical for ensuring that these funds are used in ways to enhance affordability and equity, including by:

  • Establishing rebate programs to directly defray any near-term cost increases New Yorkers may face, with a priority for directing those funds to DACs and other low- and middle-income New Yorkers who are the most vulnerable to any price increases.
  • Directing funds—again with prioritization for investments in DACs—toward energy and climate projects that will lower costs and reduce exposure to pollution for New Yorkers. For example, energy efficiency and low-cost renewable electricity can lower energy burden, and public transit investments can reduce transportation costs.
  • Funding just transition initiatives for workers and establishing high-road labor standards to ensure that clean energy jobs provide workers with security and good wages and to protect fossil fuel industry workers from being left behind as the state transitions toward new clean technologies.

2.  This is the chance for the legislature to provide guidance on protection for DACs in a cap-and-invest program.

While the Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act (CLCPA) includes statutory requirements to reduce emissions in DACs and provides general principles for how DEC should design cap-and-invest to protect and prioritize DACs, more specific direction to DEC is warranted regarding the need to ensure that a cap-and-invest program specifically—as distinct from the state’s climate actions more generally—must be designed to prioritize pollution cuts in DACs. While we believe that many of the specific program design details can be addressed through the regulatory process, guiding principles are needed. For example, the legislature should explore whether to include specific program design elements such as limiting emission allowance purchases by facilities located in DACs. However, in doing so the legislature should ensure that DEC maintains a level of authority capable of delivering a cap-and-invest program that is able to both put in place strict guardrails to protect DACs and develop a program capable of supporting lower-cost and deeper emission reductions than would be possible without a cap-and-invest program in place.

3.  Combining legislative direction on cap-and-invest with complementary policies to decarbonize buildings and support long-term affordability will bolster a cap-and- invest program and target equitable outcomes.

A cap-and-invest program is important to limit total pollution with the greatest possible certainty, and with some program flexibility cap-and-invest can also reduce the total cost of meeting New York’s climate goals–thereby increasing affordability. However, complementary policies are also critically important for accelerating emission reductions in key sectors and can further help reduce long-term costs by supporting the transition to energy efficiency and lower-cost clean energy. To that end, the legislature should pass programs like NY HEAT and All-Electric Buildings alongside guidance on cap-and-invest. These programs would help address New York’s largest emitting sectors and support long-term affordability by limiting costly, decades-long investments in fossil fuel infrastructure.

Now is the time for the legislature to act. There are less than seven years until 2030 and significant policy interventions are still required to cut pollution in line with the state’s CLCPA goals. The legislature has the opportunity not only to ensure the Department of Environmental Conservation, Public Service Commission, and other state regulators have all the authority and tools they need, but also to provide enormous benefits to New Yorkers by establishing the policies necessary to make the clean energy transition affordable, equitable, and just for working families.

Also posted in Cities and states, Energy, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, News, Policy / Comments are closed

3 ways to include rural communities in emerging climate solutions

Photo of a field of crops

Rural communities across the United States are extraordinarily diverse, all experiencing a wide variety of landscapes, cultural identities and ways of life. But many express common concerns — they are watching their populations deplete as the country urbanizes, their economic systems are becoming more perilous, and there is a feeling of being left behind as the rest of the country moves towards new solutions that are not designed for their reality — including climate solutions. Despite being essential stakeholders in climate solutions, rural communities are often excluded from the conversation around their deployment.

As we continue to transition to cleaner forms of energy and as recent Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act and Inflation Reduction Act investments begin to roll out, there will be a need for the development and deployment of energy technologies at a scale we haven’t seen before now. To ensure that all communities have the resources and support they need to mitigate the impacts of climate change, it is important for governments and other organizations to include rural communities in their work.

The Rural Vision for Climate Innovation project set out to learn about rural attitudes and perceptions of climate innovation through 30 stakeholder interviews with ‘grasstop’ leaders and regional focus groups. We wanted to understand how rural Americans view climate investments and invite them to tell us how they want these solutions to show up in their communities.

Here are three main takeaways from the project:

Read More »

Also posted in Agriculture, Cities and states, Energy, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Innovation, Policy / Comments are closed