The RGGI auction of allowances is today, and was opened by New York Governor David Paterson. The Washington Post said in an editorial, "We hope that it serves as a reminder to Washington of what can be accomplished when vision and leadership are exercised." We agree! From EDF president Fred Krupp:

The launch of America's first carbon market is proof positive that the U.S. can and will take bold steps to combat climate change.

This post is by Sheryl Canter, an online writer and editorial manager at Environmental Defense Fund.

This week, seven U.S. governors and four Canadian premiers – partners in the fast-growing Western Climate Initiative (WCI) – released a draft design for what would be the largest cap-and-trade market for global warming pollution in North America. The outcome of many public workshops, the draft caps emissions for utilities and industry by 2012, and adds caps for residential, commercial and transportation sources by 2015.

WCI will present the draft at a stakeholder workshop and webinar in San Diego next week. Environmental Defense Fund experts Derek Walker, Jamie Fine and Martha Roberts will be there to speak in favor of a firm, binding emissions limit that declines over time, strict standards for offsets, and to remind participants of the economic benefits of action.

People tend to do things the way they've always done unless something forces them to change – even if the new way is better and cheaper. So Hawaii has taken action to spur people along. From an article in the L.A. Times:

California last year passed legislation offering homeowners and businesses $250 million in incentives to install 200,000 solar water systems over the next 10 years.

But Hawaii Thursday took far bolder action, becoming the first state in the nation to require all new homes built after January 1, 2010 to be equipped with solar or other energy-efficient hot water systems.

The article goes on to say that Hawaii's switch to solar hot water will save homeowners money, and prevent the emission of more than 10,000 tons of greenhouse gases per year.

Two weeks ago I posted about California's Dangerous "Proposition 98", with hidden provisions threatening the state's environmental laws. The alternative, Proposition 99, achieves the stated goals of Proposition 98 (protecting homeowners from having their dwellings seized for development) without threatening environmental protections.

The vote took place on Tuesday, and I have good news to report.

Despite an aggressive and deceptive ad campaign financed by wealthy landlords, Californians were not fooled. Environmental Defense Fund and a large, diverse coalition of environmental groups, health advocacy groups, local governments, and low-income advocates spread the word about the dangers of Proposition 98 and the better alternative, Proposition 99.

In the end, California voters beat back Proposition 98, and approved Proposition 99 by an almost 2-to-1 margin. This victory sends a clear message that protecting the environment is important to Californians, and efforts to undermine environmental protections will not be tolerated.

Time will tell whether Tuesday's vote ends the backdoor crusade against the environment in the name of eminent domain reform. But for now, California's pioneering environmental laws, including the Global Warming Solutions Act (AB32), are safe.

On June 3rd Californians will vote on two competing ballot initiatives that purport to prevent abuse of "eminent domain" – the power of a government to take private property for public use.

But only one of these – Proposition 99, the Homeowners Protection Act – would limit the government's ability to use eminent domain to take a home to transfer to a private developer.

The other – Proposition 98 – is a deceptive scheme financed by wealthy landlords that would make it easier to evict people from their homes to make way for new developments. Plus Proposition 98 is filled with hidden provisions that would seriously harm the environment.

• A "regulatory takings" provision in Proposition 98 would grant property owners the right to sue to invalidate or receive compensation for government regulations that impose a cost to the owner, even if the regulations are designed to protect public health or the environment. This provision would severely hamper the ability of state and local government to pass and enforce environmental and climate regulations.
• Another provision in Proposition 98 would prohibit regulations affecting real property that "transfer an economic benefit to one or more private persons at the expense of the property owner." Nearly all environmental and public health regulations involve some applicable transfer of economic benefit, and so would be prohibited. Some examples:
• Under a cap and trade system, an entity subject to limits on greenhouse gas emissions could likely claim that economic benefit is being transferred to "one or more private persons" (such as a facility with lower emissions, or a manufacturer of pollution control equipment) at the expense of the property owner.
• Local government regulations to promote walkable, high-density communities could be interpreted as benefitting the businesses and commercial property owners located in those areas at the expense of developers seeking to build elsewhere.
• Regulations that restrict development in wetlands or coastal zones, or impose limits on waste discharge to protect water quality, could likely be interpreted as transferring economic benefit to another party at the expense of the property owner.

At best, Proposition 98 would create an atmosphere of dangerous uncertainty for laws and regulations designed to protect public health and the environment. At worst, it could produce a massive scaling back of existing laws and regulations, while making it virtually impossible to move forward on environmental goals.

Proposition 99, in contrast, would achieve important eminent domain protections without threatening California's environmental and health initiatives.

A broad coalition – Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, Former Governor Pete Wilson, AARP, League of Women Voters of California, California Professional Firefighters, California Teachers Association, National Wildlife Federation, and hundreds of other organizations that don't normally agree on the issues – all oppose Proposition 98.

You can find more information on Prop 98 and Prop 99 on the Web.

Connecticut will soon become the fifth state, after California, New Jersey, Hawaii and Washington, to enact a mandatory cap on greenhouse gas emissions. The state's Republican Governor, Jodi Rell, announced this week that she will sign the global warming bill passed by Connecticut's House and Senate. Called Act Concerning Connecticut Global Warming Solutions (HB-5600), the bill has much in common with the California legislation, Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (AB-32) – also signed into law by a Republican governor.

We at EDF and our allies in Connecticut (Connecticut Fund for the Environment, Environment Northeast, Environment Connecticut, Clean Water Action, the Nature Conservancy and others) almost decided to delay our push for AB-32-style legislation until 2009. The state's economic performance and job growth has been stagnant, and our initial assessment of the legislative appetite for a strong global warming bill was not encouraging. In spite of these choppy seas, we decided to set sail this year even if it became a two-year fight.

As the campaign kicked into full gear late this winter, prominent legislators and local officials around the state started to get on board. Several Connecticut newspapers endorsed HB-5600 and the New York Times applauded the measure, calling it "one more example of states' taking on this important issue in the absence of aggressive federal policies." Ultimately, HB-5600 won decisive passage in the Connecticut House and unanimous passage in the Senate.

The new Connecticut bill requires emissions in the state to be 10 percent below 1990 levels by 2020, and 80 percent below 2001 levels by 2050. These reductions are consistent with what analysts say developed countries must make to avoid the most dangerous consequences of global warming.

The bill requires Connecticut's Department of Environmental Protection to devise a plan for achieving the required reductions, and authorizes the state to pursue a regional, multi-sector cap-and-trade program with other states participating in the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI).

This will be an incredibly hot summer in the world of climate policy. The U.S. Senate will debate the Lieberman and Warner Climate Security Act in June. California regulators are putting the finishing touches on a broad set of recommendations for achieving the greenhouse gas reductions required by AB-32. Many nations and groups ("blocs") of nations are busily negotiating details of a new international climate treaty.

Connecticut's bold action creates critical momentum for strong national and international policies to combat global warming.

What do the Republican Governor of California, the Democratic Governor of Montana, and the Republican Governor of Utah have in common? A desire for Congress to take action on global warming. Check out our new Governors' Ad:

We need federal legislation to solve the global warming crisis – there's no doubt about that. But state and local governments don't have to sit around waiting while the federal debate goes on – and many aren't. States and cities across the country are taking the lead on a wide range of climate issues, demonstrating the political courage and policy innovation needed to protect our planet from the most dangerous effects of global warming.

• California enacted the first mandatory state-wide emissions cap, to reduce their emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. Other states have followed suit. New Jersey and Hawaii have passed emissions caps, and the governors of Minnesota and Florida have announced emissions targets.
• California passed stringent CO₂ emissions standards for cars and trucks that have been adopted by 14 states. When automakers challenged this, a Vermont federal judge upheld its legality. (The EPA still must approve the new standards before they can be enforced.)
• This past July, the governors of California and Florida signed cooperation pacts with Germany and Britain to share energy-saving technologies and discuss post-Kyoto protocols. Sadly, our federal government has been reluctant to sign international climate treaties.
• States have joined forces to fight global warming in regional initiatives representing more than half the country. The Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI), for example, is a consortium of nine states in the northeast. The Western Climate Initiative (WCI) is a compact that several western U.S. states, Mexican states, and Canadian provinces have joined or are observing.
• More than three-quarters of U.S. states have joined The Climate Registry to develop and manage a greenhouse gas reporting system.
• There is an agreement among mayors of over 530 cities in all 50 states to follow the emissions-reductions standards of the Kyoto protocol.
• New York City's Mayor Bloomberg has been particularly active in fighting global warming. His PlaNYC proposal will quadruple bike lanes, convert taxis to hybrids, and impose a congestion fee for driving into Manhattan. Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa and other big-city mayors also have announced climate action plans.
• This month the National Governors Association (NGA) launched an initiative called Securing a Clean Energy Future. In an interview with the Associated Press, NGA chair Gov. Tim Pawlenty, R-Minn. said, "We have a federal government that doesn't seem to want to move as fast or as bold as many would like." If enough states act to curtail greenhouse gases, "it becomes a de facto national policy."

These are just a few examples of what state and local governments are doing. To learn more, check out this excellent summary of state actions [PDF]. The leadership of state and local officials helps to drive action at the national and international level, and models best practices for future policymaking.

Last week, New Jersey's House and Senate Budget Committees passed a landmark global warming bill called the "Global Warming Response Act". It sailed through the full House and Senate two days later and Governor Jon Corzine says he will sign it in July.

The bill will cap greenhouse gas emissions at 1990 levels by 2020, and lower the cap to 80 percent below current levels by 2050 (see New York Times article). It is the first bill in the nation to legislate a 2050 target. This is important because 2050 targets are crucial to avoiding the global warming tipping point, and are a component of the bills currently before Congress. When forward-looking states pass legislation like this, it can force the federal government to do likewise.

I went to Trenton to testify before the Budget Committee, and left there inspired.

It wasn't the first time I'd testified in New Jersey. Two weeks prior I testified before the Senate Environmental Committee, and everyone was still unsure whether the legislature would pass the bill this year. I told the committee that passing this bill would make New Jersey a global leader in environmental protection, plus there were practical benefits such as increasing home values.

By the time I went back on June 18, it was all over but the voting. A majority of the full House and Senate were co-sponsors of the bill. My testimony was quite short this time. I simply said that New Jersey should be proud to be the first state to pass a 2050 target.

The legislation doesn't specify how the targets will be met – it instructs state agencies to get together and work it out. Some say this is a weakness, but I think the built-in flexibility is a strength. The emissions monitoring program will include emissions from power plants in other states that export power to New Jersey – also a good thing.

You might think, New Jersey is just one state – and a small one at that – so how much does this matter? It matters quite a bit! State action has the power to force federal action.