Climate 411

Setting an 80 by 30 target is critical for the third RGGI program review, new EDF modeling shows

As the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) undergoes its third program review, it is critical that the program scale its ambition to both meet the demands of the climate crisis and to fully capitalize on the cost-saving potential of the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) and the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA).

Ensuring ambitious reductions in carbon pollution before 2030 is key to both these objectives. A RGGI cap that aligns with at least 80% emission reductions from a 2005 baseline by 2030 (80 by 30) would reduce cumulative emissions by 182 million tons (between 2025 and 2035) relative to a straight-line trajectory to zero emissions by 2040. Reaching at least 80 by 30 in the power sector is a critical step to achieving the United States’ 2030 economy-wide commitments in line with the U.S. Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC) under the Paris Agreement, and the RGGI states should lead the way. It will also significantly increase the value of the IRA funding currently flowing into the RGGI region.

Power sector modeling commissioned by EDF demonstrates that RGGI states can achieve at least this critical level of abatement while keeping costs low. Aligning the cap trajectory with at least 80 by 30 is a “no regrets” decision that would put the RGGI region on a path consistent with nationwide climate targets. In fact, EDF’s modeling shows that RGGI could go beyond 80 by 30, implementing an 85 by 30 interim cap, achieving even greater emissions reductions at modest cost.

On top of this, near-term reductions in the power sector are crucial to enabling the effective decarbonization of other sectors. A cap aligned with at least 80 by 30 is a strong foundation on which to drive the decarbonization of transport, buildings and industry.

Near-term action is critical

As EDF has argued before, setting an 80 by 30 interim target leads to better results than simply targeting reductions either by 2035 or by 2040 — the two budget trajectories that have been modeled by the RGGI states. A program with no 2030 target will leave critical carbon emission reductions on the table at the precise moment that climate impacts are accelerating and the U.S. is sprinting to deliver on its NDC. Decreasing economywide emissions 50-52% by 2030, as the U.S. NDC requires, will necessitate rapid emissions cuts in the power sector, as electricity is a large source of low cost abatement and a necessary precondition to decarbonizing sectors like transportation and industry where electrification is key. In fact, analysis after analysis indicates that at least an 80% cut in power sector emissions is a critical linchpin for achieving our economy-wide decarbonization commitments on the 2030 timeline.

Limiting the supply of allowances in the early years incentivizes rapid reductions in carbon dioxide emissions, leading to lower cumulative emissions over the study period. CO2 can persist in the atmosphere for centuries, meaning that every year a facility continues emitting, it is contributing more to the stock of CO2 in the atmosphere. Cumulative emissions of long-lived climate pollutants like carbon dioxide, the stock of pollution built up in the atmosphere, largely govern the maximum warming — and associated impacts — we will experience. As a result, the program’s performance on a cumulative basis is a critical measure of its overall climate benefits.

RGGI states need to do two things to improve program performance

First, with 2030 fast approaching, it is critical that the RGGI states quickly and decisively finalize the program review and put a new, ambitious cap into place. The sooner such a cap is adopted, the greater its effect will be on cumulative emissions, as facilities that could be taking additional abatement measures today instead continue to produce greenhouse gases under the significantly less ambitious current cap. Every year up to 2030 that the current cap remains in place leads to an additional 19-34Mt of emissions, relative to moving to a 0x40 cap or 24-62Mt relative to an 80 by 30 cap.*

Second, the cap needs to be as ambitious as possible on the 2030 time-horizon, which will improve cumulative performance and ensure these leadership states are actually achieving power sector reductions aligned with what is necessary to hit U.S. goals under the Paris Agreement.

Ambitious 2030 targets drive considerable additional cumulative emissions reductions, relative to adopting a cap with a straight-line trajectory to zero.

Compared to a zero by 40 cap alone, a zero by 40 cap with an 80 by 30 interim target would yield 19% lower cumulative emissions between 2025 and 2040. Implementing an even more ambitious 85 by 30 cap would lower cumulative emissions 30% relative to a straight path to zero by 2040.

Moreover, the chart above shows that if the RGGI states adopted a cap that went through 80 by 30 on the way to zero by 40, the increased near-term reductions would mostly compensate for the longer run up to deep decarbonization, relative to the zero by 35 scenario. Securing those reductions now, while they are significantly cheaper, would help the program achieve serious environmental ambition at low cost.

These potential savings indicate the stakes of the current program review progress. Should RGGI Inc. pursue an ambitious path forward, the region could see cumulative emissions fall considerably. The certainty of a firm cap will incentivize covered entities to act quickly, while further delay in the program review process — and a less ambitious near-term (2030) trajectory — will result in slower action.

EDF’s modeling approach

EDF’s new analysis evaluates a range of potential caps under various cost, electricity demand and policy design assumptions using FACETS, a multi-region energy system model used for power sector analysis. The model was used to demonstrate how different cap trajectories affect allowance prices, emissions, and electricity costs across a range of policy scenarios.

EDF’s modeling is intended to complement the modeling conducted on behalf of RGGI Inc. by ICF. Like ICF, EDF modeled deep decarbonization of the RGGI participants’ power sectors by 2035 and 2040 but modeled these caps both with and without an interim 80 by 30 target. EDF also tested the impact of different banking rules, leakage mitigation and the Emissions Containment Reserve (ECR) and Cost Containment Reserve (CCR).

Beyond cap and policy options scenarios, EDF tested the impact of cost assumptions for renewables and natural gas, as well as high electricity demand through a range of sensitivities.

FACETS does not solve for zero emissions, instead using a 95% emissions reduction (over 2005 levels) as an approximation of net zero.

This analysis complements ICF’s modeling using IPM, by using broadly similar assumptions and demonstrates that a more ambitious cap on the 2030 time horizon can yield very significant emissions benefits at very low cost.

High ambition at low cost

These emission reduction benefits can be achieved with a low price tag. When the cap includes an 80 by 30 interim target on the way to deep decarbonization in 2040, allowance prices remain below the recent RGGI average through 2030, and even through 2040, average allowance prices remain at or below the ECR trigger level. The RGGI system could even go beyond 80 by 30 at modest cost. Under an 85 by 30 cap, allowances prices remain near the ECR trigger price for roughly a decade and fall below the ECR trigger after 2035. Throughout the entire study period, allowance prices remain well below the CCR trigger under an 85 by 30 cap. As illustrated earlier, this cap trajectory yields considerably lower emissions, indicating that cheap abatement opportunities are readily available in the region.

Further, the EDF analysis shows that a more ambitious cap has only a modest impact on electricity costs. The cost of delivered electricity follows a similar trajectory in scenarios with and without the 80 by 30 interim target, in spite of the emissions benefits the near-term target achieves.

Wholesale electricity costs are expected to rise over the next decade in the RGGI region, whether or not the cap is tightened. A 2040 deep decarbonization cap does not push these costs up much further and an 80 by 30 interim target does very little to drive costs up beyond that. Ultimately, gas prices and high electricity demand represent much larger upside risks to electricity prices regardless of the cap scenario. Under reference gas price and demand assumptions, an 80 by 30 cap is associated with at most a roughly 2% increase in electricity prices. To the extent that increase in wholesale prices is reflected in actual consumer bills, the impact is likely to be even smaller than 2%, as retail electricity prices include other costs and states are often deploying other strategies, including using RGGI revenue, to help lower customer bills.

The low cost of ramping up RGGI’s ambition is attributable in part to the investments made by the IRA. A November 2023 analysis from Resources for the Future modeled a nationwide 80 by 30 cap with and without the IRA, finding that inclusion of the IRA is associated allowance prices 43-66% lower than under the cap alone. While the RFF analysis considered a nationwide cap, the same fundamental dynamic is at play in the RGGI system. That is, the IRA buys down the cost of clean energy resources, easing the cost burden of electricity providers substituting away from fossil fuels.

It is the perfect moment for RGGI to take advantage of the IRA investments, leveraging the significant cost declines to lock in policy frameworks to ensure emissions abatement at significantly lower cost.

Conclusion

EDF modeling results clearly show that more ambitious caps for the RGGI system — caps that actually match the ambition necessary from the electric power sector — will not drive up costs. Enacting a cap that requires at least an 80% reduction below 2005 levels by 2030 would generate significantly greater climate change mitigation benefits without meaningfully impacting electricity prices. The RGGI states should prioritize including this interim pollution reduction goal in their third program review.

 

* The difference in annual emissions between cap trajectories varies from year to year, with caps beginning to diverge in 2026. The difference between the BAU cap and more ambitious caps general increases in the later years, as the BAU cap levels off after 2030 but other caps continue to decline.

Posted in Carbon Markets, Cities and states, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, News, Policy / Authors: , / Comments are closed

Five years into New York’s climate law, the state needs a bold cap-and-invest program to bring emissions goals into reach

This blog was co-authored by Lulu August, State Climate Policy Intern

This month marks five years since New York State’s Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act (CLCPA) was signed into law. At the time of its enactment in 2019, the groundbreaking climate law set New York apart as a national and global climate leader.

Indeed, action in line with the CLCPA’s emissions and environmental justice requirements would be transformative — promising a safer future, cleaner air and good-paying jobs in the growing clean energy economy for New Yorkers today and for future generations.

Five years in, however, New York does not yet have the rules in place to deliver on the climate law and all the promise it holds for New Yorkers.

Read More »

Posted in Carbon Markets, Cities and states, Economics, Energy, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, News, Policy / Authors: / Comments are closed

Navigating Jurisdictional REDD+: A Pricing Guide for Tropical Forest Nations

The challenge is clear: if tropical deforestation were a country, it would rank fourth, only behind China, the US, and India in emissions. However, the solution is even clearer: these same forests can provide 23% of the cost-effective climate mitigation needed before 2030, if the right economic incentives are in place.[1]

Despite numerous pledges, forest loss shows little sign of abating. The cost of protecting all forests at high-risk of deforestation by 2030 requires $130 billion in annual funding while existing financing is only $2-3 billion.[2] Bridging this gap will require public, private, and philanthropic funding on a scale and at a speed we have never seen before.

Read More »

Posted in Carbon Markets, Forest protection / Tagged | Authors: , / Comments are closed

Why it’s time to explore the potential impacts of Solar Radiation Modification

Photo: Pezibear

The impacts from climate change will continue to escalate in the years ahead, and a growing number of scientists, philanthropies and companies have become interested in strategies to lower global temperatures more quickly. One of the options is reflecting some sunlight back into space.  

Because the consequences of Solar Radiation Modification (SRM), as it’s called, are hard to project, further study is critical before any action is seriously considered.  

While driving the transition to clean energy sources and rapidly reducing climate pollution remain EDF’s major foci, we also need to understand the implications of trying to directly influence earth’s temperature through this technology. That’s why EDF is embarking on an ambitious research program to learn more about SRM and its potential impacts. It is critical that decision makers and the public have a better understanding of the potential implications of deploying SRM before it is seriously considered.  

This work does not mean EDF supports deployment of SRM or other geoengineering strategies. However, these ideas may be increasingly considered in the next few decades, so it’s essential we understand the potential impacts. We need solid scientific information that’s accessible to decision makers in all countries to form the basis of future decisions about the use of this technology. 

Read More »

Posted in Geoengineering, News, Science / Comments are closed

North Carolina Carbon Plan: Duke’s hydrogen plan is a mirage, but there are proven clean technologies available now to meet customer need

On June 17, the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) was represented by our expert witnesses at a technical conference before the NC Utilities Commission (NCUC). Each of the intervenors in the Carbon Plan/Integrated Resource Plan docket, including EDF, were given a few minutes to briefly summarize testimony filed in May. EDF’s testimony centered around the need for Duke Energy to more aggressively leverage North Carolina’s offshore wind potential — the subject of this recent blog — and the fallacy of Duke’s hydrogen plans.

Read More »

Posted in News / Comments are closed

Lessons learned: New climate and biodiversity funds don’t need to start from scratch

By Juan Pablo Hoffmaister, Associate Vice President, Global Climate Cooperation, and Zach Cohen, Senior Analyst, Global Climate Cooperation 

As we face the triple planetary crisis of climate change, air pollution, and biodiversity loss, the need for urgent and united action is undeniable. Addressing these linked challenges demands more than just ambition—it requires collaboration, guided by the principle of complementarity. This approach emphasizes working together in harmony to achieve greater effectiveness and sustainability in our efforts to protect the planet.  Read More »

Posted in Climate Finance / Comments are closed