RGGI States Can Save Billions on Healthcare with Stronger Program
BOSTON—New research from Acadia Center shows that a strengthened RGGI program would drive $2.1 billion in avoided health impacts. A stronger cap on carbon pollution would drive reductions in regional emissions of harmful pollutants like SO2, NOX, and particulate matter, which would lead to fewer emergency room visits, missed work and school days and premature deaths. The burdens of these co-pollutants fall disproportionately on low-income communities and communities of color, meaning that a stronger RGGI program will provide the greatest benefit to underserved populations.
“RGGI has created jobs, economic growth and climate benefits while improving the region’s air quality,” said Daniel Sosland, President of Acadia Center. “The RGGI states should build on that success by establishing ambitious cap levels through 2030 which would deliver substantial health benefits for the participating states.”
The new analysis shows that a 5 percent annual decline in the RGGI cap from 2020 to 2030—the most ambitious cap the RGGI states have modeled—would result in over $2 billion in avoided health savings, more than double the benefit of a continued annual cap decline of 2.5 percent.
“A stronger emissions cap over the next decade can help keep Springfield’s kids out of emergency rooms and in their classrooms,” said Sarita Hudson, Manager at Pioneer Valley Asthma Coalition. “Reducing pollution would make a huge difference in the everyday wellbeing and lives of this community.”
Environmental groups, health professionals and low-income advocates have called on the RGGI states to seize the opportunity provided by the program to look out for the communities burdened by pollution in a way that dramatically improves local air quality and generates revenue for the entire state. “The RGGI states can help low-income communities breathe easy, and strengthen them by re-investing RGGI proceeds into projects that spur local economic activity and create jobs,” said Jesse Lederman, Director of Public Health and Environmental Initiatives at Arise for Social Justice.
“Good state and regional policy needs to use this kind of smart thinking, to avoid inadvertent cost shifting from energy to health care. We support this forward-thinking effort” said Paul Lipke, Senior Advisor for Energy and Buildings, Health Care Without Harm.
Information on the 2016 RGGI Program Review, including meeting materials and stakeholder comments, can be found at: http://www.rggi.org/design/2016-program-review
Additional information on RGGI’s performance to date and needed reforms through the 2016 Program Review are described in Acadia Center’s 2016 RGGI Status Report:
RGGI Overview:
The Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) is the first mandatory, market-based effort in the United States to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Nine northeastern and mid-Atlantic states reduce CO2 emissions by setting an overall limit on emissions “allowances,” which permit power plants to dispose of CO2 in the atmosphere. States sell allowances through auctions and invest proceeds in consumer benefit programs: energy efficiency, renewable energy, and other programs.
The official RGGI web site is: www.rggi.org
Media Contact:
Jordan Stutt, Policy Analyst, Clean Energy Initiative
617-742-0054 x105, jstutt@acadiacenter.org
New Analysis Shows New England and New York Can Achieve a Clean Energy Economy and Dramatically Reduce Carbon Pollution
Acadia Center’s EnergyVision 2030 Details How States Can Build on Clean Energy Efforts in Four Key Areas
BOSTON—In a new comprehensive analysis, Acadia Center—a non-profit, research and advocacy organization committed to advancing the clean energy future—demonstrates how seven states in the Northeast can spur use of market-ready technologies that empower consumers, control energy costs and advance economic growth while lowering carbon pollution.
Using detailed market data, EnergyVision 2030: Transitioning to a Low-Emissions Energy System shows that efforts by New York and New England to modernize their energy systems and expand clean energy resources are paying off—and by redoubling these efforts, Northeast states will be on the path to a low-carbon economic future and reduce carbon pollution emissions 45% by 2030.
“It’s never been clearer that state leadership is needed to capture the benefits of a clean energy future for residents,” noted Daniel Sosland, president of Acadia Center. “EnergyVision 2030 offers good news: Northeast states are in a position to create a truly modern, clean energy future and provide the economic, consumer and public health benefits associated with a clean energy system,” said Sosland. “The Northeast can exert national leadership in how to reduce pollution, advance consumer options and reinvest energy dollars in the local economy.”
EnergyVision 2030 shows that readily available products, from heat pumps to electric cars to solar panels, create the means for states to advance a consumer-friendly energy system by increasing adoption of clean energy technologies in four key areas—grid modernization, electric generation, buildings and transportation. In many cases, states already have the policy tools they need to increase adoption of these technologies; they must simply improve and accelerate existing mechanisms to achieve the goals set in EnergyVision 2030.
“EnergyVision 2030 presents a practical, “can-do” way forward. It is one of many paths states can choose to take, and provides a vision that states can follow with achievable changes in policy and regulation to secure their place as clean energy leaders,” said Jamie Howland, Director of Acadia’s Climate and Energy Analysis (CLEAN) Center.
EnergyVision 2030 describes exactly how much of each technology needs to be used to shift the energy system. States can support development of renewables by updating their renewable energy requirements to reflect the increased potential and competitive position of clean energy. For example, electric vehicles can grow from present levels to 17% of cars on the road, an average of 41% growth per year—a level certain states are already demonstrating is feasible, like Massachusetts, where electric vehicle sales grew 40% annually from 2014 to 2016.
EnergyVision 2030 can be viewed as an interactive website and in printable formats covering each key area of the energy system and focusing on goals for New York and New England separately and as a region. Access the website at 2030.acadiacenter.org. Acadia Center will hold a 15-minute press briefing today, May 9, at 11am in which we will present a summary of the report and give additional time to respond to questions. To sign up for the press briefing click here.
To request an interview, contact Krysia Wazny at 617-742-0054 x107 or kwazny@acadiacenter.org. Visuals related to the study can be accessed here.
Media Contacts:
Jamie Howland, Director, Acadia’s Climate and Energy Analysis (CLEAN) Center
jhowland@acadiacenter.org, 860-246-7121 x201
Krysia Wazny, Communications Director
kwazny@acadiacenter.org, 617-742-0054 x107
EnergyVision 2030 FAQ
Frequently Asked Questions about EnergyVision 2030
What is EnergyVision 2030?
EnergyVision 2030 is a data-based analysis of options to expand clean energy resources in New York and the six New England states. It examines where current efforts can lead, how consumer adoption and market penetration rates can grow, and what increases in clean energy efforts are needed to attain emissions goals.
EnergyVision 2030 shows that advances in technologies that are now readily available, from heat pumps to electric cars to solar panels, create the means for states to advance a consumer-friendly energy system by increasing adoption in four key areas—grid modernization, electric generation, buildings, and transportation.
Why did Acadia Center prepare it?
Acadia Center prepared EnergyVision 2030 to provide a pathway for policymakers and others in the Northeast to show how market-ready clean energy technologies can modernize the energy systems, give consumers better options to control energy costs, and advance economic growth, while dramatically reducing climate pollution.
What are the key takeaways from the study?
States can achieve a modern clean energy system using available technologies, achieving a 45% emissions reduction by 2030, if policies are enacted now to foster and expand adoption of clean energy resources.
How does EnergyVision 2030 present the data?
EnergyVision 2030 uses the results from Acadia Center’s modeling to describe how much states should increase each clean energy technologies to shift the energy system. EnergyVision 2030 then offers detailed policy recommendations with policy options that states can use to achieve these results.
How can the information be used?
Information presented in EnergyVision 2030 shows the incremental gains needed in key clean energy areas for the region to achieve reductions in climate pollution and build robust clean energy economies. Advocates, stakeholders, and policymakers can use the information presented in EnergyVision 2030 to focus on where to expand current policies that will have the most impact or oppose policies that will move the region off this path. In many cases, states already have the policy tools they need to increase adoption of these technologies; they must simply improve and accelerate existing mechanisms to achieve the goals set in EnergyVision 2030.
What was the methodology?
EnergyVision 2030 uses the Long-range Energy Alternatives Planning System (LEAP) model from Stockholm Environment Institute to project a detailed forecast of energy consumption in all sectors and an emissions trajectory. Acadia Center incorporated the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Annual Energy Outlook (AEO) forecast, the ISO New England and New York ISO electric ’s Capacity, Energy, Loads, and Transmission (CELT) forecasts, and other data sources as appropriate. The LEAP model contains an electric dispatch model to simulate the electric system, determine the generation mix and ensure that there are sufficient resources to satisfy peak demand for power in summer and winter.
Why a 45% emissions reduction?
The scientific consensus is that to avoid the worst impacts of global warming, the U.S. needs to reduce emissions by 80% from 1990 levels by 2050. States must reduce emissions 45% by 2030 to be on a trajectory to meet that goal, i.e. if a straight line were drawn from the present emission levels to the required 2050 levels, the region would hit a 45% reduction in 2030.
Why 2030?
Most states in the region have committed to reduce emissions 80% by the year 2050 in some form, and several have goals for emissions reductions in the interim period. Building markets takes time and has cumulative impacts, so acting now is critical. 2030 is closer than it seems but offers states sufficient time to reach the clean energy levels outlined in EnergyVision 2030 if they take action in the next two to three years.
What does EnergyVision 2030 tell us about the economy?
In developing EnergyVision 2030, Acadia Center did not model how increases in clean energy technologies and processes will impact local economies. Numerous studies, including some by Acadia Center, show the economic benefits of shifting from paying for imported fossil fuels to investing in local clean energy improvements like those presented in EnergyVision 2030. These benefits include stronger local economies, local job growth, and significant consumer savings.
Does EnergyVision 2030 address calls for more natural gas as a “bridge fuel”?
EnergyVision 2030 analysis shows that the current and planned pipeline capacity in New England will be sufficient to meet the region’s needs as expanding clean generation and energy efficiency reduce demand. Adding new pipeline capacity to the region would cost ratepayers billions of dollars and would lock the region into higher-emission gas generation for decades.
RI Public Utilities Commission Votes for Three-Year Energy Efficiency Targets
PROVIDENCE, RI – On April 27, 2017, the Rhode Island Public Utilities Commission unanimously approved the Energy Efficiency and Resource Management Council’s (EERMC) 2018-2020 Energy Savings Targets for Rhode Island in order to help save consumers money on their utility bills and boost Rhode Island’s economy. The 2018-2020 Energy Savings Targets for electricity and natural gas were developed collaboratively by key stakeholders representing a wide range of consumer interests, including the Division of Public Utilities and Carriers, the Office of Energy Resources, the EERMC, National Grid, Acadia Center, and People’s Power and Light.
Saving electricity and natural gas through energy efficiency reduces consumers’ energy bills, lowers the cost of doing business in the state, and reduces greenhouse gas emissions. The 2018-2020 Energy Savings Targets are designed to save over 580,000 megawatt-hours (MWh) of electricity and 1.2 million MMBTu of natural gas, an amount equivalent to the energy use of over 43,000 homes for one year. The electric savings targets peak in 2018 and decline slightly in the following years and the natural gas savings follow a modest increase over the same three years.
Rhode Island is a national leader in energy efficiency, earning top scores from the American Council on an Energy Efficient Economy year after year. In 2016, Rhode Island earned a perfect score for the state’s cost-effective energy efficiency policies and programs for the third year in a row by achieving annual electricity savings of close to 3% of retail sales. Despite facing among the most ambitious energy savings targets in the nation, National Grid has met or exceeded Rhode Island’s energy savings targets every year since 2013.
“Rhode Island is poised to continue its success thanks to strong and mature energy efficiency policies and programs that encourage energy efficiency and make it easier for residents and businesses to make smart energy decisions, including rebates, financing options, and technical assistance,” said Acadia Center Rhode Island Director Abigail Anthony. Dr. Anthony represents environmental interests on the state’s Energy Efficiency and Resource Management Council (EERMC), which provides independent input and oversight to National Grid’s electric and natural gas efficiency programs.
The 2018-2020 Energy Savings Targets are based on a quantitative analysis and evaluation of the opportunity for cost-effective energy savings in Rhode Islanders’ homes and businesses. This means that the financial benefits of the energy saved must be greater than the costs of saving it. The analysis considers the potential for existing and new technologies, innovations, and strategies to reduce energy use. National Grid will file a Three-Year Plan to achieve the newly approved energy savings targets with the Public Utilities Commission on September 1, 2017, and subsequently will file detailed annual energy efficiency plans and budgets each November for the Commission’s review and consideration.
Media Contacts:
Abigail Anthony, Director, Rhode Island Office
401-267-0600, aanythony@acadiacenter.org
Krysia Wazny, Communications Director
617-742-0054 x107, kwazny@acadiacenter.org
Proposed Eversource rate hike unpopular with some residents, politicians
Mark LeBel, a staff attorney with the Acadia Center — a nonprofit advocacy group intervening in the rate case — said the imposition of a demand charge based on a 15-minute peak would be “unfair, and really hard to manage” without “smart meters” to keep track of peak usage dramatically adding to costs.
Also, LeBel said, moving from existing rate structures that provide customers with incentives to reduce consumption in peak months or during peak hours would “be bad for energy efficiency and low-income customers who tend to use less electricity. For customers who use more, they’ll be paying less per kilowatt-hour, while people using less will see their bills rise because of the higher customer charge.”
Read the full article from the Greenfield Recorder here.
Will CT catch or miss the boat on offshore wind energy?
But will that be too late?
“No I don’t think so,” said Peter Shattuck, director of the clean energy initiative and the Massachusetts office of the regional environmental advocacy group Acadia Center. “It’s taking off now, so if Connecticut acts within the next couple of years – the sooner the better … I would say they haven’t missed out yet. But some of the decisions given what other states are doing are going to be made in the near future.”
Read the full article from the CT Mirror here.
Federal rollbacks require states to lead the transition to a clean energy economy
BOSTON — Today’s announcement from the Trump Administration rolling back carbon pollution standards for power plants and weakening consideration of the societal costs of carbon pollution from the regulatory review process is the latest in a series of ill-informed actions that will damage the nation’s need to build a modern, less polluting and more consumer-friendly economic future. These actions by the Trump Administration underscore that Northeast states must act to protect existing climate policies and step up their commitments to address the threat of climate change.
“The Trump Administration is turning the nation’s back on the historic opportunity to build a clean energy future—a future that will modernize our energy system, offer consumers better value for their energy dollars and invest in state and local economies while taking the right steps to reduce climate pollution,” said Daniel Sosland, president of Acadia Center. “The Administration’s actions will increase pollution, damage public health and cost consumers more. Removing from federal decision making the impact carbon pollution has on society is a thinly-veiled attempt to make these backward decisions seem more economic. Leadership to safeguard consumers and the climate has now shifted to the states and cities, and Acadia Center is calling on states to respond by redoubling their commitments to a clean energy future and spurring market growth for clean power, energy efficiency and low polluting technologies.”
Northeast states have proven their leadership by implementing bipartisan climate and energy policies that enhance economic growth while cutting pollution. These state actions are now dramatically more important as the Trump Administration seeks to undermine environmental and climate protections. Key policies that states have put into place and must protect include:
- The Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) cap and trade program, which has helped to reduce emissions from regional power plants 40% over 8 years of operation while raising $2.6 billion for states to reinvest in energy efficiency and consumer programs. Actual data shows that economic growth in the RGGI states exceeded other states. RGGI was implemented in response to federal inaction on climate change and provided a model for state-based policies at the heart of the Clean Power Plan pollution standards now being rejected by the Trump Administration.
- The Zero Emissions Vehicle (ZEV) agreement among Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, Vermont, Maryland, Oregon and California to put 3.3 million electric vehicles on the road by 2025. The ZEV program and decades of established leadership by California under the Clean Air Act may be the next target for federal rollbacks if EPA revokes the authority for California and thereby other states to adopt emissions standards more stringent than federal minimums.
- Cost-effective Energy Efficiency investment programs are leading the nation and delivering billions of dollars in energy cost savings, avoiding air pollution, and reducing strain on the grid. In the 6-state New England power grid alone, energy efficiency investments have improved the reliability of the grid and avoided nearly $500 million in consumer payments for unnecessary transmission infrastructure. ENERGY STAR, one of the core federal efficiency programs is targeted for elimination under the Trump Administration’s proposed federal budget.
- Renewable Energy development driven by state Renewable Portfolio Standards, solar policies, and coordinated procurement of several power plants worth of on- and offshore wind, solar and hydroelectricity is unlocking clean energy potential and helping to phase out dated fossil fuel options. Federal tax credits for renewable energy and continuing offshore wind leasing are critical to enabling clean energy deployment.
Additionally, Northeast states have made explicit commitments to address the threat of climate change. New England states have agreed to a 35%-45% reduction in carbon pollution by 2030, and cities and states in the region are signatories to a multi-national agreement to reduce climate pollution sufficiently by 2050 to limit global temperature increase to 2 degrees Celsius.
“There is broad public support for common-sense steps to rein in climate pollution,” said Peter Shattuck, Director of Acadia Center’s Clean Energy Initiative. “The elections didn’t halt climate change, but they created a void that must be filled by city, state and regional leadership on one of the greatest threats of our time.”
MEDIA CONTACTS:
Peter Shattuck, Director, Clean Energy Initiative
617-742-0054 x103, pshattuck@acadiacenter.org
Krysia Wazny, Communications Director
617-742-0054 x107, kwazny@acadiacenter.org
New Analysis Shows Outdated Rules Causing Utilities to Pursue High Priced Options; Eversource Rate Case More of the Same
BOSTON — New analysis from Acadia Center demonstrates that outdated financial incentives are driving expenditures on expensive and unnecessary utility infrastructure and inhibiting clean energy in the Northeast. Analysis of recent electric transmission and gas pipeline expansions demonstrates that utilities earn higher returns on these traditional expenditures than on local clean energy alternatives. The need to reform outdated incentives and change utility planning has come to stark relief in a rate case proposal from one of the region’s largest utilities. In it, Eversource proposes unprecedented returns on expenditures and electricity rates that inhibit clean energy while causing consumers to pay more than they should.
“Energy efficiency, community and rooftop solar, and smart energy management are revolutionizing the energy sector by offering clean, lower cost energy alternatives, but outdated incentive structures that provide high utility financial returns for old ways of doing business are standing in the way”, said Daniel Sosland, President of Acadia Center. “It’s time for the Commonwealth to seize the moment, save money for ratepayers and build a clean, lower carbon energy system.”
Acadia Center’s analysis Incentives for Change: Why Utilities Continue to Build and How Regulators Can Motivate Them to Modernize, shows through two examples of commonly financed energy projects — a transmission project in Maine and gas pipeline expansion in Connecticut — how utilities stand to earn far more from expensive, traditional infrastructure than from low cost clean energy alternatives.
“Under the current rules, it is impossible for consumers to have confidence that the millions of dollars we are all paying for energy infrastructure are the best choices for our environment and wallets,” said Abigail Anthony, Director of Acadia Center’s Grid Modernization Initiative. “The rules need to change to stimulate competition between traditional power plants, pipelines, and transmission and local solutions like solar, storage, and smart appliances.”
Utility financial incentives and grid planning rules are a part of Eversource’s rate case in Massachusetts. While advancing some important steps, too much of what Eversource proposes would undermine consumer control and clean energy incentives. On the positive side, Eversource proposes to “decouple” its revenue from electricity sales, which supports the Commonwealth’s efforts to ramp up energy efficiency. The company also proposes some potentially beneficial grid modernization investments, procurement of energy storage, and measures to help deploy more electric vehicle charging stations.
However, Eversource proposes other changes that exacerbate a regulatory structure that skews in favor of traditional projects over clean energy, including:
- Highest-in-the-region returns on equity of 10.5%, which would increase rewards for overbuild infrastructure rather than utilizing clean energy alternatives
- Automatic annual revenue increases of at least 3.5% (roughly $35 million) per year, rather than incentives to improve performance and achieve consumer and clean energy goals
- Higher fixed monthly charges and demand charges that reduce customer incentives to save or produce energy and disproportionately impact low income customers.
Additional information on proposals in Eversource’s rate case are available in Acadia Center’s summary analysis.
Contacts:
Abigail Anthony, Director, Grid Modernization Initiative
401.276.0600, aanthony@acadiacenter.org
Krysia Wazny, Communications Director
617.742.0054 x107, kwazny@acadiacenter.org
RGGI Emissions Fell Again in 2016
Declining Emissions Signal Need for Reform
In advance of expected actions by the Trump administration to remove or weaken federal climate protections, the Northeast’s pioneering climate program continues to see reductions in carbon pollution, reflected by today’s three-year low auction clearing price. Member states must now strengthen the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative to preserve the program’s effectiveness and signal commitment to continuing bi-partisan climate leadership.
Introduction
CO2 emissions from power plants have been steadily declining across the nine states of the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) for the last decade, and in 2016 fell 8.4 percent below the emissions cap. Since the program began in 2009, the decarbonization of the electric sector has been a major victory for the environment, health and economy of the region. Continued investments in clean energy and complementary climate policies in the participating states will help to achieve greater emissions reductions, but the RGGI states must do more to build on their first-in-the-nation program. Through the current Program Review,1 the participating states should strengthen RGGI to align the program with the current emissions trends and future climate goals.
Emissions
RGGI CO2 emissions fell to 79.2 million tons in 2016, a 4.7 percent decrease from 2015, marking the sixth consecutive year of power-sector emissions declines. Since 2008, the year before RGGI began, emissions are down 40.4 percent.
While several factors including growth in renewable energy, efficiency improvements, and fuel-switching have contributed to regional emissions reductions, a large share of these reductions has been attributed to the RGGI program.2 By establishing a price on carbon emissions and generating revenue for clean energy investments, RGGI has accelerated the transition to a cleaner electric sector. Increases in energy efficiency and growth in renewable energy output will enable the RGGI states to continue to achieve ambitious emissions reductions.
Figure 1: RGGI Emissions Continue to Fall
Market Dynamics
Auction Results
RGGI’s success has resulted in lower-than-expected emissions, which, in turn, have resulted in lower-than-projected compliance costs. With annual emissions falling below the RGGI cap in each of the program’s first eight years, there is an excess of allowances in circulation, leading to low allowance prices. Following ten consecutive auctions in which the auction clearing price was determined by the price floor—the lowest price at which allowances will be sold at a given auction—the RGGI states decided to reduce the cap by 45 percent. That decision had immediate impacts on the RGGI market, driving increased demand for allowances. Increased RGGI allowance prices proved to be temporary, however, as continued emissions reductions have outpaced the decline of the recently adjusted cap, creating an allowance oversupply. These conditions have resulted in falling allowance prices, with Auction 35 clearing at a three-year low of $3.00, 15 percent below the previous auction and 43 percent below the clearing price from one year ago.
Figure 2: Allowance Oversupply Leads to Low Auction Prices
Allowance Oversupply
RGGI, like nearly all emissions trading programs, has struggled with an oversupplied market. Emissions reductions have been achieved more quickly and cost effectively than projected, creating a large gulf between cap levels and actual emissions, as shown in Figure 1. This has led to a market flooded with low-priced allowances, diminishing the program’s impact and undermining the environmental integrity of the cap. Recognizing these problems, the RGGI states agreed during the previous Program Review to gradually eliminate allowances banked prior to 2014 by adjusting 2014-2020 cap levels downward.3
This innovative strategy has proved effective, but a new surplus of allowances has been accumulated since 2014, and we expect it to increase through 2020 as trends that have contributed to the decline in emissions (growth in renewable energy, efficiency improvements, and fuel-switching) continue to bring emissions down.
In the first three years under the new cap, emissions have fallen below cap levels by 4.7 million tons (2014), 5.6 million tons (2015) and 7.3 million tons (2016). Over these three years all available allowances have been purchased, creating a surplus of 17.6 million tons. Additional allowances purchased from the Cost Containment Reserve (CCR) have added to the surplus, introducing 15 million additional allowances without corresponding emissions to balance the market. This brings the new surplus to 32.6 million tons, as shown in Figure 3. If emissions follow projections under recent ICF modeling of a post-2020 2.5% cap decline,4 the surplus will grow to 52.8 million tons through 2020. If CCR allowances are purchased, that figure could grow by up to 40 million tons.
Figure 3: Allowance Surplus, 2014-2020
Need for Market Reform
The emissions reductions achieved by the RGGI states have been a tremendous success, but program reforms will be necessary to ensure that this success continues. As detailed in Part II of our RGGI Status Report: Achieving Climate Commitments,5 the RGGI states should make the following changes to strengthen the program:
- Establish a 2021-2030 cap that declines annually by 5% of the 2020 baseline;
- Commit to an adjustment for banked allowances accumulated from 2014-2020;
- Eliminate the CCR or increase CCR price triggers to ensure that CCR allowances are only purchased during periods of exceptionally high demand;
- Establish an Emissions Containment Reserve6 to capitalize on emissions reductions and to protect against future allowance oversupply; and
- Increase the auction reserve price to at least $4/ton to maintain a meaningful price on carbon emissions.
1For more information on the current RGGI Program Review, see: http://rggi.org/design/2016-program-review
2Why Have Greenhouse Emissions in RGGI States Declined? An Econometric Attribution to Economic, Energy Market, and Policy Factors, Brian Murray and Peter Maniloff, Duke Nicholas Institute, August 2015. Available at: https://nicholasinstitute.duke.edu/environment/publications/why-have-greenhouse-emissions-rggi-states-declined-econometric-attribution-economic
3This adjustment was conducted in two steps; one adjustment to account for allowances banked during the first control period (2009-2011) and a second adjustment for the second control period (2012-2014). For more information, see: https://www.rggi.org/docs/SCPIABA.pdf
4IPM modeling conducted by ICF for RGGI, Inc. available here: http://rggi.org/design/2016-program-review/rggi-meetings
5RGGI Status Report Part II: Achieving Climate Commitments, Acadia Center, August 2016. Available at: http://acadiacenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/Acadia-Center_RGGI-Report-2016_Part-II.pdf
6The Emissions Containment Reserve (ECR) was first proposed by the RGGI states during the November 21st, 2016 Stakeholder Webinar: http://rggi.org/docs/ProgramReview/2016/11-21-16/2016_Nov_21_ECR_Presentation.pdf. For more information on how the ECR might function, see: http://www.rff.org/events/event/2017-02/emissions-containment-reserve-rggi-how-might-it-work
Easing auto emissions rules would set back CT clean-air efforts
What got Blumenthal’s eyes to widen and had him energetically taking notes that afternoon in a spare New Haven City Hall conference room, was something said by Bill Dornbos, who runs the Connecticut office of the regional group Acadia Center. Dornbos – who is a lawyer – told Blumenthal that it would be pretty easy for Trump to get rid of the “California waiver.”
That bit of environmental wonk jargon, part of major revisions to the Clean Air Act in 1970, allows California to set its own stricter-than-federal standards for motor vehicle emissions. It also allows other states to use California’s standards instead of the federal ones.
[…]
Neither is improving. Greenhouse gas emissions went up 7.5 percent from 2012 to 2015, and probably even more in 2016, according to calculations from publicly available data done by Acadia Center, which attributes the rise primarily to the transportation sector. With gas prices low, driving is up dramatically in Connecticut along with sales of larger, less efficient vehicles.
[…]
And Acadia’s Dornbos said all options are on the table for them, including litigation. “We will not leave the future health and prosperity of Connecticut and the Northeast to arbitrary federal decisions that ignore basic science and the law,” he said.