51 votes to pass the bill60 votes to achieve cloture (cloture = quick vote)The History of Climate Change1712 - Thomas Newcomen invents the (atmospheric) steam engine to pump water out of coal mines.1859 – Edwin Drake completes first successful oil well in Pennsylvania2007 - Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency rulesCO2 is a pollutant under the Clean Air Act2009 - HR2454 passed with vote of 219-212 on June 26th in the 111th Congress. This would cover approx. 7400 entities which are responsible for 72% of the US footprint.Many Democrats voted against the bill because they felt it was too weak. Other Democrats voted against it due to political issues in their home districts. Senate re-convened on September 8th.Early October vote,30-60 days to consolidate House & Senate versions putting the presidents signature sometime immediately before CopenhagenWith the level of civility around the healthcare debate right now, I wouldn’t have my fingers crossed. There are already 3 senators calling to delay the climate/energy bill till after the beginning of the year. Kent Conrad (D-ND)Byron Dorgan (D-ND)Ben Nelson (D-Neb)There has been recent and considerable talk about separating the climate and energy portions of HR2454.
With the cost containment mechanisms already in place in the bill (strategic reserve, offsetting, banking & borrowing, ) auctioning a higher percentage of the allowances would allow the dividend to be returned to those most at risk from the possibility of increases of consumer goods and energy. There is considerable disagreement among government officials about what percentage of these allowances should be auctioned. Peter Orzag – Director of the Office of Management and BudgetIt is, in fact, the auctioning of allowances which creates the largest portion of the expected revenue for the federal government. Making health-care possible? Reducing the debt our children will still owe (even if the banks pay back the bail-out).
Japan recently reported its emission was down 6.2% to 1.286 billion tonnes CO2e annually. 1.371 (07-08 years were highest ever).Economic downturn resulted in ~ 3% depression in CO2e emissions. While electric power utilities may well take advantage of offsets to reduce costs, there is no certainty about when, or to what degree, they will pass these savings on to consumers.The cap goes up to 5.4 billion tonnes in 2016Falling by 100 – 150 million tonnes every year until………That would decline in time to only 1 billion in 2050.
Thanks to our good friends at Purdue University for this graphic.This is a representation of the total carbon emissions per 100 square kilometers
This map takes into account the population in the area.
Highlight the similarities between today and 1980. Will be have the same rebound that we always have? Or is this a different time?The Rocky Mountain Institute calculates that if the 40 least-efficient states were to reach the electrical efficiency of the 10 most-efficient ones, national electricity use would be reduced by one third. This would allow the equivalent of 62 percent of the country's 617 coal-fired power plants to be closed.
Now ask yourself that question again. Is this 1980 or 2010?In 2008, oil use dropped 5 percent, coal 1 percent, and carbon emissions by 3 percent. Estimates for 2009, based on U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) data for the first nine months, show oil use down by another 5 percent. Coal is set to fall by 10 percent.Carbon emissions from burning all fossil fuels dropped 9 percent over the two years.
Some examples of industries which emit considerable carbon and are exported from the US. Can you say Mid-West?
Development does not take place in a vacuum. The transfer of technologies to developing nations that is made possible by the 1 billion tons annually would allow for the “leapfrogging” of technologies in the the developing world…..who did not contribute to the historical emission of CO2, but are most at risk from its effect. This would allow the “helping of two birds with one stone”. If developing countries follow the same path as Annex I countries, the entire world will suffer the consequences. MAC – Marginal Abatement CostUnlimited banking of allowances for use in future compliance years. Sets up a two-year rolling compliance period (average emissions over 24 months) to borrow an unlimited number of allowances. Firms can satisfy up to 15 percent of their compliance obligations with borrowed allowances two to five years into the future, but must pay an 8 percent premium in allowances.Sets up a "strategic reserve" of 2.5 billion metric tons of emission allowances in the event carbon prices rise faster than expected or reach unexpectedly high levels at auction. The initial starting trigger price for 2012 is $28. For 2013 and 2014, the minimum auction price would be the previous year's price increased by 5 percent plus the rate of inflation (as measured by the Consumer Price Index for all urban consumers). After three years, the "trigger" price is set as 60 percent above the 36 month average price.Directs USDA within one year of enactment to establish list of eligible offsets, issue regulations to ensure projects are verifiable, additional and permanent. Describes eligible types of offset projects, quantification, scientific uncertainty. USDA must conduct random, ongoing audits of offset projects, credits and third-party verifier practices.Sets up a USDA Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction and Sequestration Advisory Committee. The nine-person committee will provide scientific and technical advice on establishing, implementing, and ensuring the overall environmental integrity of the domestic offset program for agriculture and forestry.Requires all international offset credits to meet same domestic criteria, with some exceptions. United States must be party to a bilateral or multilateral agreement with the country hosting the offset project.Limit of 2 billion tons annually for domestic and international offsets. International offsets only worth 80 percent of an allowance starting in 2018.Offset credits acceptable for projects used under any regulatory or voluntary climate program established by state or tribal law prior to Jan. 1, 2009. Offset projects must meet certain criteria, including public registration of credits, third-party or state verification.
Unlimited banking of allowances for use in future compliance years. Sets up a two-year rolling compliance period (average emissions over 24 months) to borrow an unlimited number of allowances. Firms can satisfy up to 15 percent of their compliance obligations with borrowed allowances two to five years into the future, but must pay an 8 percent premium in allowances.Sets up a "strategic reserve" of 2.5 billion metric tons of emission allowances in the event carbon prices rise faster than expected or reach unexpectedly high levels at auction. For 2013 and 2014, the minimum auction price would be the previous year's price increased by 5 percent plus the rate of inflation (as measured by the Consumer Price Index for all urban consumers). After three years, the "trigger" price is set as 60 percent above the 36 month average price.Directs USDA within one year of enactment to establish list of eligible offsets, issue regulations to ensure projects are verifiable, additional and permanent. Describes eligible types of offset projects, quantification, scientific uncertainty. USDA must conduct random, ongoing audits of offset projects, credits and third-party verifier practices.Sets up a USDA Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction and Sequestration Advisory Committee. The nine-person committee will provide scientific and technical advice on establishing, implementing, and ensuring the overall environmental integrity of the domestic offset program for agriculture and forestry. Requires all international offset credits to meet same domestic criteria, with some exceptions. United States must be party to a bilateral or multilateral agreement with the country hosting the offset project.International offsets only worth 80 percent of an allowance starting in 2018.Offset credits acceptable for projects used under any regulatory or voluntary climate program established by state or tribal law prior to Jan. 1, 2009. Offset projects must meet certain criteria, including public registration of credits, third-party or state verification.
Make no mistake, carbon credits and oil prices are linked. As one moves up, so does the other. And vice versa.99.9% of the entities in the oil market were speculators in 2007-08. In 2008 a barrel of oil traded hands (on average) 27 times before it was actually delivered and consumed.CFTF - Commodity Futures Trading CommissionFERC – Federal Regulation & Oversight of EnergyIn finance, a hedge is a position established in one market in an attempt to offset exposure to price fluctuations in some opposite position in another market with the goal of minimizing one's exposure to unwanted risk. The buying and selling of carbon (allowances and credits) is fundamentally derivatives trading. Currently, most carbon is sold as futures or forward contracts, a type of derivative. PRIMARY MARKET Market for new issues of securities, as distinguished from the Secondary Market, where previously issued securities are bought and sold. A market is primary if the proceeds of sales go to the issuer of the securities sold.This is part of the financial market where enterprises issue their new shares and bonds. It is characterised by being the only moment when the enterprise receives money in exchange for selling its financial assets. SECONDARY MARKET The market where securities are traded after they are initially offered in the primary market. Most trading is done in the secondary market. To explain further, it is Trading in previously issued financial instruments. An organized market for used securities. Examples are the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE)
FERC – FederalEnergy Regulatory Commission?Default position limits of 10% on carbon allowance and offset derivatives.It is of great concern to those looking for real CO2 reduction from the atmosphere that the largest derivative market in the Earth’s history would be created, and then controlled by a relatively new agency of regulators. Subprime carbon contracts are contracts that deliver carbon that carry a relatively high risk of not being fulfilled and may collapse in value.Example:HFC-23, a chemical byproduct of refrigerant production that is more than 11,000 times more potent than carbon dioxide. Widespread reports of companies purposely creating these very powerful greenhouse gas chemicals — just to destroy them and make money off of the credits —.There are a number of organization which held Alt-A, or Prime mortgage backed securities which were destroyed by the sub-prime mortgage implosion. It is the appearance of
The spot marketor cash market is a commodities or securities market in which goods are sold for cash and delivered immediately. Contracts bought and sold on these markets are immediately effective. Spot markets can operate wherever the infrastructure exists to conduct the transaction. The spot market for most securities exists primarily on the Internet.The part of the market calling for spot settlement of transactions. The precise meaning of “spot” will depend on local custom for a commodity, security or currency. In the UK, US and Australian foreign-exchange markets, “spot” means delivery two working days hence. ____________________________________________________________________________________________Over-the-counter (OTC) trading is to tradefinancial instruments such as stocks, bonds, commodities or derivatives directly between two parties. It is contrasted with exchange trading, which occurs via facilities constructed for the purpose of trading (i.e., exchanges), such as futures exchanges or stock exchanges. When trading takes place directly between two parties, rather than on an exchange. Over the counter trades can be customized whereas exchange-traded products are often standardized.
The USDA is presumed to be less onerous in their protocol development & inclusion than the EPA. It is presumed they (USDA) would pre-empt less, reach further back in time for inclusion of early actors, and apply more inclusive standards for ongoing activities. The removal of cropland and pastureland for afforestation would place upward pressure on crop prices, benefitting producers of livestock feed but leading to higher livestock input costs and higher producer prices for livestock and milk.
This graph has been used extensively by those in support of the status quo in raising concerns about the potential impacts of changes in energy costs to farmers. What they fail to mention is the USDA has completed a study of the effects of HR 2454 and concluded that MOST sectors would receive a net benefit from HR 2454 due to potential offsetting.
1996 = 1After the energy crisis of 1973 the USDA became keenly aware of the need to promote energy efficiency among American farmers.
I think the USDA estimation of $34 tonne is overstated. USDA’s analysis strongly suggests that revenue from agricultural offsets rise faster than costs to agriculture from cap and trade legislation.It appears that in the medium to long term, net revenue from offsets will likely overtake net costs from HR 2454, perhaps substantially. Agricultural Offsets = afforestation, soil carbon sequestration, methane management, nitrous oxide reductions EPA’s analysis indicates in 2020 agricultural lands would supply 70 million tons of CO2e offsets through changes in tillage practices .Existing forests would supply an additional 105 million tons of CO2e reductions through enhanced forest management.By 2050, agricultural lands could supply 465 million tons of CO2e reductions and existing forests supply an additional 178 million tons of CO2e reductions. This could generate gross domestic agricultural and forestry offset revenues of $2 billion per year in real 2005 dollars in the near term(?), rising to about $28 billion per year in real 2005 dollars in the long term(?).
Economic analysis of HR 2454 indicates that 161 new nuclear plants would be constructed as a result. Price on carbon plus tax credits for new plants = many nuclear plants.
SEED - State Energy and Environmental Development The bigger picture of HR 2454 is that it could lead to the de-coupling of more power generator (utilities). That is, the implementation of other methods of revenue generation other than kw/h. Utilities would move out of the power generation business, solely…toward a more conservation based business model.decoupling refers to the disassociation of a utility's profits from its sales of the energy commodity.Instead, a rate of return is aligned with meeting revenue targets, and rates are trued up or down to meet the target at the end of the adjustment period. This makes the utility indifferent to selling less product and improves the ability of energy efficiency and distributed generation to operate within the utility environment.
Only mandatory cap & trade scheme in North America.$1.87 price floor per short ton. (why a short ton!)Averaged between 1.92 and 2.87 range (per short ton)Reason for the low value of allowances is due to the reduction goal of only 10%.Due to the recession, and fuel switching, the cap of 188 million short tons is above the 145-155 million short tons that are actually being produced.This happened in Europe also for different reasons. Pennsylvania is only an observer in the RGGI.
1994 version of what happens when nations want hydrocarbons from the same area. I am intensely worried about what the 2014 version will look like. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Cap & Trade is actually the conservative approach. 11 of the most senior retired U.S. admirals and generals signed on. http://SecurityAndClimate.cna.org/The national security consequences of climate change should be fully integrated into national security and national defense strategies.The U.S. should commit to a stronger national and international role to help stabilize climate changes at levels that will avoid significant disruption to global security and stability.The U.S. should commit to global partnerships that help less developed nations build the capacity and resiliency to better manage climate impacts.The Department of Defense should enhance its operational capability by accelerating the adoption of improved business processes and innovative technologies that result in improved U.S. combat power through energy efficiency.DoD should conduct an assessment of the impact on US military installations worldwide of rising sea levels, extreme weather events, and other possible climate change impacts over the next thirty to forty years.”You have very real changes in natural systems that are most likely to happen in regions of the world that are already fertile ground for extremism.” - Admiral Joseph Lopez - Commander in Chief of U.S. Naval Forces, Europe and Commander in Chief Allied ForcesThe MilitaryThe ScientistsThe Economy – Carbon was at a 2 month high yesterday @ 12 EUROThe People?The Votes?
What’s All the fuss about Carbon?<br />Explaining the climate policy debate <br />
What are some of the hottest issues in the climate change debate now before the Senate?<br />Border Adjustments<br />Subprime Carbon<br />Covered sites<br />Auction vs. Allocation<br />Offsets<br />Fraud<br />
Timeline for Climate Policy<br />Even if the Democrats get the 51 votes they need, there will still be large changes needed to consolidate the Upper and Lower house plans<br />EPA must have an active greenhouse gas registry within six months of enactment.<br />USDA offset protocols completed within 12 months of bill passage.<br />Reporting would begin in 2011 for the years 2007-2010; with quarterly reporting in 2011.<br />
US Government’s own standards<br />30% reduction in vehicle fleet use by 2020<br />50% recycling by 2015<br />Responsible purchasing<br />500,000 buildings<br />600,000 vehicles<br />22,000 employees<br />
Why NOT Have a Carbon Tariff?<br />It would damage efforts for a multi-lateral agreement that is critical for overall progress. <br />Industrialized countries are responsible for the climate change we are experiencing. <br />CO2 currently in atmosphere<br />US – 27% Europe – 20%<br />China – 8% India – 3% <br />
Auctioning vs. Allocation of Allowances<br />“(a 100% free allocation) would represent the largest corporate welfare program that has ever been enacted in the history of the United States.”<br /> - Peter Orszag <br />Point Carbon, a market analysis firm, estimates the <br />current House bill earmarks $254 billion in allowances <br />-- one sixth of the estimated total value of allowances<br />from 2012 through 2030. <br />
Auctioning vs. Allocation<br />It doesn’t really matter how many of the allowances you auction. It matters how many allowances are allocated…how large the cap is.<br />Example – European cap was 1.9 billion tonnes in 2008. If passed, the US cap would be ~ 4.6 billion tonnes. <br />HR2454 gives away a large portion of the allowances to allow US carbon-intensive industries an opportunity to develop and deploy low carbon technologies.<br />This is to soften impact to American consumers. There are numerous provisions in the bill to protect consumers against windfall profiting by industry. <br />
ACES / HR2454 / Waxman-Markey<br /> Gives away > 65% of the allowances until 2020 to allow carbon intensive industries 12 years to develop & implement strategies to level the playing field.<br />This is far from the 100% auction proposed by many environmental organizations, the president, and RGGI. <br />
Clean Energy Jobs & American Power Act<br />Passed from committee in late September.<br />Expected to pass sometime after the new year. <br />
Something to Think About……<br />7400 facilities covered under proposed cap & trade. <br />~5000 electrical generation stations<br />143 oil refineries<br />
Offsets, cont. <br />The EPA would determine eligible offset projects based on recommendations from an Offsets Integrity Advisory Board<br />If there are not enough offsets available on the U.S. market, up to three-quarters could come from international sources<br />Establishes a $11 per ton price floor<br />Sets up a "strategic reserve" of 2.5 billion metric tons of emission allowances in the event carbon prices rise faster than expected or reach unexpectedly high levels at auction<br />Example - $28 price trigger in 2012<br />After 2015 trigger price is 60% above 36 month average<br />
What About Early Actors?<br />Offsets created before January 1, 2009 will receive the average value of those offsets between:<br /> 1/1/06-1/1/09<br />
Differences between House & Senate Bills<br />17% reduction<br />20% reduction<br />Methane containment <br />
Will this bill create another financial derivatives mess like the one we just went through? <br />How can we keep this kind of speculation <br />from creating artificial price signals <br />in the carbon market?<br />
“Subprime Carbon” <br /><ul><li>In HR2454 allowance, offset, and REC derivatives are regulated by the CFTC.
The FERC would have “cease & desist” authority over those holding positions which are artificially effecting price outside of supply & demand.
In the OTC market, 35% of the credits traded were for investment instead of retirement (29%).
Voluntary purchasing from NGOs and individuals lowered from 2% to 1% between 2007 to 2008. </li></li></ul><li>Who can trade in this market?<br />Non-regulated entities (banks, nonprofits, people like you) can also buy and sell permits<br />Cash market trading of allowance, offset, and REC derivatives are permitted.<br />OTC trading of these derivatives are not. <br />Citizens of Venus cannot trade on spot or OTC market<br />
Carbon Limits and Energy for America’s Renewal - CLEAR<br />The contrasting bill in the Senate to the Kerry/Boxer<br />Cap & Dividend<br />No secondary markets<br />
The Role of the USDA in HR2454<br />In a concession to Blue Dog Democrats congress released control of agricultural offsets from the EPA to the USDA. <br />This is viewed as a move that will be more forgiving for America’s farmers. <br />The EPA has traditionally been considered out-of-touch with standards achievable by the agricultural community. <br />
USDA cont… <br />Energy costs as a share of operating expenses<br />2005-2008 average<br />The USDA is keenly aware of the historical effects of energy prices on farming.<br />They would be well suited to help farmers deal with the increasing costs of energy, which typically account for <br />
Energy Efficiency is a big winner<br /> Sec. 201 of HR 2454 calls for national building code energy reduction targets of: <br />• 30% below the baseline energy code in 2010 <br />• 50% below the baseline energy code in 2014-2015 <br />• 5% additional reduction every three years to 2029-2030.<br />Section 782g direct 9.5% of allowances in 2012 (decreasing amounts thereafter) go to a SEED account used by state and local governments for efficiency and renewables projects. <br />
Questions?<br />“We never have 100% certainty.<br />If you wait until you have 100% certainty, <br />Something bad is going to happen on the battlefield.” <br />That’s something we know. —GEN Sullivan<br />
Bibliography<br />American Clean Energy & Security Act, H.R. HR2454, 101st Cong., 1428 (2009). Print.<br />"Carbon News and Info Climate change news Kyoto & climate politics US climate bill: An uncertain Senate path." Carbon Positive. 06 Aug. 2009. Web. 13 Aug. 2009. <http://www.carbonpositive.net/viewarticle.aspx?articleID=1634>.<br />EPA Analysis of the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 H.R. 2454 in the 111th Congress. Issue brief. Washington D.C.: EPA, 2009. Print.<br />Houser, Trevor, Rob Bradley, Britt Childs, Jacob Werksman, and Robert Heilmayr. Leveling the Carbon Playing Field: International Competition and US Climate Policy Design. Peterson Institute for International Economics, 2008. Print.<br />Houser, Trevor. "Why carbon tariffs are a bad idea -- for now | The Argument." The Argument | FOREIGN POLICY. World Resources Institute, 26 Mar. 2009. Web. 13 Aug. 2009. <http://experts.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2009/03/26/why_carbon_tariffs_are_a_bad_idea_for_now>.<br />State and Trends of the Carbon Market 2009. Tech. Washington D.C.: World Bank Organization, 2009. Print.<br />Wise, Alison. "The U.S. Carbon Market - Renewable Energy World." Www.renewableenergyworld.com Renewable Energy World - Renewable Energy News, Jobs, Events, Companies, and more. National Renewable Energy Lab, 20 May 2008. Web. 13 Aug. 2009. <http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2008/05/the-u-s-carbon-market-52451>.<br />Baumert, Kevin A., Timothy Herzog, and Jonathen Pershing. Navigating the Numbers Greenhouse Gas Data and International Climate Policy. Rep. World Resources Institute. Print.Chapter 6 - Cumulative Emissions<br />
Bibliography cont…<br />Baumert, Kevin A., Timothy Herzog, and Jonathen Pershing. Navigating the Numbers Greenhouse Gas Data and International Climate Policy. Rep. World Resources Institute. Print.Chapter 6 - Cumulative Emissions<br />Ellerman, Denny A., Paul L. Joskow, and Massachusetts Institute of Technology. The European Union’s Emissions Trading System in perspective. Rep. Arlington, VA: Pew Center on Global Climate Change, 2008. Print.<br />Florida Division of Air Resource Management. Greenhouse Gas Cap-and-Trade. Tallehassee: Florida Climate Action Team, 2008. Print.<br />Friends of the Earth. Subprime Carbon. Rep. Print.<br />Hamilton, Katherine, Mil Sjardin, Allison Shapiro, and Thomas Marcello. Fortifying the Foundation - State of the Voluntary Carbon Markets 2009. Tech. Ecosystem Marketplace, 2009. Print.New Carbon Finance<br />Kopp, Raymond J., William A. Pizer, and Resources for the Future. Assessing U.S. Climate Policy options. Rep. US Climate Policy Forum, 2009. Print.<br />MAINTAINING CARBON MARKET INTEGRITY. Rep. The Energy Foundation, 2009. Print.<br />Marquis, Laura. Carbon Market Summary - April 2009. Rep. Department of Energy & Climate Change, 2009. Print.<br />Policies to Reduce Emissions from the Transportation Sector. Rep. Pew Center on Global Climate Change, 2009. Print.<br />Shapiro, Allison. Can US Plan Entice Polluters into Early Reduction of Greenhouse Gas Emissions? Rep. Ecosystem Marketplace, 2009. Print.<br />Stallman, Bob, and American Farm Bureau Federation. "Statement of the American Farm Bureau Federation." Letter to Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works. 14 July 2009. MS. 600 Maryland Ave. SW, Washington D.C.<br />Subprime Carbon? Re-Thinking the World's Largest New Derivatives Market. Rep. Massachusetts: Friends of the Earth, 2009. Print.<br />Turner, Guy. Carbon market volume up 37% in Q1 2009. Rep. London: New Carbon Finance, 2009. Print.<br />United States of America. Energy Information Administration. Office of Integrated Analysis and Forecasting. Energy Market and Economic Impacts of H.R. 2454, the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009. U.S. Department of Energy, 2009. Print.<br />