California carbon market


Published on

A brief about California Carbon Market, with its history and trend till Decmber 2012. Explains the methodology and evolution of carbon markets globally.

Published in: Technology
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

California carbon market

  1. 1. California Carbon Market California carbon markets A Case Study on the World’s most ambitious Carbon conscious venture Chaitanya IInd PGDM • PSG IM • 16 March 2013 Chaitanya • email: • PSG IM 1
  2. 2. California Carbon Market Table of Contents History of Carbon Markets! Kyoto protocol United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change Carbon Markets! Co2, forestry, Low Carbon fuel World Carbon Markets Emission Trading Programs! 2 2 2 7 7 8 12 The benefits 12 EU ETS 12 California Carbon Market! Successful first auction on 14th nov 2012 Economic and Allocation Advisory Committee Conclusion! 14 14 14 28 CCM convenient & logical 28 Bibliography 29 Chaitanya • email: • PSG IM 1
  3. 3. California Carbon Market History of Carbon Markets Global Climate Control & Environment Protection plans KYOTO PROTOCOL Kyoto Protocol agreement countries In 1988, two United Nations agencies, the UN Environment Programme and the World Meteorological Organization, set up the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Control, to assess the impacts of climate changes and formulate the strategies to counter and respond to it. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change From 1992, a set of negotiation processes started including ‘the Berlin Mandate’, wherein all the countries giving off maximum number of Green House Gases were convened and plans to control these effects were discussed and impact on various segments including Human Health and environment resources depletion were dealt with. Almost 2,500 scientists were brought in for these negotiations and finally culminated into the Kyoto Protocol in 1997. The Kyoto Protocol of UNFCC was adopted in Japan, on 11th December 1997, at the third Conference of the Parties to the UNFCC. The committee agreed to lead an overall Global reduction of at least five percent in 1990 levels of GHG by 2008-2012. Chaitanya • email: • PSG IM 2
  4. 4. California Carbon Market But Kyoto Protocol was simple in the least and the mechanisms to achieve the end results were far to difficult and complex. Also the agreed upon reductions and commitments in the Protocol were highly skewed and based on Political power rather than the need of the hour. This lead to free reign of the countries even after commitment as they could always pay up some amount of money to fund the exclusive projects of UN for GHG reduction. The so called flexibility mechanisms of Emission Tradings , Joint Implementation and the Clean Development Mechanism and the use of sinks by developed country parties to achieve their emission commitments. Within these provisions, there were a number of sizeable ‘loopholes’, elements which could sanction emission levels far above what was intended in Kyoto and which had the potential to undermine and even overwhelm the Protocol’s global reduction target. Firstly, there was no actual net reduction in deforestation activity as it just took a sideline route. Secondly, Natural forests were cleared and fast growing carbon absorbing plants were planted as reforestation leading to huge loss for the actual ecological balance. Chaitanya • email: • PSG IM 3
  5. 5. California Carbon Market Thirdly, developed countries had less incentive for their own forests development than sponsoring developing nations forests. Chaitanya • email: • PSG IM 4
  6. 6. California Carbon Market CDM's downfall happened due to virtually less price's and as the benefits move out of the country in most cases leading no potential improvement in the present and at virtually invisible costs people started devaluing the whole effort International Climate Politics: In Highlights 1990: Based on warnings from the science society, countries were forced to support to control of GHG. US opposed it. 1991: The, UN Conference on Trade and Development sets up a department on GHG emissions trading 1992: The Rio de Janeiro Earth Summit produces the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Control to prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the Earth’s climate system. The UNFCC suggests, but does not require, that emissions in 2000 not to exceed 1990 levels 1994: UNFCC forces 153 countries and tries to hold sea-level rise in Small Island States to 20 centimeters and demands emissions cut to 80% of current level by 2005 1996: US proposes to avoid reductions by buying permits from abroad and also for future emissions in the EU, G-77 nations and most NGOs 1997: Kyoto Protocol is adopted. Industrialized countries to limit emissions to 95% of 1990 levels by 2008-2012. Many loopholes present and as a result effective target achievement not possible. 1998: Due to high costs of domestic emission reductions and difficulties in regulatory processes for policies and carbon taxes, EU began an internal emission trading system. Permits from abroad restricted to 50% of any country’s targets. US opposes Global trading limits. 1999: The World Bank sets up a Prototype Carbon Fund (PCF) to generate cheap credits from Southern Carbon saving projects. PCF attracts investment from Mitsubishi, BP, and other companies, as well as several governments. International Emissions Trading Association is established for Sustainable Development 2000: The, EU rejects a compromise that would have allowed the US limited credits for its own forest carbon sinks, allowed it to buy credits for carbon sinks abroad, lifted the 50 per cent limit on the use of trading to meet domestic targets, and not punished it if it failed to Chaitanya • email: • PSG IM 5
  7. 7. California Carbon Market meet any targets. European industrialists step up efforts to erode European opposition to unlimited carbon trading. Denmark experiments with domestic carbon dioxide trading. 2001: US withdraws from Kyoto Protocol.A ‘rule book’ for CDM and other Kyoto Protocol trading mechanisms is adopted after much wrangling, protecting loopholes that essentially cancel out the Protocol’s minimal emission cuts. 2003: Northeastern states of US begin to develop Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative that would use trading to cut the costs of a proposed 10% cut in emissions from power plants by 2020 2004: EU decides to use credits form other countries to emission norms. 2005: EU ETS comes online with broad backing from NGOs. The Kyoto Protocol comes into force after being ratified by Russia in 2004, again with broad NGO support. New procedures for CDM. 2006: EU carbon market crashes, due to excess property rights. More assets with companies than required. Effectively not enough to reach the desired targets in emissions. With this history of Carbon Markets lets move on to what carbon markets mean, followed by EU ETS Chaitanya • email: • PSG IM 6
  8. 8. California Carbon Market Carbon Markets General Description CO2, FORESTRY, LOW CARBON FUEL Carbon trading ideology came from US Environmental Protection Agency’s Acid Rain Program to reduce overall atmospheric levels of Sulphur Dioxide in 1990 US Clean Air Act. The Terminology of Carbon Markets or Carbon Trading came into existence as CO2 is the major GHG which has to be controlled by all the various mechanisms. Carbon Markets are basically of two types: Voluntary Carbon Markets and Compliance based Carbon Markets Time is running out Voluntary Carbon Markets are systems wherein Organizations voluntarily support Carbon conserving programs so as to be at least Carbon Neutral if not Carbon Positive. Chaitanya • email: • PSG IM 7
  9. 9. California Carbon Market And Compliance Based Carbon Markets are usually of Cap-and-trade methods so as to control the level of emissions. It is the cap or limit given which has to be strictly followed and is measured periodically. At the beginning of cap-and-trade, permits are given to the companies and they are reduced in a systematic manner in future so that companies have enough time to develop strategies to reduce their emissions. Else the organizations can trade for emissions from those companies which are having excess or are carbon positive with their lot of emission permits. World Carbon Markets Currently Carbon Markets are seen as the only savior from the forecasted dangers of uncontrolled environmental exploitation. The Current Status of various Carbon Markets is given by the following table: Chaitanya • email: • PSG IM 8
  10. 10. California Carbon Market Cap-and-trade Carbon Markets are easier to handle and establish than compared to CDM to get CER credit. Also there is the logic of Competitive Advantage used in Carbon Markets via cap-and-trade. This helps organization who are efficient to be able to hand out more credits to companies which are not and there by enabling a profit for both. This can be better explained by pictorial representation as follows: Chaitanya • email: • PSG IM 9
  11. 11. California Carbon Market Permits and Credits Permits are pollution units given under cap and trade scheme. Credits are units which describe claimed emission reductions generated by carbon offset projects. Chaitanya • email: • PSG IM 10
  12. 12. California Carbon Market How Carbon Markets Work? Simplest Transaction in a Carbon market is the trading of carbon permits or offset credits for cash. This is based on Spot prices fixed by the market forces.The trading can be done by the companies or the government directly or via specified or designated traders. Thereafter the ETS follows the general pattern of Primary and Secondary markets along with the Derivatives, Futures and Options much similar to the Stock Markets. Chaitanya • email: • PSG IM 11
  13. 13. California Carbon Market Emission Trading Programs EU ETS THE BENEFITS! ! The various Emission Trading Systems as shown in the below picture are the present constituents of the world carbon markets. Journal of Economic Perspectives—Volume 27, Number 1—Winter 2013— Pages 123–146 by Richard G. Newell, William A. Pizer, and Daniel Raimi Of these Europe Union’s Emission Trading Systems (EU ETS) is one of the classic examples of how profit can be generated as well as emissions can be controlled. EU ETS EU ETS was created to help EU based industries to achieve the compliance norms and is in many ways a remarkable accomplishment. ETS covered 27 countries, including several that are not signed up in Kyoto. ETS did not cover emissions from transportation or residential fuel combustion. EU ETS was the world’s first transparent and widely accepted price for tradable CO2 emission allowances by 1st January 2005, But the prices fluctuated highly and the volatility of Chaitanya • email: • PSG IM 12
  14. 14. California Carbon Market the market brought about lot of complaints from across countries. Yet only the first phase from 2005-2007 experienced this problem and the second phase of 2008-12 was pretty much a huge success. But the first phase lead to the formation of the proper infrastructure for use as the cap-andtrade system. Very soon the industries were able to factor in the emission allowances into their pricing and outputs, also the development of the trading system helped them to trade the necessary allowances as per requirement . EU ETS did not actually dampen the business prospects but helped in growth of existing industries by becoming a hurdle for all the new entrants in the market and brought out new mechanisms to improve efficiency and eco friendly systems. Another significant learning from the EU ETS is that a Global ETS can not be possible as within 27 countries itself there was huge amount of secretive and bilateral trading done which in a global perspective could lead to many difficult situations. The main failures in EU ETS were the price fluctuations and the cap reduction process or the final destination of cap-and-trade in respect with the allocations. Chaitanya • email: • PSG IM 13
  15. 15. California Carbon Market California Carbon Market AB 32 in 2006 SUCCESSFUL FIRST AUCTION ON 14TH NOV 2012 California’a Air Resources Board and California’s Environmental Protection Agency both were given the authority to control and hold the auction of Carbon permits and credits to all major Carbon Intensive industries in the state. Arnold Schwarzenegger, then Governor of California California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, Assembly Bill 32 (AB 32) set a binding emission target of 1990. ARB had suggested 73 methods of curbing the GHG levels of which cap-and-trade is one of them. But an estimate of $600million to $3billion was put for the auction in November 2012. Thus, a huge state income is expected after each emission auction and thereafter in the eminent trading of the carbon credits and permits. Also an increase in number of jobs in diverse sectors Economic and Allocation Advisory Committee ARB and California’s EPA together formed the Economic and Allocation Advisory Committee (EAAC) . There were two main objectives of EAAC: 1. Economic impacts of AB32! 2. Allocation of emission allowances Chaitanya • email: • PSG IM 14
  16. 16. California Carbon Market Three Key Components of Cap and Trade • First, allowances are given period wise and and correspond to a particular pollutant • Second, regulatory authority needs to distribute emission allowances. They can be either free, sold, or combination of both • Trading allowances, emitters with low abatement costs can easily do their reduction work and get to sell off their allowances or credits at a higher market price than their abatement price. Chaitanya • email: • PSG IM 15
  17. 17. California Carbon Market Chaitanya • email: • PSG IM 16
  18. 18. California Carbon Market Chaitanya • email: • PSG IM 17
  19. 19. California Carbon Market Key Trade Offs in Cap and Trade Potential for Leakage California’a Climate Policies may result in increase of Economic activity as well as emissions outside of California. This, is easy to understand with the Business Process Outsourcing model. So, industries trying to reduce their pollution levels may go on to outsource their ‘dirtier jobs’ outside of California so as to avoid doing the polluting works here in the California state. This, the ARB is trying to counter by giving away free allowances so that companies can really have slack time to work effective GHG reducing measures and remain profitable even without outsourcing the work. Trade Off: If too many free allowances or credits are given then there would be more of a positive chance of the free allowances growing in value at a later stage and be sold at high prices to some other companies, so still leakage or outsourcing of work is better. Secondly, if a polluting organization is given free allowances permitting to operate , then there is no effective reduction in the GHG levels which beats the purpose of ARB hands down then. Thirdly, by giving away free allowances to leakage potential industries, the others would be hurt as well as there won’t be much to Auction, and as Auction is the main source of income to the government so a balance in the freebies should be set up. Finally, there are possibilities of Gaming, Volatility, Holding, Oversight as in Stock Markets possible here too. Offset Credits Offset Projects anywhere in USA are allowed for acceptance as emission reduction credits. This gives a great opportunity for all landowners in California to do the offset based trading by allowing the plantation of trees and taking care of them. So there are three main ways of taking the Forest offset projects: • Improved Forest Management • Avoided Conversion • Afforestation/Reforestation Chaitanya • email: • PSG IM 18
  20. 20. California Carbon Market Sample e.g. Of how a offset project is measured Credits issuance process Chaitanya • email: • PSG IM 19
  21. 21. California Carbon Market Landowner Obligations: • Commitment of carbon stocks for 100 years • Exit only buy purchase of carbon offsets to replace credits issued to project • Conservation easements are not required Forest Management • Harvesting, allowed but carbon stock should remain in the property • Native species and Natural Forest Management only • No penalty for unintentional destruction and is covered by buffer insurance mechanism Monitoring and Reporting • Annual accounting reports to be submitted • On site verification every 6 years • Full re-inventory every 12 years This forest based offset will provide land owners with a regulated and neat profit for their effort in forest management Health Impact Assessment Health and employment have a somewhat a direct relationship and also on the life and business of others. One particular family’s proper support by employment of a family member will lead to insurance policies and health care check up’s which again support various other families. Thus, in this web of Chaitanya • email: • PSG IM 20
  22. 22. California Carbon Market links between each other, California’s Carbon Market will play a big role as spoken in the previous topic of landowners going in for Forestry. A Cap and trade program not only reduces air pollutants but also means more of employment for ensuring in the reduction in GHG. Also an increase in Energy costs would lead and drive the change towards higher energy efficient resources thereby, conserving up and removing a lot of unhealthy dependence or demand on Energy. Chaitanya • email: • PSG IM 21
  23. 23. California Carbon Market Thus, the offset schemes would yield a highly positive impact on Health leading to overall development and thereby, creating more opportunities for employment or business. But there is an 8% of compliance obligations per compliance period limit on offset credits. Chaitanya • email: • PSG IM 22
  24. 24. California Carbon Market AUCTION PROCESS Registration Verification Chaitanya • email: • PSG IM 23
  25. 25. California Carbon Market The process is simple and has the online nature of EU ETS which came about only after huge funds from NGOs had come in. So, this is a remarkable feat achieved at this scale, supported by the Banking process in general. Chaitanya • email: • PSG IM 24
  26. 26. California Carbon Market THE CARBON CYCLE This is the cycle which is being put in force by CCM Chaitanya • email: • PSG IM 25
  27. 27. California Carbon Market LOW CARBON FUEL STANDARD First Low Carbon Fuel mandate was implemented by California in 2007, and is said to be brought back in CCM so as to reduce the GHG impacts. But there is still a case in an appellate court since December 2011 even till now. AUCTION ON 14th November 2012 All the 2013’s Allowances were sold out at the clearing price of $10.09 and a 5.5 million units of 2015 allowances were sold at the floor price of $10. The $230 million generated by the 2013 allowances are given back to the electric-investor owned utilities to provide directly to the householders. The $55million generated from sale of 2015 allowances were put in separate special fund in the treasury. All the projects coming up henceforth to help in emission reduction will be redirected to the State’s most disadvantaged communities so that they can have considerable development scope in the future. The auction had got a damper due to a Court Case stating AB 32 didn’t give ARB permission to collect money from Carbon trading and using it the way they were planning to do. The lawsuit was filed by California Chamber Commerce stating that cap-and-trade system amounted to an unconstitutional tax increase imposed by regulatory flat rather than by a direct vote by the Legislature. But by January 28, a California Court declared that California Air Resources Board had the authority under AB 32 to establish Offset Protocols, a set of rules that determine which carbon-reduction programs qualify for offset credits and in what manner they need to be phased. The court also found that the protocols themselves were valid. Chaitanya • email: • PSG IM 26
  28. 28. California Carbon Market Under AB 32, ARB has power to create regulations that drive power plants, manufacturers and other industrial sources to reduce their GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020, a 17% reduction. The auction did reach an intra day high of $12/ton of CO2e but the news about case had slowed things back to almost the floor price at exactly that point of time when there was talks of reaching the ceiling price of $50/ton of CO2e due to the positive or bullish trading happening. But as soon as the court case came up even the 2015 vintage allowances trade stopped which was going on strongly till that but only at the Floor price of $10/ton of CO2e So based on the facts available the court case was a strategically timed one so as to obtain maximum number of allowances at the lowest price possible so as to sell them at higher prices in the future trading. A very well planned and neatly done maneuver which was not derived out or understood even till by one of the smartest News media groups covering the auction or maybe big bucks came in the way of such news publications. But all that is just my own speculation which I couldn’t stop myself from putting into the case. Second Auction on 19th February 2013 This auction included 2013 vintage allowances and an Advance Auction of 2016 vintage allowances. As the case on ARB’s authority and auction process was cleared by 28th January 2013 itself, the second auction began on an upswing mood. 2013 vintage allowances were sold at $13.62 per allowance for a total of 12,924,822 allowances. The 2016 auction clearing price was $10.71 per allowance but out of 9,560,000 available only 4,440,000 were sold So a total of $176million from 2013 allowances and $47million from 2016 were generated This time the biddings were 2.5 times more than the previous one in Nov 2012 and had beaten out all expectations in the market. So these are good Signs for the World’s second largest Carbon Market which in my personal opinion has out beaten EU ETS and will very soon becoming like a normal Market and thus, bring about real effects in Climate! And on 8th March 2013, the Reserve Sale will happen Chaitanya • email: • PSG IM 27
  29. 29. California Carbon Market Conclusion Personal Verdict on CCM future CCM CONVENIENT & LOGICAL California Carbon Market (CCM) has all that which it needs to make it big in future and they are not letting down such a chance due to petty human nuances and ego. As during the 19th century Gold Rush the state of California world’s 9th largest economy will definitely have a Carbon Rush and protect their future. California in Future Carbon stocking will be the one thing that I’m betting all my money but the ARB has been smart to limit offsets to 8% of all compliance level so that redesign and re-engineering of processes and energy efficiency is implemented and effected. Chaitanya • email: • PSG IM 28
  30. 30. California Carbon Market BIBLIOGRAPHY Change, C. & Markets, C., A call to action, Anon, Assessing the Potential of the Kyoto Carbon Market for Sustainable Rural Development in Least Developed Countries Keywords. , pp.1–35. Scheme, E.T., Emissions trading. Union, E., European Union’s Emissions Trading System. Analyst, L., Evaluating the Policy TradeOffs in ARB ’ s Cap-and-Trade Program. California, T. et al., California  ’ s new carbon market. , pp.5–6. Auction, F. et al., First Auction Of California Cap And Trade Program Proceeds Despite Lawsuit. Lambe, D. & Farber, D., California ’ s Cap - and - Trade Auction Proceeds : Taxes , Fees , or Something Else ? Introduction, A., Generating Value through Forest Carbon. Breidenich, C., California GHG Cap and Trade Program California Cap and Trade. Journal, M., Management Journal. Health, P., Health Impact Assessment of a Cap- ­ - and- ­ - Trade Framework. Ki-moon, B., No Title. Carbon, L. et al., No Title. Breidenich, C., California GHG Cap and Trade Program California Cap and Trade. Mcabee, T., Carbon again ? Weisberg, P. et al., Carbon Market Investment Criteria for Biochar Projects. Solution, A.L. & Global, W., Carbon Sequestration through Reforestation. Nations, U. & America, N., Chapter 2 “ Made in the USA ” A short history of carbon trading. Burtraw, D. et al., Chapter 5 : Lessons for a cap-and-trade program __________________________. Andersen, B.G. & Sullivan, D., Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Wilding, J. et al., REPORT 57 The Carbon Market : COOPERATIVE, Anon, res12-33.pdf. Gledhill, R. et al., Review of Carbon Markets About the “ Breaking the Climate Deadlock ” Initiative. Anon, The Compliance Opportunity Table of contents. Behr, T. et al., Towards a global carbon market ? Potential and limits of carbon market integration Towards a global carbon market ? Potential and limits of carbon market integration. Chaitanya • email: • PSG IM 29
  31. 31. California Carbon Market Calazans, M. et al., Trading carbon How it works and why it is controversial, Of, O., 2014. ARB Emissions Trading Program. Authorization, P. et al., 2014. California  ’ s Cap-and- Trade Program. Jackson, B.A., 2014. California  ’ s first carbon market takes flight. Sandbag, A., 2014. California ’ s carbon set-aside proposals Sandbag briefing. , pp.1–4. Guidance, C.R.I. et al., 2014. CHAPTER 2 : IS MY COMPANY SUBJECT TO THE CAP-AND-TRADE REGULATION ? , 95812(September 2012), pp.19– 25. Fine, J., 2013. California Cap-and-Trade Program Frequently Asked Questions January 2012. , (January 2012), pp.1–4. Carroll, B.R., 2013. California carbon market launches , permits priced below expectations. Babich, P.H. et al., 2013. California court denies challenge to California  ’ s offsets program , challenge to carbon auction remains. Davis, B.A.A., 2013. Can California ’ s Cap-and-Trade Program Turn Manure into Gold ? , (June 2012), p.2012. Board, R., 2013. Cap-and-Trade Practice Auction Media Webinar Cap-andTrade Background. Environmental, C., Agency, P. & Board, A.I.R.R., 2013. Additional information on the schedule for development of the primary components required for program implementation is provided in the Project Development Schedule available at: , 1(800), pp.1–10. Anon, 2013. Cap-and-Trade Regulation: July 2011 1. , (July 2011), pp.1– 17. Nichols, M.D., 2013. Air Resources Board. , (November 2012). Guidance, C.R.I., Air, C. & Board, R., 2013. CHAPTER 1 : HOW DOES THE CAP-AND-TRADE PROGRAM WORK ? , (September 2012), pp.12–18. Nichols, M.D. & Brown, E.G., 2013. Air Resources Board 2013 Annual Auction Reserve Price Notice. , pp.0–1. Board, B.E., 2013. California ’ s climatechange experiment. , pp.2012– 2013. No, I., 2013. California Cap and Trade Overview. , (January), pp.1–8. Policy, U.S., 2013. CALIFORNIA CAPAND-TRADE. , (November 2012). Newell, R.G. & Pizer, W.A., 2013. Carbon Markets 15 Years after Kyoto : Lessons Learned , New Challenges. , 27(1), pp.123–146. Sloan, B.W. et al., 2013. Client Alert . Court Rejects Challenge to California ’ s Cap-and-Trade Carbon Offset Program Client Alert . , pp.1–3. California, F., Program, C. & Stevenson, S., 2013. Compliance Offset Supply Forecast. , (September 2012). Program, C. et al., 2013. First Compliance Period Underway for Chaitanya • email: • PSG IM 30
  32. 32. California Carbon Market California ’ s AB32. , (December 2008), pp.1–7. Author, E.R. et al., 2013. In a free market , leakage is tough to address when you ’ re sort of an island and standing on your own. Anon, 2013. Investigation of the Effects of Emission Market Design on the Market-Based Compliance Mechanism of the California Cap on Greenhouse Gas Emissions University of Virginia – PEAR Project Team. Kandasamy, B.A. & Board, R., 2012. An inside look at California  ’ s capand-trade program. Hull, B.D., 2012. California  ’ s cap-andtrade program is good news for cleantech. Anon, 2012. California ’ s Cap-andTrade Program : Program Basics and Requirements for Electrical Distribution Utilities. , (May). Burtraw, D., Mclaughlin, D. & Szambelan, S.J., 2012. California ’ s New Gold. , (May). Protocol, K., 2013. Kyoto Protocol. Nichols, M., 2013. Mistake in First California Carbon Auction Raises Questions About Secrecy. Anon, 2013. Proposed Linkage of California ’ s Cap-and-Trade Program With the Canadian Province of Québec ’ s Cap-andTrade Program General Summary of Comments and Preliminary Agency Responses. , pp.1–17. Air, C. & Board, R., 2013. Public Information Sharing in California’s Cap-and-Trade Program. Anon, 2012. California Air Resources Board 8. , 2006(September), pp. 8–11. Auctions, C. et al., 2012. CALIFORNIA AUCTIONS INITIAL GREENHOUSE GAS ALLOWANCES UNDER AB 32 CAP AND TRADE PROGRAM. , (November). Carbon, F., 2012. CALIFORNIA CAPAND-TRADE AND INTERNATIONAL FOREST CARBON OFFSETS FOR INSTITUTIONAL INVESTORS. , (December). Development, N. & Commission, R., 2013. Shaping the Next Generation of Carbon Markets. , pp.3–4. Anon, 2012. California Democrats Covet Carbon-Market Funds. , pp.2012– 2014. Anon, 2013. The Business Case for California Forest Carbon Offsets. , (January), p.2013. Henry, T.A., Mills, M.N. & Allison, C., 2012. California s Cap and Trade California ’ s Program under AB 32 – a Primer y Table of Contents. , (December). Challenges, J., 2013. the Climate report SpeCial California update. , (jAnUARy), pp.1–4. California, T. & Resources, A., 2013. What California ’ s Carbon Market Is Doing Right. Nichols, M. & Fund, E.D., 2012. Cap and Trade Violates Californians ’ Civil and Environmental Rights. Analyst, L., 2012. Cap-and-Trade Auction Revenues. Chaitanya • email: • PSG IM 31
  33. 33. California Carbon Market Air, C. & Board, R., 2012. Cap-andTrade Workshop : Regulation for Linking California ’ s and Quebec ’ s Cap-and-Trade Programs Workshop Materials and Emailed Questions. Derwent, B.H. & Motty, M., 2012. Carbon trading : achievements , key lessons and future forecasts inability to agree on a post-2012. Air, C. & Board, R., 2012. GREEN CARBON : FORESTRY OFFSETS IN CALIFORNIA ’ S NEW CAP & TRADE PROGRAM. , (May 2011). Anon, 2012. New Forests Announces Launch of Forest Carbon Partners : Investment fund to supply Californian carbon market. , (February), p.9406. Air, C. et al., 2012. CHAPTER 4 : WHAT ARE THE REQUIREMENTS IF MY COMPANY CHOOSES TO VOLUNTARILY PARTICIPATE IN THE CAP-AND-TRADE PROGRAM ? 4 . 1 What is an Opt-In Covered Entity ( Section 95813 )? , (September). Code, S. & Code, S., 2012. No Title. , (1), pp.1–269. Han, G. et al., 2012. China ’ s Carbon Emission Trading An Overview of Current Development experiments will to a large extent determine the future of carbon, Shillinglaw, B., 2012. Opportunities for Landowners in the California Carbon Market. Bodsky, R., 2012. Experimental Evidence on the Properties of the California ’ s Cap and Trade Price Containment Reserve. , (May). Nations, U., Convention, F. & Change, C., 2012. Fact sheet the Kyoto Protocol. , (December 1997), pp. 1–8. Mounteer, B.Y.T.O.M., Deane, E. & Raeburn, M., 2012. for a Greenhouse Gas Cap-And-Trade Program. , (December 2009), pp. 1–6. Burtraw, D., Mclaughlin, D. & Szambelan, S.J., 2012. For the Benefit of California Electricity Ratepayers: Electricity Sector Options for the Use of Allowance Value Created under California’s Cap-and-Trade Program. California, U.S.W. & California, U.S.W., 2012. NRDC fACt ShEEt Capand-Trade Program : Key Component of California ’ s Path to Clean Energy under AB 32. , (november). Anon, 2012. Overview of the California I . Background II . Overview of California ’ s New GHG Cap-andTrade Program. , (April 2011), pp. 1–25. Bushnell, J.B., Chong, H. & Mansur, E.T., 2012. Pro … ting from Regulation : Evidence from the European Carbon Market. , (June). Dc, W., 2012. state and trends of the. , (May). Anon, 2012. State of the Voluntary Carbon Markets : Standards , Projects and Governments on a Lo ( cal ) Diet RGGI Learning Session on Flexible Mechanisms Molly Peters-Stanley Manager , Carbon Programs Forest Trends ’ Ecosystem Marketplace EU ETS Allowances : SIZE AND GROWTH : The voluntary OTC carbon market ( excluding CCX ) Chaitanya • email: • PSG IM 32
  34. 34. California Carbon Market has transacted 275 MtCO2e worth a cumulative $ 1 . 7 bn since 2003. , 2011. Anon, 2010. Table 1 . CDPH Drinking Water Notification Levels Table 2 . Response Levels. , pp.1–14. Brief, E., 2012. The Frontier Carbon Market : California Releases AB 32 Rules. Guigon, P., 2010. Voluntary Carbon Markets : How Can They Serve Climate Change Policies. , (19). Health, C. & Board, A.R., 2012. Using Cap-and-Trade Revenue to Equitably Advance AB 32 and SB 375 Goals. , pp.98–99. Blumberg, L., 2009. Forest Carbon in California : creating compliance credits CA Forest Resources. Goldenhersh, B.L., 2012. Why California law , not the election , is a carbon game-changer. Stavins, R.N. & Borck, J., 2009. Next Steps for California with Federal Cap-and- Trade Policy On the Horizon Federal Cap-and-Trade Policy on the Horizon. , (July). Eberhard, B.K., 2011. 10 Common Misconceptions About California  ’ s Cap-and-Trade Program. Anon, 2011. Climate change and carbon markets : a panoramic history Raphael Calel July 2011 Centre for Climate Change Economics and Policy Working Paper No . 62 Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment. , (62). Morgenstern, R. et al., 2011. Rebates. , (February). Henderson, B.P. & Blake, R.M., 2011. the california carbon rush. , (february). Tanton, T., 2010. An Estimate of the Economic Impact of A Cap-andTrade Auction Tax On California. , (March). Eberhard, B.K., 2010. California Leads the Nation in Clean Energy with Carbon Market Approval. Carbon, F. & Investment, O., 2010. Implications for Forest Carbon Offset Investment. , (301556), pp. 2010–2013. Standard, C.L.F., 2010. Low-carbon fuel standard. Edition, S., 2008. Offsetting Emissions : A Business Brief on the Voluntary Carbon Market. , (February). Mader, S. & Ph, D., 2007. CLIMATE PROJECT : Carbon Sequestration and Storage by California Forests and Forest Products. Fletcher, S.R., 2005. CRS Report for Congress Global Climate Change : The Kyoto Protocol. Brown, S., 2004. MONITORING FORESTRY CARBON. , (April). Mckitrick, R. & Wigle, R.M., 2002. The Kyoto Protocol:, Hare, B., 1998. Guide to the Kyoto Protocol. , (October). Anon, 1998. KYOTO PROTOCOL TO THE UNITED NATIONS FRAMEWORK KYOTO PROTOCOL TO THE UNITED NATIONS FRAMEWORK. Aman, B., Dairy, A.A. & Wightman, J., 1992. Case Study. , pp.1–5. Anon, 1990. Climate Challenges Market Solutions. , 95812(c), pp. 1–11. Chaitanya • email: • PSG IM 33
  35. 35. California Carbon Market Thibodeau, M., 1990. Copenhagen and Carbon Trading : Why the commodification of Nature will not solve climate change. , pp.27– 31. Anon, 1830. California Forestry and Carbon Sequestration. , 95814(916), p.95814. Chaitanya • email: • PSG IM 34