More

HuffPost Social Reading

California 'Cap-And-Trade' Plan Poised To Be Finalized (VIDEO)

JASON DEAREN   10/20/11 08:37 PM ET  AP

SAN FRANCISCO — California formally adopted the nation's most comprehensive so-called "cap-and-trade" system Thursday, an experiment by the world's eighth-largest economy that is designed to provide financial incentives for polluters to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

State officials said they hoped other states and Washington, D.C., would follow suit, calling the plan a "capstone" among the suite of tools California can use to reduce the pollution linked to climate change and cut dependence on foreign oil.

"For half a century every American president has been calling for America to move away from our dependence on foreign oil and become energy independent," said Mary Nichols, chairman of the California Air Resources Board.

"The reason we have not succeeded in addressing our addiction to petroleum is because we did not have the right set of policy tools," Nichols said. "Now we do. Cap-and-trade provides a reward for doing the right thing."

The board voted unanimously to approve the final draft of its plan, a key part of the state's landmark 2006 global warming law, AB 32, which seeks to reduce the emissions to 1990 levels by 2020.

Some businesses regulated under the program argue it will increase the price of electricity for consumers and hurt job creation by raising the cost of doing business in the state. But the program's supporters expect cap-and-trade to spur economic recovery and innovation, by pushing business to invest in clean technologies.

While implementation of some parts of the program will begin in 2012, compliance for power plants and other of the worst polluting facilities actually starts in 2013, with others joining in 2015. In total, the plan will cover 85 percent of California's emissions.

Former Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who frequently promoted the law, called Thursday's vote a "major milestone" in the fight against climate change.

"I have always believed that we can create a world where economic growth, energy independence and environmental protection are all achieved," Schwarzenegger said

In general, the program will require pollution producers like refineries and cement manufacturers to buy permits, called allowances, from the state. Each permit allows for a specified amount of greenhouse gases each year, with the amount declining over time.

Companies that cut emissions and have extra allowances can then sell the permits in a marketplace; greenhouse gas emitters could purchase those allowances if they failed to cut emissions.

Polluters that reduce emissions could turn a profit if the market price for extra allowances rises above the initial cost of the permit.

A company can also meet up to 8 percent of its emissions reduction obligations by purchasing carbon "offsets," or investments in forestry or other projects that reduce greenhouse gases.

The program, modeled on similar programs in Europe, is also designed to be able to link up with plans in other states and elsewhere to increase the size of its market for carbon allowance trading.

"Although other states and some Canadian provinces such as Quebec and British Columbia hope to link their caps to California's, a big factor in the state's success will be whether or not they have to go it alone," said Jan Mazurek, director of strategy and operations for the Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions at Duke University.

"Small markets mean fewer trading opportunities – and so potentially higher costs," Mazurek said.

To help companies prepare, 90 percent of the allowances would be free in the first years, providing time for equipment upgrades.

A letter sent by the California Chamber of Commerce and a host of other business groups called the 10 percent in allowances an "arbitrary 10 percent haircut." The letter said that California can't fight global climate change on its own.

"We are very concerned about the negative impacts the policy may have on the state's economy, jobs picture and energy costs," said Catherine Reheis-Boyd, president of the Western State Petroleum Association, in a statement. "This policy, if adopted, will amount to a new tax on refiners and other energy intensive industries that could total billions of dollars over several years."

Any electricity price increases would have to be approved by the state.

The cap-and-trade plan has seen a number of changes and overcome significant hurdles since it was first adopted with fanfare in Sacramento last year.

Work was briefly halted by a judge after environmental justice groups sued, arguing the market-based approach of cap-and-trade would allow polluters to buy the right to pollute more by purchasing more allowances. This, they argued, would affect mostly low-income neighborhoods located near governed facilities.

The California Supreme Court in September allowed work to continue on the regulations.

In response to these concerns, the board on Thursday also approved a new "adaptive management plan," under which the air quality of neighborhoods near power plants and other regulated facilities will be monitored to see if any more pollution results from cap-and-trade. If increases are found to be a result of cap-and-trade, the board said it would respond.

Environmental groups that have lobbied for years for a national cap-and-trade program lauded California's regulation.

"California is proof that common sense climate action is still possible on a large scale in the United States even though Washington, D.C., remains gridlocked," said Fred Krupp, president of Environmental Defense Fund.

FOLLOW HUFFPOST SAN FRANCISCO

SAN FRANCISCO — California formally adopted the nation's most comprehensive so-called "cap-and-trade" system Thursday, an experiment by the world's eighth-largest economy that is designed to pro...
SAN FRANCISCO — California formally adopted the nation's most comprehensive so-called "cap-and-trade" system Thursday, an experiment by the world's eighth-largest economy that is designed to pro...
Filed by Carly Schwartz  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 146
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3  Next ›  Last »  (3 total)
banana republican
Provoking Progressives with unwelcome perspectives
07:23 PM on 11/03/2011
What this is really is an experiment in financial incentives for companies to move out of California, but CA is so far to the Left that two and two can equal anything but four there.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
MikeWebster
Always happy.
03:04 AM on 10/24/2011
This should certainly provide certainty to many investors, just waiting with venture capital to begin investing in the world's next great techonology industry. The fact is, this kind of legislation is coming everywhere worldwide - sooner or later - because the threat from climate chang is real, and vast. Those who get in early will have a competitive advantage.

So, California will have a new silicon valley develop over the next years, which will provide energy technology for much of the world.
11:20 AM on 10/24/2011
The California cap and trade regulation provides anything but regulatory uncertainty. Every C&T regulation that has been implemented in the US other than those that have gone for the total phase out of a pollutant in 10 years or less (these short-term programs include those used to force lead out of gasoline, CFCs and HCFCs out of refrigerants) has fallen apart and been rebuilt or replaced within 7 years of its start-up. The majority of US cap and trade experiments to control discharges into the air and water have fallen apart in less than 4 years.

In every case--including the new CA C&T rule--the state over-supplies the market with pollution quota. Five to seven years in, the state then has to expropriate a significant portion of the banked quota to address their original failure to introduce a meaningful cap. When the state rules that any banked emission quota is now worth only 70% or 50% of what it was originally worth, it penalizes the entities that over-reduce early and rewarding the entities that contribute the least to the state's reduction objectives.

It was a surprise when the regional Air Quality Management Board first messed with the RECLAIM market in this way. It was also a surprise when the USA EPA totally destroyed the US SO2 and NOx markets in 2005. Given the lessons California's RECLAIM program taught in particular, no prudent business operator associates C&T with the term "certainty".
02:09 PM on 10/22/2011
The California cap and trade regulation that was just adopted is a highly trade protectionist effort that is very limited in its potential to protect the environment. First the state obliges all SUPPLIERS (domestic producers AND importers) of carbon-intensive commodities to acquire and retire CA GHG quota covering the emissions associated with in-state consumption of those commodities. Then the state freely allocates CA quota up to 110% of regulated emissions (through 2020) to entities that own and operating high-emitting enterprise in the state. The regulation effectively makes it free to discharge GHGs from a gas-fired power plant if it is located within state boundaries, while it puts an 100% tax on the GHGs associated with imports from an equivalent or more efficient out-of-state power source. The reg gives free quota to CA in-state heavy oil producers, while it puts an 100% tax on the GHGs arising from the in-state consumption of imported, greener petroleum products.

The bureaucracy's expectation is that the out-of-state suppliers of petroleum products, natural gas and electricity (50% of current CA power supply)--who do not receive any free quota--will buy quota from a state auction and the surplus quota pool that the state has handed to in-state operators.

The reality will turn out to be a new generation of trade disputes and tariffs on CA exports the likes of which California has never seen before.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Richard2
02:01 PM on 10/22/2011
The Kyoto Protocol was never ratified in the United States, and the country remains unwilling to submit to international commitments on energy consumption out of a concern that doing so could cost jobs. "Clean energy has become a dirty word in the United States," a close advisor to US President Barack Obama said during a recent visit to Berlin.

And now other important countries, like Japan, Canada and Russia, are refusing to commit to new binding CO2 targets for the period after 2012, as long as India and China do not cooperate. The emerging powers are calling for decisive action by the industrialized nations before they are willing to do anything, creating a vicious cycle.

"Without new reduction targets, Kyoto is nothing but an empty shell," says environmental economist Schwarze.

In times of financial crisis, many politicians apparently no longer attach very much importance to a threat that will only unleash its full fury after many years. In addition, mistakes and slip-ups have harmed the credibility of climate scientists. In particular, an incorrect prediction about the melting of Himalayan glaciers by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has given opponents of climate protection new ammunition.- Der Spiegel
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
MikeWebster
Always happy.
03:08 AM on 10/24/2011
Well yeah. But we know that it's very difficult to get international agreement on this. One major reason has been the intransigance of the US. Europe has certainly moved faster than others on this issue, and I'd be surprised if Russia isn't taking it very seriously, having lost about 30% of their grain crops during the massive and unprecedented heatwave they had a year or so ago.
photo
Middle Class Majority
Self employed soldier
01:33 PM on 10/22/2011
“Global warming is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific
fraud I have seen in my long life.”
Before he passed away a year ago, noted physicist Hal Lewis was one of several scientists who resigned
from the pro-global warming American Physical Society, the second-largest organization of physicists
in the world.
Cacey
Ignore rudeness, honor discussion
08:24 AM on 10/22/2011
This story should be on the front page. California leading the nation in common sense again.
photo
Barbara DeZan
Knowledge is Power
01:41 PM on 10/22/2011
Because a sensible man is in the governors chair.

Jerry Brown did it right the first time.....and he'll do it right again.

And, lordy, how the GOPers hate him.,
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
john whalen
07:20 AM on 10/25/2011
Gov Moonbeam has brought California one step closer to bankruptcy!! When they do crash and burn they will most likely hold out their hands to the Federal Govt, looking for the rest of America to bail them out. We can only hope that California breaks away from the US mainland so we can rid ourselves of this cancer!
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
quillsinister
01:33 AM on 10/22/2011
Cap and trade has been used twice before. It was successful both times.
01:55 PM on 10/22/2011
Define "successful". The US Acid Rain Program--which originally created a declining stream of SO2 allowances/quota lasting a term of 35 years--crashed and burned slowly over a period spanning 2003 through 2005. Over that period, the market price for US SO2 quota fell from $1,200/ton to less than $12/ton even though the US was in the process of failing, miserably, to comply with its international pledge to cut nation-wide SO2 allowances to 50% below actual 1990 levels by 2000. That pledge, made in 1980 by all 46 developed member states in the OECD was kept by 44 of the 46 pledging nations. The US and Canada were the only 2 of the 46 pledging nations to fail to keep their significant SO2 reduction commitments.

How did the SO2 control mechanism one of the two only nations to fail to keep their international commitments to cut nation-wide SO2 emissions earn the label as "successful"? This is a question the Huffington Post might want to investigate.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
MikeWebster
Always happy.
03:14 AM on 10/24/2011
SO2 emissions in the US have reduced at least 40% since, 1980, and acid rain has reduced by 76% since 1976.

Not as good as the 70% reductions in the EU. But the mechanism used was successful, albeit, that they may not have capped as much as they should have.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
MrBIgp
Maybe I'm wrong, but....
12:00 AM on 10/22/2011
If California really wan't to reduce c02, we can start by lifting the moratorium on nuclear power.
03:28 PM on 10/21/2011
1. watch as the cap and trade program raises prices for everything in Ca. The state govt is so desperate for money that it will enforce the cap and trade law they have been trying to put off ever since it was passed.
2. Watch as energy intensive companies flee the state and take their jobs, and tax payments with them, resulting in less revenue to the state. Why conduct business in Ca when you can move across the border into Nevada with little or no state taxes, or AZ or Oregon. Example, concrete manufacturing is very energy intensive and uses natural gas to fire huge kilns to bake cement into the proper strength. The cost of concrete will rise significantly from the law. Soon the concrete plants will relocate and ship their product in by rail.

In the end it will be touted as a big success for the green lobby, but it will end up as a disaster for the already bankrupt California govt. Jobs will be shed even faster, and less tax revenue, a real lose lose proposition brought to you by the Democrat Ca Legislature.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
MikeWebster
Always happy.
03:15 AM on 10/24/2011
Moving away, just postpones the inevitable. Those who stay will be in the position to out compete other energy generators, when the regulations are imposed elsewhere, as they will be because of the reality of AGW.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Malcolm Hensley
Last of the Reagan Republicans
11:21 AM on 10/21/2011
California is on the FAST TRACK now! Just think in 2000 we were the 5th largest economy in the world! Today we are the 8th largest economy in the world and our politicians are proud of their accomplishments! Soon we will be #10 GI!

Between 2000 and 2008 we lost 30+% of our manufacturing jobs. We were counting on those high tech companies to employ those highly educated technicians to keep our economy up however we lost a higher percentage of them than our old mundane manufacturing jobs.

The good news is the state will increase jobs for installing Chinese made solar panels. Can't make them here because our energy cost are to high but for a shrinking economy base like California it's better than nothing!

As I said the state of California is on the Fast Track now to sustain high unemployment - wait a news flash California's unemployment just dropped below 12% - OH! No wonder the state agencies are reacting so quickly can't have this!
photo
PoloniumMan
"It worked." J. Robert Oppenheimer
12:18 PM on 10/21/2011
Even Hollywood is moving out to places like Albuquerque, NM.

http://www.abqstudios.com/
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
10:37 AM on 10/21/2011
The solar water heater is 120 years old. In the 1890s inventor Clarence Kemp introduced California to the Climax, the first commercial solar water heater.

In 1911, Frank Shuman, an American engineer, built the world’s first solar thermal power station. Any coal-fired power plant can use a solar steam generator to save coal.

In 1981, Ted Taylor, who worked at Los Alamos National Laboratory in the 50s, built a big underground pond capable to produce and store ice in the winter and to use it for cooling/air conditioning in the summer.
03:35 PM on 10/21/2011
And your point?
Are you planning on building a giant pond under your house and a large refrigeration system to freeze the ice, that consumes a lot of electrical power?

Is that the sound of daffodils and honey bees buzzing in your head, with pipe dreams of bullet trains and solar panels that we do not have the money to pay for. We are BROKE! CA IS BROKE! And your plans is to build freezer pits, increase our debt, increase inflation, so the struggling populace will lose jobs or see inflation ravage their disposable income?
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
quillsinister
01:32 AM on 10/22/2011
I believe the term is non sequitur. It does not follow.
photo
StephenBP
What's he building in there?
10:26 AM on 10/23/2011
And your point? Let's keep increasing the level of combustion pollutants in the atmosphere until even the dimmest bulbs realize that climate change from combustion gas is real and oh.. goodness... we've reduced the food producing capability of the planet..... oops. Oh well. Too bad.
photo
TheEmptyMonty
Astronaut. Daredevil. Wabbit.
10:18 AM on 10/21/2011
Many will scoff and babble about how much this will cost. There are a good pair of questions you should always ask:

What's the cost of doing something?
What's the cost of doing nothing?
11:43 AM on 10/21/2011
Who pays the money?

Who gets the money?
photo
TheEmptyMonty
Astronaut. Daredevil. Wabbit.
12:27 PM on 10/21/2011
People emitting more than their allowance pay the money.

People emitting less than their allowance get the money.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
john whalen
07:21 AM on 10/25/2011
The rest of America pays for these clowns actions!!!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
chrisd3
Inconceivable!
04:16 PM on 10/21/2011
"What's the cost of doing something?"

Interestingly, they never even try to answer this question in their comments about the terrible cost of cap and trade. Other than completely fabricated ones like "$trillions!!!!!", numbers are never provided. We must simply take it on faith that it will be so expensive as to "destroy the economy!!!'. No need for any actual data, right? No need to know where this information came from.
photo
TheEmptyMonty
Astronaut. Daredevil. Wabbit.
04:24 PM on 10/21/2011
You're completely right. Plus, the estimates of the social cost of carbon, in terms of doing nothing, range from $24 to $120/ton. Obviously there are a lot of uncertainties involved, but even at the low end of the range, the costs of acting today are a drop in the bucket compared to the potential long-term damages.
ruburnt
Live Free or Die....
09:28 AM on 10/21/2011
Should be interesting to see what the California economy looks like in 10 years....
photo
TheEmptyMonty
Astronaut. Daredevil. Wabbit.
10:17 AM on 10/21/2011
Probably great! A very short memory on most Americans, who don't seem to remember what happens to our economy every time fossil fuel prices spike.
02:06 PM on 10/21/2011
The price of everything rises, driving people and business to more economically friendly states?
03:51 PM on 10/21/2011
Wrong.

To justify long term investments in Tar Sands, Shale Oil extraction, and Coal gasification, the price of oil needs to stay at the $90 a barrel Range. That has happened and the Keystone pipeline project that will deliver tar sands oil from Canada is in the works right now.
Based on oil reserves from these alternative sources as well as other conventional sources, The US and Canada are the next OPEC of the next 200 years. These sources will make oil plateau and increase supply at prices we see now.
It will make the Middle East less important and reduce international interest in those unstable anti west cultures.

A weak solar panel or a bird shredding wind turbine isnt going to cut it. Carbon is king! And all the cap and trade is only an artificial crazy system to shift the cost curve.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Malcolm Hensley
Last of the Reagan Republicans
11:26 AM on 10/21/2011
Well 10 years ago California had he 5th largest economy in the world - if that is any indicator?

5th largest must have been a bad thing because they never talked about it much then. But the are real proud of being the 8th largest economy now! And today they will be equally proud of the fact they finally got unemployment below 12%!

Of course these new rules may fix that!
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
quillsinister
01:37 AM on 10/22/2011
Do you get that other economies worldwide are on the rise? Or is that too complicated a concept for you?
photo
Hitchcockcameo
In the shadows, directing your every move.
06:21 AM on 10/22/2011
Damm if we could only out-produce China....
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
WESmith
Just say no to gasoline
09:01 AM on 10/21/2011
Cap and Trade is another commodity for Wall Street to get rich on. Actually the top five American Oil & Gas Corporations should do well with Cap and Trade as they have complied with the Kyoto Protocol while most Americans sat on their thumbs polluting. If the average American has cut back any on their polluting ways, it is because they can't afford it. The real polluters in American are We The People. We are blaming THEM for polluting and it is THEM that is supposedly getting the punishment. Very religious in nature. By punishing THEM, the world will be saved from climate change. Very religious. The truth is, we screwed the pooch. We can't fix climate change. It is going to happen. Ironically, Exxon had the right answer back in the 1980s. They had done climate change research and found out that the global temperatures were rising. Exxon's answer was technology and energy efficiency. Jimmy Carter spoke similar words and we laughed at him. I listened to Carter. I started weaning myself off of gasoline. It took 28 years, but in that 28 years I had saved $100,000. I invested that money and the value tripled. I can now afford an energy efficient home on 22 acres with a wind turbine and and electric car. The goverment's answer is more taxes, more money for the rich and continued polluting and continued happy voters.
photo
TheEmptyMonty
Astronaut. Daredevil. Wabbit.
10:24 AM on 10/21/2011
Good for you, and I myself make money every day (well, every sunny day) selling solar back to the grid. But most people don't have that foresight; governmental policy is sometimes necessary to drive change. California in particular has had massive success with its environmental regulations. Just look at the successes of the LEV program! There are ways to drive technological development without any of the downsides you mentioned. Cap and trade isn't an ideal system, but it's better than nothing.
photo
StephenBP
What's he building in there?
07:32 AM on 10/21/2011
So sad that Orkneygal keeps trying to stand in the way of progress away from primitive combustion based energy. It is as if we are trying to leave the stone age but Og doesn’t want to give up her Neanderthal fire. And her falseness is manifest in nearly every word, every false equiavalence that she writes. Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant? Why then will a relatively low percentage of it in the air kill you? Classifying something as plant food makes it wholesome? Then solid and liquid human/animal wastes are wholesome?

Every one of the distracting, bleeding heart causes that Orkneygal has been tasked with promoting are trumped by Catastrophic Climate Gas Emissions. Over-fishing is exacerbated by warming waters and acidified oceans from CCGE. Native habits are being destroyed by CCGE. Slash& Burn agriculture isn’t a problem when there is nothing left to slash and burn. And on and on.

So all hail to the Heartworm Institute and its professional deceivers! Hip Hip! Hurray! Deceiving, either for pay or for free, arrogantly proclaiming themselves smarter than the world's climate scientists, arrogantly ignoring the observations of farmers, hunters, fishermen, naturalists, scientists and native peoples, and slandering and mischaracterizing good, decent, honest, well meaning, intelligent people with every one of their posts; the Heartworm Institute always aims to please its oily, sooty selfish sponsors.

Good post, Orkneygal.