GOVERNMENT & POLICY EARLY THAW Computer modeling of climate change predicts reductions in California's Sierra snowpack.
STATES ACT TO PROTECT CLIMATE States and cities enact variety of initiatives to reduce greenhouse gases BETTE HILEMAN, C&EN WASHINGTON
T
O MANY, GLOBAL
CLIMATE
change seems like an overwhelming problem that can only be dealt with internationally. But after President George W. Bush decided not to participate in the Kyoto protocol in 2001, some U.S. states decided to take matters into their own hands. Critics might say that state actions— even if successful—can have little overall impact on global emissions ofcarbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, but many U.S. states are comparable to large developed countries in terms of C 0 2 output. For example, Texas' emissions are the seventh largest in the world, smaller than Germany's but larger than Canada's or the U.K.'s. California's emissions are almost as great as South Africa's and larger than Ukraine's. So if states reach their C 0 2 reduction goals, it could have a significant effect on global emissions. Successes by states could also provide valuable experience for the crafting of federal laws to reduce emissions across the U.S., says Barry G. Rabe, professor at the Gerald R. Ford School of Public Policy at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. State action on climate change takes dif24
C & E N / JULY 1 1. 2 0 0 5
ferent forms. States are grappling with the issue individually or in alliance with other state and local governments. Some U.S. cities are also taking measures to reduce greenhouse gases. State climate initiatives range from executive orders to sharply reduce C 0 2 emissionsfrommotor vehicles, to requirements that electric utilities generate part of thenpower from renewable sources, to tax incentives for solar and wind power, to laws encouraging production of ethanol and other renewable fuels. A number of these measures for reduction of greenhouse gas emissions are aimed primarily at economic development in the area because they provide jobs and extra income, especially for farmers in the Midwest. California has proposed the boldest, and perhaps the most controversial, set of initiatives. On June 1, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger signed an executive order calling for a reduction of the state's greenhouse gas emissions to the 2000 level by 2010 and to the 1990 level by 2020. More dramatically, the order calls for an 80% cut below the 1990 level by 2050. "Today, I am establishing clear and ambitious targets to reduce greenhouse gas
emissions in our state to protect our many natural resources, public health, agriculture, and diverse landscapes," Schwarzenegger said in announcing the order. "By working together, we can meet the needs of both our economy and environment.'' "No government before has taken such bold action," said Alan C. Lloyd, the secretary of the California Environmental Protection Agency, which is charged with coordinating efforts to meet the reduction targets. "The announcement recognizes that we do know enough now, that the science tells us it's time we took action." Another California mandate, passed in 2002, requires auto manufacturers to reduce greenhouse gas emissions—including C0 2 , methane, nitrous oxide, and hydrofluorocarbons—from cars and light trucks by 30%. It was crafted under a provision in the federal Clean Air Act that allows California to set more stringent air emissions standards than the nation's. Last September, the California Air Resources Board adopted rules to carry out the law. They require automakers to start implementing the rules in the 2009 model year and to achieve the 30% goal in the 2016 models. IN DECEMBER, state auto dealers and the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers filed suit in federal court challenging the California rules for cars and trucks. They claim that the rules are simply fuel economy standards in disguise and that, because states have no jurisdiction over fuel economy standards, the Air Resources Board exceeded its authority. "Federal law is designed to ensure consistent fuel economy standards across the country," alliance spokesman Eron Shosteck says. Federal tax incentives for hybrids, clean diesel, fuel cells, and hydrogen-powered vehicles are the best way to promote fuel-efficient cars, he argues. The International Association ofAutomobile Manufacturers joined the lawsuit in February Unless blocked by a court order, the California rules go into effect on Jan. 1,2006. California has several other rules and proposals that are more far-reaching than those in other states. Beginning in 2017, power companies operating within state boundaries will have to generate at least 20% of their electricity from renewable sources, such as solar, wind, and water. And Schwarzenegger has WWW.CEN-0NLINE.ORG
CITY proposed rebates and tax creditsforhomes and businesses that install solar power units. He wants the state's total solar output to risefromthe current 101MW to 3,000 MW by 2018, enough to power about 2.25 million homes. l b implement this plan, the governor sponsored solar legislation that passed easily in the state Senate but is running into opposition in the Assembly Business lobbies and utilities claim that the 10-year solar plan, with its $2 billion to S3 billion price tag, will cost businesses too much. Consumers will pay a small part of the cost, but businesses will pay surcharges on their electric bills to cover the bulk of the expenses. In addition, Scharzenegger is offering $11 million annually in grants to help fund 50 to 100 hydrogen refueling facilities in urban areas to promote development of hydrogen-powered vehicles. According to Lloyd, Californians are willing to accept the tougher auto emissions initiatives. Although autos with 30% lower C 0 2 emissions might cost on average about $1,000 more according to the California Air Resources Board, polls show that 80% ofresidents favor initiatives that would mitigate the environmental impact of climate change. Californians worry, he explains, that rising sea levels will damage the state's 1,100 miles ofcoastline and that higher temperatures will melt the Sierra snowpack too early in spring, reducing the amount of water available for irrigation and drinking in summer. While the courts weigh blocking California's auto emissions initiative, 11 other states plan to propose similar standards. For example, in May, New York Gov. George E. Pataki proposed a regulation adopting the California greenhouse gas rules for motor vehicles. The New Tfork Department ofEnvironmental Conservation estimates the regulation would reduce auto emissions by 14.8 million tons of C0 2 equivalent— greenhouse gas emissions measured in terms of C0 2 . "Motor vehicle emissions are one of the largest sources of pollution in New York state and in urban areas throughout our nation,'' Pataki said in introducing the measure. The state plans to finalize the rule this year. The Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers claims that the New'ibrk proposal will add $3,000 to the cost of each new vehicle by 2016. It may file suit against the
proposal, but no decision has been made, says Shosteck. In May, both houses of the Connecticut legislature passed bills that call for a decrease in sales taxes of 3%forvehicles with low greenhouse gas emissions and an increase of3% for vehicles with high emissions. As C&EN went to press, Gov. M. Jodi Rell had not yet signed the bill. One type of initiative that has been adopted in some states and is being considered in others is to require increased energy efficiency in appliances. States are allowed to set standards for appliances, but only for those not regulated by the federal government. The Boston-based Appliance Standards Awareness Project keeps track of these efforts. Six states, including Arizona, California, and New Jersey, have mandated strict standards for various residential and commercial appliances in the past two years, says Andrew deLaski, executive director ofthe organization. And legislation is pending in anotherfivestates. "Some of the state activity has led to manufacturers saying, It is hard for us to handle standards from individual states.' They have asked Congress to make the standards national," deLaski says. AS A RESULTp 15 new energy efficiency standards are now included in the Senate version of the national energy bill. The House bill contains a smaller number. "There is little doubt many of these standards will stick in conference committee. No one is opposing them,'' deLaski says. The American Chemistry Council, the chemical industry trade group, andDuPont support upgrading appliance efficiency standards at the national level because that would reduce demand for natural gas and therefore reduce the pressure on gas prices. The cost of natural gas has tripled since 1999, and the U.S. chemical industry's gas bill increased by $10 billion in the past two years alone, ACC says. Even though efficiency standards have provided significant energy savings, "the U.S. is still experiencing overall growth in energy demand and an increasingly tight supply," deLaski says. In some regions, growth in electricity use is exceeding power plant construction, and existing power surpluses could soon evaporate, he says. New appliance efficiency standards could
The announcement recognizes that we do know enough now, that the science tells us it's time we took action."
WWW.CEN-0NLINE.ORG
ACTION
Conference of Mayors Approves Climate-Change Resolution t its annual meeting on June 13, the Conference of Mayors unanimously approved a resolution urging state and federal governments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Specifically, it called on governments to meet or exceed the Kyoto protocol's overall goal for industrialized countries—a 5% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions from the 1990 baseline level. The measures the 132 mayors will use to reduce emissions include the following: • Inventorying greenhouse gas emissions in the community and setting reduction targets. • Reducing sprawl, preserving open space, and creating compact, walkable communities. • Promoting transportation options, such as bicycle trails, and creating incentives for carpooling and using public transit. • Increasing the use of clean, alternative energy and recovering landfill methane for energy production. The mayors also urged Congress to pass the Climate Stewardship Act (S. 342), which requires four industry sectors to return greenhouse gas emissions to the 2000 level by 2010. This bill, introduced by Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Joseph I. Lieberman (D-Conn.), would have created a market-based system of tradable allowances for emissions. The Senate defeated the bill on June 22, however, by a vote of 60 to 38. The mayors' resolution, called the Climate Protection Agreement, was sponsored by Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels. After the vote, Nickels said in a prepared statement: "I'm deeply honored and grateful to my colleagues for their strong support of my Climate Protection Agreement. Mayors across America are making it clear: We're not going to wait for the federal government to do something to prevent the production of greenhouse gases. We're going to step up and provide the leadership at the local level, city by city." Nickels says he intends to get more cities to sign on to the Climate Protection Agreement.
A
C & E N / JULY 1 1 , 2005
25
-GOVERNMENT & POLICYreduce the need for additional power plants, he explains. Requirements to increase use of renewable energy resources are the most widespread type of state initiative to lower C 0 2 emissions. In addition to California, 19 states and the District of Columbia have adopted such standards. Altogether, about halfthe U.S. population lives in states with standards for renewable energy use, the University of Michigan's Rabe says. Pennsylvania's law mandates that 18% of the state's energy be derived from renewable sources by 2018. In its definition of renewable energy, Pennsylvania includes the burning ofwaste coal with cleaner burning new technologies. The state is littered with many piles of waste coal. Maryland's law encourages utilities to burn poultry waste, which piles up on Maryland's Eastern Shore and pollutes the Chesapeake Bay In May, Washington Gov Christine O. Gregpire signed bills that encourage renewable energy in two ways. One bill offers tax breaks to companies that manufacture and sell solar equipment. Another offers tax breaks to small firms that feed renewable energy into the power grid. Montana's law, signed in April, requires that 10% of the state's electricity be generated from renewable sources by 2010 and 15% by 2015. A North Dakota law signed in April encourages increased use of wind power, ethanol production, and biodiesel fuel made from soy oil and used cooking oil. Iowa passed a renewable energy standard in 1999 and now has more than 600 MW ofwind capacity with more under construction. In some midwestern states, farmers favor more renewable energy and reducing C0 2 by carbon sequestration because these measures can provide farmers with additional sources of income. "We're very interested in developing agriculture-based renewable energy," says David A. Miller, director ofcommodity services at the Iowa Farm Bureau. 'That includes wind energy, biomass, biogas [methane produced from manure and plant wastes}, hydrogen from ethanol, and biodiesel. All of these things have a positive effect on greenhouse gas emissions, but our primary driver for involvement is economic development. They provide a way to utilize resources and reduce dependence on foreign oil and natural gas. "Second, we are interested in carbon sequestration in the soil because it is good for the soil," Miller says. Farmers sequester carbon by using no-till agriculture and establishing grass plantings in areas where the soil was previously tilled. "We became 26
C & E N / JULY 1 1 , 2 0 0 5
The scheme began in 2003 under New York Gov. Pataki. Another initiative, called Powering the Plains, involves government officials, utility executives, renewable energy experts, and farmers in efforts with a dual purpose: expanding economic opportunities and reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Participants are from the Dakotas, Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Manitoba. "The premise ofthe project was to take a new approach to the issues of energy and the environment, particularly energy and climate," Project Director Brad Crabtree says. About three years ago, before the project started, "ifthere was any policy discussion at all about climate change in our region, it was all about costs. What are the costs and who bears them? We felt we needed to have a strateALLIANCES OF states also are of growing gic effort to look at what opportunities our importance in climate-change efforts. region has to address climate change in ways There is a regional greenhouse gas initia- that actually add real economic value to entive that involves the six New England ergy and agriculture, which are the two states, New\brk, Delaware, and Newjer- largest sectors of our region's economy" sey These states are establishing a cap-andProject participants meet quarterly to trade system for buying and selling C 0 2 develop and implement strategies, initiaemissions from power plants. It is some- tives, and projects in energy and agriculwhat analogous to what is going on in Eu- ture that add value to the region's econorope. Because states may not form an in- my while reducing the risk of climate terstate compact without federal approval, change. They work on renewable energy they plan to sign a memorandum of un- development, involving wind, biomass, and derstanding in which each state agrees to hydroelectric projects; hydrogen producadopt regulations for the trading scheme. tion from renewable and carbon-neutral sources; emissions trading; carbon dioxide sequestration in prairie soils and wetlands; MAJOR EMITTER and coal gasification with capture and geTexas' C02 emissions are greater ologic sequestration of C0 2 . than those of many major countries "We are aiming to transition our region C02 EMISSIONS and its future energy economy to one that (MILLIONS OF is increasingly based on renewable energy RANK NATION OR STATE METRIC TONS) and, on the fossil side, climate-friendly en1 U.S. 5,713 ergy," Crabtree says. "We're trying to max2 China 3,176 imize our region's comparative advantages. Russia 1,553 3 One project we are involved in is coordi4 Japan 1,182 5 India 1,010 nating a federally funded research effort to find ways to produce petrochemical Germany 860 6 products from perennial native grasses." 7 Texas 656 When ethanol made from agricultural 577 Canada 8 waste, such as corn stover, becomes com9 U.K. 570 mercially viable, the Great Plains region 449 10 Italy will have huge resources for cheap ethanol 11 South Korea 431 production, Crabtree says. 12 412 France "There were some questions a couple 391 13 Australia ofyears ago whether the state-driven pheSouth Africa 378 14 nomena were some sort of fluke, a sym15 California 383 bolic thing," Rabe says. "But now it is clear that a very large number of states are ex376 16 Ukraine perimenting with policies that will have a 17 Mexico 367 substantial effect on greenhouse gases," he 18 Brazil 347 19 Spain 324 adds. If nothing else, they show that in 276 20 Poland many states, a large number of voters are interested in taking action on greenhouse SOURCE: Energy Information Administration gases. • involved in the Chicago Climate Exchange, which buys and sells C 0 2 emissions credits, aboutfiveyears ago," he adds. In Iowa, Nebraska, and Kansas, 450 farmers sell soil carbon credits on the exchange for $ 1.00 to $2.00 per ton of sequestered C0 2 . In addition, farmers are interested in increased ethanol production, Miller says. There are 15 to 17 ethanol plants in the state, many of them producer-owned. There is growing interest in making biodiesel fuel. The fuel can be used in any diesel engine, he says. "For any of these endeavors to be successful, there must be sound economics behind them," Miller says. Ethanol, for instance, becomes competitive when gasoline costs $2.00 or more per gallon.
WWW.CEN-0NLINE.ORG
