Global Carbon Finance

Carbon Trading Emission in United States

Submitted to: Submitted by:

Dr. Saritha Vishwanathan Group 3
Anisha Pamnani (4)
Chitransh Mathur (09)
Mohd Sami Athar (21)
Adani Institute of Infrastructure Management PGDM (2018-20)
Contents
Introduction ............................................................................................................................................ 4
Policies for Mitigation ............................................................................................................................. 5
Transportation ................................................................................................................................ 5
Energy ............................................................................................................................................. 5
Residential, Commercial, and Industrial End Use ........................................................................... 6
United States carbon price ..................................................................................................................... 6
California Cap and Trade ......................................................................................................................... 7
California Cap-and-Trade Details .................................................................................................... 8
Massachusetts .............................................................................................................................. 10
The Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) ................................................................................... 10
New RGGI States ........................................................................................................................... 11
International Climate Finance ............................................................................................................... 12
Climate Finance Channels ............................................................................................................. 13
References: ........................................................................................................................................... 14
Figures & Table of Contents
Figure 1: Sector wise Emission ............................................................................................................ 5
Figure 2: California Greenhouse Gas Emissions by Sector in 2015 ..................................................... 8
Figure 3 BAU Emission ........................................................................................................................ 9
Figure 4: California Greenhouse Gas Emission Inventory Program (CARB, 2017) .............................. 9
Figure 5: RGGI CO2 Emissions by Sector in 2016 ............................................................................... 11
Figure 6: Comparing All Three Ets..................................................................................................... 12

Table-1: Carbon Emission in US .............................................................................................................. 4

Table 2: Dimension of U.S. climate finance: ......................................................................................... 12
 Introduction
Emissions trading is one of several market-based approaches that theoretically should improve
the performance of regulatory regimes
These two types - Emissions trading typically sets the emission target and leaves the market
price of emission rights or credits to vary, Emissions taxes set prices and allow realized
emissions to vary
Three broad types of emissions trading programs
• Reduction credit
• Averaging
• Cap-and- trade programs.

2019
Particulars 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 (6 months)
Electric
Power Sector 2373 2158 2270 2170 2034 2050 2050 1913 1821 1743 1763 758
Transportation
Sector 1893 1825 1843 1809 1773 1796 1815 1839 1871 1888 1915 936
Industrial
Sector 1615 1404 1508 1499 1482 1503 1514 1456 1425 1430 1447 701
Residential
Sector 1234 1157 1210 1149 1043 1100 1115 1037 982 947 1016 492
Commercial
Sector 1075 1007 1025 990 932 958 970 932 894 867 891 418
Table-1: Carbon Emission in US1

1
https://www.eia.gov/environment/reports.php#/T761
 Chart Title
3000

2000

1000

0
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Electric Power Sector Transportation Sector Industrial Sector
Residential Sector Commercial Sector
2

Figure 1: Sector wise Emission

Policies for Mitigation

Transportation

1. National Program for Light-Duty Vehicle GHG Emissions and CAFE Standards 2010:
Establishes corporate emissions fuel economy and GHG emission standards for new
light-duty vehicles (LDVs) produced for sale in the U.S
2. Renewable Fuel Standard, 2010: Increases the share of renewable fuels used in
transportation via implementation of the Renewable Fuel Standard Program.
3. National Program for Heavy-Duty Vehicle GHG Emissions and Fuel Efficiency Standards,
2011: Establishes fuel efficiency and GHG emission standards for work trucks, buses, and other
heavy-duty vehicles (HDVs)
4. Smart Way Transport Partnership, 2004: Promotes collaboration with busi-nesses and
other stakeholders to decrease climate-related and other emissions from
movement of goods
5. Light-Duty Vehicle Fuel Economy and Environment Label, 2011: Provides comparable
information on new LDVs’ fuel economy, energy use, fuel costs, and environmental impacts
6. National Clean Diesel Campaign, 2008: Reduces diesel emissions through the
implementation of proven emission control technologies and innovative strategies.

Energy

1. Energy Efficiency and Conservation Loan Program, 2014: Provides loans to finance energy
efficiency and conservation projects for commercial, industrial, and residential
consumers
2. Hydroelectric Production Incentive Program 2013: Makes incentive payments to the owner
or operator of a qualified hydroelectric facility based on the number of kilowatt-hours of
hydroelectric energy generated by the facility during the incentive period. Only

2
https://www.eia.gov/environment/reports.php#/T76
 appropriated for one year with a limited budget. DOE only accepted applications for
generation produced in calendar year 2013.
3. Rural Energy for America Program, 2008: Provides grants and loan guarantees to
various rural residents, agricultural producers, and rural businesses for energy
efficiency and renewable energy systems
4. CCS Demonstration and Large-Scale Geologic Storage Cooperative Agreements, 2009:
The power plant, industrial, and geologic storage large-scale CCS demonstrations
are cost-shared cooperative agreements between the government and industry to
increase investment in CCS
5. Clean Power Plan, 2022: Sets GHG standards for existing and new fossil fuel-fired
electric generating units (under section 111 of the Clean Air Act), and for existing
plants also sets forth state-specific emission goals reflecting the emission standards,
along with guidelines for the development, submittal, and implementation of state
plans to achieve the CO2 emission standards.

Residential, Commercial, and Industrial End Use

1. Green Retrofit Program, 2010: Retrofitted 20,000 units of affordable housing with $250
million in ARRA funds, resulting in lower utility costs and green feature.
2. Update Energy Efficient Building Codes and Standards, 2010: Provides incentives for investing
public- and private-sector funds in energy-efficient upgrades in 1 .1 million housing units,
and meets statutory requirements to update building codes and provide incentives for
ENERGY STAR and other above-code green building standards in new federally assisted
housing.
3. Renew300 Federal Renewable Energy Target, 2014: Sets a target of 300 MW for solar and
renewable energy in federally assisted housing
4. Better Buildings Challenge, 2011: DOE is currently pursuing strategies within four interrelated key
areas to catalyze change and investment in energy efficiency: developing innovative, replicable
solutions with market leaders; making energy efficiency investment easier; developing a skilled clean
energy workforce, including multifamily housing with HUD; and leading by example in the federal
government

United States carbon price

1. 9 Northeastern states
 Current price per metric ton of CO2 $5
 Share of emissions covered 18%

2. California
 Current price per metric ton of CO2 $15
 Share of emissions covered 85%

With Congress largely gridlocked on climate policy, the main carbon pricing efforts in the
United States have unfolded at the state level.

In the Northeast, nine states currently participate in the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, a
cap-and-trade system that auctions to power plants a steadily dwindling supply of carbon
pollution permits. Carbon prices under this system have been fairly modest to date, and it is
unclear how much the prices themselves have driven emissions reductions in the region. But
states have used the money raised by the auctions to invest in efficiency and clean energy
programs.

California, meanwhile, has enacted its own cap-and-trade program that goes beyond power
plants and also covers manufacturers, refineries, and other polluters. Here, too, carbon prices
under the system have remained modest to date, in part because the initial cap was set fairly
high, and most of California’s emissions cuts to date have come as a result of other climate
policies. Those include the state’s efficiency standards for buildings, and aggressive
renewable power targets. State officials are now struggling to tighten the cap so that it drives
bigger cuts in future years.

California Cap and Trade

California cap-and-trade program, launched in 2013, is one of a the best ways to mitigate the
state for its usage to lower its greenhouse gas emissions. California’s program is the fourth
largest in the world, following the cap-and-trade programs of the European Union, the
Republic of Korea, and the Chinese province of Guangdong. In addition to driving emission
cuts in one of the world’s largest economies, California’s program provides critical
experience in creating and managing an economy-wide cap-and-trade system.3

California’s emissions trading system is expected to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from
regulated entities by more than 16 percent between 2013 and 2020, and by an additional 40
percent by 2030. It is a central component of the state’s broader strategy to reduce total
greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 and 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030.4

The cap-and-trade rule applies to large electric power plants, large industrial plants, and fuel
distributors (e.g., natural gas and petroleum). Around 450 businesses responsible for about 85
percent of California’s total greenhouse gas emissions must comply. California has linked its
program with similar programs in the Canadian provinces of Ontario and Quebec, meaning
that businesses in one jurisdiction can use emission allowances (or offsets) issued by one of
the others for compliance. 5This broadens the number of businesses under the cap, leading to
additional economic efficiencies.

3
https://www.c2es.org/content/california-cap-and-trade/

4
http://web.mit.edu/globalchange/www/PewCtr_MIT_Rpt_Ellerman.pdf

5
https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=0f6bf054-27dd-4cc0-b856-107b1ad0854e
Figure 2: California Greenhouse Gas Emissions by Sector in 20156

California Cap-and-Trade Details

California’s program represents the first multi-sector cap-and-trade program in North

America. Building on lessons from the northeast Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI)
and the European Union Emission Trading Scheme (EU ETS), the California program blends
proven market elements with its own policy innovations.

The California Air Resources Board (CARB) implements and enforces the program. The cap-
and-trade rules first applied to electric power plants and industrial plants that emit 25,000
tons of carbon dioxide equivalent per year or more. Beginning in 2015, the program was
extended to fuel distributors meeting the 25,000-metric ton threshold. The program’s overall
greenhouse gas emission cap declines by three percent annually from 2015 through 2020, and
faster (details still to be determined) from 2021 through 2030.7

Emission allowances are distributed by a mix of free allocation and quarterly auctions. The
portion of emissions covered by free allowances varies by industry and by how efficient each
facility is relative to industry benchmarks. These policy elements, and other relevant details
of California’s cap-and-trade program, are summarized in Table 1 below.

California’s greenhouse gas emission cap and business-as-usual (BAU) projections

6
Greenhouse Gas Inventory Data (CARB, 2015)
7
https://www.epa.gov/statelocalenergy
 8
Figure 3 BAU Emission

Projected Reductions (in MMT CO2e) Caused by AB 32 Measures by 2020 and Share of
Total

Figure 4: California Greenhouse Gas Emission Inventory Program (CARB, 2017)

8
2020 Business-as-Usual (BAU) Emissions Projection 2014 Edition (CARB, 2017)
Massachusetts

The Massachusetts system started operation in 2018 and covers the power sector. It
complements RGGI to help ensure that Massachusetts achieves its mandatory mitigation
targets.

In 2016, a ruling by the Massachusetts Supreme Court established that the government would
need to take additional action to guarantee it meets the state’s climate targets–a 25%
reduction in 2020 and an 80% reduction by 2050 (compared to 1990). The regulation
establishing this system is in response to this ruling.

The Massachusetts Limits on Emissions from Electricity Generators system exists in parallel
to, but does not directly interact with, RGGI.

The Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI)

The Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) was the first mandatory cap-and-trade
program in the United States to limit carbon dioxide (CO2) from the power sector. The states
currently participating are Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New
Hampshire, New York, Rhode Island, and Vermont. New Jersey will rejoin in 2020.9

RGGI was established in 2005 and administered its first auction of CO2 emissions allowances
in 2008. By 2020, the cap-and-trade program is expected to help the states reduce annual
power-sector CO2 emissions 45 below 2005 levels. The states have set a goal of reducing
emissions an additional 30 percent by 2030.

RGGI requires fossil fuel power plants with capacity greater than 25 megawatts to obtain an
allowance for each ton of CO2 emitted annually. Power plants within the region may comply
by purchasing allowances from quarterly auctions, 10other generators within the region, or
offset projects. RGGI states have seen more than $3 billion in economic benefits from the
Northeast’s cap-and-trade program.

9
https://www.c2es.org/content/regional-greenhouse-gas-initiative-rggi/

10
https://www.rggi.org/program-overview-and-design/design-archive
RGGI states have seen more than $3 billion in economic benefits from the Northeast’s cap-
and-trade program.

Figure 5: RGGI CO2 Emissions by Sector in 201611

New RGGI States

Since 2018, Virginia has attempted to join RGGI through various pathways. In April 2019,
Virginia attempted to join RGGI by adopting a cap-and-trade program similar to RGGI.
However, in May 2019, Virginia’s governor signed a budget which included a rider barring
the commonwealth from participating in RGGI for the 2019 – 2020 fiscal year. The
commonwealth remains interested in seeking market-based mechanisms for reducing carbon
emissions.

In June 2019, New Jersey finalized two rules to rejoin RGGI after withdrawing from the
compact in 2012. The first rule, the Carbon Dioxide Budget Trading rule, sets the state’s
electricity generation overall cap at 18 million short tons for 2020. 12Its CO2 budget will
decline by 30 percent through 2030. The second rule, the Global Warming Solutions Fund
rule, establishes how the revenue from the RGGI allowance auctions will be spent, a majority
of which be allocated towards environmental justice communities.

11
State Energy Emissions (Source: U.S. EPA, 2016)
12
https://www.nrdc.org/resources/regional-greenhouse-gas-initiative-model-nation
Refrence:-
https://icapcarbonaction.com/en/?option=com_etsmap&task=export&format=pdf&layout=list&systems%5B%
5D=50
 Figure 6: Comparing All Three Ets13

International Climate Finance

The United States is helping developing countries to adapt & mitigate the climate change
problem. After the meeting of Fast Start Financing (FCF) commitment, the developed
countries together are working towards the goal of mobilizing $100 billion on climate
financing per year by 2020. This financing helps to address the need of developing countries
to mitigate the climate change.To accomplish the goal, there are full range of channels &
instruments to mobilize climate finance.This finance have number of dimensions, including
the institutional channels by which it is delivered, the financial instruments used, the
geographies & its ultimate end use, reducing emissions, and improving land usage.

14

Table 2: Dimension of U.S. climate finance:

13
https://icapcarbonaction.com/en/ets-map
14
2016 second biennial report of the united states
Climate Finance Channels

There are two types of channels Bilateral & Multilateral.

Bilateral channel: United States has committed to finance through bilateral financing to its
developing country partners. This type of financing have 3 forms:
 Congressionally appropriated, grant based climate finance: This finance is designed
directly through regional, country specific & global programs, principally GCCI. The
administration of these program is USAID.
 Development Finance: Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC) has become
one of the largest financiers of clean energy projects in developing countries.It also
provides senior secured loans to private equity funds.
 Export Credit: The EXIM continued to scale up its competitively priced, long-term,
climate related financing.
Multi-lateral Channel:
 Multi-lateral climate change fund: Institutional structure jointly governed by
developed & developing countries. It promotes a coordinated, global response to
climate change.
 Multi-lateral Development Banks(MDBs): U.S. & development partners play a key
role to support developing countries through billions of dollars in climate financing.
Financing Instrument: The United State have number of instruments & intervention to
mobilize climate finance through this channels. It includes Grants, Loans, guarantee
Insurance. These instruments are providing a robust, flexible, which can be adopted
according to each country’s unique needs, circumstances.
Pillars: U.S. climate finance activities have majorly 3 main pillars: adaptation, clean energy
& sustainable landscapes. Among this 49% supported clean energy activities, 34% adaptation
& 17% sustainable landscapes activities.
 Adaptation: The United States has committed to supporting poor countries to adapt
climate change & enhance their economies. It prioritize climate adaptation assistance
for those countries, regions, who are highly vulnerable to the impact of climate
change like glacier dependent countries, least developed countries, especially in sub-
Saharan Africa.
 Clean Energy: The climate assistance mainly focused on those countries which offers
to demonstrate leadership in sustained, deployment of clean energy on a large scale.
In terms of sector coverage, clean energy includes renewable energy & energy
efficiency & excludes natural gas & other fossil fuel power plant construction.
 Sustainable Landscapes: It includes emissions from forest deforestation (REDD+)
dedicated U.S. climate change assistance works to:
 Reduce GHG emissions from deforestation & other land uses.
 Increase the sequestration of carbon stored in trees, plants & soil.
 Increase additional social & environment benefits i.e. good governance,
biodiversity conservation.
References:
• https://icapcarbonaction.com/en/ets-map

• https://www.eia.gov/environment/reports.php#/T76

• 2016 Second Biennial Report of the United States