Data from US EPA |
Cap and Trade is officially lunched in California, the first auction of carbon allowances was yesterday.The state deemed the auction a success as 23.1 million carbon allowances for 2013 sold at $10.09- the lowest market clearing price. Back in 2006
enabling legislation (AB 32) was passed to create California’s carbon cap and
trade system that was launched Wednesday despite last minute appeals by
business associations to the Governor. The California Air Quality Control Board
has set an annual limit, the cap, on the carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions
produced by large factories, power plants and oil refineries in the state. The
cap is scheduled to decline 1% in the first two years and 3% each year after
that so that CO2 emissions in the state will be reduced in a systematic
fashion.
Though the requirement does not go into effect until January 1,
2013, yesterday, after 6 years of planning and program design, California had
its first auction for 62.6 million metric tons of CO2 called carbon allowances (23.13 metric tons for 2013 and 39.45 metric tons for 2015) on
an electronic trading market. Sold were 23.1 million carbon allowances for 2013 in addition to 5.6 million allowances for 2015. The state will operate the market each
quarter so that companies subject to the regulation can purchase carbon
allowances. Each business must hold the
number of allowances determined by the state, based on the standard emissions
from their type of business or facility, so while this program was developing
there was no incentive to install technology to reduce CO2 and there was an
incentive to maximize annual production. At first, all the allowances are free for power plants
and 90% of the allowances are free for businesses, but the number of allowance
that are free will decrease to 75% in 2015 and go down from there. The total CO2 emissions for the state were only about 2% over 1990 levels in 2010 (though they had been considerably higher before the recession).
Regulators and the Legislature hope and believe that gains in
energy efficiency spurred by the program will outweigh any higher costs.
Certainly switching from coal power generation to natural gas fired power
generation can reduce CO2 generation by utilities by 44% according to data from
the US EPA. The idea for a cap and trade
program was modeled on the European Union’s Kyoto accord system. Though Europe
has reduced the generation of CO2 within its borders, the consumption of carbon
has not according to “The Carbon Crunch: How We’re Getting Climate Change Wrong-and
How to Fix It” by Dieter Helm. In a world whose atmosphere is interconnected a
cap and trade program appears to have the perverse incentive to drive energy
intensive industries outside its borders.
With the Koyoto accord in place CO2 emission worldwide continued
to grow. In 2011 the top four world generators of CO2 emission from fossil
fuels were in descending order China, the United States, the European Union and
India who edged out Russia to take the number four slot. This is a vastly
different picture than existed in when the Koyoto Treaty was first contemplated
and now China’s newly elected President Hu Jintao has vowed to double the
country’s gross domestic product and per capita income by 2020 from 2010 levels
during his term of Presidency. This means an increase in electricity production
using predominately coal fired power plants in China.
From 2010 to 2011 China increased their emissions of CO2 the mostcontributing almost three quarters of the total global increase, with its
emissions rising by 720 million metric tons, or 9.3% to 8.46 billion metric
tons of CO2, primarily due to higher coal consumption. India’s emissions rose
by 140 million metric tons or 8.7% to 1.75 billion metric tons. CO2 emissions
in the United States in 2011 fell by 92 million metric tons of CO2, or 1.7% to
an estimated 5.32 billion metric tons. California’s carbon market
represents 342 million metric tons less the portion of transportation that are automobiles or about 4%-5% of the net CO2 emissions for the
United States. Only commercial and industrial facilities that emit more than 25,000 tons of CO2 each year are subject to the cap.
Companies subject to the cap and trade regulations have four
choices. The first is the intended goal; reduce CO2 emissions by improving
energy efficiency, utilizing lower carbon fuels, carbon capture or other
technologies. The second option is to buy carbon
allowances from California at the market determined rate. California
will profit under the program by selling the California carbon allowances that
each company subject to the regulation will need to continue to operate in
California. The idea of the carbon
allowance market is to both to price the carbon allowance and raise revenue for
the state. The third option is known as
"carbon offsets." Companies can pay other organizations to reduce
greenhouse gases within the United States. The fourth option is to reduce CO2
producing operations within the state. California is hoping that the transfer
of production to other locations will not occur, but the experience in Europe
and the United Kingdom has not shown this. Taxing the carbon content of
products might be a more direct method to control CO2 generation and more
effective method of reducing CO2 production worldwide and would certainly
generate badly needed revenue for California.
No comments:
Post a Comment