Top Banner
www.ucsusa.org RGGI Model Rule RGGI Model Rule Preliminary Comments Preliminary Comments Alan Nogee Alan Nogee Clean Energy Program Director Clean Energy Program Director Union of Concerned Scientists Union of Concerned Scientists May 2, 2006 May 2, 2006 Hartford, CT Hartford, CT
7

RGGI Model Rule Preliminary Comments

Jan 14, 2016

Download

Documents

RonaT

RGGI Model Rule Preliminary Comments. Alan Nogee Clean Energy Program Director Union of Concerned Scientists May 2, 2006 Hartford, CT. - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Welcome message from author
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Page 1: RGGI Model Rule Preliminary Comments

www.ucsusa.org

RGGI Model RuleRGGI Model RulePreliminary CommentsPreliminary Comments

Alan NogeeAlan NogeeClean Energy Program DirectorClean Energy Program DirectorUnion of Concerned ScientistsUnion of Concerned Scientists

May 2, 2006May 2, 2006Hartford, CTHartford, CT

Page 2: RGGI Model Rule Preliminary Comments

www.ucsusa.org

• RGGI will be effective in its own right and as a national model to the degree it requires the Northeast electricity sector to reduce its contribution to carbon emissions.

• RGGI can and should dispel the myth that the problems and solutions are always in other sectors and other regions.

Page 3: RGGI Model Rule Preliminary Comments

www.ucsusa.org

Electricity should be easiest, least expensive sector to control

• Recent EIA modeling of National Commission proposal in different allowance price scenarios:– Electricity accounts for 40% of emissions – Electricity provides 2/3 of emission reductions

in modest reduction scenarios– Electricity provides 85% of reductions in

deepest scenarios (though more expensive than necessary because EIA doesn’t include additional energy efficiency.)

Page 4: RGGI Model Rule Preliminary Comments

www.ucsusa.org

RGGI reductions are modestand need to be real

• No exemptions without decreasing the cap• E.g., UCS is a strong advocate of co-firing

biomass and coal.• But when biomass contribution exceeds 50%,

fossil emissions do not magically fall to zero, and should not be exempted.

• If there are particular circumstances that have led to proposed exemptions, important to identify to enable stakeholders to help address in ways that don’t threaten program integrity.

Page 5: RGGI Model Rule Preliminary Comments

www.ucsusa.org

Reducing carbon in electricity means replacing or decarbonising coal

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

2003

2005

2007

2009

2011

2013

2015

2017

2019

2021

2023

2025

2027

2029

Co

al g

en

era

tio

n (

GW

h)

• National Commission Case 4

• Only scenario with overall carbon reductions– 10% power

plant carbon reductions by 2021

– 44% by 2030

• Coal makes the difference

Reference case + 250 net new

coal plants

Case 4 - gradually replacing 125 coal plants: NO new conventional coal

Source: EIA, Energy Market Impacts of Alternative Greenhouse Gas Intensity Reduction Goals, March 2006. http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/servicerpt/agg/pdf/sroiaf(2006)01.pdf

Page 6: RGGI Model Rule Preliminary Comments

www.ucsusa.org

RGGI surrounded by proposed new coal plants135 plants (85 GW) proposed nationally

• PA, WV, VA proposals sufficient to offset >100% of RGGI reductions

• If leakage encourages new coal plants to be built, will emit for 40-60 years.

• Much more expensive to reduce later.

Page 7: RGGI Model Rule Preliminary Comments

www.ucsusa.org

Need to overcome barriers to efficiency and renewable

investments

• With low offset safety valve trigger, companies may choose MORE EXPENSIVE spot market offsets over less expensive long-term investments

• Maximize consumer allocations• Strong 5 point offset test• Consider revising/eliminating offset trigger prices• More mechanisms to encourage additional

efficiency and renewables• Key to the region receiving the economic

development benefits from solutions