Transcript The Massachusetts Renewable Energy Trust

Changing Climates in North
American Politics: Institutions,
Policymaking and Multilevel
Governance
Henrik Selin, Department of International Relations, Boston University
and the Centre for Climate Science and Policy Research, Linköping
University
&
Stacy D. VanDeveer, Department of Political Science, University of New
Hampshire and the Centre for Climate Science and Policy Research,
Linköping University
The Institute for European Environmental Policy and the
Institute for European Studies at the Vrije Universiteit Brussel
May 25, 2009
North American Federal Systems



All three North American countries have a
federal structure giving policy making and
regulatory authority to sub-national entities
Many federal divisions of authority on climate
change policy making remain unsettled in
Canada, the United States and Mexico
Climate change policy initiatives are discussed
and developed in a multitude of states,
provinces, municipalities and firms
Four Research Questions




1. What are the new or emerging institutions, policies,
and practices in the area of climate change governance
under development in North America?
2. What roles do major public, private, and civil society
actors play, and how do they interact to shape policy and
governance?
3. Through which pathways are climate change policies
and initiatives diffused across jurisdictions in North
America?
4. To what extent can North American climate change
action be characterized as existing or emerging multilevel
governance, and are local and federal institutions across
the continent facilitating or impeding this process of
change?
Q #1. Emerging Institutions,
Policies and Practices



National governments and policy makers in Canada, the
United States and Mexico are engaged in building
limited domestic and transnational institutions for GHG
mitigation and climate change research
Much of the most significant North American
institutional innovation in the post-Kyoto decade has
taken place below federal organizations
It is necessary to look to states, provinces and
municipalities to find the most ambitious policy
developments in North America
Sets of Policy Choices




Regulating emission sources, energy production
and goods
Enacting taxes on emissions, different kinds of
energy and goods
Creating new markets and market based
instruments including cap and trade schemes
Using subsidies to support research and
development, renewable energy generation and
the purchase of greener products
Q #2. Roles of Public, Private and
Civil Society Actors



Networked collaboration between a growing
number of private- and public-sector actors
significantly influences policy developments
Much climate change action is driven by
networked actors as new institutions help to form
and maintain new and expanded networks
Social interaction serves to identify and shape
interests and preferences of actors across public,
private, and civil society sectors
Networks and Organizations


There are a host of important local, regional,
national and continental networks
Networks use old and new organizations to
facilitate interaction, including:
 NEG-ECP
 ICLEI
 U.S. Conference of Mayors
 Federation of Canadian Municipalities
 The Climate Registry
Expansions of Regional Efforts




Six New England states and five Eastern
Canadian provinces
RGGI covering ten states from Maryland to
Maine
Western Climate Initiative (also including
Canadian provinces)
Mid-West GHG Reduction Accord
Q #3. Pathways of Policy Change

Climate change networks influence policy
developments at various levels of authority
through four pathways of policy change:
(1) Strategic demonstration of action feasibility
(2) Market creation and expansion
(3) Policy diffusion and learning
(4) Norm creation and promulgation
Importance of Bottom-Up
Pressure




Networked actors exercise influence within
and across different levels of political authority
Local level policy making is likely to have an
impact on future federal policy
RGGI setting important precedents for GHG
emissions trading
California developing a portfolio of policy
responses, including for energy and vehicles
Q #4. Status of Multilevel
Governance



Multilevel climate change governance is
developing in North America
Policy making efforts at multiple governance
levels are becoming more ambitious in terms of
scope and mitigation goals
Four possible scenarios for developing multilevel
governance based on high/low combination of
federal and sub-national policy making
Complex Multilevel Coordination




The fourth scenario – complex multilevel coordination –
is most likely
Federal governments set mandatory policy floors of
minimum regulations and standards, allowing actors and
jurisdictions to exceed federal policies in some areas
Sub-national policy making continues apace among
leaders who exceed federal requirements
Continental climate change governance is characterized
by debates about appropriate levels of policymaking and
implementation
II. Policy Options, Broadly




Property Rights/Market Creation (Cap &
Trade)
Regulation (product standards, emissions,
building/construction, land-use, transportation,
etc.)
Taxes (emissions, energy, consumption,
particular products or practices, etc.)
Subsidies (R & D, renewable energy, greener
purchasing, mass transport, etc.)
II. Policy Goals, Broadly






Reduce Emissions
Increase Energy Efficiency
Push Technology
Energy Security
Environmental & Human Health Protection
Economic Growth, Job Creation, etc.
Different Frames in Different States
and for Different Political Actors

Rationales for state action






GHG reductions
Environmental co-benefits
Job creation/investment driver
Domestic/secure energy
Energy diversification
Combinations of strategic and moral logics
Renewable Portfolio Standards
Regional Climate Initiatives
The Climate Registry Participants
What Difference Could
one Small Region Make?




If the New England/ Eastern CA Region was
classified as a country, it would be the 12th largest
emitter of GHG in the world.
+ NY, NJ and DE = 8thth largest emitter worldwide
+ CA breaks into the top 5, globally…
MA state-wide emissions are only 2% of the US
emissions but still are comparable to the total
emissions of whole countries (i.e. Portugal, Egypt,
Austria, or Greece).
REGIONAL RESPONSE #2: Regional
Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI)





Initiated with leadership of NY
Gov. Pataki to Northeast and
Mid-Atlantic states Governors.
Signed by 7 Governors on
December 20, 2005
7 states “in” plus addition of
Maryland and 2 states (MA,
RI) “observing”
States committed to links (CA)
Other states encouraged to
join and program is designed
to be expandable
Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative
(RGGI)
Purpose: power sector GHG “Cap-and-Trade” system
• Environment and energy officials from each state
• Not a voluntary program – by regulation in each state
• Reduce CO2 with flexible, market-based program for
least cost reductions
• Build on successful NOx and SOx programs
• Create a model for a federal program
• Maintain electricity affordability, reliability and fuel
diversity
RGGI Package
• Cover sources 25 Megawatts+
• Two-Phase Cap—stabilization through 2015; 10%
reduction by 2019.
• Start Date of 2009.
• Built-in Review of Program in 2015.
• Allocations:
25% for state to use for consumer benefit
Allocation
75% of the allocations left to each state to decide
RGGI – 2009 Status





Auctions held quarterly (late 08 & 09)
Prices in the $3.75-4.10 range ($2-4, Dec 2010
contracts) – too low to influence much investment
NY Gov Paterson commitment in question
Early fears of over allocation multiplying
Current GHG emission est.:


9% below ’07; 17% below cap
Waxman/Markey -- RGGI credits/allowance will be
nationally tradable
US Federal – Status May 2009



New Auto CAFE standards
National RPS still in discussion/debate
Waxman/Markey (US House) out of Ctte







Economy wide & power sector
Power sector Cap & trade – (only) 15% auction
-3 % (of 2005) by 2012
-17% by 2020 (slightly less than 1990 levels)
-42% by 2030 (25-30% less than 1990)
-83% by 2050 w/interim goals (80% from 1990)
A host of complimentary measures (beyond cap & trade)
WRI’s Emission Reduction
Comparison Estimates
Fed Challenges/Concerns

Little auctioning means little revenue





For domestic budgets (healthcare) or
international Copenhagen commitments
US Senate (the bill may get less ambitious)
Copenhagen negotiating constraints &
opportunities
Coordinating multilevel climate governance

US, North American, Transatlantic & Global
THANK YOU

Q&A

[email protected]

Buy the books! 