Transcript 0404GHGCT (No Slide Title) - National Governors Association

National Governor’s Association Center for Best Practices
April 29, 2004
Background
New England Governors – Eastern Canadian Premiers Climate Change Action Plan
• NEG-ECP Annual Conference 2001 in Westbrook, CT
– Connecticut Governor Rowland and Quebec Premier Landry (Co-Chairs)
– Resolution 26-4 – Resolution Concerning Energy and the Environment
– Climate Change Action Plan – first-of-its-kind (short, medium, and long term GHG
emission reductions targets)
• Climate Change Action Plan Summit
– Led to the creation of the GSC and C4
– Developed a framework for a public stakeholder process to issue recommendations to
the GSC (Pocantico Paper #6)
2
Connecticut Climate Change Action Plan Summit
Developing a Stakeholder Process for Connecticut
• Historic Kykuit Conference Center of the Rockefeller Brothers Fund
in Terrytown, NY in October 2002
• 13 state agencies represented (DRS to state universities)
• Presentations by Bill Moomaw (Tufts University), Sonia Hamel (MA)
and Janet Keller (RI)
• Goal – develop a framework for Connecticut to identify actions to
reduce GHG emissions
– Hire a facilitator and/or consultants to assist us with the process
– Identify funding resources to support the process
– Identify stakeholders to serve as decision-makers in the process
3
Identify Funding Partners
Shared Investment Reduces Risks
• Foundations are key funding partners
– Emily Hall Tremaine Foundation (Meriden, CT)
– Rockefeller Brothers Fund (New York City, NY)
– Energy Foundation (San Francisco, CA)
• Agency partners provide critical financial resources
– Connecticut Clean Energy Fund (Rocky Hill, CT)
– Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection (Hartford, CT)
4
State Team
Governor’s Steering Committee (GSC) and Climate Change Coordinating Committee (C4)







Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection
Connecticut Department of Public Utility Control
Connecticut Department of Transportation
Connecticut Department of Administrative Services
Office of Policy and Management
Connecticut Clean Energy Fund – coordinator
Connecticut Department of Revenue Services (C4 only)
Different missions…different cultures, but same purpose…
Public service – to serve the people of the State of Connecticut!
5
6
Co-Benefits
Beyond GHG Emission Reductions to Local Benefits
•
•
•
•
Savings
Public Health
Energy Security and Reliability
Economic Development
7
Fuel Cell Manufacturing Companies in the US and Canada
2004
BRITISH COLUMBIA
ALBERTA
Ballard Power
Palcan Fuel Cell
ONTARIO
Global Thermoelectric
Hydrogenics
Astris Energi
Fuel Cell Technologies Ltd
WASHINGTON
Acumentrics
Nuvera
Ztek
Cell Tech Power
Protonex
Avista Labs
Nu Element
Neah Power
NEW YORK
IDAHO
IdaTech
CALIFORNIA
Plug Power
Mechanical Technology
COLORADO
Ascent Power Sys.
Protonetics
Metallic Power
Direct Methanol Fuel
Cell
Anuvu
MASSACHUSETT
S
ILLINOIS
Mosaic Energy
OHIO
McDermott
Tech
UTAH
Cerametec
VersaPower
PENNSYLVANIA
Siemens Power
CONNECTICUT
Fuel Cell Energy
UTC Fuel Cell
Proton Energy
GenCell
Infinity
NEW JERSEY
TEXAS
- Gary Simon, Sigma Energy Group
Symbols Designate Company Size
Large
Medium
Small
Millenium Cell
LynnTech
GEORGIA
Fuel Cell Resources
FLORIDA
Apollo Energy
Goals for 2003
• Develop a Connecticut GHG Emissions Reduction Plan
– Publish and distribute RBF report (Complete)
– Update GHG emissions inventory (Complete)
– Publish and distribute a Connecticut GHG emissions reduction plan (Complete)
•
•
•
•
•
Establish baselines and targets
Achieve collaboration and cooperative solutions within the process
Specify range of costs vs. benefits of each mitigation strategy
Prioritize a listing of mitigation strategies
Identify implementing agencies / organizations and resource needs
• Identify, Analyze, and Recommend Opportunities
–
–
–
Identify public policy opportunities and barriers
Identify and implement “lead by example” opportunities for the state
Identify opportunities for stage agency and/or Governor leadership on climate change
9
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory
1990 – 2000 Actual Emissions for Connecticut
48
46.381
46
44
42
46.249
46.377
43.089
41.651
41.071
2010
41.012
40.786
40.011
40
38
45.963
39.986
2020
36
1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000
10
Connecticut Climate Change Stakeholder Dialogue
Developing GHG Emission Reduction Actions
• Process Decision-Making
– Governor is the final authority
– GSC receives stakeholder recommendations and
issues recommendations to the Governor
– Stakeholders issue recommendations to the GSC
– Working groups analyze options
– Public participation
• Facilitation/Consultation – CCAP
• Goal – meet or exceed NEG-ECP targets
11
Stakeholder Selection
Diversity and Leadership
SECTORS
BUSINESS
AREA OF FOCUS
TRANSPORTATION/
LAND USE
GOVERNMENT
NON-PROFIT
ACADEMIA
MTAC, Pitney Bowes
Department of Transportation,
City of New Haven
Connecticut Fund for the
Environment
5
EDUCATION/
OUTREACH
CBIA
Department of Environmental
Protection
League of Conservation
Voters, Yale University,
Institute for Sustainable Energy
5
TECHNOLOGY
UTC
Connecticut Clean Energy
Fund
Connecticut Global Fuel
Cell Center
3
ENERGY/WASTE
PSEG, Northeast Utilities
CRRA, Department of Public
Utility Control
SmartPower
5
BUILDINGS/
FACILITIES
OTHERS
Office of Policy and
Management
IBEW, Mohegan Tribe,
Fleet Bank
9
Department of Administrative
Services
8
1
Environment Northeast,
Nature Conservancy
8
6
25
12
Assessment Criteria
• Assessments for each recommendation
– GHG reduction potential
– Estimated cost per ton GHG removed
– Ancillary issues (as needed)
– Feasibility issues (as needed)
– Implementation pathway
13
Meeting Summary
Stakeholder Process in Review 2003
• 6 GSC meetings
• 6 stakeholder meetings (3 multi-day)
– 25 active stakeholders
• 66 meetings/calls of five technical working groups
– 57 interested parties (beyond stakeholders)
• 4 public meetings with about 40 participants each meeting
• Public comment on stakeholder recommendations and draft final
report, with 40 public comments and over 500 letters to the GSC
14
Final Results
Connecticut Climate Change Stakeholder Process Conclusion
 55 recommendations
– 52 by UC
– 3 one vote short
 Substantial progress toward NEG targets
– 72.7% in 2010 and 70.7% in 2020 w/out black
carbon
– 75.6% in 2010 and 80.1% in 2020 with black carbon
15
CT All-Sector GHG Reductions
60
55
50
71.3%
70.9%
MMTCO2E
45
29.1%
40
28.7%
35
Baseline Emissions
30
Projection with New Measures
25
NEG Target Emissions Level
20
1990
2000
2010
2020
16
Stakeholder Recommendations
Total MMTCO2e Reductions in Greenhouse Gas Equivalents
The planting of 31,200,000 – 33,750,000
The emissions of 250,000 – 1,150,000
trees for 2010 and 2020 respectively
from passenger cars for 2010 and 2020 respectively
OR
The emissions from electricity usage of 105,000 – 250,000
The emissions of 3,900,000 – 15,600,000
homes for 2010 and 2020 respectively
from barrels of oil for 2010 and 2020 respectively
17
Recommended Actions
Suggested Pathways to Implementation
• Variety of implementation approaches
– Funding and or incentive mechanisms
– Regulatory adjustments
– Voluntary approaches
– Research
– Reporting
– Regional cap and trade
• Legislative and administrative actions
• State and regional actions
18
Lessons Learned
Issues that Standout as a Result of the Process
• State implementation strategy is a necessary next step
– Learn from the past (Global Warming Act of 1990)
• Success in mitigating GHG emissions is contingent upon performance of
the RCI and Transportation sectors
– RCI sector needs further near-term analysis, recommendations, and actions
– Transportation sector needs long-term focus – Hydrogen Technology
•
•
•
•
•
Education is imperative
Public participation is a necessary part of a climate change process
Collaboration is key and recognition for participation is necessary
Separate facilitation and consultation functions
Interstate exchange and guidance going forward is necessary
– Sharing best practices
19
Execution
Actions Taken to Date
• Procurement policy for 10% of state vehicles to be HEV’s
• Executive Order 32 – state purchase of renewable energy
(20%x2010, 50% x2020, and 100%x2050) and sharing of
conservation savings
• Legislation – clean cars (Cal LEV II standards essentially) and
appliance standards
• Bonding – farmland preservation
• www.ctclimatechange.com
20
“Connecticut’s Climate Change Action Planning Process
reflects what is good about democracy!”
- Dr. R.K. Pachauri, Chairman of the IPCC
Special thanks to the Emily Hall Tremaine Foundation, Rockefeller Brothers
Fund, and the Energy Foundation for their continued support of
Connecticut’s (and other states) climate change programs.
21