U.S. States & Regions
States and regions across the country are adopting climate policies, including the development of regional greenhouse gas reduction markets, the creation of state and local climate action and adaptation plans, and increasing renewable energy generation. Read More
Maryland's Post-2020 Greenhouse Gas Reduction Target Setting
by Doug Vine
Maryland’s target to reduce greenhouse gas emissions 25 percent from 2006 levels by 2020 is ambitious and has put it in the company of leading states. As 2020 nears, it
is becoming increasingly clear that Maryland will likely achieve this goal. However, the challenges associated with climate change extend well beyond 2020, and with the target date fast approaching, the question arises of what the state’s post-2020 goals should be.
A Summary of American Climate Prospectus: Impacts for Maryland
By Joe Casola and Timothy Markle
In this paper, we summarize the information about the costs of climate impacts in the American Climate Prospectus that are specific to the state of Maryland. The impacts examined include: increases in heatrelated mortality, increases in the amount of coastal property exposed to flooding, declines in labor productivity, increases in energy expenditures, and declines in agricultural output.
Climate Change: The Cost of Inaction for Maryland's Economy
By Timothy Markle
The American Climate Prospectus addressed several key climate impacts over the coming century, including increases in heat-related mortality, increases in the amount of coastal property exposed to flooding, declines in labor productivity, increases in energy expenditures, and declines in agricultural output. In this paper, we explore impacts not explicitly presented by the American Climate Prospectus, which include estimates of how climate change might affect infrastructure, tourism, ecosystems, agriculture, water resources, or aspects of human health beyond heat-related mortality (e.g., respiratory ailments associated with lower air quality, and changes in the range of disease vectors). Additionally, we provide an update to the costs of inaction previously listed in Chapter 4 and Appendix F of the 2011 Maryland Plan to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions (Appendix A; Table 1).
Key Insights on Business State and City Collaboration for Climate Resilience
C2ES held a Solutions Forum workshop focusing on opportunities for collaboration on climate resilience in November 2015 in Detroit, Michigan. More than 40 business leaders, state and city officials, non-profit organizations, and other experts shared their experiences addressing climate change impacts and enhancing resilience. Discussion focused on the role each stakeholder group can play in planning for climate change. This paper summarizes the key insights of the meeting and areas of focus moving forward.
The Clean Power Plan and
Over the next year, states will be working with stakeholders to submit plans to implement the new federal Clean Power Plan and submit comments on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) proposed federal implementation plan and model rules. In its final Clean Power Plan, EPA has shown strong support for market-based approaches to reduce emissions and has granted states significant flexibility to implement market options. This document provides an overview of the Clean Power Plan and highlights aspects of the rule that warrant close attention from a market readiness perspective.
Cities and counties are increasingly emerging as climate leaders, becoming laboratories and incubators for climate solutions. These solutions take a fresh approach to emerging local challenges, and could drive progress at a larger scale.
Here are two key ways cities are stepping up:
· Local governments are creating an invaluable knowledge base for efficiency and sustainability efforts.
To reach your destination, you have to know where you are starting from. That’s why it’s so important that cities are taking advantage of ever-improving data collection and analytical capabilities to become the providers of rich databases of energy and water use in their jurisdictions.
Philadelphia's Energy Benchmarking program requires large commercial buildings to disclose their energy use. As a result, the city has a baseline of energy usage by nearly 2,000 buildings across multiple sectors. By sharing this data with building owners and energy managers, the city is focusing more attention on saving energy. And by sharing building data online with potential tenants, the city hopes to create a market for efficient buildings.
A similar program in New York City has had promising results. The disclosure policy corresponded with energy savings of nearly 6 percent - worth more than $260 million.
The federal Clean Power Plan gives each state the flexibility to use its own ideas on how best to reduce greenhouse gases from the power sector. One proven, cost-effective approach is to use market forces to drive innovation and efficiency.
The options available to states go beyond creating or joining a cap-and-trade program or instituting a carbon tax. Pieces can be put in place, such as common definitions, measurement and verification processes, so that states or companies could be in a position to trade within their state or across borders. Modest programs that allow companies to trade carbon credits could be explored.
In an op-ed published in The Hill, Anthony Earley, CEO of California energy company PG&E, and C2ES President Bob Perciasepe urge states to give these options serious thought.
Read The Hill op-ed.
The wildfires ravaging the Western United States are among the most damaging on record, and the season isn’t over yet. For those who have been following the region’s changing climate patterns, however, the damage is hardly surprising, and this could be only the beginning.
So far this year, 41,000 fires have burned 7.5 million acres of forests and grasslands across the United States. Only nine years have seen more acres burned in total than have already burned this year. The record is 9.8 million acres in 2006.
In Alaska, the 2015 wildfire season will likely go down as the second-biggest on record. More than 5.1 million acres – or 8,000 square miles – have burned so far this year. The most damaging – 6.6 million acres – occurred in 2004. Although this was an extreme fire season, the state was fortunate that the weather eventually cooperated. By mid-July, the fires had already charred 4.5 million acres, or 88 percent of the total.
The fires that plagued central Alaska during the late spring and early summer months are now mostly under control, as the dry summer heat gives way to cooler and wetter weather. The persistent ridge of high pressure has broken down as waves of moisture now stream in from the surrounding waters – the annual sign that autumn is quickly approaching.
As the fires die out in Alaska, the attention now turns to the lower 48. What was a sporadic, yet manageable, start to the fire season has now turned into conflagration of tragic proportions.
Cities and states are deploying a wide variety of incentives to promote more adoption of electric vehicles to reduce emissions and improve our energy security.
Consumers in Houston can get a state subsidy for buying a new EV. In the Phoenix area, EV buyers get registration fees waived and single-occupant HOV lane access. EV drivers in Portland receive fewer city and state incentives, but benefit from more publicly available charging infrastructure.
EV incentives vary by the amount consumers can save, how the incentives are applied, and who is offering the incentive.
A new report sheds light on how the 25 largest U.S. cities stack up in promoting EV deployment. These cities together represent more than half of the public electric vehicle charging infrastructure in the U.S. and about two-thirds of new electric vehicle registrations.
The white paper published by the International Council on Clean Transportation with input from C2ES and C40 and support from the 11th Hour Project, catalogues data on policies and actions by state agencies, municipal agencies, and local utilities that promote EV sales and analyzes the benefits to consumers.
Q&A: EPA's Federal Implementation Plan
On August 3, 2015 as part of the Clean Power Plan release, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued a proposed federal plan. The agency is currently soliciting comments on the proposal and intends to issue a final federal plan by summer 2016.
What is a federal implementation plan and when is it used?
The Clean Air Act offer states the opportunity to implement national pollution control programs, including the Clean Power Plan. There is every reason for a state to develop its own plan that takes into account its own unique circumstances, and most states choose to develop and implement programs based on that knowledge. Most states are likely to develop their own program to comply with the Clean Power Plan.
EPA assists state efforts by providing technical and policy guidance. EPA must also review and approve state plans to ensure that they comply with the Act. If a state fails to adopt and implement an adequate plan, EPA is required to issue and enforce a federal implementation plan. States may also choose to adopt the federal plan as an alternative to developing their own plan. However, if a federal plan is implemented in a state, the state may still, at a later date submit a plan to replace the federal plan either in whole or in part. States may take over the administrative and enforcement aspects of a federal plan rather than leaving it to EPA.
What is included in the federal plan?
EPA is proposing two federal plans with different approaches – a rate-based approach and a mass-based approach. These two federal plans can be enforced in states that fail to adopt or implement an adequate plan. These two federal plans may also be considered as model rules which states can adopt or tailor for implementation as a state plan.
How does the federal plan encourage market-based solutions?
The federal plans offers two market-based programs to achieve cost-effective emissions reductions. These may be adopted in part or in whole by states or used as a model for states to design their own plans.
In the rate-based program, units must meet an emission standard or acquire a sufficient number of emission rate credits (ERCs), each representing a zero-emitting megawatt-hour, to bring their rate of emissions into compliance. ERCs can be generated by units not covered directly by this rule, and they can be bought, sold, or banked for later years.
For a mass-based program, EPA would create a state emissions budget equal to the total tons of CO2 allowed to be emitted by the affected units in each state, consistent with the state targets. EPA would initially distribute the allowances within each state budget – less three proposed allowance set-asides – to the affected units based on their historical generation. Allowances may then be transferred, bought, sold, or banked for future use. The compliance obligation on each of the affected unit is to surrender the number of allowances sufficient to cover the unit’s respective emissions at the end of a given compliance period.
The federal plan will also facilitate interstate trading as well as international trading with Canadian and Mexican units that are connected to U.S. electric grid. EPA intends to set up and administer a program to track trading programs – both rate-based and mass-based – that will be available for all states that choose it. EPA proposes that affected units in any state covered by a federal plan could trade compliance instruments with affected units in any other state covered by a federal plan or a state plan meeting the conditions for linkage to the federal plan.
Proper evaluation, measurement, and verification procedures are important to ensure emissions reductions are actually achieved in a trading program. EPA must approve any such procedures and has also offered model procedures to verify that any credits in a state-based trading regime are compliant with federal requirements. States may choose to incorporate these procedures into the state plan to assure approval by EPA.
Will states be penalized for using the federal plan?
No. States will not be penalized for using all or part of a federal plan. The stringency of the proposed federal plan for each state will be the same as required if states were to write their own plan.