Climate Compass Blog
Cities and states on the West Coast are teaming up to tackle one of the biggest sources of urban emissions: energy use in buildings.
Three governors, six mayors, and the environment minister of British Columbia adopted the Pacific North America Climate Leadership Agreement this month at the Clean Energy Ministerial in San Francisco. The leaders of British Columbia, California, Los Angeles, Oakland, Oregon, Portland, San Francisco, Seattle, Vancouver, and Washington state agreed to work together to address the energy use and greenhouse gas emissions from buildings.
Energy use in buildings is one of the largest sources of emissions in most cities. Buildings account for 52 percent of emissions in San Francisco, and 33 percent in Seattle. Even in smaller cities, the building sector remains a significant source of emissions. If cities can cut energy use in buildings, it can help them deliver on their ambitious climate mitigation commitments.
Since cities are already filled with buildings, improvements must be made to those that are already in use, rather than waiting for newer, more efficient buildings to be constructed.
A place to start is with benchmarking and disclosure policies, which are in place in 15 cities. Cities require building managers to record and report their energy use with the help of EPA tools. The resulting database can help identify opportunities for reducing energy use. And city officials can use the information to guide policy and create long-term strategies to reduce energy use and emissions.
To ensure that buildings achieve reductions in energy use, cities are complementing benchmarking and disclosure policies with additional actions, including: retro-commissioning, a process that assesses buildings to uncover low-cost operational improvements; supporting buildings through retrofit processes; and ensuring that buildings undergoing major renovations are brought up to current code.
Examples of these policies can be found throughout the West Coast and the U.S. at large. Seattle recently required commercial buildings 50,000 square feet or larger to undertake retro-commissioning processes every five years. Los Angeles is supporting property owners and managers to execute building performance upgrades to achieve 20 percent reductions in energy usage. And Washington, D.C., like many cities, requires major upgrades to existing buildings to meet current, more energy-efficient building codes.
With a comprehensive suite of policies aimed at commercial building efficiency, cities can take action to address one of their largest sources of emissions. We are heartened to see that the Western states and cities have committed to work together on this challenge, and look forward to seeing the local progress that might be accelerated with supportive state policies. By working together, cities and states can help shape policy, investment, and behavior change strategies that can become models for broader action.
A central feature of the Paris Agreement is a stronger transparency system requiring countries to regularly report on their emissions and their national climate efforts.
At the international level, this provides a critical means of accountability by letting countries see whether others are sticking to their commitments.
But one of the key messages that emerged at last month’s U.N. climate negotiations in Bonn, Germany — including at a side event organized by C2ES — is that greater transparency has important benefits back at home, too.
The May climate meeting, the first since negotiators adopted the Paris Agreement, featured a first-ever facilitative sharing of views (FSV) for developing countries. Thirteen developing country parties gave presentations on their first biennial reports on their efforts to reduce emissions, required under the 2010 Cancún Agreements, and responded to questions from other parties.
These countries, were applauded for their efforts and their achievements. Most of them focused on the challenges they faced in fulfilling their reporting obligations, the lessons learned in addressing or overcoming these obstacles, and what they might need to do more.
Many of these lessons were echoed in a C2ES side event, “Learning from UNFCCC Transparency Experience: Perspectives of Parties and Expert Reviewers.” The event featured negotiators and technical experts from Canada, the European Commission, New Zealand, South Africa and Brazil, with the latter two countries just having completed the FSV.
Both developed and developing countries said compiling their reports benefited them domestically by stimulating regular conversations among various levels of government and with nongovernment stakeholders. The process also helped institutionalize measurement, reporting and verification (MRV), and identified opportunities to strengthen domestic climate policies.
In two other side events hosted by the UNFCCC secretariat, Uruguay, Vietnam, Ghana and Peru reflected on their experiences under the existing transparency framework. Regular reporting and review is a significant undertaking, and they learned how much time and coordination is required. Even so, their initial experiences proved to be interactive and facilitative. Countries were provided assistance in their own language, and could communicate easily with experts and staff through technology like Skype.
The co-chairs of a new working group that will develop detailed decisions implementing the Paris Agreement also took up these themes, asking parties to share their experiences and lessons learned from the existing MRV arrangements. These lessons will also inform the next session of FSV, which will take place in Marrakech, Morocco, during COP 22.
Parties hope these lessons will inform the new rulebook that must be developed for the “enhanced transparency framework” called for in the Paris Agreement. One of the key takeaways is that by learning as they go, countries significantly improve the quality of their reporting, and their own policymaking becomes more effective as a result.
What if you held a sale and customers bought hardly any of your product? You might conclude that your product wasn’t very popular. If your product happened to be carbon allowances, essentially permission slips to emit carbon pollution, that lack of popularity sounds like a good thing for the climate.
This is essentially what happened last week when California and Quebec, who have joined their carbon markets, announced the results of their most recent auction of allowances. Companies who must buy allowances decided they didn’t need the full amount being offered, presumably because their emissions are declining.
California and Québec began their carbon markets in 2013, and the partners have held joint auctions of allowances every three months since November 2014. Each jurisdiction sets a limit on nearly all fossil fuel combustion at an amount that declines each year (the cap). Businesses responsible for that fossil fuel combustion have to buy allowances at auction to cover their emissions.
Historically, businesses have bought more than 90 percent of the allowances offered. But at the most recent auction, only about 10 percent of the allowances were sold.
This is great news. It means that carbon emissions are going down, and at a faster rate than the policy requires. If emissions were going up, prices at auction would be high. If emissions were going down at the same rate as the cap, then prices might be low but the auction would still sell out.
Market forces, like declining costs of renewable power, are part of the reason why emissions are declining. Businesses can use cost-effective alternatives to fossil fuels in their operations.
Also factoring into the results are the numerous other policies California and Québec have in place to drive down emissions, including ones aimed at increasing energy efficiency. That means businesses use less energy overall.
Is there any reason this might be considered bad news? Well, if you were counting on the money from the sale, it’s a problem.
California has anticipated generating billions in revenue through 2020 from the allowance auctions. But with few allowances sold, that state revenue source drops dramatically. California’s auction revenue is directed to various clean energy programs across the state, which means those programs could be in jeopardy if auction sales remain low.
So, is this an example of cap-and-trade working or not working? I would argue this is how cap-and-trade is supposed to work. The government sets a cap based upon its climate goals, the cap creates a price in the market, and companies incorporate the carbon price into their business decisions. If emissions are low (more accurately, if they are lower than the cap), then businesses don’t buy carbon allowances, pure and simple. Both California and Québec agreed upon rules for handling unsold allowances before their programs started, so businesses know what to expect.
A larger and more difficult question is whether this is an example of carbon pricing working. In both jurisdictions, the cap-and-trade program is only one of many policies aimed at reducing emissions. It’s unclear at the moment to what extent the carbon price is driving down emissions (and allowance demand) versus other policies. A sophisticated statistical analysis is required to answer that question, and as the cap-and-trade program continues there will be observations to enable just such an analysis.
There is often a heated debate around implementing new policies, and it is not unusual to hear predictions that regulating carbon emissions will cause economic doom. But time and again, experience has shown that businesses adapt quickly to new conditions and keep doing what they’re good at – giving us the products and services we want to buy. That they’re doing this while keeping their carbon emissions below a set level is something to celebrate.
|The Bonn Conference Center, site of May 2016 UNFCCC discussions.|
Climate change negotiators gathering for the first time since hammering out the Paris Agreement faced an unexpected quandary – preparing for the agreement to formally take effect so quickly.
The agreement is intended to guide climate efforts starting in 2020, and originally it was expected it would take a few years for governments to complete their ratification processes and formally bring the treaty “into force.”
But when it was ceremonially “opened for signature” last month in New York, an astounding 175 countries signed. And with the United States and China declaring they will go the next step and formally join the agreement later this year, it’s looking very likely the threshold for entry into force will be cleared next year if not sooner (55 countries representing at least 55 percent of global emissions must formally consent).
This is great news. It shows that the tremendous political momentum that produced the agreement in December is still going strong – even if it is complicating life a bit for the teams of negotiators who now must flesh out the broad Paris architecture with a set of more detailed implementing decisions.
The unanticipated issue is how to ensure that countries that aren’t able to formally join as quickly can still have a hand in shaping the implementing decisions once the agreement enters into force. The lawyers have identified potential fixes and the issue should be ironed out at COP 22 this November in Marrakech, Morocco.
Beyond that, the negotiators are just beginning to grapple with a host of technically and politically challenging design issues – for instance, the specifics of the transparency system that will keep countries accountable, and of the every-five-years cycles for assessing collective progress and updating countries’ national contributions.
The two-week meeting just wrapping up Bonn, Germany, where the United Nations climate secretariat is headquartered, was largely about getting the post-Paris process organized.
Following the frenzied rounds of talks leading up to and culminating in Paris, there were signs of negotiating fatigue. But the “Paris spirit” by and large prevailed, with parties working through their differences about the process going forward.
The more substantive discussions during the second week foreshadowed some of the challenges ahead in fleshing out the Paris framework. One of the trickiest will be sorting out exactly how to apply Paris’ more nuanced approach to differentiating responsibilities among countries, which replaces the Kyoto Protocol’s stark divide between developed and developing countries.
However quickly the Paris Agreement formally enters into force, it will likely take until 2018 to complete the implementing decisions. Continued high-level political attention can help ensure that the negotiations stay on track – and, perhaps more importantly, that countries push forward with the domestic policies needed to deliver on their commitments.
|In Philadelphia, officials collect energy use data from schools, hospitals, labs and office buildings, using the information to identify energy and cost savings.|
Cities can be the leaders and heroes in our climate crisis if we can build the right relationships to empower them.
Whether it’s because their governments can be more responsive, or because they are becoming so interconnected, cities are playing a prominent role on the international stage in galvanizing climate action.
Starting with the groundbreaking Mayors Climate Protection Agreement in 2005, city initiatives like the Compact of Mayors and the Carbon Neutral Cities Alliance are evolving to connect cities with each other to exchange knowledge and achieve economies of scale for new technologies. This month, mayors around the world announced plans to push for investments in climate-friendly urban infrastructure, particularly in developing nations.
But the transformation we need requires more than connecting cities to one another. Cities also need to be connected to other levels of government and to the business community.
Barriers to Action
Two new reports from C40 Cities (Power Behind Paris) (Unlocking Climate Action In Megacities) highlight obstacles stopping cities from enacting transformative climate solutions. First, cities operate within a larger system of governments that affect their ability to act. Second, they rely on businesses to implement solutions to achieve a low-carbon, resilient local economy.
You could look at these as barriers or simple truths, but either way, the fact that cities rely on external entities is important to keep in mind. To combat global climate change, we cannot expect any institution to do it alone.
The C40 reports point to the need for better vertical integration with governments, and stronger collaborative relationships and practices with the private sector.
Examples of Leadership
Putting this into practice is difficult but achievable.
For example, to achieve its goal to reduce the city’s carbon footprint, Philadelphia had to address energy use in buildings, the city’s largest source of emissions. To establish its energy benchmarking policy, which collects and publicizes energy use for non-residential buildings over 50,000 square feet, the city had to work with local school officials, universities, and commercial real estate companies. The city collects energy use data from schools, hospitals, labs, office buildings and more that can be used to find energy and cost savings.
The city of Phoenix has set a goal to get 15 percent of its electricity from renewable resources by 2025. To reach that goal, it has partnered with the private sector, investors, and the state to finance and develop solar power installations on public and private lands, including the airport, a landfill, and a water treatment plant.
Steps like these can help states implement the Clean Power Plan, and help the U.S. close the gap to reach its emissions-cutting goals under the Paris Agreement. Despite this, cities have been largely outside-looking-in when it comes to serious conversations on designing and implementing state, federal and international climate policy.
An Integrated Approach
How much faster could we tackle our climate and energy challenges if we took a more integrated approach? The potential is great; for every Philadelphia or Phoenix there are a dozen more cities that aspire to achieve similar success.
For these reasons, C2ES is promoting collaborative approaches that result in integrated 'ecosystems' of policies and programs. Our Solutions Forum fosters new relationships among cities, businesses, and states on key issues. We are also helping cities work with local businesses to establish climate resilience plans that leverage both public and private resources.
City-city initiatives are critical to galvanize support for and increase understanding of transformative climate and energy solutions. But putting these solutions into practice will take on-the-ground collaboration with other levels of government and businesses.