Kyoto Protocol FOIA Document

1. 200 tctongecyCenter For Clean Air Policy
T ~hirty years after the first J~rhDay and ten years after the creation of legislation to address
lacid rain, advances in clean arpolicy contnu. Domestically in 2000 the US Environmental Pro-
tecionAgecy(EPA) moved forwr with a decision to regulate mercury from the electricity sector and
issued stitemissions standards for heavy-duty diesel vehicles, while the DC Circuit Court of Appeals
upheld the NO 3 State Implementaition Plan (SIP) Call.
On the international front, many I uropean countries moved closer to implementing their own domestic
emissions trading programs. As 20O0 drew to an end, we also saw the culmination of over ten years of
work to address climate change ed just short of success at the Sixth meeting of the of the Conference of
Parties (COP6) to the United NiosFramework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in The
Thipastuearwsas momeno thfre Center as we marked our 15~~anniversary. We expanded our
efforts to address clean air and gtbl warming to encompass some 38 countries and over a dozen US
states. We saw our funding incres beyond all previous levels. And we grew our publications list by
nearly 50 percent, including majo I contributions to a new landmark book on emissions trading.
Topping the list of endeavors werea an intense effort at COP6 where we helped the Parties reach agree-
ment on astrong compliance system a solid Clean Development Mechanism (CDNvO governance system
and sound accountin-g measures: or carbon sequestration. While COPS discussions ended in a dead-
lock, our work leading up to the cohference (in particular the CDN4 Dialogue that brought together nego-
tiators from over 20developed and developing countries and inspired the creation of six ground-break-
ing papers) fleshed out many issudsandwillcontinue to serve asasource for consensus-building efforts.
Also on the international front we helped launch the creation of a CO emnissions trading program in
2
Slovakia, started asimiilar effort iAlPoland and worked closely with IS Caribbean countries to develop
regional emissions baselines for tieCaribbean power sector to facilitate their participation in the CDM.
Recognizing that US states also haean important role to play in addressing global wanTrhg. we stepped
up the efforts of our State Rudaieon Global Climate Change with a focus on opportunities for achieving
multiple emissions reduction benhlt. In addition, our workshop on New Directions in Clean Air and
Clean Energy Policy brought toehrleading policy thinkers from industry, academia, government and
environmental organizations, and underscored the need to integrate energy, environment and trans-
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~portation
Yearrow th
of Gro w h
- policy.
all those
~~~~~To involved in these and our mans' other efforts.
A of G
Year ~ ~~~~~~~highlightedyou for helping to make 2000a
below, I thank
year of successful growth for the Center and look forward
ANALYTICAL EXPERTISE to continued progress in the years ahead.
INNOVATIVE THINKING __Ned HeIiem
POLICY LEADERSHIP NedlHelmne
Executive Director
CAPACITY BUILDING

2. POLICY LEADERSHIP
domestic circles to advance
in 2000. We worked in both international and
The Center's policy leadership reached new heights a domestic greenhouse
trading programs, be it as part of the Kyoto Protocol,
the design of environmentally robust emissions these efforts are listed below.
CO tradidg program for aviation. Hfighlights of
gas (GHG) emtissions program or an international as
Group. European Union (EU) and G-77 countries,
o Through our one-of-a-kind CDM Dialogue. delegates fLm Umbrella Foundation for
(EC), the UNFCCC Secretariat and staff from the
well as representatives from the European Commissiot on the governance structure for
(FIL)made significant headway
international Environmental Law and Developmen projects in the CDM: and understanding the
the CDM; the eligibility of land use, land use changeadfrsr (LULUCF)
options for assessing additionality and developingbaen.
of a robust compliance
ideas. Specifically we pushed for the establishment
o At COPG we advanced various innovative policy
2 allowances
allocated to developed countries and reduc-
system. provisions to assist developing countries by tpigCO
tions of potential leakage from sinks projects.
trading program for
considerato of the Skytrust proposal, a comprehensive
EJAs part of a national coalition we promoted per ton of carbon, and
all upsremsources, with a price ceiling of $25
US domestic CO, that would auction permits to industries and com-
to beused to help to adversely affected workers,
recycle the revenues back to citizens and governors h is e frcmedtoso h
munities.
d~vrnet
prepared tefrtsto eomnain nh
0we
o3 As the primary consultant to the Slovakian Ministry inclusion and devel-
whc identified energy and industrial sectors for
scope of a Slovakian CO, emissions trading program,
oped preliminary emissions caps for these sectors.
Protection on
of the' nternational Commrittee onAviation Environmnental for an envi-
o Literally"'in the air," we advised aworking group
for C9 emnissions from international aviation and
advocated
design elements of apotential trading program with aviation NO~emi-
ozon pollution (also apower-ful 0GHassociated
ronmnentallysustainable program that addresses a htrong compliance system.
sions) and includes stringent emissions targets with
flesh out the fundamental
lastya for the EU Environment Directorate to
o Following up on the Center's successful effort of for montitoring; reporting and
or{.a new initiative to define the systems
design of a European trading system, we embarked by an EU GHG trading system. The project team also includes emis-
verifying the GMG emissions that would be covered lawyers from FIELD in the United Kingdom. The
monitor-
sions experts from TNO in the Netherlands and envirdnrmental 0GH
Directorate as it makes the case for a Europe-wide
ing project will provide critical information to the Enk'ironment
Ue
trading system.
impli-
States, the Center co-hosted a forum on the environmental
o: Connecting policy makers from Germany and theUnId office of the Germian-based Heinrich Boll Foundation. Featur-
DC
cations of electricity restructuring with the Washing-ton. en, organizations from both sides of the Atlantic, this forum pro-
ing speakers from industry, government and environc protect against
use of renewable energy and energy efficiency and
vided success stories about ways to encourage inrae on the air emissions
pr~s. The forum highlighted the Center's work
emissions increases as part of the restructuring on brownf~ields sites.
benefits of encouraging clean, efficient generation
examinring envi-
exjhneof United States and European professionals
o3 For nearly 10 years, the Center has facilitated the This year's German Marshall
efcey to transportation and land use.
ronmental issues from climate change and energy in one-on-one
iie ~ i~ii h ntdSae and Canada, participated and New York
Fund Envioronmental Exchange p riiat for policy makers and practitioners in Washington, DC
meetings and attended Center-sponsored luncheons edition of Perspectives -
City. To keep former Fellows up-to-date and the Fe'low's network strong, we released the third
the official Fellowship newsletter.
NOOs and
in Lviv for regional and local policy makers, industry,
o tn Central Europe, the Center organized a workh learn about and discuss international and domestic
academia representatives. The workshop provided teopruiyt city authorities asked for our assistance in develop-
climate change issues. As a result of the workshop, ltIvsrgoaan region.
rtunities in their
ing a climate change strategy and exploring JI oppo

3. 1CENTER
tA
Thanks to SupportersI also our most successful year to date financially. In addition
to
Not only was 2000 a big year for the Center policy-wise, it ras Wallace Global
lielto acknowledge several new sources, including the
the generous support of our existing funders, we would (for our Brazil work) and the following foreign
the Tinker Fdundation
Fund (for our international climate change efforts), the European Commission.
govermnents: Australia, Canada, Denmark, German5, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom and
reuAas a supporter.
We were also excited to have the Energy Foundation
Electric
for their support as Friends of the Center: Wisconsin
The Center is pleased to recognize the following corporation
PubliL, Service Company.
Power Company, Florida Power &Light and Arizona
New Faces Power, who
of D1irectors in 2000: Frank Cassidy, President of PSEG the Neth-
The Center welcomed two new members to its Board of
Had of the Global and European Assessment Division
replaced retiring member Larry Codey and Dr. Bert Metz, as the first international member. We appreciate
erlands National Institute of Public Health and the Environmnwhojoined
make our successes possible.
in hepn
the support of these and our existing board members
BOARD bF DIRECTORS
Governor Tony Earl*- Quarles & Brady
Chair
Jersey Department of Environmental Protection
Commissioner Robert Shinn, Jr.* - New VIice-Chair
NedfHlmeh
Center for Clean Air Policy
IExehitive Director
frank Cassidy - Pyb lic Service Electric &Gas Power
Secretary Mary D. Nichol -_The Resources Agency of California
Congressman Jim Coopr - Equitable Securities Corporation
Secretary Jane T. Nishid j~rln eatetof Environment
William Davis -N a aMhw oe Corporation
Di Louis Peoples -
David G.Hawkins - Idatural Resources Defense Council
WilliamRsebr - E3 Ventures
Dr. Mark Levine - Lwec Berkeley Laboratory
Ronald E. Russell -Rusl Energy Services Company
Jim Maddy* I1 National Park Founidation
Conrad Schneiider - Clean Air Task Force
Andrew T. MEaigan - Applied Sustainability
- - ~~~Govemrnor-Thmy Thompson -Wisconsin -
Health and the Environment
Dr. Bert Metz - Netherlands Nation l Institute of Public
VictoriaJ. Tschinkel* - Landers &Parsons
Senator Gaylord Nelson** - The Wilderness Society
2
*Exeutive committee Member
*Member Emeritus
European Office
USOffice Center for Clean Air Policy
w'wccap.org Michalska 12
750 First Street, NE 110 00 Prague 1
Suite 940 Czech Republic
Washington, DC 20002 420.2.2421.5303
202.408.9260 420.2.2422.9770
202.408.8896 '

4. ''AirlieSeries
Summary
053 ~~~About the Process
forausgenoegs
4 4~I. r.
'P
<
t
~~~~~
g~stRT*
lay the intellectual foundation
~infr elzngcs-ffciereutos greenhousega
O R FM ~~~~»~~~~~~~~ emissions trading
o
system, which is a leading policy op-
gas emissions. The papers are the product of a
unique
1996, the
-5Center for Clean Air Policy. Since November
"Green-
~~~~~~~Center has convened regular meetings of its group of
'I.
Gas Emissions Trading Braintrust", a
--
~¾house
~~
'is-v high-level representatives of industry, environmental
government aece
x~ttC ~fc~ >t~organizations, state and federal papers
and academe. The opinions expressed in these
by the extensive dialogue with Braintrust
are those of the Center, though our views are informed
participants. Please see www cc porg for copies.
research and analysis of key design and imple-
Braintrust members and Center staff conduct
and proposals to the group for discussion. The
mentation questions, then bring their findings design options in detail rather than to arrive
purpose of this process is to investigate alternative
at consensus on a preferred option.
of priority issues, including: definition of the
At the outset, the Braintrust ide iid a number of who would be required to hold allowances,
instrument that would be trade 1, determination of the trading system compliance infra-
methods for allocating allowaneadthe elements a focus on energy-related carbon dioxide
with
structure. Braintrust members are to start Braintrust include the integration of additional
emissions. Secondary issues idnied by the
of emissions reductions from forestry and
greenhouse gases into the system, the incorporation the mitigation of any ddverse impacts of carbon
land use activities and foreign Lountries, and
regulation on US industry.
Why the "Airlie"l Carbon Trading Papers?
meetings. Situated outside Wash-
the Braintrust's
The Airlie Center serves as the backdrop for an informal, congenial atmosphere that al-
ington, DC in Warrenton, Virgna Airlie provides door" and to build strong working relation-
the
lows participants to leave therafltin "at process.
ships. These factors have bee critical to the success of the Braintrust
Aout the Center-for- Clean Air Policy developed
has a strong record of designing
Air Policy
Since its inception in 1985, the Cetr for Clean problems. The Center's dialogue on acid rain
and prdmoting market-based souin to environmental the Bush
the SO 2 control program that were adopted by
in the 1980s identified many of theelenso 1990, the
h Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990. Since Frame-
Administration and eventually codildi change. Center staff have participated in the
Center has been active on the issue of giobal climateand in domestic efforts to address greenhouse gases,
work Convention on Climate Change Aegotiations
policies such as emissions trading and joint implemen-
analyzing and advocating market-base d climate Center is
energy sector joint implementation project. The
tation. The Center brokered the worlA's first
electrict industry restructuring, and transportation
also active' in the areas of air quality egaton,
and land use.

5. ne
Publ~ished by thegn"~~l o rjcs
i e
Ceniter for Cle9an Air Pollicy ~ ~
Sujite 940
nefivteesueeauroGM
756*ir'stStree~tNE
Washingtop, DC 2Q000 USA t
Papers available at:
www.ccapl~org

6. ,iy
. 'T, "
,gwl
I
I
I
I
I
I

7. ON
HIGHLIGHTS OF STATE INITIATIVES
CHANGE
C C~ed~foy GLOBAL CLIMATE
have in arsig global climate cagteCne
in recognition of the important role states promote state-level efforts since
1992,
has been working actively to Change.
for Clean Air Policy (CCAP) on -Ozone poluton and Global
Climate
when it was tapped to-lead the Wisconsin Dialdu approach to addressing greenhouse
gas
Since that time, we have continued to emploj a holistic Wisconsin, New Jersey and Massachu-
with several .statet, including to support establishing new
emissions, working directly into existing programs and
concerns change
setts, to include climate -change ways to achi eve "multiple benefits" that integrate climate
on
programs, with a strong focus
and air quality considerations.I directed the State Roufldtable
on
for the past two pars, CCAP has - and
On a more collective front, and energy regulators
which brings togetlhr kyevronmental states, to
Global Climate Change, swell - from a dozen leading
soon, transportation and land use planning ofiil pollutant approaches.
stategize on various multiple
share lessons learned, coordinate efforts and the important areas where states can take action
have highlight'
Throughout these efforts, we
to act.
and promote others emis-
at addressing greenhouse gas
state initiaie aimed directly only
Below is a sample of innovative benefits" ojcu. While many of these could be considered oth-
sions, or, where significant
"side states, and
of the need to act. We encourage
small "first steps", they highlight a recognitil address global climate change.
actions can help
ers, to consider how similar
CLIMjATE CHANGE
STAT E FORTS TO APPRESS
GR~rwumvuE_GAg REIUCTION-GOALS goal
(NJ DEP) has set a voluntary
of Enviro metlProtection to 2005.
The New Jersey Department 3.5 percent below 1990 prior
to reduce New Jersey's greenhouse gas -,missions by Order issued by the Commnis-
1998 unc ler an Administrative
The goal was created in March seven companies have
Order 1998-o9). Additionally,
sioner of the NJ DEP (Administrative considering the voluntary Covenant of Sustainability/
currently gas
signed and several more are the State in achieving its greenhouse
NJ Greenhouse Gas Initiative, pledgin to assist
reduction goal, outlined above.
the state,
from new energy facilities in
Oregon has established a CO. standard for emissions the Oregon Energy Facility Siting
in 1997. ¶lhe standard, set by
pursuant to state law passed power plants, and non-gener-
natural gas plants, non-base-load installing equipment that
Council, applies to base-load can meet the standard by either
ating energy facilities. Applicants offsc~ projects. The law~requires -thatthe new offset projects
reduces direct emissions or through emissons in one of two ways: by implementing projects
will avoid, sequester., or displace by aying an established amount per ton of CO 2, currently
or
directly or through a third party either option there is no limi-
1
Trust which prcaes offsets. Under
$0.57/ton, into a Climate the project. WIB 32-83)
tation on the location of
and www.clirnatetrust.org/
offset
ww~nrysaeo~sllmtllm7n.t
that new generation projects
Massachusetts Energy Facilities Siting Board requires at a cost of $1.50
a period of 20 years, currently
one percent of their annual CO, emissions over facility operators develop, in consultation with
of opera on, the
per ton. Before the first year approvred project for expending
the funds.
the staff of the Siting Board, an

8. d
Council recently voted to recomnmen
The Washington State Energy Facility Site Evaluation in several ar-
pant's permitting, requirements
that the Governor approve changes to a power activities that would offset the i.8
"to develop a plan ndpyfor gas
eas, including a requirement through the burning of natural
be emitted from tefcly
million tons diesel fuel." will
of C02 that
and backup
ww~fe~agvCealsajnv~rs~t a rule that
City Council have proposed
The Speaker and other Members of the New York power plants within New York
CO 2 emission standard for all
would establish an output-based C'O would decrease as new gen-
the citywide emitssion rate for
City. Under the proposed rule,within the City.
erating capacity was installed work within
as a part of her campaign to
The Governor-elect of New Ham'pshire pled~ed lead the effort to require older
plants
three to five years of the onset of her term in 6ffice to international treaty
gases from these plants to "meet
within the State to reduce greenhouse
(Kyoto) goals".
C4INGE BENEFITS'
STATE MAEASURES WITH CLIMATE directly at addressing greenhouse
gas emis-
in addition to the measures, listed above, died current measures employed by states that
of some of the
sions, below are several examPles
benefits.
have potential climate change
the amount of yve-
have develop initiatives aimed at reducing
Several states and localities infill development and
such ejues as: new transit-lines, called "smnart growth"
hicle miles traveled by promoting choice initiatives, and other
so
downtown redevelopment, commuter
n ~*ra~rw~og
initiatives.
beyond, be
sold in the state, in 2003 and
California requires that ten percent of new cars to six percent of this can be
met
as certified by Ithe State; up
zero-emission vehicles (ZEVs) vehicles (e.g.. hybrids), the remaining
through partial credits for certain super Ibwemission In 2000, the California Air Resources
(e.g. electkic vehicles).
four percent must be pure ZEVs tran sit agencies to dem-
for transit buses, requiring certain 15 percent ZEB for their
Board adopted a similar regulation in 206(3 and to begin purchasing
onstrate zero-emission buses
(ZEB)
fleets in 2008.
www~rb~c~go/mspog/zvprg/zeproghtr#facts
of-
who produce surplus energy,
30 states have passed net
metering laws enblngcutomers excess energy back to their en-
renewable~ sources, to feed the during
ten generated from small-scale only for the net energy they consume
ergy supplier. These customers ar then hre
a given period.
renew-
4 decisions, io states have passed
As a result of electricity restructurinlg an other 'state percentage of electricity
policy requires that a minimum
able portfolio standards (RPS). This Additionally, the city of Ann
come from a renewable source. sold
from a generator or supplier established an RPS for most electricity
ArborI Michigan through its franchise Lights has
within the city (Chapter 37)-
and www.ci.ann-arbor.mi~us/
ww~c~cueuslrdietyecmTp=P&akrga