rhode island’s consensus-built greenhouse gas reduction program
DESCRIPTION
Rhode Island’s Consensus-Built Greenhouse Gas Reduction Program. Making and selling a soup Sandwich. Climate Solutions for the Northeast May 11-13, 2003 Jan Reitsma, Rhode Island DEM. Aug. 2001, Governor made commitment RI to GHG reductions at the NEG/ECP – had to make good on the commitment. - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
Rhode Island’s Consensus-Built Greenhouse Gas Reduction Program
Climate Solutions for the NortheastMay 11-13, 2003
Jan Reitsma, Rhode Island DEM
Making and selling a soup Sandwich
Why a Consensus-based Process?
• Aug. 2001, Governor made commitment RI to GHG reductions at the NEG/ECP – had to make good on the commitment.
• Problem: Climate Change is a soup sandwich kind of issue. How do you make the soup stay in the sandwich? Answer is elusive. Climate change was viewed as a dauntingly nebulous issue
fraught with political peril • Solution: create a methodical, stakeholder-owned process.
Conceptual Roadmap: 4 plan components
1. Baseline
2. Reductions Target(s)
3. GHG Reduction Options
4. Implementation plan
An effective, actionable plan
Element 1: The Baseline
What it isWhat it is• The “business as usual” projection; how much GHG will we emit if
we do nothing over a certain time period?Why it mattersWhy it matters• Shows how much “bite” policy choices take out of standard
practice. If too pessimistic/optimistic, skews options evaluation
Consensus Decision: Sectoral, layer-cake approach• Based on an inventory of projected emissions from existing resources.• Based on historical energy use, trajectories of economic growth, prices, technological advance• “To include or not to include” (e.g. SBC programs)
-0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020
Millio
n T
on
nes C
arb
on
Eq
uiv
ale
nt
Industrial Steam
Electric Generation
Solid Waste
Forestry & Land Use
Transport
Residential
Industry
Commercial
Element 2: The Target• The Action Plan’s “north star”; orients evaluation of action choices
Issues consideredIssues considered• Which targets do you choose? • How long do you want to take to get there?• Under what circumstances do the targets need to be updated?
Consensus Decision• NEG/ECP Resolution Selected as target: 2020 levels must be ~ 1/3 below 1990 levels.
• Targets will be periodically updated
Element 3: Options creation & management
OptionsIdentify/Create PrioritizeEvaluate
Essential goal: Essential goal: Develop a set of creative and effective options.
Creating/managing options
• Consultant provided detailed scoping papers in each area identifying options including costs and benefits Transportation and land use Energy supply Buildings and facilities Solid waste
• Working Groups suggested additional options and refinements
Options: Evaluation/Prioritization• Factors considered
Carbon savings Cost of saved carbon (CSC) Other benefits
Other air emissions Economic benefits (local and societal)
Political feasibility• Whose priorities? How to prioritize?
52 Options Generated
49 Consensus 3 Non-consensus
All options include estimated Carbon SavedCarbon Saved
and Co-benefitsCo-benefitsResults:
Projected Carbon Savings
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020
Mill
ion
To
nn
es C
arb
on
Eq
uiv
alen
t
Baseline
Consensus
Consensus + Non-Consensus
Governors'/Premiers' Target
In State Consensus +Federal/Regional
Consensus + Non-Consensus +Federal/Regional
Consensus Decision:
49 Options that, when aggregated, nearly meet the NEG/ECP premiers’ target in 2020.
Element 4: The Implementation Plan (Phases III and IV)
• Turn good ideas into good practice.• Includes:
Which options to do when Getting policies and enforcement mechanisms on the books Developing linkages with relevant agencies, industry, and
associations
Implementation
Phase II 9/02-3/03• 6 options
Renewable Portfolio Standard: Consensus Proposal Under Consideration in Legislature
Vehicle Efficiency Incentives: Consensus Proposal Under Consideration in Legislature
Transit-Oriented Development: Under Development by Work Group Buildings/Facilities: Tax Credits, C/I Fossil Heated Retrofit, Industrial
Targeting: Under Development by Work Group
Implementation
Phase III• Programming to TBD at Stakeholders’ meeting on 5/31
Retrospective: Pros• Tremendous Institutional knowledge now banked in a diverse
stakeholder pool. Parties once in conflict now used to working together/thinking about the
problem – creates a body of institutional knowledge/momentum. (INTERJECT EZOVSKY COMMENT RE: BUSINESS SELLING CLIMATE CHANGE HERE)
Promotes continuity across administrations/fractures in leadership• Greater recognition of false dichotomy between economic growth and
GHG reductions• Better compliance w/ possible new regulations• A broad coalition representing diverse interests is more effective at
developing workable, common-sense ways to reduce GHG than single entity; problems addressed earlier in the policy-making cycle.
Retrospective: Cons
• Difficult to convey the need for such action and the craftsmanship in the programs to those outside the room (Governor, legislature, powerful interest groups). How to avoid creating a vanguard?
• Stakeholder momentum is easier to generate than resources to support the process.