Washington Climate Challenge Climate Advisory Team Meeting #1 March 30, 2007 WA Departments of Ecology & Community Trade & Economic Development (CTED)

Washington Climate Challenge

Climate Advisory Team

Meeting #1 March 30, 2007

WA Departments of Ecology & Community Trade & Economic Development (CTED)

Center for Climate Strategies

Ross & Associates

March 30, 2007 www.ecy.wa.gov/climatechange

2

Welcome and Introductions

• Departments of Ecology and CTED

• Climate Advisory Team members

• Agency Advisors

• Ross & Associates and the Center for

Climate Strategies


3

Agenda• Purpose of and Charge to the Climate Advisory Team (CAT)• How to proceed to fulfill the CAT’s charge• Review the CAT Step-Wise Approach • Relationship between the CAT and Technical Working Groups• Current “State of Play” of Climate Change in Washington• Review of the Draft Washington Emissions Inventory & Forecast

and introduction to the Catalog of Climate Emission Reduction Actions

• Next Steps for the CAT and TWGs, including Schedule and Logistics for Next CAT Meeting

• Public Comment


4

Purpose & Key Outcomes• Purpose of the CAT

– Develop recommendations for achieving the goals laid out in Executive Order 07-02

• Charge to the CAT– Review and approve state greenhouse gas (GHG) inventory and

forecast– Review and assess recent actions taken and impacts on goals– Identify actions to meet 2020 goals for GHG emissions, job creation

fuel savings– Evaluate opportunities for regional collaboration– Identify state lead-by-example opportunities– Identify ways to coordinate state and local GHG reduction actions– Inform and involve the public

• Report to ECY/CTED by January 2008


5

CAT and Climate Change Challenge

• ECY & CTED oversee and coordinate process• CAT makes recommendations to ECY/CTED • CAT provides guidance to the Technical

Working Groups (TWGs)• TWGs assist the CAT• CCS & Ross provide facilitation, technical

support and analysis• Public input and review


6


7

Key Principles of the Process

• Transparent

• Inclusive

• Step-wise

• Fact-based

• Strive for consensus


8

Transparency

• Policy Design– Timing, goals,

coverage, implementation methods

• Economic analysis – Data sources– Quantification

methods– Key assumptions


9

Inclusive and Comprehensive

• All GHG’s• All sectors• All potential

implementation mechanisms

• State and multi-state actions

• Short and long term actions


10

Step-Wise

• Sequential, incremental

– Participants are asked not to reconsider decisions already made in the stepwise process

– Once the CAT reaches a milestone by consensus or vote, it moves to the next step

• Sufficient time, information and interaction between steps

• CAT stays current with information and decisions


11

Fact-based

• Preliminary fact finding– Inventory and forecast of GHG emissions– Inventory of state actions, studies

• Joint fact finding and policy development– Inventory and forecast of emissions– Priorities for analysis, policy description, policy

design specifications, implementation mechanisms, alternative solutions


12

Strive for Consensus

• Votes taken to advance to next steps

• Consensus driven• Discussion and alternatives

to resolve conflicts, if any• Final votes include support

at three levels• Final report will document

level of support


13

CAT Charter• Provide leadership and vision for devising

solutions that meet the goals of the Executive

order

• Give consideration to Washington’s unique

emission portfolio

• Represent a wide range of experience and sectors

• Co-chaired by the Directors of ECY and CTED


14

CAT Ground Rules• Support the process

– No debate on the science of climate change, the goals established in Executive Order 07-02, or the timeline

• All members have equal footing during deliberations and decisions

• Attend meetings and stay current with information provided to the group and all group decisions

• No backsliding

• Must be able to vote or take a position at meetings

• Make objective contributions


15

Questions?


16

The Challenge

• “The ultimate objective of this Convention .... is to achieve, .… stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system.”

– UNFCCC Article 2 Objective, – Rio De Janeiro


17

Stepwise Planning Process

• Develop inventory and forecast of emissions• Identify a full range of possible actions• Identify initial priorities for analysis• Develop straw proposals• Quantify GHG reductions and costs/savings• Evaluate externalities, feasibility issues• Develop alternatives to address barriers• Aggregate results• Iterate to final agreements• Finalize and report recommendations


18

Decision Criteria

• GHG Reduction Potential (MMTCO2e)

• Cost or Cost Saved Per Ton GHG Removed

• Fuel Savings

• Job Creation

• Externalities

• Feasibility Issues


19

US States: 30 of Top 75 World Emitters

GHG Emissions by Nation or State

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

4,000

4,500

5,000

Ch

ina

Ru

ssia

Ind

ia

Ja

pa

n

Ge

rma

ny

Bra

zil

Te

xa

s

Ca

na

da

Un

ite

d K

ing

do

m

Ita

ly

Me

xic

o

Ko

rea

(S

ou

th)

Fra

nce

Ind

on

esia

Au

str

alia

Ukra

ine

Ira

n

Ca

lifo

rnia

So

uth

Afr

ica

Sp

ain

Po

lan

d

Tu

rke

y

Sa

ud

i A

rab

ia

Pe

nn

sylv

an

ia

Oh

io

Arg

en

tin

a

Pa

kis

tan

Illin

ois

Th

aila

nd

Flo

rid

a

Ind

ian

a

Ne

w Y

ork

Ve

ne

zu

ela

Ta

iwa

n

Lo

uis

ian

a

Mic

hig

an

Ne

the

rla

nd

s

Nig

eri

a

Ge

org

ia

Uzb

ekis

tan

Eg

yp

t

No

rth

Ca

rolin

a

Ke

ntu

cky

Ala

ba

ma

Ka

za

kh

sta

n

Co

lom

bia

Mis

so

uri

Ma

laysia

Be

lgiu

m

Te

nn

esse

e

State/Nation

MM

tCO

2e

Data Source: CAIT 4.0, WRI, all gases/sources, year 2000, excluding land use change

WA = #26 among US States, #77 in world


20

States Set the Bar…

• Goals• Policies • Innovation• Implementation• Consensus• Conflict resolution


21

State GHG Growth Rates

FL = 88%

US = 50%

Data from the Center for Climate Strategies, 2006-2007, and US DOE, 2005 State GHG Growth Rates 1990-2020 (US DOE, 2005)

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

140%

160%

1990 2020

Years

Rate

CT

ME

NC

NY

FL

RI

US

AK

AZ

CA

CO

ID

MT

NM

NV

OR

SD

UT

WA

WY

VA

US = 50%WA = 31%


22

State Climate Plans


23

State Actions Since 2000

• GHG State Emissions Inventories and Forecasts– 25 recent

• Energy and Climate Policies and Mechanisms– 300+ types undertaken, more underway

• State Climate Action Plans– 22 complete or underway, more likely

• Statewide GHG targets and timetables – 13 current, 9 underway

• Reporting systems and or registries– 30 underway

• Regional actions– NEG/ECP, WRCAI, RGGI


24

State Climate Goals

TBD1990 levels by 2020; 25% below by 2035; 50% below by 205031%Washington

TBD25% below 1990 levels by 2012; 50% below 1990 by 2028;75% by 2050

TBDVermont

100%1990 level by 2010; 10% below by 2020; 75% by 205035%Rhode Island

100%1990 level by 2010; 10% below by 2020; 75% by 210037%Puget Sound

85%1990 level by 2010; 10% below by 2020; 75% by 210038%Oregon

137%2000 level by 2012; 10% below by 2020; 75% by 205048-64%New Mexico

TBD1900 levels by 2020; 80% below 2006 levels by 2050TBDNew Jersey

100%1990 level by 2010; 10% below by 2020; 75% by 205034%Maine

100%1990 level by 2010; 10% below by 2020; 75% by 205032%Connecticut

100%- E.O.: 2000 level by 2010; 10% below by 2020; 80% by 2050- AB-32: 1990 levels by 2020

41%California

106%2000 levels by 2020; 50% below by 2040149%Arizona

Climate PlanCoverage

State Goals1990-2020

GHGForecast

State


25

AZ Climate Plan Results

AZ CCAG Goals vs. Estimated CCAG Plan Results

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040

Year

MM

TC

O2

e

Arizona GHG Emissions - EstimatedReference Case

Arizona CCAG Plan - Estimated FutureGHG Reductions

Arizona CCAG Goals - 2020 and 2040Targeted GHG Reductions

49 Recommendations; 45 Unanimous

NPV: $5.5 Billion Savings


26

Categories of Action

• Energy efficiency and conservation

• Clean and renewable energy

• Transportation

• Forestry

• Agriculture

• Waste management

• Industrial process improvement


27

States’ “Wedges”

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

8,000

2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020

MM

tCO

2e (

Net

)

Energy Efficiency and Conservation

Clean and Renewable Energy

Transportation and Land Use Efficiency

Agriculture and Forestry Conservation

Waste Management, Industrial Processes, and Other Sources

Additional Federal Actions (Aviation, ODS Substitutes, etc.)

Emissions after actions

1990 level

2000 level


28

Implementation Methods

• Voluntary Agreements• Technical Assistance• Financial Incentives• Targeted Spending• Codes and Standards• Market Based Approaches• Pilots and Demos• Information and Education• Research and Development• Reporting and Disclosure


29

Screening of Potential Actions - Agriculture Sample

Option No.

Climate Mitigation

Option

Priority for

Analysis

Potential GHG

Emissions Reduction

Potential Cost or

Cost Savings

Additional Impacts,

Feasibility Considerations Notes

AFW-1

AGRICULTURE – PRODUCTION OF FUELS AND ELECTRICITY

1.1 Manure Digesters/Other Waste Energy Utilization

1.2 Biodiesel Production (incentives for feedstocks and production plants)

1.3 Biomass Feedstocks for Electricity or Steam Production

1.4 Ethanol Production


30

Policy Design Proposals

• CAT identifies about 50 draft potential options for further development

• TWGs screen, prioritize, and propose initial policy option design (“straw proposals”)– Timing– Goals– Coverage

• CCS quantifies and presents for review• CAT revisits list of potential priorities, as needed


31

Policy Option Template• Policy description (concept) • Policy design (goals, timing, coverage)• Implementation methods• Related programs and policies• Estimated GHG savings and costs per MMTCO2e

– Data sources, methods and assumptions

– Key uncertainties

• Additional (non-GHG) benefits and costs, as needed• Feasibility issues, if needed• Status of group approval• Level of group support• Barriers to consensus, if any


32

A “Portfolio” of Policy Options

Cross-CuttingIssues(Education,Registries,etc.)

WasteManagement

Transportation& Land Use

Residential,Commercial, &Industrial

Energy Supply

Agriculture &Forestry

Reporting &Disclosure

Pilots &Demo

Projects

Information&

Education

Technical &Financial

Assistance

VoluntaryAgreements

FundingMechanisms

MarketMechanisms

Codes &Standards


33

CAT Final Report to ECY/CTED

• Executive Summary• Background, Purpose And Goals

– Description of the Process– History and Status of State Actions

• WA Emissions Inventory & Forecast• CAT Policy Recommendations &

Results– Energy Supply – Residential, Commercial,

Industrial– Transportation– Agriculture – Forestry– Waste Management – Cross Cutting Issues

• Appendices


34

Timing and Milestones

Date Action

March 30, 2007 1st CAT meeting

June 5, 2007 2nd CAT meeting

August 2007 3rd CAT meeting

October 2007 4th CAT meeting

December 2007 5th CAT meeting

January 2008 CAT Final Report Due

Between CAT Meetings TWG conference calls and meetings


35

Questions?


36

CAT and TWGsCAT

– Review existing and planned state actions– Identify potential options for design and priorities for analysis– Recommend actions to achieve the EO goals

Technical Working Groups (TWGs)– Analysis, review and early ranking of options– Develop initial straw proposals for design– Input and review of CAT recommendations and reports– Review state GHG inventory and forecast

TWG process is fully integrated with the CAT– TWGs serve in an advisory role to CAT– CAT membership on the Technical Working Groups


37

TWG Areas of Focus

• Transportation – Vehicle efficiency, alternative fuels & demand reduction programs, land use

• Residential, Commercial, and Industrial (RCI) – Energy efficiency & conservation, industrial process, “customer side” of the

meter

• Energy Supply – Heat and power generation; electrical generation, supply, transmission

• Agriculture – Biofuels, waste reduction, recycling & energy recovery, solid waste

management

• Forestry– Forest restoration, sustainable forest management, wood energy,

sequestration


38

Questions?


39

Break


40

“State of Play”

• Why we need to take action now

• What We’ve Already Done

• How Our Actions Tie to Others – The Local, Regional, and National Connections

• The Role of Preparation and Adaptation


41

Why we need to act

• Emissions

growth

• Population

growth

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

1960

1962

1964

1966

1968

1970

1972

1974

1976

1978

1980

1982

1984

1986

1988

1990

1992

1994

1996

1998

2000

2002

2004

mill

ion

met

ric

ton

s C

O2

Transportation (w/resid)

Transportation (w/o resid)

Industrial

Residential and Commercial

Electric Power


42

Environmental Challenges

• Rising sea level• Decline in snow pack • Milder winters, warmer summers• Increase in wildfire risk • Changes in peak river flows


43

Economic Challenges

• Costs of fighting fire may increase 50% by 2020 - $75 million

• Water restrictions/higher water prices in the Yakima Basin

• Increased costs for shoreline protection – seawalls, coast erosion

• Increase municipal water costs


44

Opportunities

• Economic growth

• Clean energy leadership

• Avoided damages

• Shape policy

• Form markets

• Political leadership


45

Accomplishments to-date • Required all new fossil fuel power plants to reduce

greenhouse gas emissions (RCW 80.70)

• Adopted the California Car Standards– Reduces CO2 emissions in newer cars and light trucks by more

than 30% and in SUVs by 25%

• Adopted renewable fuels standards for transportation by requiring 2% of fuel sold is biodiesel or ethanol

• Funded the Energy Freedom Loan Program to support in-state biofuels production

• Instituted high-performance green building standards

• Have one of the most energy-efficient building codes in the nation


46

Accomplishments – cont. • Retrofitting most polluting diesel school buses

and local government vehicles • Passed a renewable and energy efficiency

initiative - Energy Independence Act • Implemented electric utility conservation

programs• Reduced energy use by state agencies

through EO 05-01

• Adopted appliance efficiency standards


47

How the Climate Challenge Ties to other Actions

• 2003 West Coast Governor’s Global Warming Initiative

• 2003/04 Climate Protection Advisory Committee Puget Sound Clean Air Agency

• 2005/06 Legislative Session – CA Vehicle Emissions Standards, Appliance Efficiency

Standards, Green Buildings, Biofuels Content

• 2007 Western Climate Action Initiative – WA, OR, CA, AZ, NM


48

WA Local Government Actions

• Puget Sound Clean Air Agency

• King County

• City of Seattle

• Cities participating in the Climate Change Protection Campaign:

– Bellingham, Burien, King County, Olympia, Seattle, Spokane, Spokane County, Tacoma


49

Western Climate Action Initiative

• WA, OR, CA, AZ, NM signed in February 2007

• Three Goals – Set an overall regional goal within 6 months– Develop a design for a market-based, multi-sector

mechanism, such as load-based cap and trade program within 18 months

– Participate in a multi-state GHG registry

• Detailed Work Begins in April


50

2007 Proposed legislation• Climate change, SB 6001 (ESSB version):

– Adopt Governor’s goals and establish electrical sector performance mechanisms

• Cleaner energy, HB 1303 (E2SHB version):– Provisions for further use and production of

biofuels and ethanol

• Renewable energy, several House and Senate bills:– Anaerobic digestion power, renewable fuel

standards, solar hot water, sustainable energy trust


51

Preparation and Adaptation• We are already seeing signs of climate

change• Change will continue and we need to

– Understand what it means– Be able to incorporate our best predictions

of change into our planning and investment decisions

• Impacts are less well understood than reduction strategies


52

At least 4 glaciers have disappeared entirely

Glaciers tell a compelling storyGlaciers tell a compelling story

Loss of mass


53

Photos courtesy of Dr. Ed Josberger, USGS Glacier Group, Tacoma, WA

South Cascade GlacierSouth Cascade Glacier


54

Questions?


55

Washington GHG Emissions• Draft Inventory and Reference Case

Projections

• Initial analysis by CTED, Ecology and CCS for discussion and final revision– Inventory of historical emissions from 1990 to

most recent data year (2000-2005, depending on sector)

– Projection of emissions to 2020


56

Coverage• Six gases per USEPA and UNFCCC guidelines

– Carbon Dioxide (CO2), Methane (CH4), Nitrous Oxide (N2O, Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), Perfluorocarbons (PFCs), Sulfur Hexafluoride (SF6)

– Black Carbon may be considered separately

• All major sources and sinks– Transportation– Electricity Generation– Residential, Commercial, Industrial Fuel Use– Agriculture – Forestry– Industrial Processes and Other Sources


57

Inventory Approach• Based on standard US EPA and UN

methodologies, guidelines, and tools • Emphasis on transparency, consistency, and

significance• Preference for Washington or regional data,

where available, e.g. as developed by CTED• Consumption (load-based) and production-

based emissions from electricity generation– Simplified approach used for initial analysis


58

Projection Approach• Reference case assumes no major changes from

business-as-usual– Does not include impact of recent policies such as:

2005 Clean Car Act (GHG tailpipe standards)Clean Energy InitiativeOthers noted in Executive Order

• Growth assumptions from existing sources– Northwest Power and Conservation Council– WA Population Forecast – Western Regional Air Partnership – US Energy Information Administration– US Bureau of Labor & Statistics


59

Washington & US Emissions By Sector, Year 2005 (draft)

Industrial process emissions include emissions from Ozone Depleting Substances (ODS) substitutes

Waste5%

Ind. Process &

Other5%

Transport49%

RCI Fuel Use20%

Electricity (prod-based)

16%

Agric.6%

Washington

Agric.8%

Electricity (prod-based)

34%

RCI Fuel Use20%

Transport28%

Ind. Process &

Other8%

Waste2%

US


60

Gross GHG Emission Intensity,

1990-2005 (draft)Per Capita

Per GDP/GSP

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1990 1995 2000 2005

met

ric

ton

s C

O2e

/ m

illio

n $

pro

du

ctUS

WA

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

1990 1995 2000 2005

me

tric

to

ns

CO

2e

/ c

ap

ita

US

WA


61

Washington Gross GHG Emissions By Sector (draft)

(includes production-basis electricity emissions*, excludes forestry and soil sequestration)

* - similar chart with load-based electricity emissions under development

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020

MM

tCO

2e

Electricity (production-based)RCI Fuel UseODS SubstitutesInd. Process & OtherTransportationWaste ManagementAgriculture

1990 Emissions Level


62

Washington Gross GHG Emissions Growth (draft)

-6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10

Waste Management

Agriculture

Other Ind Process

ODS Substitutes (HFCs)

RCI Fuel Use

Electricity (production-based)

Transportation

MMtCO2e

1990 - 2005

2005 - 2020


63

Forestry (draft)Forest Pool -- Preliminary Draft

DataCarbon Flux

(MMtC)Carbon Flux

(MMtCO2)

Live Tree (above ground) -3 -10

Live Tree (below ground) -1 -2

Standing Dead & Down Dead -1 -2

Forest Floor -1 -3

Soil Carbon -2 -7

Harvested Wood Products -3 -12

Totals -10 -36Totals may not sum exactly due to independent rounding.Data source: Jim Smith, USFS, personal communications with S. Roe, CCS, October 2006

and February 2007.


64

Electricity – Consumption (load-based) vs. Production approaches

0

5

10

15

20

25

2002 2003 2004 2005 2002 2003 2004 2005

mill

ion

met

ric

ton

s C

O2

Coal

Natural Gas

Electricity Sales to Washington Consumers

Electricity Generated in Washington State

Petroleum also emits CO2 but in quantities too small to register on this chart.

Source: CTED analysis


65

Key Points

• CTED, Ecology, and CCS are currently reviewing methodology and data gaps

• Draft inventory and projection document expected in April

• Will include load-based electricity emissions • Projected emissions savings from recent

actions to be estimated separately


66

Catalog of States’ Actions• Existing, planned and proposed state level

actions• Wide variety of US states• All sectors• Wide variety of implementation mechanisms• Includes key WA actions• CAT will add new potential actions• Starting place for identification of CAT

priorities


67

Questions?


68

Next Steps

• Schedule

• Next meeting topic and logistics


69

Schedule and Milestones

Date Action

March 30, 2007 1st CAT meeting

June 5, 2007 2nd CAT meeting

August 2007 3rd CAT meeting

October 2007 4th CAT meeting

December 2007 5th CAT meeting

January 2008 CAT Final Report Due

Between CAT Meetings TWG conference calls and meetings


70

TWG Status• Lots of Volunteers

• Need to balance size with broad-based interest

• Expect to finalize by April 6

• Interim TWG meeting before next CAT meeting will cover:

– suggested revisions to the emissions inventory and reference case

projections,

– early ranking of options in the catalog and straw voting for initial

“priority for analysis” options; and

– development of straw proposals for design parameters for selected

options


71

Next CAT Meeting• June 5, 2007 in Spokane, WA• Agenda:

– Review and recommend updates to inventory and baseline forecast

– Review and revise catalog of potential actions

– Discuss process for identifying initial priorities for TWG analysis

– Discuss of process for developing straw policy design proposals

– Updates on working groups


72

Public Comment


73

For more information

Website: www.ecy.wa.gov/climate change

Documents

Washington Climate Challenge Climate Advisory Team Meeting #1 March 30, 2007 WA Departments of Ecology & Community Trade & Economic Development (CTED)