2014 ENVIRONMENTAL SEMINAR

Transcription

1 Executive Order 14-04: Washington Carbon Pollution Reduction and Clean Energy Action 2014 ENVIRONMENTAL SEMINAR Hedia Adelsman Special Assistant to Director Department of Ecology October 2, 2014

2 Washington State Greenhouse Gas Emissions (2011)

3 Greenhouse Emissions Global and WA Global GHG Emissions in parts per million: 280 in today 700 by 2100 China #1 at 23% of total, 6.2 MTCO 2 e per person US #2 at 18% of total, 17.6 MTCO 2 e per person (up 10.5% from 1990) WA GHG Emissions 95.6 MMTCO 2 e (up 2% from 1990) If WA is a country it will rank 38 th out of 215 3

4 Million Metric Tons CO2e Washington s GHG Emissions 120 Washington GHG Emissions limits Historical 1990 Emissions 25% Below 1990 Emissions 50% Below 1990 Emissions Projected

5 Washington Emissions Forecasts

6 Executive Order Carbon emissions reduction taskforce Coal-fired electricity Clean transportation Clean technology Energy efficiency State government Carbon pollution limits

7 Coal-fired electricity: o o o EO encouraging commercial agreement asking for fiscal prudence potential policy legislation Clean technology: o o investing in R&D, demonstration, deployment solar energy incentives

8 Energy efficiency: o o o EO integrated retrofit program new building energy code agriculture and industrial productivity State government operations: o o o efficient public buildings efficient work practices (e.g., fuel) alternative fuel vehicles

9 EO Greenhouse gas emission limits: review of statutory limits Clean transportation: electric vehicles action plan evaluation of clean fuel standards multimodal transportation

10

11 Carbon Emissions Reduction Taskforce Alaska Air Group American Lung Association Cascadia Law Group Chelan County Public Utility District Climate Solutions EDF Renewables Energy Northwest Green Diamond Resource Company King County MacDonald-Miller OneAmerica Puget Sound Energy Quinault Nation SEIU Healthcare 7775NW US Environmental Protection Agency United Steelworkers District 12 Vulcan WA State Budget and Policy Center WA State Building Trades Council WA State Dairy Federation WA State Labor Council

12 Carbon Emissions Reduction Taskforce Evaluation Framework Reach Washington emission reduction targets Carbon price signal that helps shift investments Minimize costs/competitiveness impacts to businesses Maximize economic development/job growth Minimize consumer costs, protect low income communities Reduce public health risks, especially vulnerable populations Effective administration of program, and markets

13 GHG from Potentially Regulated Facilities Transportation Fuel Suppliers ~40 Refineries 5 Pulp and Paper 8 Power Plants 15 Petroleum and Natural Gas Systems Minerals Metals Manufacturing Government Food Production Chemicals MMt CO 2 e

14 Figure 2. Location of Stationary Facilities in Washington State Likely to be Regulated Under a Cap-and-Trade Program. Fuel suppliers not included in figure. For county-level information on precise facility locations see: Number of facilities are approximate and may not match data provided in Figure 1.

15 Coverage - Electricity (generation, importers) - Industrial sources - Suppliers and distributors of natural gas, transportation fuels and other fuels, liquid petroleum gas providers - Stationary sources exceeding 25,000 MTCO2 annually Number of Emitters over 25,000 MTCO2 Washington California Market Washington State Carbon Emissions Reduction Taskforce July 29, 1014

16 Why Linkage? Market Size & Liquidity Level playing field for participants that work across borders Administrative costs and economies of scale Help spur national and international action

17 Example Economic Analysis Policy example to show magnitude and direction of change: Two price scenarios low and high Revenue recycling: 30% -- lower income populations 15% -- trade exposed industries 40% -- transportation construction 10% -- renewable electricity 5% -- program administration/other 17

18 Low Carbon Price Scenario: Effect on Emissions target million MTCO Emissions BAU Emissions Adjusted Emissions 2035 target

19 High Carbon Price Scenario: Effect on Emissions 19

20 Gasoline Prices Baseline* Low Carbon Price High Carbon Price 2020: $3.25/gal 2035: $3.89/gal Net: $0.76/gal 2020: +$0.13/gal 2035: +$0.38/gal 2020: +$0.44/gal 2035: +$1.46/gal (* EIA Pacific Region, 2012 dollars, taxes included) 20

21 Millions of fixed 2009 dollars Washington Real GDP: Blended Allocation High & Low Price Increase vs Baseline $700 $600 $500 $400 $300 $200 $100 $ GDP Blnded Low Pr Baseline GDP High Pr

22 Example Model- Bottom Five Washington Industries Losing Jobs: High Price Case 1.00% 0.00% -1.00% -2.00% -3.00% -4.00% -5.00% -6.00% Natural gas distribution Pesticide, fertilizer, and other agricultural chemical manufacturing Petroleum and coal products manufacturing Water transportation Textile mills and textile product mills 22

23 Results of Illustrative Economic Analysis Statewide economic effects on Washington s jobs, GDP and personal income are small. Results vary at the industries level. Fuel and Energy Prices increase but at different rates; natural gas the most, electricity increasing at the slowest rate. Results will inform the final draft design of the program 23

24 Climate Policy Options: Next Steps Taskforce: Additional analysis (Sep/Oct) Draft report (Oct 28) Final recommendations (Nov 17) Clean Fuels: Draft report (early Oct) Final report (mid Oct) Rest of EO: Report to Governor (Nov) Proposals: Governor s rollout (Dec)

25 Why should WA act? Preventing further impacts Clean energy and competitiveness Protecting future generations Leadership

26 Costs / Benefits Climate impacts in WA: $10 B / year (by 2020) Global Commission over next 15 years: $90 T + $4 T = net savings US budget director: 2 degree C = $150 B (US GDP)

27 Regional, national, and sub-national emission trading schemes: scope. (World Bank 2014)

28 Carbon taxes around the world and the estimated share of emissions covered in their jurisdiction

29 Impacts of Climate change- Sea level Rise in the Puget Sound

30 Preparedness and Responses US ports have been responding in a variety of ways to the threat of climate change Ports have been working hard on reducing carbon footprint of freight transportation Some port are working to prepare for the impacts climate change Some preliminary tools are available to ports to study risks from climate change, but more and better data and information are needed Federal and state governments and scientific community are committed to helping with mitigation and adaptation, i.e., White House Task Force on Climate Adaptation and Resilience Statewide Adaptation Strategy UW Climate Impacts Group

31 Conclusion Climate change is more likely to have severe consequences on our shorelines Now is the time to respond to the risks of climate change by reducing our carbon footprint and preparing for the projected impacts Governor encourages you to look long-term and to engage in the dialogue

32

33