1 / 16

Issues with Tracking Environmental Attributes

Issues with Tracking Environmental Attributes. Environmental Tracking Network of North America San Francisco, CA April 14-15, 2008. Outline. Review certificate definitions Identify four issues Different definitions Keeping track of individual attributes Tracking derived attributes

prema
Download Presentation

Issues with Tracking Environmental Attributes

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Issues with Tracking Environmental Attributes Environmental Tracking Network of North America San Francisco, CA April 14-15, 2008

  2. Outline • Review certificate definitions • Identify four issues • Different definitions • Keeping track of individual attributes • Tracking derived attributes • Attributes for null power • Work group challenge Ed Holt & Associates, Inc.

  3. # North American Tracking Systems M-RETS 2007 GATS footprint is rough; includes small part of IN, IL, KY, MI and NC GATS2005 WREGIS 2007 ERCOT 2001 Ed Holt & Associates, Inc.

  4. Certificate Tracking Systems • Support environmental disclosure or facilitate RPS compliance • If RECs are imported they must be accompanied by an equivalent delivery of energy • Substantiate voluntary environmental marketing claims • Buyers and sellers make claims about the environmental benefits and some make specific claims about greenhouse gas emission reductions • Voluntary RECs may be sourced from all across North America, not just from an adjacent region Ed Holt & Associates, Inc.

  5. Interportability Challenge • Using RECs from one region in another, even if accompanied by an energy delivery, may present compatibility issues between tracking systems. • Information may be difficult to verify because of how RECs are defined and what is tracked Ed Holt & Associates, Inc.

  6. REC Definitions Direct Attributes Definition Reporting Direct Attributes Ed Holt & Associates, Inc.

  7. REC Definitions Derived Attributes Definition Reporting Derived Attributes Ed Holt & Associates, Inc. APX default tracking system will have capability to track emissions reductions

  8. How important are the differences? • Does it matter that one tracking system specifies the inclusion of the emissions reductions, offsets, and allowances directly attributable to the generating unit, an the other tracking system omits the word “directly?” • Does it matter that one tracking system (WREGIS) specifies that such attributes do not include emission reduction credits encumbered or used by the generating unit for compliance with local, state, provincial or federal operating and/or air quality permits? • Can differences, if material, be resolved at the tracking system, or need they be addressed at the state level? Ed Holt & Associates, Inc.

  9. Can tracking systems deliver on definitions? • Do they track individual attributes to know that none have been transferred separately? • A question for each tracking system internally, not just for certificate import-export • Should they add the capability to track individual attributes, and would that contradict the goal (of some) to maintain whole certificates? • Is it sufficient to allow certificate owners to remove certificates from the tracking system if they want to disaggregate? • If there is no tracking of individual attributes, can final consumers be confident in what they are getting with the purchase of RECs? Ed Holt & Associates, Inc.

  10. Should derived attributes be tracked? • In uncapped markets, how will buyers (or states that require allowances for RPS) know if an allowance has been retired? • In capped markets, would tracking emission reductions in parallel with allowance tracking systems duplicate infrastructure and lead to double-counting? • Should emission allowances and generation certificates be tracked by the same systems? • Is further coordination needed among generation certificate tracking systems, climate action registries and emissions allowance tracking systems? • If coordination is needed, what is it and how should it be pursued? Ed Holt & Associates, Inc.

  11. How do tracking systems treat null power? Energy whose attributes have been sold to a third party • GIS and GATS track all generation and assign the average attributes of the residual system mix to null power for electricity labels • Other systems track only RECs--what happens to null power? • Some LSEs may comply with disclosure requirements by reporting the attributes of the generators even though the RECs have been sold to a separate buyer • If these RECs are exported to another tracking system, the LSE with the energy and the REC buyer in an adjacent region may both be claiming the same attributes Ed Holt & Associates, Inc.

  12. For each issue… • Identify the preferred solution, or • List specific steps that should be undertaken to reach a solution • Report back Ed Holt & Associates, Inc.

  13. How important are the differences? Ed Holt & Associates, Inc.

  14. Do tracking systems deliver on definitions? If not, how should they? Ed Holt & Associates, Inc.

  15. Should derived attributes be tracked? If so, how? Ed Holt & Associates, Inc.

  16. How should tracking systems treat null power? Ed Holt & Associates, Inc.

More Related