Planning for a Voluntary Midwest Regional Greenhouse Gas Registry

1. Planning for a Voluntary Midwest Regional Greenhouse Gas Registry Michael Koerber Lake Michigan Air Directors Consortium July 18, 2006

2. Midwest States

3. Objectives • Provide credible GHG emissions reporting platform • Support multiple policy objectives • Use best practice GHG accounting standards • Facilitate corporate GHG management strategies

4. Guiding Principles • Strive for consistency with other registries • Consider Eastern Climate Registry and California Registry approaches in assessing design issues • Consider existing requirements of other registries and GHG Protocol Standards • Maintain Midwest identity • Sector-specific calculation protocols (e.g., agriculture) • Relevant to region’s economic, policy, and business context

5. Accomplishments • Formed workgroup of state representatives (IL, IN, MI, OH, WI, plus IA, MN, MO) • Consulted with Eastern Climate Registry and California Registry • Hired contractor (WRI) to provide technical support • Prepared papers on major design topics: • Options Paper • Linkages and Collaboration with Other Registries • Considering DOE 1605(b), EPA Climate Leaders, and CCX • Held three meetings with interested stakeholders (April 12, June 9, July 11)

6. Papers • Options Paper (February 17, 2006) • Addresses program design issues, and database and calculation issues • Linkages and Collaboration with Other Registries (March 22, 2006) • Examines two main approaches for linking with other registries: stand-alone or multi-state registry (aka Registry Alliance) • Considering DOE 1605(b), EPA Climate Leaders, and CCX (June 2006) • Compares objectives of MW registry with those of other existing programs

7. Comparison w/ Other Registry Programs Multiple Public Accepted Policy Reporting Accounting Program Objectives Platform Standards MW Registry X X X DOE 1605(b) (track GHG reductions) X EPA Climate Leaders (track GHG manage- X ment strategies) CCX (track allowance X trading)

8. Advantages of a Multi-State Climate Registry • Increase participation • Increase credibility • Standardize best practices • Create common “currency” • Leverage resources • Facilitate development of innovative state programs

9. Stakeholder Involvement • Meetings • Survey (re: establishment of MW registry) • Mixed reaction • Things to work on…. • Identify/promote incentives for participation • What’s in it for me (PR, social responsibility, etc.) • Local/state connection (“states must be engaged and have some skin in the game”) • State support and assistance • Minimal reporting requirements (link to existing program) • Minimal fees (cannot expect participants alone to foot the bill) • Reach out to other sectors (e.g., public/government, and agriculture)

10. Funding • Received first grant for $100K from Joyce Foundation on July 21, 2005 (project period: Aug 2005 – Aug 2006) • Received second grant for $35K from Energy Foundation on June 20, 2006 (project period: Sept 2006 – Feb 2007) • Need additional funding for implementation phase

11. Next Steps • Continue to work with Eastern Climate Registry and California Registry • Participate on technical workgroup for multi-state registry • Continue to meet with interested stakeholders • Pursue funding

12. For additional information…. • Michael Koerber 847-296-2181 koerber@ladco.org • www.ladco.org www.ladco.org/regional_greenhouse.htm