1 / 15

Rhode Island’s Consensus-Built Greenhouse Gas Reduction Program

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.

uta
Download Presentation

Rhode Island’s Consensus-Built Greenhouse Gas Reduction Program

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. 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

  2. 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. Why a Consensus-based Process?

  3. Conceptual Roadmap: 4 plan components • Baseline • Reductions Target(s) • GHG Reduction Options • Implementation plan An effective, actionable plan

  4. What it is The “business as usual” projection; how much GHG will we emit if we do nothing over a certain time period? Why it matters Shows how much “bite” policy choices take out of standard practice. If too pessimistic/optimistic, skews options evaluation Element 1: The Baseline

  5. 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)

  6. The Action Plan’s “north star”; orients evaluation of action choices Element 2: The Target • Issues 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

  7. Options Element 3: Options creation & management Identify/Create Evaluate Prioritize Essential goal: Develop a set of creative and effective options.

  8. 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 Creating/managing options

  9. 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 Options: Evaluation/Prioritization All options include estimated Carbon Saved and Co-benefits Results:

  10. Projected Carbon Savings Consensus Decision: 49 Options that, when aggregated, nearly meet the NEG/ECP premiers’ target in 2020.

  11. 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 Element 4: The Implementation Plan (Phases III and IV)

  12. Phase II 9/02-3/03 6 options Renewable Portfolio Standard: Consensus Proposal Under Consideration in Legislature Vehicle Efficiency Incentives: Consensus ProposalUnder 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

  13. Phase III Programming to TBD at Stakeholders’ meeting on 5/31 Implementation

  14. 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: Pros

  15. 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. Retrospective: Cons

More Related