Archive for the ‘Public Policy’ Category


Preparing Communities for the Impacts of Climate Change

Barack Obama, François HollandeWe’ve been talking a lot recently about the need to rebuild and strengthen our nation’s infrastructure. As the President has made clear, a world-class infrastructure system is a vital part of a top-performing economy.

But there’s another important reason why we need to rebuild our infrastructure: climate change.

Communities across America need more resilient infrastructure that can withstand the impacts of climate change — like more extreme weather and increased flooding. That’s part of the reason why the President established the State, Local, and Tribal Leaders Task Force on Climate Preparedness and Resilience last November.

The Task Force, made up of 26 governors, mayors, and county and tribal officials from across the country, advises the President on how the federal government can best help American communities dealing with the effects of climate change. Today, the Task Force came to the White House for their fourth and final meeting, and will give the President final recommendations this fall.

“These leaders are here because states and communities that they represent are already dealing with the effects of climate change,” the President said at today’s meeting. “They’re seeing rising sea levels, more powerful hurricanes, more intense heatwaves, severe droughts, and wildfires out west. So this is already happening, and these leaders understand that climate change is a threat to public safety, it’s a threat to public health, and to something that we want to emphasize today — the infrastructure upon which our economy depends.” Read More…


US DOE Makes $4 Billion in Loan Guarantees Available

Provided by Michael Grossman, FiftyPlusOne.

July 11, 2014 (Seattle, WA) – In support of the President’s Climate Action Plan, the U.S. Department of Energy is making up to $4 billion in loan guarantees available for innovative renewable energy and energy efficiency projects that avoid, reduce, or sequester greenhouse gasses. Read More…


Guest: Obama’s regulatory cap-and-trade does not work for Washington state

WASHINGTON state is one of the cleanest, greenest states in the country, and its use of renewable energy is a source of great pride.

But drastic energy regulations could cause Washington families to see higher energy bills. And those higher bills, coupled with a weakened economy, would hurt moms and dads already struggling to make ends meet.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recently announced proposals that would require Washington state to cut its carbon emissions by a staggering 72 percent — a rate higher than anywhere else in the nation.

While coal makes up just over 3 percent of the state’s energy production, the stringent methodology behind the EPA’s calculations treats Washington as a top emitter. The state’s residents are being penalized, even though Washington is leading the way when it comes to clean energy. It just doesn’t add up. Read More…


The Cap and Trade Debate: The WCTA Climate Series Comes to a Close

By Eric Viola, WCTA Public Policy Analyst

June 30, 2014 (Seattle, WA) –There was little consensus amongst the panelists—even on issues as fundamental as whether or not carbon emissions were a problem—which contributed to a lively discussion at the final event in the WCTA’s Climate Series: A discussion of Cap and Trade policy.

See the TVW coverage here.

Daniel Malarkey, Vice President, 1Energy Systems

Daniel Malarkey

Daniel Malarkey, WCTA Government Affairs Committee Chair and Vice President of Business Development and Public Policy at 1Energy Systems, opened the event and introduced Chamber President Maud Daudon. Ms. Daudon introduced the Seattle Metropolitan Chamber of Commerce’s commitment to the issue, explaining her three-part bottom-line position. “You need to have economic development, environmental stewardship, and you can’t leave anyone behind,” she described, “you need to make sure the rising tide really does lift all boats.” Part of that involves encouraging the spread of information and rational debate, and the Chamber has been proud to collaborate with the WCTA to present the four-part Climate Series. Read More…


What is Carbon Pricing?

By Eric Viola, WCTA Public Policy Analyst


Carbon pricing is the practice of assigning a cost to carbon emissions.  There are two basic forms of carbon pricing:

  • Cap-and-Trade:  This system creates policies that allow a government to place a cap on total emissions.  Permits are issued to allow emissions up to that limit.  The market then establishes how the limits will be achieved by allowing the holders of the permits to trade them.  A firm that can reduce emissions at low cost, for example, can do so, then sell its permit to another firm that has higher costs.
  • Carbon Tax:  This is a policy that places a tax on the carbon content of energy sources.  It taxes carbon directly at a point in the fuel’s life cycle.

The rationale behind carbon pricing is that it shifts back to carbon emitters some or all of the cost of the negative externalities caused by CO2. If the full cost of externalities can be accurately measured and charged to those who produce them, then incentives are created to reduce emissions. The true cost of an externality is difficult to determine, since externalities may manifest years or miles away from when and where they took place.

One of the key advantages of carbon pricing is that it discourages emissions while simultaneously making alternative energy sources more attractive. Instead of implementing a vast, complicated network of subsidies to alternative energy, carbon pricing makes it more expensive to produce carbon—and cheaper to seek out alternatives. Carbon pricing utilize market forces, shifting them so that the price of carbon reflects the costs of greenhouse gas emissions. Proponent of the carbon tax argue that it is relatively simple to implement.

At the other end of the policy spectrum are command and control policies, which are government-mandated regulations that set exact limits on specific emitters or on sectors as a whole. Command and control policies are largely regarded as being more difficult and expensive to administer, but can result in more certainty of outcome

Carbon Taxes are levied on the carbon content of fuels. Carbon—present in hydrocarbon fuels like coal, petroleum, and natural gas—is released as CO2 when hydrocarbon fuels release their energy. Alternative sources of energy like wind and sunlight do not release CO2 as energy is released, although there may be carbon emissions involved in the production of wind and solar power systems. Since carbon is present in hydrocarbon fuels throughout various stages in their product cycle, a carbon tax can be levied on hydrocarbon fuels at multiple points. A tax can be incurred, for example, continuously as natural gas is burned for heat in a residence, or simply as it is produced.

Cap-And-Trade is a system in which an emission cap is set by issuing of a set number of emission credits. For example, a government could cap total carbon emissions at a given level by issuing permit allowances up to that level.

Emitters that can cheaply reduce emissions would do so and then sell their unused permits. This simultaneously rewards firms that are able to reduce their emissions below their permit cap as well as providing firms that face a high cost for reducing emissions a lower cost way of reducing system-wide emissions.

Some emissions trading systems include Offset Programs, which allow firms to earn and sell credit for projects that reduce emissions more than is required by regulation. Averaging programs set constant or declining emission rate standards and allow emitters to sell unused emissions allowances or save them for use in future years. Some cap-and-trade programs allow emitters to borrow emissions from their future selves in addition to Banking provisions that allow them to use unused emissions in future years.

Carbon Tax: The British Columbia Model

In the British Columbia Model, a carbon tax of $30 per ton of CO2is currently active. Enacted in 2008, the tax started at $10 per ton of CO2 and increased by $5 per year through 2012, when it reached the current price. Between 2007 and 2011, energy-related greenhouse gas emissions dropped by six percent overall, keeping pace with drops in Canada as a whole. The chief forces at play here are a market-wide shift from coal to gas outside of B.C., a natural gas boom in B.C., and the Great Recession.

Sales of refined petroleum products per capita, on the other hand, have dropped a full 15 percentage points since 2007, while rates in Canada as a whole are currently very close to 2007 levels. The stark effects of the recession are also apparent in the graph below.

BC Carbon Tax Graph
Graph Courtesy of Sightline

In addition to the $30 per ton CO2 tax rate, the B.C. model has one more significant feature: it is Revenue Neutral. The additional tax revenue pulled in through the carbon tax is offset by broad tax cuts. In B.C., such cuts have included personal income tax cuts of $1.2 billion, low income tax credits of $997 million, business tax cuts of $3.1 billion, and other tax cuts of $329 million. All said, B.C.’s cumulative carbon tax revenue from 2008 to 2014 is roughly $5 billion, while tax cuts made in anticipation of the carbon tax revenue have totaled $5.7 billion.

The shortfall of $0.7 billion represents a key lesson to be learned in maintaining the balance between hard-to-predict carbon tax revenues and easier-to-predict tax cuts.

Another limit of B.C.’s carbon tax system is that the current carbon tax rate is not likely to get B.C. to its emissions goal; now that the tax rate has reached its cap, emissions are expected to begin rising again. At the same time, the gap between tax cuts and projected carbon tax income is expected to widen.

While revenue neutrality is a difficult balance to maintain, it presents a valuable gain to political feasibility. James Tansey, Executive Director of ISIS at the University of British Columbia, summarized the advantage of a revenue neutral tax: “It’s not a new tax, it’s a tax shift.” It’s much easier politically to pass a tax shift, he explained, than it is to pass a new tax.

Advocates in Washington argue that the institution of a revenue neutral carbon tax could go a long way towards normalizing the state’s tax structure. Instead of an income tax like other states, Washington has effectively spread out the tax burden across a range of other taxes, including exceptionally high sales, gas, and liquor taxes. “People feel nickel-and-dimed” by the complex network of taxes, argues Reuven Carlyle (District 36-D), Chair of the State’s House Finance Committee.

California Cap and Trade

In California, legislators have chosen to pursue a Cap and Trade model of carbon pricing. There are several features of the California Model of cap and trade that make it unique.

The California model, like many others, started with limited application and has slowly increased in scope and scale since 2006. The cap on emissions will continue to tighten until 2020. At the same time, California is slowly transitioning from distributing free permits to auctioning permits. California’s first cap and trade auction, held on November 14, 2012, raised $289 million

The money raised at auction is spent in two ways. Proceeds from investor-owned utilities go to programs that benefit those utilities’ ratepayers. Proceeds from the industrial and transportation sectors go towards furthering the state’s clean energy goals. Auctions are held four times a year.

By the end of 2015, the California model’s cap will encompass 85% of California’s emissions. Unlike the B.C. model, which currently covers about 70% of its emissions, the California model even includes a tax on electricity from out-of-state energy producers that emit greenhouse gasses. This is called a Carbon by Wire provision.

Like other cap and trade systems, the California model includes an arrangement for Banking. Banking allows entities to save unused permits for use in future years. This feature provides flexibility to the system. California has also included Offset Programs, which allow regulated entities to substitute qualifying offset programs for up to 8% of their emissions permits. The state is taking an hard line on the programs, requiring that the programs take place in the United States, have third-party verification, be in excess of regular program activities (a company’s reforestation program that has been in place since 1990, for example, would only qualify if it was expanded in excess of its regular operation), and be among a list of only five categories.

California has created a Permit Reserve, holding back a set number of emission permits from auction. If carbon prices climb over a certain point, the state will release these reserved permits to auction, helping to lower the price.

While it is still too early to declare the California model a success or failure, the price per metric ton of CO2 at California’s first auction was just over $10. This is nearly identical to the B.C. model’s starting rate.


Governor Inslee, in a recent executive order, assembled a panel of experts to design what he calls a “Cap and Market” system. Based on his executive order, it appears that he favors the California model over the B.C. model

In summary, both Cap and Trade and a Carbon Tax represent market tools for reducing rates of carbon emissions to socially optimal levels. Cap and Trade systems, like the California Model, place a cap on emissions by issuing or auctioning emissions permits and allowing carbon emitters to sell, bank, or use offset programs to earn more permits.

Carbon Tax systems, like the British Columbia Model, institute a predictable, transparent tax on CO2 emissions to reduce emissions levels. The tax rate in B.C. has slowly climbed from $10 per ton of CO2 emitted to its current rate of $30 per ton CO2 emitted. The B.C. model is Revenue Neutral, meaning that revenue from the carbon tax is offset by cuts in other tax areas, although B.C. has had trouble in the past in doing this.

While both systems have significant differences, “the tradeoff between a carbon tax and cap and trade has been exaggerated,” says James Tansey of the University of British Columbia. Both systems make use of existing market forces and represent significantly lower administrative costs and costs to efficiency than command and control methods.

References and Further Reading

Bauman, Yoram, Alan Durning, and Serena Larkin. “Cashing in Our Carbon.” Sightline, 2014. Web.

Hull, Dana. “13 things to know about California’s cap-and-trade program.” San Jose Mercury News, 22 Feb. 2013. Web.

IPCC, Glossary A-D: “Climate Price.” IPCC AR4 SYR 2007.

Reinard, J. “CO2 Allowance and Electricity Price Interaction.” International Energy Agency. 2007. Web.

“The Economists’ Statement on Climate Change.” Redefining Progress. 29 March 1997. Web.


WCTA Climate Series: The Carbon Tax Discussion

By Eric Viola, WCTA Public Policy Analyst

June 9, 2014 (Seattle, WA) -  Daniel Malarkey of 1Energy Systems opened the third event in the WCTA’s Climate Series, introducing the three panelists, Yoram Bauman, Todd Myers, and James Tansey before deferring to Jon Talton, the event’s moderator.

WCTA Climate Series: The Carbon Tax Discussion

Yoram Bauman, James Tansey, Todd Myers, and Jon Talton

Jon Talton, Seattle Times economics columnist, opened the discussion by saying that there is “a cost associated with carbon emissions that isn’t reflected in pricing,” and that, to move emissions to a more efficient level, the State has several options. One of those options is a carbon tax.

“If we can make polluting expensive, we can reduce carbon emissions through market forces,” panelist Yoram Bauman explained.  Bauman, the world’s first self-proclaimed stand-up economist, described the two main paths chosen by governments seeking to reduce carbon emissions. On the one hand, governments can impose strict regulation, such as setting individual emissions caps on specific companies. This path, command and control, is expensive to administer. The other path, using market-based instruments, takes advantage of existing market structures, resulting in a less expensive, more efficient model. One of the key features of a carbon tax espoused by Bauman is that it is “more transparent, more open, it’s a lot more clear what’s going on” than even other market-based instruments like cap-and-trade. Read More…


McDermott Re-Introduces Legislation To Curb Carbon Dioxide Emissions

Press Release:  WASHINGTON, DC – Jim McDermott (D, WA-7) has re-introduced the Managed Carbon Price Act of 2014 (H.R. 4754) to reduce harmful carbon dioxide emissions and to help American industry transition to clean sources of energy.

“Climate change is real and increasing evidence indicates that its impacts are now being felt across the United States – in our polluted air, warming oceans, stressed ecosystems and increasingly destructive weather patterns,” said Congressman McDermott.  “To secure our planet’s future, we must curb harmful carbon dioxide emissions.  To drive the American economy, we must move away from fossil fuels and develop clean, inexpensive, renewable energy sources.  The Managed Carbon Price Act of 2014 is designed to produce results in both of these critical areas.” Read More…


Why the Legislature Failed To Renew Hi-Tech Tax Credits: A Meeting with House Finance Committee Chair Reuven Carlyle

By Eric Viola, WCTA Public Policy Analyst

June 6, 2014 (Seattle, WA) – State Representative Reuven Carlyle (D-36th district) joined the members of the WCTA’s Government Affairs Committee at our meeting on Tuesday, June 2, 2014.

The heart of the discussion was the Legislature’s failure to renew the High Tech R&D tax programs (the B&O Tax Credit and the Sales/Use Tax Deferral), and Rep. Carlyle’s personal exasperation with the tax system. As Chair of the House Finance Committee, Reuven has made his personal preference—broad, low taxes that are evenly applied without excessive exemptions—known repeatedly to the community.

Washington State Representative Reuven Carlyle

Reuven Carlyle, Washington State House Finance Committee Chair

For the past three years, Rep. Carlyle has tried to retool the two programs to reduce their cost to the State and to focus the benefits on young companies that stand to gain the most value from the least amount of money. By setting an eligibility cap on company revenue for different levels of credit value, Rep. Carlyle hoped to retain the job creation value of the program. Essentially, he designed a progressive incentive structure, reducing the ratio of credit to R&D expenditure as company revenue increased. The change in tax revenue would net more to the state, and that money could go directly to fund additional training in electrical, mechanical, and software engineering; the change would simultaneously encourage job creation and develop the state labor pool to fill those jobs. Read More…


Congressman McDermott Introduces 2 Pieces of Environmental Legislation

May 29, 2014 – Washington D.C.

McDermott Introduces Bill to Help Forge Clean Energy Solutions

WASHINGTON, DC – Jim McDermott (D, WA-7) has introduced the Investing to Modernize the Production of American Clean Energy and Technology Act of 2014 (H.R. 4753). By promoting strategic, targeted tax credits and closing oil company tax loopholes, this legislation seeks to ignite the American clean energy economy by boosting clean energy manufacturing.

“Continued American greatness in the 21st Century, in large part, will be determined by the strength of our clean energy economy,” said Congressman McDermott. “Democrats in Congress are committed to fight for clean energy solutions that boost the economy and create millions of new, good-paying American jobs. Democrats in Congress have a vision for America’s clean energy future. The Investing to Modernize the Production of American Clean Energy and Technology Act of 2014 is a key part of that vision.”

Clean Energy Tax Incentives

· H.R. 4753 extends a number of valuable tax provisions used by clean energy companies to level the playing field and to compete with their more established traditional-energy counterparts.

· Specifically, H.R. 4753 extends tax provisions for onshore and offshore wind and other renewable energy production.

· H.R. 4753 also provides incentives for clean energy manufacturing, energy efficient appliances and homes,electric vehicles, and a new era of natural gas-powered vehicles.

Closing Oil Company Tax Loopholes

· H.R. 4753 ends tax breaks and corporate giveaways tucked into the tax code for major oil companies that are already raking in record profits.

· Eliminating these tax breaks for major oil companies pays for the clean energy tax provisions and incentives in H.R. 4753. Read More…


China plan to cap CO2 emissions seen turning point in climate talks


Original article here.

BEIJING-articleLarge-v3China said on Tuesday it will set an absolute cap on its CO2 emissions from 2016 just a day after the United States announced new targets for its power sector, signalling a potential breakthrough in tough U.N. climate talks.

Progress in global climate negotiations has often been held back by a deep split between rich and poor nations, led by the United States and China, respectively, over who should step up their game to reduce emissions. But the fact that the two biggest emitters of greenhouse gases made unprecedented announcements on climate within 24 hours of each other sparked optimism among observers hoping to see the decades-old deadlock broken. The steps come ahead of a global meet on climate change starting on Wednesday in Germany.

China, the world’s biggest emitter, will set a total cap on its CO2 emissions when its next five-year plan comes into force in 2016, He Jiankun, chairman of China’s Advisory Committee on Climate Change, told a conference in Beijing.

China, the world’s biggest emitter, will set a total cap on its CO2 emissions when its next five-year plan comes into force in 2016, He Jiankun, chairman of China’s Advisory Committee on Climate Change, told a conference in Beijing.

Carbon emissions in the coal-reliant economy are likely to continue to grow until 2030, but setting an absolute cap instead of pegging them to the level of economic growth means they will be more tightly regulated and not spiral out of control.

“The Chinese announcement marks potentially the most important turning point in the global scene on climate change for a decade,” said Michael Grubb, a professor of international energy and climate policy at University College London.

Read more on REUTERS

Events & Meetings