Category Archives: Carbon GHG

Smart Cars Are Here, But Where Are Our Smart Grids To Charge Them?

The November 9th print edition of Canadian Business had an article by Heather Li on “Charging Cars for Pennies …” that had an amazing calculation that, if it were more widely known, could totally change the way we look at smart cars. By using wasted power, smart grids can charge electric cars for 42 cents a night!

Let’s see … in a fuel efficient car with gas prices at about $3 a gallon in the US and over $4 a gallon in Canada, you’re paying at least $30 in the US and at least $40 in Canada for a tank of gas that will get you the same 400km to 500km of travel that an electric car with a high-performance lithium-ion battery pack will get you … which could cost you a mere $0.42 to recharge. Now, it’s true that the batteries will eventually need to be replaced … but as the new battery packs have an estimated life of about 250,000 km, you might replace the smart car first!

How could we do it so cheap? It has to do with the fact that while our power demands fluctuate throughout a 24 hour cycle, power production does not. Water doesn’t stop flowing, nuclear reactions don’t stop half way through the chain, and it’s just not practical to shut down coal plants. As a result, much of the energy produced at night goes to waste. In Ontario, the difference between how much is used and how much is produced in off-peak night hours is often 10,000 mega-watts — which is potentially enough power to support one million electric vehicles! And, as you guessed, the power companies lose money on this production (which they make up for by charging a rate for energy consumption that covers the average total cost of production over a 24 hour period, and not just the cost of the energy you use). But if we had a smart grid, that utilized new smart meters, it could be programmed to charge our smart cars during times of peak excess energy availability and the power companies could charge us a fraction of a penny per kWh (or just a few dollars per MWh, instead of the average consumer price of $27.59 per MWh in Canada in November) and still make a profit.

Bring on the Smart Grids!

Share This on Linked In

Highlights from the Preliminary Draft Regulation for a California Cap-And-Trade program, Part II

On November 24, 2009, California released a preliminary draft regulation for a cap-and-trade program, in accordance with the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (AB 32) for public review and comment. At 132 pages, it was a doozy. Most likely in an effort to minimize comments, the deadline for comments on the initial draft is January 11, 2010.

In this post, we’re going to review some of the important points from sub-articles 8 through 15 and summarize the draft.

SubArticle 8: Distribution of Allowance Value

Allowance value is the economic worth of allowances issued. This section has not yet been drafted. However, the discussion of concept notes that some allocation of allowance value may be justified to compensate those disproportionately impacted by the imposition of the cap-and-trade program, that allowance value could be provided to the public in the form of per-capita rebates or cuts in individual income tax rates, and that allowance value could be applied to targeted public spending programs deemed necessary to achieve the requirements set forth in AB 32.

SubArticle 9: Auction Design and Mechanisms for Distributing Auction Proceeds

The Executive Officer may serve as auction operator or select an entity to serve as auction operator. Entities that want to participate in an auction, which will be announced with at least ninety days notice, must register at least thirty days in advance.

SubArticle 10: Free Allocation Mechanism

This section has not been drafted and does not include a discussion of concept.

SubArticle 11: Trading and Banking

Trading will be somewhat restricted and trades can not be made:

  • if they are to a party whose identity is not disclosed to the Executive Officer,
  • if they manipulate the value of a published market index,
  • if they corner or attempt to corner the market for a regulated instrument, or
  • if they are fraudulent or attempt to defraud another entity.

There will be a holding limit for each registrant or group of registrants. Furthermore, the number of compliance instruments a covered entity is allowed to own may be restricted to an amount sufficient to cover its emissions.

A GHG allowance may be held, or banked, for a future compliance period, subject to the holding limits.

SubArticle 12: Linkage to External Trading or Offset Crediting Systems

Compliance instruments issued by an external greenhouse gas emissions trading system (GHG ETS) or a greenhouse gas offset crediting system may be used to meet the requirements of this article only if the GHG ETS or GHG offset crediting system has been approved by the Board as provided in this sub-article. In other words, you might not be able to buy off the CCX (Chicago Climate Exchange), the ECX (European Climate Exchange), or the ACX (Australian Climate Exchange) to meet your requirements.

SubArticle 13: Offset Credits

An offset credit used for compliance purposes must represent a reduction or avoidance of GHG emissions or a GHG sequestration that is real, additional, quantifiable, permanent, verifiable and enforceable. An offset credit will (only) result from an approved offset quantification methodology that is standardized, replicable for any offset project of that type, and that includes plans for monitoring and reporting consistent with an offset project of that type. There are a number of requirements for the methodology, including the requirement that it ensure that the offset project type does not cause or contribute to adverse effects on human health or the environment.

SubArticle 14: Enforcement and Penalties

Penalties may be assessed pursuant to the Health and Safety Code, Section 41513.

SubArticle 15: Other Provisions

Each provision of the article is deemed severable.

 

So what does this mean? Essentially, if you produce, or cause the production of, CO2,

N2O,

CH4,

SF6,

HFCs,

PFCs, and

NF3, you will likely be affected by the act. If you produce less than 25,000 MTCO2e of GHG annually, you might be exempt until 2015, but as of January 1, 2015 you will be required to track, report, and independently verify your emissions. If you do not have enough allowances, you will have to either effect a trade, which will be restricted, try to acquire more through an auction, or try to get offset credits approved. If you are unable, you will be subject to as yet undefined penalties, which may be assessed pursuant to the Health and Safety Code, Section 41513.

In a nutshell, carbon cap and trade is coming, within 5 years and one month you will be affected, and if you’re not ready, it will cost you. How much will be determined as the key sections are finalized over the next six months. If you’re a major producer of GHG emissions in California, you should probably attend the workshop to discuss the proposal being held on December 14, 2009 to get a sense of what the final draft is likely to look like, as it will likely be law in less than two years.

Highlights from the Preliminary Draft Regulation for a California Cap-And-Trade program, Part I

On November 24, 2009, California released a preliminary draft regulation for a cap-and-trade program, in accordance with the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (AB 32) for public review and comment. At 132 pages, it was a doozy. Most likely in an effort to minimize comments, the deadline for comments on the initial draft is January 11, 2010. However, if you are really interested, a workshop to discuss the proposal is being held on December 14, 2009.

The goal for the cap-and-trade program, which is being designed to be consistent with the Western Climate Initiative, is to establish a cap covering at least 85% of California’s GHG emissions and allow trading to ensure cost-effective emission reductions. The goal is to start the program in 2012 with approximately 600 of the state’s largest GHG-emitting stationary sources (including industrial sources above 25,000 MTCO2e) and electricity imports and expand the program, which would include industrial sources under 25,000 MTCO2e and transportation fuels, until it covers up to 90% of the state’s GHG emissions.

The current design is slanting towards three compliance periods — 2012 to 2014, 2015 to 2017, and 2018 to 2020 — and sets a cap for each. In each compliance period, a covered entity would be expected to surrender a portion of their current emissions until the 2020 target, which is to reduce GHG emission to 1990 levels, is hit.

When passed, the act, which is currently 65 pages in length and broken into 15 sub-articles, will become sub-chapter 10 climate change, article 5, sections 95800 to 96550, title 17, of the California Code of Regulations. Here are some of the important points in sub-articles 3 to 7.

SubArticle 3: Applicability

The article applies to the following greenhouse gases:

CO2,

N2O,

CH4,

SF6,

HFCs,

PFCs, and

NF3.

The article applies to industrial entities with recognized GHG producing processes, electricity deliverers, transportation fuel deliverers, natural gas deliverers, and deliverers of natural gas liquids.

SubArticle 4: Compliance Instruments

The Executive Officer will create GHG allowances and offset credits. Each compliance instrument issues represents a limited authorization to emit up to one metric tone of CO2e.

SubArticle 5: Registration and Tracking System

Any entity covered as of January 1, 2012 must register by March 31, 2012. Any entity that becomes a covered entity must register within 90 days of becoming covered. An entity must maintain a current and valid registration in order to receive compliance instruments (allowances and offset credits).

SubArticle 6: California Greenhouse Gas Allowance Budgets

A base budget of allowances will be created for each fiscal year. These allowances may be adjusted to account for voluntary investment in renewable sources of electricity generation.

SubArticle 7: Surrender Requirements for Covered Entities

The program will require all annual emissions reports to be verified by an independent accredited verifier. It will also require the relevant records to be maintained for at least 10 years.

In part II, we’ll cover sub-articles 8 through 15 and summarize the draft.

If the US Implements Cap and Trade Instead Of Carbon Tariffs, Are You Ready?

Share This on Linked In

As my long-time readers will recall, green and sustainability were major foci of this blog before they became popular topics among other bloggers. As a result, I’ve been following, and occasionally blogging about, carbon tariffs for years, which I expected to see more of in the (near) future as some states and provinces have already implemented a carbon tax (like California and British Columbia) and a bill was introduced into US Congress.

But recently I’ve been seeing references to cap and trade, which disturbed me for reasons I couldn’t quite pinpoint, mainly because I never saw a good definition of what it was, how it might be implemented, or what impacts it will have on your (global) supply chain. Needless to say, I was glad to see this recent article on the supply chain and cap and trade by Supply Chain Digest Editor-in-Chief Dan Gilmore and find out that I’m not alone. Seems Dan was in the same boat too.

So he did some research, and a few calculations, and arrived at some conclusions which are even more disturbing than you might expect. Not only will cap and trade, which would dole out carbon permits for so many tons of CO2 to your company, cost you and be more complicated than a carbon policy needs to be, but it will add volatility and risk into your supply chain … and that’s not good. You see, if cap and trade comes into play, we have the following unknowns to deal with:

  • the details
    depending on the implementation of cap and trade, the impact on your supply chain could be anywhere on the scale from minor nuisance through major burden
  • the complexity
    any scheme will necessarily be more complex than a straight carbon tariff (per ton) and will take years to implement
  • the global impact
    how will offshore carbon production be addressed, will it result in a move back to near-shore or home production, and will it result in more telecommuting to reduce office space?
  • the cost
    if your emissions are capped, you either have to reduce them or buy permits from your competitors, who will be auctioning them to the highest bidder … so you have no way to plan for the potential cost in advance

Policies should reduce the risk and volatility of your supply chain, not add to them … which is precisely what a cap and trade approach will do. So be sure to support your local trade association in lobbying for a straight carbon tariff. At least you can plan for that.

What’s Worse? The Personal Automobile or 15 Container Ships?

A recent article in The Guardian noted that the health risks of shipping pollution have been ‘underestimated’, to put it very lightly. A recent study by the Danish government’s environmental agency found that ONE giant container ship can emit the same amount of cancer and asthma-causing chemicals as 50 Million cars. That’s right … just 15 of the world’s biggest cargo ships emit more pollution than the roughly 750 Million cars currently in operation around the globe … AND THERE ARE 90,000 of them! Current estimates is that global shipping is responsible for 3.5% to 4.0% of ALL climate change emissions.

So the next time you start calculating the costs of global sourcing you might want to step back and think about whether a temporary savings of a few percentage points is really worth global sourcing when YOU could be ultimately responsible for not only draining trillions of dollars from the world’s economy to pay for the health care required to treat the tens of thousands of victims who suffer from pollution-induced lung and heart disease but causing thousands of deaths a year. I don’t know about you, but I think it’s time for home-cost country sourcing.