I'm going to repeat some tweets from a couple of weeks ago that didn't thread corrected - please excuse the repetition, but the points could use repeating - on CA and what I consider the WCI scam ON is now escaping from.
some people are probably confused by the vast difference in information coming from @AldyenDonnelly and the statements of confidence in the WCI scheme from the polished @EcofiscalCanada hive . Maybe my view of data will make you more attentive to Aldyen...
The data summary is a little messy due to re categorization of refineries and fuel suppliers, but basically "Electricity Importer" is responsible for most (23.3 Mt CO2e) of CA's reductions from 2011-2016 (29.2 MT CO2e). 
Dive in a little deeper and the data reveals the entities claiming those reductions:
Most reductions are from T& D - but a strangely significant share is from hydroelectric Power generation (shown is annual change in emissions)
Most reductions are from T& D - but a strangely significant share is from hydroelectric Power generation (shown is annual change in emissions)
Surprising to see much of the reduction in emissions from "Hydroelectric Power Generation" is due to Powerex Corp. (BC hdyro!)
The largest reduction in emissions is from Southern California Edison (mostly in 2014) and L.A. Dep't of Water and Power (mostly 2016) - but there were significant reductions in the Electric Power Dist'n reported by PG&E and, separately, Sempra.
some digging, based on reading @AldyenDonnelly and I find the SCE did sell ownership in a coal plant for 2014 (bizjournals.com/phoenix/blog/e… …),
and LADWP did sale coal ownership in 2016 (scpr.org/news/2016/07/0… …)
does selling shares in an out-of-state coal generation reduce ghg?
and LADWP did sale coal ownership in 2016 (scpr.org/news/2016/07/0… …)
does selling shares in an out-of-state coal generation reduce ghg?
At first glance one might thin CO2e was reduced. I found reference to 5 out-of-state coal plants owned by CA utilities in 2011 (ww2.kqed.org/climatewatch/2… …) - and I pulled monthly output for them from the wonderful EIA - summarized annual and graphed:
I also summarized the data for the entire US.
Hey! look at the coal trend country-wide:
Hey! look at the coal trend country-wide:
Here's the annual change of both all US coal and at the 5 units CA owners had an interest in - with trend lines.
Some years 1 is down more, sometimes the other, but overall there's zero evidence the claimed "electricity importer" reductions aren't hot air allowances.
Some years 1 is down more, sometimes the other, but overall there's zero evidence the claimed "electricity importer" reductions aren't hot air allowances.
So one reason @EcofiscalCanada should stop telling everybody CA has a good system is it is bloated with excess credits that don't represent real emissions reductions. Research could tell you that, or the simple of thinking "why would emission reduction be cheaper in CA than ON?"
How is that CA market doing. Once again research presents a different view than the opinions of people who tolerated 3 decades of institutionalization to join the hive mind. Receipts have been little different that the base price as a carbon tax would have accomplished.
please unroll @Threadreaderapp
Today the press is reporting on the latest release of CARB figures - which show CA emissions dropping to 1990 levels in 2016: sfchronicle.com/business/artic…
This based on a different, less detailed, data set than I've used - but my conclusions are supported.
This based on a different, less detailed, data set than I've used - but my conclusions are supported.
Since CA emissions peaked in 2004 they've been reduced by 64.4 Mt CO2e, of which 72% is due to 46.6 MT reduction in electricity, of which 85% is due to reductions in "Imported Electricity" - meaning 62% of all reductions are in the category that I've shown is mostly hot air.
Some other notes: from 1990-2016 US emissions rose 2.5% - so even with C&T's accounting tricks CA is slightly above the national average.
I reference a 2015 David Roberts column on the trick in this thread:
I reference a 2015 David Roberts column on the trick in this thread:
Some comments from July 13th are not threaded properly - can be seen . Main 2 pts:
CA source shows zero-GHG emissions imported, by type.
But they show roughly 40 TWh zero-ghg additional imports; combined AZ, ID, MT, NV, OR, UT, WA and WY went up only 30
CA source shows zero-GHG emissions imported, by type.
But they show roughly 40 TWh zero-ghg additional imports; combined AZ, ID, MT, NV, OR, UT, WA and WY went up only 30
