Your main disagreement lies not with me but with @AirResources, which designated cap-and-trade as responsible for half of California's 2030 climate policy. There's no way this market is going to do that.
To the extent you and I differ, it's on the potential space for reform. You are 100% right that the politics aren't there for cap-and-trade to make this heavy of a lift. But to stabilize the market—or even turn it into a tax at today's prices? I guess I'm more optimistic.
Modest reform is still a big deal if you think we need a reliable revenue stream to support key environmental programs, even if the carbon price isn't allowed to rise very much in the decade ahead.
More important, however, is what your insights mean for policy strategy going forward. Right now @AirResources is telling neighboring western states to join its cap-and-trade program on promise of deep decarbonization that will be too cheap to meter. Is that sound advice?
What matters most in California is getting the economy back on track while we double down on regulatory strategies like building decarbonization, 100% clean electricity, and a build-out of EV infrastructure.
That's the California model to copy—the legacy of efforts like SB 100, AB 1493, and decades of clean energy regulatory leadership. (Others have noticed, including @GovInslee, who did so much to advance this approach in the Democratic Primary.)
If carbon pricing can play a supporting role in climate policy, that's great. I think it can. But even then it'll be dwarfed by the standards, investment, and justice paradigm that's coalescing at the federal level: vox.com/energy-and-env…
Meanwhile, I'm struck by the fact that time and time again, the environmental justice community recognizes climate policy problems before others are willing to speak up. @cejapower and its members were on this page 10 years ago. Let's all reflect on that tonight.
(To be clear, I'm proud to have worked together with @MichaelWWara and @cejapower on these issues—it's not my place to represent EJ views, but as far as I'm concerned he's been a big part of the solution on that front.)
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Oh hey look it's another senior policymaker from the California Air Resources Board who jumped careers to work for a lobbying firm with oil industry clients.
Richard Corey was CARB's executive officer from 2013-2022. He was responsible for implementing the 2017 oil-industry-drafted cap-and-trade bill, AB 398. He's now the partner in charge of AJW's Carbon Markets practice. ajw-inc.com/carbon-markets/
During Corey's leadership oil won big on cap-and-trade, rolling back state and local regulations on the oil industry combined with a side deal to keep the state program swimming in bad offsets and surplus allowances, as @lisalsong wrote in Propublica. propublica.org/article/cap-an…
Governor Newsom is generating headlines for announcing an end to oil production in California, but as far as I can tell today's news only sets up a process rather than achieves any concrete outcomes.
First, the Governor has asked the director of CalGEM, which regulates oil production and issues drilling permits, to begin a regulatory process to ban new fracking permits by 2024.
2/ The book pulls together big ideas in a short, accessible package. David and I look at the global experience with carbon pricing — particularly carbon markets — and ask what’s gone wrong. We set out to explain why carbon pricing hasn’t been working, then offer solutions.
Thanks to @jtemple for including me in his story on the big news from Governor Newsom's new executive order, which sets a goal of 100% zero emission new car and truck sales by 2035.
I'll do a deeper dive on the legal situation below.
I'm cautiously optimistic that at least some companies will set a high bar and demand better outcomes than we see in the public sector.
(Other firms are looking to greenwash instead, as are some governments that fail to follow through on bold climate announcements.)
The problem is that the constituency for quality in climate policy is weak, so both public and private leaders can satisfy public demands with hollow pledges.
Opt-outs looked legally unnecessary in FERC orders after the SCOTUS opinion in FERC v. EPSA, and now with today's DC Cir decision in NARUC v. FERC there's a path open for FERC to close opt-outs in future rules concerning ISO/RTO access.
For FERC rules addressing something broader than ISO/RTO market access, however, there's not a lot to point to in today's decision. I expect to see a lot of debate over the implications in the months ahead.
In plain English:
Some states block demand response (DR) and distributed energy resources (DERs) from participating in FERC's wholesale electricity markets. But today's decision suggests FERC can require open access to its wholesale markets without any state-level opt-outs.