When Donald Trump announced that he was pulling the United States from the Paris Agreement—a spiteful action that promises precisely zero benefits while offering near infinite downsides—there was an immediate reaction from many governors and mayors in states and cities that retained some modicum of sense. Official after official promised that, while Trump may be racing to make synonyms of “America” and “mud,” they would maintain standards for their region that were as high, or higher, than those proposed under the agreement.
But with Trump actively promoting pollution and climate change, states could take that as an excuse to forget past promises. Which makes an upcoming plan all the more important.
Eight years ago, the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative ― made up of Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Rhode Island and Vermont ― established an interstate cap-and-trade system that puts a limit on carbon dioxide emissions from the utility sector and allows power companies to buy and sell permits to pollute. The program has proven to be a notable success, reducing average utility bills by 3.4 percent, driving $2.7 billion in economic growth and creating at least 14,200 new jobs through energy conservation projects funded by the revenue it generates.
The RGGI is one of several such initiatives and, like the cap and trade for SO2 instituted under the Clean Air Act, most have demonstrated that the projected cost of meeting targeted improvements is far less than the projections made by utilities and fossil fuel companies.
Now it’s time for the states involved to implement the next stage of the RGGI plan, and whether they choose to build off the success of the initial phase may have a big influence on what other states choose to do now.
The group is weighing three different policies that environmental groups characterize as the “unacceptable,” better and best case of the scenarios on the table. Right now, RGGI reduces the amount of carbon that utilities are allowed to spew by 2.5 percent each year, based on the previous year’s emissions. That means the amount of additional emissions reductions gets smaller and smaller every year. Each of the policies under consideration would set the annual reduction rate as a percentage of a fixed baseline.
The variations in the plans look small on paper, a matter of 2 percent reduction between the plans rated “unacceptable” and those considered “best.” Another factor is the date of implementation, with the best plan being the one that kicks in the soonest.
However, that’s a 1 percent difference in caps per year. So over a decade-plus of the new plan, it would make a very significant change. And right now states are fighting over these numbers — fighting over whether to make them even tougher. New York is currently pointing at the “better” plan as their option, while Massachusetts is proposing a plan that would be even better than the “best.”
Massachusetts Gov. Charlie Baker (R) hinted last month that the state would support reducing emissions by as much as 5 percent each year between 2020 and 2031.
That would lead to cutting carbon emissions in half over a single decade. However, that proposed rate has Maryland threatening to leave the alliance. However, Maryland’s threat isn’t so much a matter of not being able to meet the requirements, but wanting to keep the alliance attractive enough that other states might join.
Which seems entirely possible. Because what the RGGI has demonstrated is just how not threatening cutting emissions can be.
Imposing a 3 percent rate on a fixed baseline in just two years would cost utilities less than one-tenth of one penny more per kilowatt hour of electricity over the current standard. Yet the impact on emissions would be dramatic.