Rhode Island’s Consensus-Built Greenhouse Gas Reduction Program

Climate Solutions for the NortheastMay 11-13, 2003

Jan Reitsma, Rhode Island DEM

Making and selling a soup Sandwich

Why a Consensus-based Process?

• Aug. 2001, Governor made commitment RI to GHG reductions at the NEG/ECP – had to make good on the commitment.

• Problem: Climate Change is a soup sandwich kind of issue. How do you make the soup stay in the sandwich? Answer is elusive. Climate change was viewed as a dauntingly nebulous issue

fraught with political peril • Solution: create a methodical, stakeholder-owned process.

Conceptual Roadmap: 4 plan components

1. Baseline

2. Reductions Target(s)

3. GHG Reduction Options

4. Implementation plan

An effective, actionable plan

Element 1: The Baseline

What it isWhat it is• The “business as usual” projection; how much GHG will we emit if

we do nothing over a certain time period?Why it mattersWhy it matters• Shows how much “bite” policy choices take out of standard

practice. If too pessimistic/optimistic, skews options evaluation

Consensus Decision: Sectoral, layer-cake approach• Based on an inventory of projected emissions from existing resources.• Based on historical energy use, trajectories of economic growth, prices, technological advance• “To include or not to include” (e.g. SBC programs)

-0.5

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020

Millio

n T

on

nes C

arb

on

Eq

uiv

ale

nt

Industrial Steam

Electric Generation

Solid Waste

Forestry & Land Use

Transport

Residential

Industry

Commercial

Element 2: The Target• The Action Plan’s “north star”; orients evaluation of action choices

Issues consideredIssues considered• Which targets do you choose? • How long do you want to take to get there?• Under what circumstances do the targets need to be updated?

Consensus Decision• NEG/ECP Resolution Selected as target: 2020 levels must be ~ 1/3 below 1990 levels.

• Targets will be periodically updated

Element 3: Options creation & management

OptionsIdentify/Create PrioritizeEvaluate

Essential goal: Essential goal: Develop a set of creative and effective options.

Creating/managing options

• Consultant provided detailed scoping papers in each area identifying options including costs and benefits Transportation and land use Energy supply Buildings and facilities Solid waste

• Working Groups suggested additional options and refinements

Options: Evaluation/Prioritization• Factors considered

Carbon savings Cost of saved carbon (CSC) Other benefits

Other air emissions Economic benefits (local and societal)

Political feasibility• Whose priorities? How to prioritize?

52 Options Generated

49 Consensus 3 Non-consensus

All options include estimated Carbon SavedCarbon Saved

and Co-benefitsCo-benefitsResults:

Projected Carbon Savings

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020

Mill

ion

To

nn

es C

arb

on

Eq

uiv

alen

t

Baseline

Consensus

Consensus + Non-Consensus

Governors'/Premiers' Target

In State Consensus +Federal/Regional

Consensus + Non-Consensus +Federal/Regional

Consensus Decision:

49 Options that, when aggregated, nearly meet the NEG/ECP premiers’ target in 2020.

Element 4: The Implementation Plan (Phases III and IV)

• Turn good ideas into good practice.• Includes:

Which options to do when Getting policies and enforcement mechanisms on the books Developing linkages with relevant agencies, industry, and

associations

Implementation

Phase II 9/02-3/03• 6 options

Renewable Portfolio Standard: Consensus Proposal Under Consideration in Legislature

Vehicle Efficiency Incentives: Consensus Proposal Under Consideration in Legislature

Transit-Oriented Development: Under Development by Work Group Buildings/Facilities: Tax Credits, C/I Fossil Heated Retrofit, Industrial

Targeting: Under Development by Work Group

Implementation

Phase III• Programming to TBD at Stakeholders’ meeting on 5/31

Retrospective: Pros• Tremendous Institutional knowledge now banked in a diverse

stakeholder pool. Parties once in conflict now used to working together/thinking about the

problem – creates a body of institutional knowledge/momentum. (INTERJECT EZOVSKY COMMENT RE: BUSINESS SELLING CLIMATE CHANGE HERE)

Promotes continuity across administrations/fractures in leadership• Greater recognition of false dichotomy between economic growth and

GHG reductions• Better compliance w/ possible new regulations• A broad coalition representing diverse interests is more effective at

developing workable, common-sense ways to reduce GHG than single entity; problems addressed earlier in the policy-making cycle.

Retrospective: Cons

• Difficult to convey the need for such action and the craftsmanship in the programs to those outside the room (Governor, legislature, powerful interest groups). How to avoid creating a vanguard?

• Stakeholder momentum is easier to generate than resources to support the process.