The “Credit” Crisis Growing Pains within the Emerging Carbon Markets April 14, 2008 Kevin Poloncarz

The “Credit” Crisis

Growing Pains within the Emerging Carbon Markets

April 14, 2008

Kevin Poloncarz

2

The “Credit” CrisisGrowing Pains within the Emerging Carbon Markets

Overview• Market Mechanisms in General• Offsets

• Concepts/ Criteria/ Additionality• Case Studies

• Enhanced Oil Recovery• Long Lived Wood Products

• Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC) and State Attorneys’ General Interest

• Voluntary Standards• CCAR The Climate Action Reserve• SCAQMD SoCal Climate Solutions Exchange

• Why participate in voluntary (i.e., pre-compliance) markets?

3


Market Mechanisms • Cap-and-Trade

• Sets a cap and declining balances on emissions

• Allocation and/or auction of allowances

• Trading occurs

• Trued-up periodically with agency

• vs. command-and-control

4


Market Mechanisms• Cap-and-Trade

• US SOx/NOx Acid Rain Program trading system• SCAQMD’s RECLAIM program• US delegation prevailed upon international community to

accept market mechanisms during Kyoto negotiations.• European Union Emission Trading Scheme (EU ETS)

• Phase 1 2005-2007: learning phase: over-allocation; fuel switching; price for allowances crashed

• Phase 2 2008-2012: 1st Kyoto Commitment Period• As of April 3, price for delivery of ton of carbon in 12/08 at

$36; expectation that will rise to $37-54 by 2010 (which is $9-15 higher than estimated one year ago).

5


Market Mechanisms• Post-Kyoto?

• AB 32’s goal and even longer-term 2050 goal sent signal of carbon price in future.

• Start-date for program coincides with end of first Kyoto commitment period in 2012.

• Massachusetts v. EPA, 127 S. Ct. 1438 (2007)• Citigroup, JPMorgan Chase and Morgan Stanley: “The

Carbon Principles”• Commodities Future Trading Commission (CFTC) now

says carbon credits poised to become “leading global derivates product” in next four or five years.

6


Market Mechanisms• Why oppose market mechanisms?

• Problems with paying to pollute• Localized impacts of carbon, but co-pollutants

• CARB must consider whether market-based mechanism will result in “direct, indirect, and cumulative... localized impacts within communities that are already adversely impacted by air pollution” and design mechanism “to prevent any increase in emissions of toxic air contaminants or criteria air pollutants.” Cal. Health & Saf. C. §38750(b)(1), (2).

• Obstacles and opposition are not insignificant.

• Safety valve/ linkage/ offsets

7


Offsets• Expected to play supporting role in any comprehensive

market-based solution.

• Reductions would not occur under business-as-usual (BAU).

• April 4: CARB says considering allowing offsets both in cap-and-trade and command-and-control (i.e., direct) regulation.

• Kyoto credits: created through Bonn and Marrakech COPs: • Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) certified emission

reductions (CERs) in developing nations

• Joint Implementation (JI) emission reduction units (ERUs) in Annex I, post-Soviet transitional economies

• EU Linking Directive

8


Offsets• Voluntary (pre-compliance) markets • Participation to enhance “green” image, respond to

shareholder or consumer demand, or undertake serious “pre-compliance” reduction measures outside of own footprint.

• Learn-by-doing: inventorying, evaluating reductions, verifying them, participating in registration process, trading platform.

• Media exposé: voluntary carbon markets plagued by a number of high-profile instances where value of reductions called into question. • Project never occurs; double sales• Lowest hanging fruit was high GWP pollutants in China.

9


Offsets• Criteria: Reductions must be real, verified,

permanent, and additional.

• Recent maturity, but...

• Perceptions shaped by voluntary carbon markets may stand as obstacle to development of regulatory scheme incorporating offsets.

10


Additionality

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15Years of operation of the project

Baseline Emissions

Emissions of the CDM project (to be monitored along crediting period)

Volume ofCERs

11


Additionality • How to demonstrate difference between project and BAU?

• WBCSD and WRI: “While the basic concept of additionality may be easy to understand, there is no common agreement about how to prove that a project activity and its baseline scenario are different.”

• CDM EB Methodological Tool for the demonstration of additionality• “Legal, regulatory or institutional test” = surplus• “Technology test”, “barriers analysis”, and “common practice test =

performance standard?• “Investment test”

• Decisive reason for implementing project• Not necessarily that project would fail but for offsets revenue..• But need to point to significant costs or risk-taking.

12


Additionality• Project-by-project vs. performance standard

• “Best in practice”• RGGI model rules • Market Advisory Committee• CCAR’s Climate Action Reserve• AB 32 requires that offsets must be “in addition to any

greenhouse gas reduction otherwise required by law or regulation, and any other greenhouse gas emission reduction that would otherwise occur.” (Cal. Health & Saf. C. § 38562(d)(2).)

• Ultimately, a question of policy.

13


Case Study #1: Enhanced Oil Recovery • EOR experimenting with geologic sequestration for decades.

• Supercritical carbon injected into depleted oil basins.

• Produces substantial amount of oil (10-15% more), which “floats” on heavier carbon.

• Geologic reservoirs successfully confined oil.

• IPCC special report stressed need for geological sequestration.

• CDM EB referred decision to UNFCCC MOP.

• Permanence and additionality questions

• “But-for” investment test creates preference for projects with inherently low IRR.

14


Case Study #1: EOR• Wrong incentives?

• Why not support technologies with marginally better prospects of widespread adoption and implementation?

• Like making loan to debtor least likely to repay?• What are goals of offsets program?

• Development/ promotion of technologies likely to succeed on broad-scale without credits revenue?

• Increasing liquidity/ learning regarding carbon markets?• Establishing integrity/ confidence in role of markets?

15


Case Study #2: Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX) Long-Lived Wood Products (LLWP) Credits

• Tradable Carbon Financial Instruments (CFIs) include both Exchange Allowances and Offsets.

• Voluntary commitments of CCX members:• Phase I (2003-2006): 4% below baseline

• Phase II (2007-2010): 6% below baseline

• Offsets may be used to satisfy some portion of cap.

• Registered by members or aggregators.

16


Case Study #2: CCX LLWP Credits

• Exchange Forestry Offsets (XFOs)

• Reforestation/ conservation management results in net carbon sinks.• Total carbon stock sequestered within standing live

and dead wood, lying dead wood, etc., is measured by forester; represents “baseline” scenario.

• Net increase in carbon stock from implementation of “project” verified over time results in XFOs.

• Aggregators bundle together small pools.

17



• All harvested carbon “emitted” to atmosphere.

• Calculation of net carbon sinks should be able to credit amount of carbon remaining sequestered in long-lived wood products (LLWP) after 100 years.• Continued use as furniture or in construction

• Sequestered within landfills

• Typically not registered and only reported as secondary effect or “optional” pool.

18



• Sub-Prime Credits?

• As of December 2007, CCX now has protocol allowing members and aggregators to report and register carbon sequestered by LLWP.

• CCX to issue XFOs even where underlying timberlands not registered as conservation management project.• Contract limits downstream rights to credits.

• Verifier confirms that meets sustainable harvesting standards and sales receipts.

19


Case Study #2: CCX LLWP Credits• Additionality? • Potential “double-counting” issues?

• When market forces converge with GHG reductions, how do you disaggregate environmental benefits?

• So what? Shouldn’t we motivate parties up and down supply chain to make choices limiting climate change impacts?

• Real risk is that undermines confidence in not only the subprime players, but the standard bearers as well.• Once XFOs issued = CFIs.

20


The Federal Bail-Out• FTC’s Update to Green Guides on Environmental Marketing

Claims (16 CFR§260 et seq.)• To address claims of being “green”• To address market in carbon offsets and RECs

• FTC Act makes unlawful deceptive acts and practices in or affecting commerce (15 USC § 45, 52).

“Safe-harbor” for environmental marketing claims if:• clearly qualify statements,• clarify whether claim applies to product or packaging,• not overstate environmental benefit, and• make basis for comparative claims clear (16 CFR § 260.6).

21


The Federal Bail-Out• Carbon offsets raise issues, both in the sale of the offset itself and in

the marketing claims made by purchasers (who claim the offset to promote “carbon neutrality” of products or operations).

• FTC raises questions, not only regarding double-counting and verification standards, but regarding importance of “additionality”.

• Attorneys General of VT/ CA have taken active role in comments.• Legislative proposals in CA:

• AB 1851 (Nava): Process for assuring voluntary offsets meet consistent standards.

• AB 3001 (Hancock): Voluntary Carbon Offset Commission; donations invested in environmentally sound offset projects.

22


Can the Market Fix Itself?• FTC/ AGs could stifle nascent markets and chill

participation.• Lack of credibility undermines compliance markets.• Voluntary Certification Schemes:

• CDM Gold Standard for Voluntary Offsets• Voluntary Carbon Standard• Center for Resource Solutions’ “Green-e” Climate • CCAR’s Climate Action Reserve• SCAQMD’s SoCal Climate Solutions Exchange

23


Should Consumers Avoid Voluntary Markets?• Depends on goals

• To stockpile credits before prices rise?

• To support claims of carbon neutrality?

• To gain valuable experience in trading platform and inventorying/ evaluating emissions reductions?

• Learn by asking questions of offsets providers:

• Should avoid offsets providers who cannot or are unwilling to answer questions.

• Might favor un-aggregated projects where consumer can conduct due diligence.

Boston

Hartford

Hong Kong

London

Los Angeles

New York

Orange County

San Francisco

Santa Monica

Silicon Valley

Tokyo

Walnut Creek

Washington

bingham.com

2008 Bingham McCutchen LLP 150 Federal Street, Boston, MA 02110-1726 ATTORNEY ADVERTISING

To communicate with us regarding protection of your personal information or if you would like to subscribe or unsubscribe to some or all of Bingham McCutchen LLP’s electronic and mail communications, please notify our

privacy administrator at [email protected] or [email protected]. Our privacy policy is available at www.bingham.com/privacy.asp. We can also be reached by mail in the U.S. at 150 Federal Street, Boston,

MA 02110-1726, ATT: Privacy Administrator, or in the U.K. at 41 Lothbury, London, England EC2R 7HF, ATT: Privacy Administrator, or in the U.S. by telephone at 617.951.8000.

This communication is being circulated to Bingham McCutchen LLP’s clients and friends. It is not intended to provide legal advice addressed to a particular situation. Prior results do not guarantee in a similar outcome.

Circular 230 Disclosure: Internal Revenue Service regulations provide that, for the purpose of avoiding certain penalties under the

Internal Revenue Code, taxpayers may rely only on opinions of counsel that meet specific requirements set forth in the regulations,

including a requirement that such opinions contain extensive factual and legal discussion and analysis. Any tax advice that may be

contained herein does not constitute an opinion that meets the requirements of the regulations. Any such tax advice therefore cannot

be used, and was not intended or written to be used, for the purpose of avoiding any federal tax penalties that the Internal Revenue

Service may attempt to impose.

Documents

The “Credit” Crisis Growing Pains within the Emerging Carbon Markets April 14, 2008 Kevin Poloncarz