Cross-posted from the World Resources Institute. The post was written by Kevin Kennedy, director of WRI’s U.S. climate initiative.

As the year winds down, it’s a good time to take stock of climate policy in the United States. Here’s a quick roundup of what happened — or didn’t happen — in 2011.

The year began with big questions about what the Obama administration and states would do to address climate change and clean energy, absent a comprehensive federal climate policy. This year’s record was decidedly mixed. Not as much happened as some would have liked, but it was in total better than many feared as the year began.

The clearest objective benchmark is how well the U.S. is doing against the administration’s target of reducing emissions 17 percent below 2005 levels by 2020. Our assessment is that the administration is making progress to keep the 17 percent target within sight, but it will require a sustained effort in 2012 and beyond to reach the goal. WRI has been tracking the actions by U.S. federal agencies — click on the pie chart below to explore the interactive tool.

The following is our “Top 6″ list of climate actions for 2011:

1. Congress didn’t act

Coming into 2011, a big question was how far Congress would go (and how far the administration would go along) in slowing or stopping action by the EPA and other federal agencies. While the House repeatedly approved anti-environment and anti-climate measures, those efforts did not make it through the Senate. In a sign of strength, the administration has consistently signaled that President Obama would veto such measures if they ever got to his desk.

Another question was what would happen as a result of Obama’s call in the State of the Union address for a clean energy standard that would set a goal of generating 80 percent of the country’s electricity from clean energy sources by 2035. While the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee issued a white paper for comment, no further action was taken. Sen. Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.), the committee chairman, has indicated that he intends to introduce clean energy standard legislation in 2012.

2. National vehicle rules established

The biggest bright spot on the domestic climate front was the administration’s announcement that it would raise national vehicle fuel standards to 54.5 miles per gallon. These standards for cars and light trucks will reduce U.S. emissions from vehicles by nearly 50 percent by 2025. The EPA and the Department of Transportation (DOT) finalized greenhouse-gas (GHG) emissions standards and efficiency standards for vehicles with model years 2012 through 2016, and proposed new standards [PDF] for model years through 2025.

In addition, EPA and DOT finalized the nation’s first-ever efficiency standards and GHG emissions standards for medium- and heavy‐duty vehicles such as tractor trailers and buses. The EPA estimates [PDF] that these standards will reduce CO2 emissions by 270 million metric tons over the life of the vehicles covered by the rules.

3. California moves ahead

California continues to implement its comprehensive statewide climate program, which combines targeted measures to achieve emission reductions in particular sectors with a broad multi‐sector GHG cap‐and‐trade program. California has one‐eighth of the national economy and is the eighth largest economy in the world, so action in California is significant.

The regulations governing the cap‐and‐trade program were finalized this year, setting the stage for the system to come into operation in 2013. As part of the Western Climate Initiative, California is looking to link its program with that in Quebec starting in 2013, and with programs in Ontario and British Columbia once those are established.

4. RGGI delivers economic benefits

The first compliance period will soon be coming to a close for the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI), a greenhouse-gas cap-and-trade program for the electricity sector in the northeastern and mid-Atlantic U.S. A recent analysis concluded that RGGI has injected $1.6 billion into the region’s economy and created 16,000 jobs, while reducing energy bills by $1.3 billion. A key driver of this success has been the region’s investment in energy efficiency.

While New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie has announced his intention to withdraw New Jersey from RGGI, it is not clear if that will go through. Meanwhile, the other nine states are currently undertaking a program review that could lead to program enhancements, such as an increase in stringency.

5. EPA makes slow progress on GHG rules

EPA has continued to move ahead with most of its planned regulations on power plants, which produce about one-third of U.S. GHG emissions, though it has not met all of its deadlines. EPA is scheduled to release GHG rules for the power sector, originally due out in June 2011, in early 2012, though these are expected to cover only new power plants. It is not clear when the more important guidelines for existing plants will be issued. The implementation of these rules will be an important marker to watch if the country is going to reach the 17 percent reduction target.

EPA also moved forward with regulations to reduce other forms of pollution from power plants, such as mercury, SO2, and NOx.
These rules could lead to greenhouse-gas benefits by promoting generation from cleaner, more efficient power plants over generation from older, more polluting ones. (Read WRI’s fact sheet on new mercury rules here.) However, in a major setback for
environmental protection and public health, new rules for ozone were delayed until 2013. In addition, in July, the EPA proposed a suite of regulations that would reduce harmful air pollution from the oil and natural gas industry.

While the rules focus on reducing emissions of volatile organic compounds, they are expected to substantially reduce the emissions of methane, a very potent GHG, from oil and gas operations, including from hydraulic fracturing (“fracking”) to produce shale gas.

6. Emissions continue to climb

While the global economic downturn resulted in reduced GHG emissions in 2009, that trend is no longer the case. In September, the International Energy Agency reported that 2010 was a record year for emissions globally. The recent rise in emissions highlights the need for further action by the United States to go further in reducing emissions.

Time will tell if the country meets its 17 percent target. New climate and energy legislation would make the target easier to reach,
but even without legislation, we believe this is still possible with sustained effort. And we’ll be watching to see how far Congress and the administration get in 2012 and beyond.

As the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) prepares to release new mercury and air toxics standards, some people may be wondering about the history and timeline for these standards. One senator recently claimed that EPA is “charging ahead” with them.

These standards, however, have been in development for over 20 years. These are standards that many plants are already meeting. Furthermore, 11 of the 15 largest coal utilities, roughly half of the nation’s coal fleet, have informed their shareholders [PDF] that they are well positioned to meet them.

This post unwraps the history, standards, and timelines for compliance.

Why regulate mercury and air toxics?

Power plants are significant emitters of mercury, a neurotoxin that is particularly harmful to children and developing fetuses. Power plants are also significant emitters of a variety of other hazardous air pollutants, such as arsenic, nickel, cadmium, chromium, lead, selenium, hydrogen chloride, and hydrogen fluoride, which can cause a variety of cancer and non-cancer effects (such as irritation of the lung, skin, and mucus membranes, nervous system damage, and kidney damage).

When EPA issued the proposed version of these standards in May, it projected [PDF] that they would have public health benefits in the range of $53 billion to $140 billion, and would come at a total cost of only $11 billion. Thus, the health benefits would be five to 13 times greater than the economic costs of compliance.

History of mercury regulation in the Clean Air Act

The path towards regulating toxic emissions from power plants began in earnest back in 1990, when President George H.W. Bush signed the Clean Air Act amendments that had been passed by overwhelming bipartisan majorities in both houses of Congress.

Those amendments required EPA to assess where mercury emissions were coming from, their impact, and the viability of reducing emissions. After much delay (and a lawsuit), EPA finally issued that study [PDF] in 1998, and two years later concluded [PDF] it is necessary, in the interest of public health, to regulate mercury emissions from coal-fired plants.

In 2004, EPA proposed the first national mercury standards. Shortly after those regulations went into effect, however, the federal Circuit Court of Appeals threw them out. The court found that EPA had improperly attempted to treat mercury as a non-hazardous pollutant, and directed the agency to follow the statutory requirements for hazardous air pollutants.

Later this week, EPA is expected to finalize rules consistent with the hazardous air pollutant provisions. The new rules will require reductions beginning in 2014, 24 years after EPA was first directed to investigate regulating mercury emissions from power plants.

The Clean Air Act requirements

The Clean Air Act is very clear about EPA’s regulation of hazardous air pollutants:

• The act requires EPA to establish limitations that are no less stringent than the “average emission limitation achieved by the best-performing 12 percent of the existing sources.”
• It further requires that sources comply within three years. That timeline can be extended by one year if the state, or EPA, determines that it is necessary for the installation of controls.
• It is possible to further extend these deadlines in rare cases in which the president determines that the technology is not available and that it is in the national security interests of the United States to extend the deadline.
• EPA or the state implementing the regulations may also exercise its discretion when enforcing the act in specific circumstances. Enforcement discretion may buy some plants additional time in the form of administrative consent decrees that put the plant on a schedule for compliance or shutdown.

It is also worth noting that EPA’s rules will be effective this January, more than six months before electricity demand [PDF] starts to rise in most regions, thus providing additional compliance time for some of the high emitting plants that run infrequently.

The electricity system can handle new mercury standards

Though some have raised concerns that EPA rules could lead to blackouts, a close look at these claims suggests the fears are unwarranted.

The hazardous air pollutant provisions have been used more than 50 times since the passage of the 1990 amendments, on everything from semiconductor manufacturing to petroleum refineries and dry cleaning.

In addition, the reductions that EPA is requiring are realistic:

• EPA recently conducted an information collection request to assist the rulemaking process, and found that [PDF] nearly 60 percent of the 178 coal respondents were already meeting the proposed standard.
• Seventeen states have their own mercury control programs.
• Six of those states [PDF] have standards more stringent than those proposed by EPA, and several of them have timelines more stringent than those imposed by the Clean Air Act.

In the event a company decides that it is uneconomic to install controls at a particular plant, there is reason to believe that these plants can be replaced in the necessary time frame. For example, both ISO-New England and PJM (who are responsible for ensuring the reliable operation of the electric grid in all or most of 13 states in the Northeast, Mid-Atlantic, and Midwest) have forward-looking markets designed to ensure that there are adequate generation resources in their regions. These are known as capacity markets.

Both of these markets address generation needs three years out, as that was determined to match the lead time required for the construction and development of new capacity. As discussed previously, three years is the minimum amount of time provided under the Clean Air Act, and there are several ways in which these deadlines can be extended if necessary.

Keep in mind that retirement isn’t necessarily a bad thing either. Many of the uncontrolled plants are more than 50 years old [PDF], and will eventually need to be replaced with newer, more efficient plants.

There are a number of underutilized [PDF] clean plants, and there is some evidence that they are not running because the older, less efficient plants have been able to skirt regulation.

It is time that we correct this. These rules are long overdue. A number of states have already taken action. Many plants are already in compliance with the new standards. Most importantly, these are standards that will bring considerable public health benefits. We should not delay action any longer. It is time that the rest of the plants catch up.

Flooding in Pakistan.Photo: N B

The world must brace for more extreme weather. That is the clear message from a new report that finds climate change is likely to bring more record-breaking temperatures, heat waves, and heavy downpours. The much-anticipated Special Report on Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation (SREX) — the summary of which was released today by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) — provides new evidence that links extreme weather events and climate change.

According to the summary for policymakers, the SREX report concludes that climate change will likely lead to global increases in extreme weather, along with heightened risks to livelihoods, human health, and infrastructure, both today and in the future. It also describes the costs — in terms of lives lost and economic damages — that have already occurred, plus those that will likely result from this phenomenon, and the societal implications of a warmer world, in which yesterday’s extreme conditions become the new norm.

Below we provide five key takeaways from the report summary:

1. Extreme weather is on the rise around the world.

The report concludes that several types of extreme weather have become more intense or more frequent during the past half-century.¹ Specifically, the SREX finds that: 

• In the case of temperatures, warm days and nights have become more frequent, and cold days and nights less so.²
• Areas of the world with a significant increase in the number of heavy downpours exceeded the areas of the world where the opposite is true.³
• With “medium confidence,” some areas of the world have experienced more intense and longer droughts.
• The global trend of rising sea levels has led to an increase in the occurrence of extreme coastal high water,⁴ from tidal or other high water events.

2. Extreme weather and climate disasters are deadly and expensive, and losses are increasing.

Given the recent flooding in Thailand, the drought in the Horn of Africa, and the flooding of the Mississippi and Missouri Rivers, it should come as no surprise to learn that such events are costly — both in terms of lives lost and economic damages. The SREX finds that losses from weather and climate disasters are indeed rising, with the increase largely due to increased exposure, with more people and infrastructure in harm’s way. Developing countries are particularly affected, with the greatest fatality rates (according to the report, during the period from 1970 to 2008, over 95 percent of deaths from natural disasters occurred in developing countries) and economic losses as a proportion of gross domestic product.

3. A warming world will likely be a more extreme world.

The extreme weather events unfolding around the world in recent years are only a harbinger of what is to come. For example, the report finds it is virtually certain⁵ that the frequency and magnitude of extreme high temperatures will increase, with warm spells, including heat waves, very likely⁶ increasing in length, frequency, and/or intensity over most land areas. And it is not just temperature extremes that will change. Heavy precipitation events will likely⁷ increase in frequency, climate projections imply possible changes in floods, and there is medium confidence that droughts will intensify in some seasons and areas.

4. Greenhouse-gas pollution is likely driving some of these trends.

Not only is extreme weather on the rise, but humans are likely driving some of these trends. The report finds it likely that rising greenhouse-gas pollution in the atmosphere has led to the observed rise in extreme high temperatures and to the rise in extreme coastal high water.⁸ Additionally, report authors attached “medium confidence” to the conclusion that humans have contributed to a global intensification of extreme precipitation. Though remarkable, these findings are not surprising, because they are consistent with what scientists have considered to be likely outcomes in a warmer world.

5. Adaptation and disaster risk management can enhance resilience in a changing climate; differences in vulnerability and exposure must be considered in the design of such initiatives.

Despite its very troubling conclusions, the report also details measures that can be taken to manage risks associated with extreme events. These include risk sharing and transfer mechanisms (e.g., insurance and reinsurance) and “low regret” measures that have co-benefits beyond addressing climate change (e.g., ecosystem restoration, building code enforcement, improved education). While incremental action can help reduce risks, more transformative changes to governance, values, and technological systems will also be required. In designing such interventions, differences in vulnerability and exposure must be considered, as impacts will not play out on a level playing field. A cyclone hitting Australia will not have the same impacts as a cyclone of similar magnitude hitting Bangladesh.

Tomorrow’s world will be a different one. Governments around the world must get serious about reducing greenhouse-gas emissions — both quickly and steeply — if we are to have a fighting chance for maintaining a more stable climate. The upcoming U.N. climate negotiations in Durban, South Africa, provide a critical opportunity for leadership on increasing the ambition of mitigation and finance commitments. Changes in extremes also place a premium on disaster risk management and adaptation initiatives that increase the resilience of those affected. Governments around the world are already acting to move from disaster relief to disaster preparedness, providing innovative examples that can be scaled up.

We have introduced five specific takeaways, but the most important message is this: We can no longer ignore the link between climate change and extreme weather events.

The time for decisive action to reduce emissions, advance adaptation, and move toward a better future climate is now.

Footnotes:

1. It should be noted that available weather and climate data are almost always more limited than research scientists would want them to be, both in terms of their coverage over time and spatial areas across the globe. This is particularly true for studies that focus on extreme weather events, which are very rare occurrences, by definition. This helps to explain why the science has heretofore been somewhat inconclusive on the issues of extreme weather addressed in the SREX, making the findings of this report all the more remarkable. 

2. The report determines that available evidence supports this conclusion at the 90 to 100 percent probability level. 

3. The report determines that available evidence supports this conclusion at the 66 to 100 percent probability level. 

4. The report determines that available evidence supports this conclusion at the 66 to 100 percent probability level. 

5. 99 to 100 percent probability assigned to the likelihood of the outcome. 

6. 90 to 100 percent probability assigned to the likelihood of the outcome. 

7. 66 to 100 percent probability assigned to the likelihood of the outcome. 

8. The report determines that available evidence supports this conclusion at the 66 to 100 percent probability level. 

Rapid transit buses, like these in Los Angeles, reduce emissions and are cheaper than light rail.Photo: Chris

On June 2, I had the pleasure of speaking at the C40 Summit in São Paulo, Brazil. The C40 Cities Climate Leadership Group consists of iconic cities from around the world committed to addressing climate change. Chaired by New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, the group has recently joined forces with the Clinton Climate Initiative’s Cities Program. Together, this partnership can have a meaningful role in the fight against climate change.

Cities are already responsible for more than 80 percent of the world’s greenhouse-gas emissions. By 2030, the world will have almost 5 billion city residents — about 60 percent of the world’s population. These cities will need to learn quickly how to build housing and transportation systems, ensure food and energy supplies, and deal with waste — all while cutting back greenhouse-gas emissions.

Cities are part of the problem, but they are also part of the solution. They are centers of innovation and incubators for new technologies. This was apparent at the C40, where representatives from cities as diverse as Lagos, Jakarta, and New York were sharing stories of what works and what doesn’t.

My job at the C40 was to participate in a roundtable discussion on some of the ways cities can address their energy consumption. This is a real challenge, as energy accounts for almost 65 percent of global greenhouse-gas emissions. We can’t successfully tackle climate change without redefining how we produce and consume energy.

Fortunately, there are opportunities in this space. A recent IPCC report estimates renewable energy could provide 80 percent of the world’s energy by 2050. Today, it represents only 13 percent of energy supply.^[1] We have to do more, quickly, to both scale up renewable energy and improve energy efficiency. This is where cities can step in and show the way. Here are some examples of how they might lead:

Measuring greenhouse-gas emissions

From his chair’s seat at the conference, Bloomberg tweeted, “If we can measure it, we can manage it.”

This is absolutely true. Cities must know what their greenhouse-gas emissions are before they can set targets and develop policies to reduce them. Bloomberg’s tweet was a reference to a key initiative announced at the meeting: the C40′s collaboration with International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI) — Local Governments for Sustainability — to develop a standard for measuring city greenhouse-gas emissions.

ICLEI’s new effort is building upon years of accounting experience, including WRI’s Greenhouse Gas Protocol — now the leading international accounting tool for businesses and governments to measure greenhouse-gas emissions. WRI has begun developing a city-level emissions accounting framework tailored for China. WRI’s city framework will measure both direct and indirect emissions. This means that emissions from goods and services produced and consumed by city residents would be included in a city’s emissions assessment.

Our goal is for WRI’s city accounting framework to complement and align seamlessly with ICLEI’s standard, so that cities all around the world are able to accurately measure — and thereby manage — their greenhouse-gas emissions.

Bus rapid transit

Another exciting possibility for cities lies in bus rapid transit (BRT). BRT systems comprise dedicated bus lanes, large buses with multiple doors to make boarding and exiting faster, and stations where you can buy your ticket before you get on the bus. These systems provide transportation to more people, more efficiently than ordinary bus lines.

Cities are installing these systems because they bring reductions in cost, commuting time, and traffic, among other reasons. But another co-benefit of BRTs is the reduced emissions:

• They encourage people to uses buses instead of cars or motorcycles.
• They are much more efficient than regular bus lines and therefore use less fuel.
• They can even encourage smarter, denser urban planning and thereby reduce the number and length of motorized trips required for urban life.

BRT installation is accelerating at a tremendous pace. Around 120 cities now have BRT systems or bus corridors, and the vast majority of them were constructed in the last 10 years. Interestingly, most cities embracing BRTs are in the developing world, where they have proven a less costly alternative to light rail.

Collaborative solar purchasing

Cities are prime locations for what is called “distributed on-site solar,” meaning solar power that is generated at small scale (like on individual rooftops) and often used at or near the same site where it is generated. The problem now is that each building owner needs to install his or her own panels, and learning about the different financing options, technologies, and permitting processes can be overwhelming.

At WRI, we are analyzing the possibilities of collaborative solar purchasing, which allows small homeowners or businesses in the same area to collectively negotiate solar power contracts. Bringing buyers together, educating them about the technology, and clarifying financing options can lower costs by 10-15 percent and save 75 percent on administrative time and fees.

There are several initiatives in the United States, supported by the U.S. Department of Energy Solar America Cities program:

• In Portland, Ore., residential solar photovoltaic installations have tripled since the city began facilitating collaborative purchases.
• San Francisco, in collaboration with WRI and others, is designing a new collaborative purchase program for businesses. Negotiations are underway with vendors now, and the first round of projects is likely to result in more than 2 megawatts of distributed solar installation.

Is this model applicable in other countries? We will soon see. China is currently designing its own Solar China Cities program — similar to the Solar America Cities program mentioned above — that will target 100 cities. And India has announced plans to support 60 solar cities before 2013.

Cities as climate leaders

At times here in Washington, optimism about our capacity to solve the climate crisis is in short supply. But our cities give us reason for hope. Though they can’t do it alone, these hubs of innovation are leading the way. By showing that fighting climate change goes hand in hand with creating jobs, increasing security, and improving the quality of life for our growing urban populations, these incubators may help to break down some of the inertia that persists in other political arenas.

—

Endnotes:

[1] Of the 13 percent share of renewable energy, traditional biomass makes up the majority at 10 percent while other modern renewable sources (wind, solar, geothermal, low impact hydropower, etc.) represent less than 1 percent.

Cross-posted from the World Resources Institute. The post was written by Jennifer Morgan, director of WRI’s Climate and Energy Program.

Today, the government of the United Kingdom took a significant step to shift to a low-carbon economy, providing clear signals to investors that the U.K. wants to host large-scale clean energy projects moving forward.

The agreement announced today takes the form of a legally binding target to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions 50 percent below 1990 levels by 2025, as part of the country’s fourth carbon budget. The agreement of the country’s Conservative and Liberal Democrat parties extends current targets and continues the country on an aggressive reduction path from 2023-2027.

This move sends a signal to the international community that action on climate is a priority for the economy as well as the environment. As Chris Huhne, the Energy and Climate Change secretary, said in announcing the target:

It will establish our competitive advantage in the most rapidly growing sectors of the world economy, generate jobs and export opportunities in these sectors, maintain energy security and protect our economy from oil price volatility.

Studies have shown that clean energy investments thrive where there is stable policy support, and setting targets is a critical first step.

The agreement was informed by the Committee on Climate Change, which calls for 80 percent reduction from 1990 levels by 2050, a recommendation that is in line with what most scientists suggest is necessary to avoid the worst impacts of climate change.

While the target is aggressive, in 2014 it will be reviewed against the European Union’s emissions trajectory and the government could adjust the target if the country’s reductions are more aggressive than those in the rest of the E.U. To achieve the target, policymakers both within the U.K. and in the E.U. will have to develop realistic policies that can facilitate the transition to low-carbon energy.

China’s got ambition.

The draft of China’s much-anticipated 12th Five-Year Plan was released this Saturday, March 5 at the opening session of the National People’s Congress (NPC). The plan will actually be brought to a vote at the close of the session later this week. While there may be some changes to the plan, in past years these have not been large.

The 118-page draft of the 12th Five-Year Plan is not yet available online, but we were able to acquire a hard copy to review. In the meantime, Xinhua provided a summary of the major targets included in the 12th Five-Year Plan. In addition, a number of the key reports delivered at the first day of the NPC are also online in both Chinese and English, and these reports include the Work Report issued by Premier Wen Jiabao. Premier Wen’s Work Report includes both an assessment of the previous five years and a summary of highlights of the next Five-Year Plan. Our analysis below is derived from both the initial draft of the 12th Five-Year Plan and the Work Report.

What’s notable in the plan and the work rwoeport is the prominent position of both climate change and environmental issues, in addition to energy. Indeed, not only is this the first Five-Year Plan that mentions climate change, but it is mentioned at the top of the environmental section. There is also a full paragraph detailing China’s commitment to international cooperation and the U.N.-led climate negotiation process, including concerns of climate finance and technology transfer. The plan also discusses the need to implement more climate adaptation-related policies, such as greater preparedness for extreme weather events.

Energy and climate targets: As expected, there are separate targets for energy intensity (16 percent reduction by 2015) and CO2 emissions per unit GDP (17 percent reduction by 2015). These are within the expected range and congruent with the 40 to 45 percent reduction in carbon intensity from 2005 levels that was first announced in the Copenhagen talks and reaffirmed in Cancun this past November. Clearly defined and distinct energy and CO2 emissions targets will help ensure provinces implement energy policies with carbon goals clearly in mind. Somewhat surprisingly, there was no mention of a total energy consumption target, which was recently announced by China’s former minister in charge of the National Energy Administration, Zhang Guobao. It will be interesting to see whether this emerges in the specific energy-sector plan that will come later this spring.

The draft plan and work reports also include noteworthy policies in:

Forests: China has been steadily increasing forest cover since the founding of the People’s Republic in 1949. This next five-year plan goes a significant distance toward meeting China’s Copenhagen commitment on forests. In the plan itself the Chinese government set a goal to increase the area of forest cover by 31 million acres by 2015, while in Premier Wen’s Work Report, he announced a forest stock volume goal of 785 million cubic yards. While the forest cover area goal seems more or less in line with the already stated 2020 goal to increase forest cover by 98 million acres over 2005 levels, the volume stock target seems more ambitious because it seeks to achieve almost half of the 15-year target of 1.7 billion cubic yards by year 2020.

Tracking implementation: To achieve these climate and energy targets, the level of detail and specificity, covering a full range of resource and environmental issues, provided in the plan and the work reports are impressive. Premier Wen stated that China would put in place “well-equipped statistical and monitoring systems for greenhouse-gas emissions, energy conservation and emissions reductions” to ensure these policies are tracked and properly implemented.

Efficiency: China has had a particularly successful track record on industrial energy efficiency in the previous five years. In the new plan, there are both new policies to promote greater industrial efficiency, and a major push to include all other sectors of the economy, including both new and existing buildings. For example, the plan introduces a 10,000 Enterprises Program. While we don’t have details as to what this program will be, it appears to be a ramp up of the successful Top 1,000 Enterprises Program. We’ll certainly be following this development closely in the coming months. Following the endorsement of new types of mechanisms in the October Party Plenum Document, the plan specifically endorses market approaches like energy service companies that help to finance energy efficiency.

Transport: While China certainly has plans for additional air and road transport, what is striking is the commitment to rail, both long distance and in urban mass transit. The plan includes proposals for the construction of 21,750 miles of high-speed rail and a goal to connect every city with a population greater than 500,000. There are also plans to improve subway and light rail in cities that already have urban transit systems, building new systems in at least nine other cities, and making plans for six or more cities. We expect to see more detail and perhaps more cities as the sector-specific plan becomes available.

Non-fossil energy: The plan incorporates the goal of 11.4 percent non-fossil fuels in primary energy consumption by 2015 announced by Zhang Guobao last month. China continues to exceed earlier targets in non-fossil development. For example, the five-year target for wind is 70 gigawatts of additional installation, which exceeds the 2020 target of just a few years ago. For nuclear, the plan is to install 40 additional gigawatts of capacity by 2015. China currently has around 10 gigawatts of installed nuclear capacity now, which means that if this five-year target is achieved, China is likely to exceed even the expectation of 70 gigawatts by 2020 discussed a year ago. If China achieves these numbers, it will have the world’s highest installed capacity of nuclear energy by 2020.

Environment: The plan itself does not make clear the specific targets for major environmental pollutants. However, they were all announced at an official NPC-connected press conference. On March 6, Zhang Ping, director of the National Development and Reform Commission, stated that the reduction targets for Chemical Oxygen Demand and Sulfur Dioxide are 8 percent, while ammonia nitrogen and nitrogen oxides are 10 percent. Director Zhang also said that these targets would be made binding for the first time in the 12th Five-Year Plan, as well as an “index evaluation system” implemented to allocate targets to provinces and ensure they are on track to meet reductions. We are not clear on exactly how these targets will be made binding, whether there will be additional documents at this NPC, or whether they will be binding in a later sector-specific plan.

While the plan itself is general on targets, it is much more specific on policies. It assigns specific targets for cities required to reach new motor vehicle emission standards and sets goals for a wide variety of environmental infrastructure, including wastewater and solid waste treatment. There is also a strong emphasis on reuse and recycling, or what the Chinese call “circular economy.”

China is a middle-income, developing country and the next five years is when it needs to put in place the infrastructure that will enable it to develop successfully into a high-income developing country and beyond. There’s a clear recognition in these plans of the importance of environmental sustainability in being able to reach not just higher levels of income and but also increased welfare of the Chinese people. The plan itself is highly specific in some areas but also in others somewhat unclear (for instance, target pollutants). Much of the clarity in implementation comes through sectoral plans and later regulations and guidance. We will continue to track policy implementation as it unfolds.

EPA standards can help business and drive innovation.

In the U.S. Capitol Visitor Center, I moderated a panel featuring representatives from businesses and public interest organizations: Paul Allen, senior vice president for corporate affairs and chief environmental officer at Constellation Energy, Dan Greenbaum, president of the Health Effects Institute, Franz Litz, senior fellow at WRI, and Dick Munson, senior vice president of public affairs at Recycled Energy Development. Rep. Jay Inslee (D-Wash.) opened the discussion.

This group of “strange bedfellows” had one thing in common: a strong interest in ensuring Congress does not extend the current period of regulatory uncertainty by preventing the EPA from using the Clean Air Act to regulate emissions. Panelists addressed several myths about the regulations often advanced by opponents of EPA action.

The first myth is that businesses and regulated industries are universally opposed to EPA standards that protect the public health and environment.

Paul Allen from the Baltimore-based utility Constellation Energy, a leading energy services company, stated, “Our view is that EPA is doing its best to follow the instructions, to play the game by the rules. We’re in an industry that is completely capable of responding to those rules. We expect that there will be reasonable flexibility in both the rules and enforcement guidelines.”

Allen pointed to two different periods in recent decades when the electric utility industry aptly demonstrated its ability to make rapid capital investment decisions by installing dozens of gigawatts of new power plant capacity over the course of just a few years.

“What’s important is that we get on with it,” Allen said.

Allen went on to discuss how existing state and federal regulations have led Constellation to make pollution control investments, resulting in jobs and economic benefits for his company. Unraveling the myth that EPA regulations will cost jobs, Allen said:

Constellation Energy has made investments in our largest coal-fired power plants, creating 1,600 job years for boilermakers and ironworkers and carpenters and master electricians and millwrights.

My own research on the U.S. manufacturing sector has found that installing efficiency-related pollution control upgrades could result in very substantial cost savings that would provide both immediate and lasting benefits to surrounding communities, both in terms of job security and environmental health.

Panelists also listed certainty — clear signals from the federal government on which regulations are happening, and when — as a critical reason for wanting pending EPA regulations to not be delayed beyond currently established timelines.

Dick Munson from Recycled Energy Development, a company that helps manufacturers convert wasted energy into electricity and heat, explained, “the more certainty we can have, the more business and American industry can respond.”

Allen agreed: “We are staunch believers in markets and price signals that markets deliver to people who are making very large capital investments in the electric power sector.”

Despite industry claims that EPA standards could be a burden on American companies, panelists countered that standards would help them develop new products and more efficient technologies.

“Let’s have faith in American innovation, for goodness’ sake!” said Munson.

In addition to the direct economic benefits that can be gained from EPA standards, Dan Greenbaum and Rep. Inslee pointed out the costs if the EPA does not act.

Greenbaum, an internationally recognized expert on the subject, provided an overview of the negative health effects tied to inefficient power plants and greenhouse gases, including asthma, heart disease, and cancer, each of which impose very significant hidden costs to society and a drag on the economy.

WRI’s Franz Litz also outlined how the EPA is acting within the bounds of the law and moving at a reasonable pace.

“The Clean Air Act is an instruction manual that previous congresses gave EPA. They did not give the EPA a blank check or a blank piece of paper to write any regulations they wanted. The EPA is expected to act reasonably.”

As panelists spoke, it was clear that they agreed with WRI’s research finding that well-designed EPA regulations can be both a win for the economy and for the environment.

As Allen summed up: “Companies have known for many years that these pollutants will be regulated. It’s not a surprise, it’s not a mystery, and it’s not something that needs necessarily to compromise the reliability of the U.S. electric power system.”

Cross-posted from the World Resources Institute. This piece was written Deborah Seligsohn, principal advisor to WRI’s climate and energy program on issues in China, and Angel Hsu and is reprinted courtesy of WRI.

2011 will be a big year for climate and energy policy development in China, so we thought we’d highlight some of the key China energy and climate-related stories to watch out for during the course of the year. We’ve known to expect major developments now for over a year, since China’s commitments made at the Copenhagen climate talks in late 2009 were scheduled to be implemented in the 2011 12th Five Year Plan. Below we outline some key issues and dates to watch over the course of the coming year:

• Clean energy high on the agenda for President Hu’s visit to the U.S in January. President Obama will host a visit by Chinese President Hu Jintao on Jan. 19 in Washington, D.C. This bilateral meeting comes at an important time in U.S.-China relations, which were strained for most of 2010 but ended on a few sweet notes — improved military relations, a positive outcome at the Cancun climate talks, and a number of trade issues resolved during the December 2010 Joint Commission on Commerce and Trade meeting. While the difficult political-military and economic issues will clearly be a major topic of the presidents’ discussion, expect many of the images to highlight new energy collaboration. The focus will include the new Clean Energy Research Centers agreed to during Obama’s November 2009 visit to Beijing, which are now moving forward, as well as joint business ventures.
• Energy and environment targets to increase in ambition in the Twelfth Five-Year Plan to be released in March. Expect carbon to appear as a target, as well as some other key pollutants such as nitrogen and phosphorus, for the first time in this next plan. Covering the years 2011 through the end of 2015, the Twelfth Five-Year Plan will establish the overall direction for all aspects of government and economic planning in China. China is expected to implement its 40-45 percent carbon intensity reduction target first announced in Copenhagen and recently formalized in the Cancun Agreements.

  In addition to adding carbon intensity, the Plan will most likely continue to use energy intensity (energy use per unit GDP) as a metric. While the target was 20 percent in the 11th Five Year Plan, this time it is widely expected to be somewhat lower. Many of the low-hanging fruit — the easiest policies to implement — have already been taken. The National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC) has said the new target will be between 15 and 20 percent, and one energy official was reported in the press as saying it would be 17.3 percent. As best we can tell the actual number is still being discussed and has not yet been finalized. Expect most other aspects of energy policy to be fleshed out in provincial and sectoral plans developed in the course of 2011, rather than in the overall national plan, which only gives fairly broad-brush guidance.

  The other major environment component of the Five Year Plan will be targets for key pollutants. In the 11th Five Year Plan, targets were set for SO2 (an air pollutant) and Chemical Oxygen Demand (a measure of water pollution) — both to reduce by 10 percent — and both targets were met even as the total size of the economy almost doubled. These targets by themselves could not solve China’s pollution problem, but focusing on two measures was a smart strategy by the Ministry of Environmental Protection. The ministry has been able to establish a record of success — both targets have been surpassed, and there is now broad consensus to add additional targets. Expect new targets for air — at least for NOx (a critical pollutant in its own right as well as a contributor to terrestrial ozone, or smog), and possibly for some others. Expect water pollution to be an increasing focus under the 12th Five Year Plan. At least some organic water pollutants are likely to be named key targets.

• China will lead the world in high-speed rail, with the four-hour Beijing-Shanghai link launching service in June, 2011. China is already well on the way to building the world’s largest high-speed rail network, with railways such as Beijing-Tianjin and Wuhan-Guangzhou in operation. It currently has over 7,000 kilometers (4,350 miles) of high-speed rail, and expects to complete 13,000 kilometers (8,078 miles) by 2012. 2011 looks to be a banner year with the much-anticipated $33.3 billion new line between Beijing and Shanghai opening date of June 2011 just announced. Rail travel time will be reduced from 12 hours to four, making rail genuinely competitive with air and far faster than roads. In addition to the long distance lines, in August 2010, the NDRC approved the construction of more than 2,000 kilometers (1,243 miles) of regional rail transit networks to link cities in densely populated areas like the Pearl River Delta (the area near Hong Kong and Guanghzou).
• Much climate policy in 2011 will be about enacting climate commitments at home, but there is potential for more international debate as the November/December Climate Talks in Durban, South Africa approach. Expect China to focus first this year on domestic implementation of its carbon emissions pledges made in Copenhagen and reaffirmed in Cancun as it implements the 12th Five Year Plan. Cancun resolved some major issues on monitoring and reporting and financial and technology mechanisms that should lead to productive developments both domestically and internationally this year. The more amicable atmosphere in Cancun could carry forward to help make progress in still unresolved areas, including defining the ultimate legal form of the new climate agreements and how to handle the expiration of the Kyoto Protocol’s first commitment period. But these issues are of great concern to China and we can expect the rhetoric to heat up if progress appears slow as the South Africa meetings approach.

Over the course of the year, we can also expect:

• China will continue to promote clean energy industries. Expect China to continue to invest heavily in a number of non-carbon or reduced carbon sectors, including renewable energy, nuclear power, electric vehicles, and energy efficiency technologies. It is now touted as the most attractive renewables market in the world. Expect the Chinese government to continue to promote the industry — its announced
  “pillar Industries” for the next five years include energy conservation, environmental protection, new energy technologies, and new-energy vehicles — and international businesses to continue to be keen to participate, despite some ongoing trade disputes. We can expect to see another doubling of wind energy (see Steve Sawyer’s presentation attached to the ChinaFAQs blog on wind power for the growth of the Chinese wind sector). 2011 should also see the start of the first solar thermal power plant projects in China. By year’s end also expect to see one of the world’s most advanced power plants, China’s first commercial-scale Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle power plant GreenGen, come on line, and then look to its second phase, which will start to explore carbon capture and storage. 2011 should also see new developments in end-use energy efficiency, as China’s first demand-side management regulations come into effect.
• Chinese cities will institute new policies to address traffic challenges and increase urban transport efficiency. Expect to see new and more diverse efforts to address the extreme traffic congestion gridlocking many city roadways. China already has urban mass transit system improvements, including metro and bus rapid transit systems underway in 31 cities, but 2011 looks to be the year when a more policy-based set of measures gets introduced, perhaps in multiple cities. Creative approaches at traffic control began with the 2008 Beijing Olympics and its odd/even driving days, but few administrative or market-based measures were tried in the following two years. Beijing city has already floated a broad set of proposals for controlling vehicle licenses, adding to the costs of driving in town, improving access to mass transit and restoring the city’s once-vaunted bikeability, and it is just one of many cities looking at using policy in addition to new infrastructure to improve urban transport.
• China will continue to face resource dilemmas where market motives and environmental concerns conflict. China’s export-oriented growth model over the last 20 years has been based on intensive export of both raw and manufactured goods, and there is a growing understanding within China of the toll on the environment. Increasingly the Chinese have wondered whether exporting raw materials is worth the environmental costs. The U.S. and other major trading partners filed WTO cases in 2009 regarding 9 critical minerals and there has been increasing discussion of a similar case being filed on another set of minerals, called rare earths. These cases interweave competitiveness and environmental issues on both sides in complex ways that we are likely to see continue to play out as the results of China’s rapid growth and the interlinking of global supply chains continue to emerge.
• China will experiment with market-based mechanisms to promote energy and climate goals. Don’t expect a national carbon cap-and-trade system from China in the next year, but do expect China to continue to explore the use of market-based approaches to controlling carbon and other pollutant emissions. There has been growing enthusiasm for experimenting with both the cap-and-trade approach and a carbon tax in addition to the target-based approaches that have been central to China’s energy and climate policies to date. Knowledgeable policy advisers tell us that some kind of “environmental tax” is likely to emerge at some point during the 12th Five Year Plan period (2011-2015), and we also expect to see new experiments in trading schemes. The specifics are likely to start emerging after the actual Five Year Plan is announced in March, and our best guess is that we’ll see local or sectoral experiments, rather than any full-fledged national program, in the next year.

Overall, expect continuing robustness in China’s energy and climate policies in the next year. And expect that the major efforts will be focused on domestic implementation as China moves to fully implement its previous commitments.

Cross-posted from the World Resources Institute. This piece was written by Senior Associate John Larsen and is reprinted courtesy of WRI.

After years of delay, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is working to reduce dangerous and toxic pollutants released to the air and water by electric power plants, as required by the Clean Air Act and other statutes. Four key points about the EPA’s actions are clear:

• Contrary to assertions by industry groups, the EPA is pursuing a realistic timeline over the next decade to bring the electric power industry into compliance with the law.
• In most cases, the electric power sector has been on notice for several years (in some cases several decades) that these pollutants would be regulated.
• Without new regulations, these pollutants will continue to impair America’s waterways, heat the planet, perpetuate acid rain, and lead to preventable hospital visits and premature deaths.
• In each of its rulemakings, the EPA provides for an extensive, open public process based on evidence. This leads to more robust and fair rules for the electric power sector. As the EPA finalizes each rule, it will establish an increasingly clear pathway for investments in an American electric generation fleet for the 21st century.

The Wall Street Journal and major electric power corporations have frequently suggested that the EPA’s regulatory timeline is unworkable. The largest industry trade group, the Edison Electric Institute (EEI), has produced a slide that purports to display an onslaught of new requirements for power plants. EEI has been distributing this slide widely on Capitol Hill where it presumably hopes to win lawmakers’ support for additional delays in EPA regulation or even a stripping of the EPA’s authority.

The EPA regulatory process is far from a “train wreck.” EEI’s misleading timeline, reproduced in Figure 1 below, mostly consists of procedural events and activities that will not impose a direct compliance obligation on power plants. This serves only to spread confusion about the EPA’s actual regulatory schedule.

WRI has identified four categories of EPA activities on the EEI timeline that are potentially misleading. When these activities are removed, only the timing of actual new compliance obligations is left. In Figure 2 (below), “X”s (color coded for each filter in the screening process) have been applied to remove events from the figure that are not consequential from a compliance standpoint. The screening filters are as follows:

1. (Blue X’s) Rules that have been remanded or vacated by court decisions that do not impose compliance obligations.
2. (Green X’s) Rules that are already in effect representing compliance obligations that already exist; there are no new requirements imposed by these rules.
3. (Purple X’s) Public input through the rulemaking process (leads to more robust and fair rules for the electric power sector, and should not be conflated with new compliance obligations).
4. (Red X’s) National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) rules for various pollutants that set standards for states to achieve. They do not establish new requirements for electric generation units.

Figure 3 (below) shows a more accurate picture of the timeline for new requirements applicable to electric power plants.

The EPA is carrying out the intent of Congress (through the passage of the bipartisan Clean Air Act and subsequent amendments) to clean the nation’s air and water. These rules can help the United States transition to cleaner and more efficient power plants, by establishing a clear pathway for investments in an electric generation fleet for the 21st century.

The CAA requires the EPA and states to regulate and reduce harmful pollutants from major emissions sources including power plants. To date, this framework has delivered substantial improvements in air quality and significant public health benefits estimated between $77 and $519 billion annually. Over the next decade, power plants will be subject to new rules under the CAA as well as the Clean Water Act (CWA) and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) to control substances that cause serious health problems and substantial damage to America’s natural resources. These rules will take effect after long lead times. In most cases industry has been on notice for years that these pollutants would be regulated.

The electric power sector has had substantial notice — in some cases for decades — that power plants would be subject to regulations to control dangerous pollutants.

Half of the regulations under consideration by the EPA have been in the regulatory pipeline for over a decade. Due to administrative delays and litigation resulting in court decisions remanding or vacating previous rules, many of these rules have not been finalized or the final rules were reversed. In many cases Congress has set statutory deadlines for the EPA to act, the EPA has missed the deadlines, and courts have ordered the EPA to act. Table 1 below outlines the amount of time the electric sector has had to prepare for new regulations.

The case of mercury from power plants provides a good example of how much regulatory lag-time there has been for the electric power industry to prepare for new pollutant rules. The CAA required the EPA to study mercury and other hazardous air pollutant (HAP) emissions from electric power plants and determine whether or not regulating these emissions would be necessary and appropriate. In 2000, the EPA determined that regulations were appropriate, effectively putting the electric power industry on notice that controls on mercury would be required. The EPA then proposed and finalized rules (including the Clean Air Mercury Rule) that were ultimately vacated by the courts, which found that the EPA had not acted within the constraints of the CAA. The EPA now intends to issue revised draft and final rules in accordance with CAA requirements in 2011. Compliance obligations would take effect in 2015.

Thus, the electric power industry has had 15 years to prepare, from the determination in 2000 to the expected date of compliance obligations in 2015.

Finalizing regulation removes uncertainty that might otherwise stymie new investments. The ultimate stringency and compliance obligations for most of the regulations the EPA is pursuing will remain uncertain until rules are final. The statutes — RCRA, CWA, and the CAA — establish which pollutants will be subject to regulation and the relevant legal standards; the specifics are established during the EPA rulemakings. The longer it takes the EPA to finalize new pollutant rules, the longer plant operators face uncertainty as to what will be required.

Not all EPA actions will create new regulatory regimes

It is important to note that some EPA rules do not constitute new regulatory programs. For example, sulfur dioxide (SO2) emissions from power plants have been covere
d by cap-and-trade programs that began in 1995. Nitrogen oxides (NOx) emissions were the subject of a cap-and-trade program covering plants in the eastern half of the country since at least 2003. The Clean Air Interstate Rule and its successor, the Transport Rule, extend NOx cap-and-trade to new states and increase the stringency of requirements for units already subject to the cap-and-trade for NOx and SO2. Power plant operators are familiar with these regulatory frameworks and are familiar with their operation. While increasing the stringency of these rules may require additional investments in control strategies, there is no fundamentally new requirement in play.

The EPA regulatory process provides opportunities for industry input

There are few, if any surprises in the very public and largely transparent EPA regulatory process. Multiple events must take place before any actual compliance obligation is imposed on an electric power plant or any other regulated entity. The EPA must issue proposed rules and seek public comment. Some rulemakings are initiated with advanced notices of proposed rulemaking, so that the process has extra opportunities for industry and public comment, and some start with studies that are conducted with public input and comment. This process allows the electric power industry to have substantial input into the shape of new regulations and allows the industry to better understand what may be required of them by the EPA when rules are finalized. Fears of agency overreach are misplaced given the built-in limitations on EPA’s authority contained in the CAA.

Often rules are litigated; one outcome can be to send the rule back to the EPA for further work. Many of the EPA’s rules are issued on schedules established by the federal courts — because the EPA has already missed the statutory deadline for promulgation. Only the final rule imposes a direct compliance obligation — after which there are practical implications for power plant owners and operators as they make investments in their generation fleets.

Why is the EPA regulating power plants at all?

The EPA is responding to direction from Congress to reduce the human health and environmental effects of mercury (as well as other HAPs), SO2, NOx, greenhouse gases (GHGs), coal ash, cooling water intake and discharge, industrial water effluent. Mercury is a neurotoxin that causes brain damage. SO2 and NOX cause acid rain, regional haze and can cause or worsen asthma and aggravate cardio-pulmonary disease leading to increased hospital visits and premature death. A recent example of the dangers of coal ash was the major spill of ash at the Tennessee Valley Authority’s Kingston plant in 2008 where irresponsible containment of coal ash caused waterways and communities to be inundated with waste. Electric power plants are major sources of many pollutants that the EPA is regulating or intends to regulate.

Electric power plants are a major source of pollutants that substantially contribute to ongoing public health and environmental problems that impose real costs to the economy. When just air pollutants are considered, electric power plants represent the following shares of total U.S. emissions in 2005:

• 70 percent of SO2 emissions
• 50 percent of mercury emissions
• 34 percent of GHG emissions
• 18 percent of NOX emissions

By controlling these emissions using appropriate regulations under clear statutory authority the EPA will go a long way towards meeting its mandate to protect public health and welfare. The electric power industry has had substantial time to prepare for regulations and once rules are final the industry will have a clear regulatory roadmap to guide investments. Misleading charts that exaggerate EPA actions such as those distributed by EEI cause confusion that will only increase uncertainty for the electric power industry and jeopardize important efforts to protect public health.

This post is written by World Resources Institute Climate Director Jennifer Morgan, and is reprinted courtesy of WRI.

Why does Cancun matter?

Unlike Copenhagen, this year’s climate meeting in Cancun, COP-16, is not expected to result in a comprehensive legally binding agreement. However, countries could use the meeting to make significant progress toward change on the ground. In order to achieve this, countries need to move past their current negotiating positions and find solutions. They will also need to map a process to finalize any decisions, and decide the eventual legal form of the agreement. If Cancun does not bring progress, much of the energy around an international agreement will likely move from the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) to other fora. That makes this is a key juncture for the U.N. process to remain at the center of an international climate agreement.

What decisions can be made in Cancun?

In addition to finding a way forward under the Kyoto Protocol, the goal for the COP is to conclude with a “balanced package of decisions” that will move negotiations forward on a number of key issues. This so-called “balanced package” includes a range of issues [see below] which hold different importance to countries. Negotiators must find balance both within each issue and among the issues. They must also complete the decisions that were nearly finalized in Copenhagen, take note of the Copenhagen Accord which referenced most of the issues, and launch a number of new mechanisms and possibly decide to create the so-called Copenhagen Green Fund. This process includes decisions to:

• Establish a technology mechanism — including a climate technology network and center — that will help countries develop and share new technologies
• Establish an adaptation framework
• Establish a REDD+ mechanism
• Create a finance mechanism/fund

Negotiators need to flesh out the substance behind each of these decisions, agree to those core elements, and map out a process to finalize the details by next year’s meeting in South Africa.

Fortunately, just in the past month, there has been progress on a number of these issues which should assist countries in finding agreement. It is not likely, however, that these decisions will move forward without negotiators agreeing to the full balanced package.

What other issues remain contentious?

Countries need to think about how to address the so-called “crunch issues:” transparency, mitigation and legal form.

On transparency, developed countries want to know that they can adequately compare each others’ targets. In order to do so, negotiators need to agree to common metrics for accounting of developed country emissions targets. Currently, robust rules exist for reporting and comparing targets under the Kyoto Protocol, but no such metrics exist for Copenhagen Accord pledges.

On finance, developed countries need to be more transparent on who is funding what and where. This could be done through a decision to create guidelines for a common reporting framework and a process to fill in the details.

Transparency around developing countries actions to reduce emissions is also important. Negotiators will need to decide on a measurement, reporting and verification (MRV) process for developing country actions. Issues around transparency should be linked in the balanced package.

Countries also need to decide what to do with the emissions and actions pledges included in the Copenhagen Accord. There are several options to formalize these pledges in the UNFCCC. As it is clear that these pledges are not enough to avoid what scientists tell us is needed to avoid the worst impacts of climate change, negotiators will need to note the inadequacy, provide an opportunity for countries to strengthen the pledges, and decide that a robust scientific review should occur no later than 2015.

Finally, understanding how the Kyoto Protocol second commitment period links with any decisions or amendments made under the other negotiating track — the Ad Hoc Working Group on Long-term Cooperative Action under the Convention (AWG-LCA) — will be essential for many countries to allow the process to move forward constructively.

What does the United States need to do to help jumpstart the process?

The failure in the United States to pass a comprehensive climate and energy bill will not make the negotiations any easier. However, WRI has found that with existing authorities, administrative agencies — like EPA, DOT, and others — can get the United States in the range of a 17 percent reduction below 2005 levels domestically if the Administration pursues a so-called “go getter” scenario. This is what the United States pledged to in Copenhagen, and should serve as a good starting point for the Administration.

Indeed, in order to reassure other countries of the United States’ intent to meet that target, President Obama should reaffirm his commitment to the 17 percent target and his intent to inscribe it into the UNFCCC. The United States — like several other developed countries — also needs to meet its financial commitments to assist developing countries that were made at Copenhagen.

As the Cancun negotiations are about to kick off, these steps would help show the world that the United States is serious about addressing climate change and moving to a low-carbon future, thus fitting in a key piece of the puzzle for progress in Cancun.