<![CDATA[Grist - Comment Feed for Pulitzers await the enterprising journalist who digs into the RGGI efficiency story]]> Grist Comment Feed en Comment #1 by Sean Casten http://www.grist.org/article/rggi-not-dead-yet/ Fri, 26 Sep 2008 07:18:05 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/rggi-not-dead-yet/1 RGGI is a bit goofy to analyze

You raise good points, Adam, but I think the really hard thing with RGGI is the sheer confusion.  First, participation is limited to powerplants >25 MW, except in those states that choose to allow others to participate via offsets.  This leaves a lot of CO2 sources out of the system, and affects different states in different ways.

On top of that, the allocations distributed by state were the result of a rather complex political settlement, tied only by happenstance to the actual emissions in the state.   In theory, they took an "allocation to generation" methodology, whereby the allocations are set based on historic CO2 production.  However, this put states like Vermont at a steep disadvantage, because they have such little CO2 emissions per MWh of power production from >25 MW power plants.  (VT generation is dominated by a single nuclear facility in the southern end of the state).  VT therefore got an allocation well in excess of it's actual in-state emissions, while others got less.

The result of all of that is that it's very hard to say exactly who has an incentive to participate in RGGI and to what degree - some folks are long on allocations, some are short, some chose to allow non-power carbon sources and sinks to participate, some didn't... whether this leads to a net upward or negative pressure is damned near random, and certainly not a very efficient way to price carbon.  

As I say, goofy.  

]]> RGGI is a bit goofy to analyze

You raise good points, Adam, but I think the really hard thing with RGGI is the sheer confusion.  First, participation is limited to powerplants >25 MW, except in those states that choose to allow others to participate via offsets.  This leaves a lot of CO2 sources out of the system, and affects different states in different ways.

On top of that, the allocations distributed by state were the result of a rather complex political settlement, tied only by happenstance to the actual emissions in the state.   In theory, they took an "allocation to generation" methodology, whereby the allocations are set based on historic CO2 production.  However, this put states like Vermont at a steep disadvantage, because they have such little CO2 emissions per MWh of power production from >25 MW power plants.  (VT generation is dominated by a single nuclear facility in the southern end of the state).  VT therefore got an allocation well in excess of it's actual in-state emissions, while others got less.

The result of all of that is that it's very hard to say exactly who has an incentive to participate in RGGI and to what degree - some folks are long on allocations, some are short, some chose to allow non-power carbon sources and sinks to participate, some didn't... whether this leads to a net upward or negative pressure is damned near random, and certainly not a very efficient way to price carbon.  

As I say, goofy.  

]]> Comment #2 by rsmith02 http://www.grist.org/article/rggi-not-dead-yet/ Mon, 29 Sep 2008 04:51:07 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/rggi-not-dead-yet/2 offsets

Some of the above commentary doesn't make sense to me.

RGGI= 25MW or greater generation, period.  So far, RGGI only has a few categories of offsets and none are power sector-related, and I don't think that would be allowed.  

RGGI's price is a little over $3/ton, so I doubt offsets will be terribly attractive anyway.

I'm not sure if the state by state differences matter a lot as carbon is tradeable throughout the 10 state region.  A ton is a ton is a ton.  The important thing is that the system as a whole is overallocated as actual emissions are lower than expected.

The best news is that almost all allowances are getting auctioned so whoever needs them gets to pay for the privilege.

]]> offsets

Some of the above commentary doesn't make sense to me.

RGGI= 25MW or greater generation, period.  So far, RGGI only has a few categories of offsets and none are power sector-related, and I don't think that would be allowed.  

RGGI's price is a little over $3/ton, so I doubt offsets will be terribly attractive anyway.

I'm not sure if the state by state differences matter a lot as carbon is tradeable throughout the 10 state region.  A ton is a ton is a ton.  The important thing is that the system as a whole is overallocated as actual emissions are lower than expected.

The best news is that almost all allowances are getting auctioned so whoever needs them gets to pay for the privilege.

]]>