Order Code RL33812
Climate Change: Action by States To Address
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
January 18, 2007
Jonathan L. Ramseur
Environmental Policy Analyst
Resources, Science, and Industry Division

Climate Change: Action by States To Address
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Summary
In the absence of a federal climate change program, a number of states have
taken actions that directly address greenhouse gases. States’ efforts cover a wide
range of policies, from outlining possible strategies to setting mandatory greenhouse
gas emission standards. Although much of the early activity was largely symbolic,
the more recent state actions have been more pragmatic.
The states’ motivations may be as diverse as the actions themselves. Some
states are motivated by projections of climatic changes, while others view their
policies as economic opportunities. States also point to the potential co-benefits of
reducing greenhouse gases: improvements in air quality, traffic congestion, and
energy security. Another driver behind state action is the possibility of catalyzing
federal legislation.
Most of the states have shown at least a basic interest in climate change issues.
Forty-two states have conducted greenhouse gas inventories; 30 states have either
completed or are in the process of preparing climate change action plans; 12 states
have set statewide greenhouse gas targets. However, only a small number of states
have implemented or are creating mandatory emission reduction programs.
The most significant developments have come from California and from a group
of states in the Northeast. The Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI), a
partnership of seven northeastern states, sets up a cap-and-trade system aimed at
limiting carbon dioxide emissions from power plants. This is scheduled to take
effect in 2009. California has made several notable steps. In 2004, the state issued
regulations to reduce greenhouse gases from motor vehicles. Ten other states have
formally adopted California’s new vehicle requirements. In 2006, California passed
two milestone climate change statutes. The first would establish a state-wide cap on
greenhouse gases. The second would effectively limit the use of coal-generated
electricity in California.
Predicting the precise consequences of the state-led climate change actions is
difficult. Some actions, particularly the recent California legislation, may impact
energy markets to some degree. Many observers suggest that the quantity and range
of state actions will catalyze federal activity. Industry stakeholders are especially
concerned that the states will create a patchwork of climate change regulations across
the nation. This prospect is causing some industry leaders to call for a federal
climate change program. If Congress seeks to establish a federal program, the
experiences and lessons learned in the states may be instructive.
Although some states are taking aggressive action, their possible emission
reductions may be offset by increased emissions in states without mandatory
reduction requirements. This is perhaps the central limitation of state climate change
programs in actually affecting total greenhouse gas emissions. Legal challenges
represent another obstacle for state programs, particularly for the more aggressive,
mandatory programs.

Contents
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Direct Action Versus Indirect Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Direct Actions by States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
State Action Plans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Targets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Tracking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Greenhouse Gas Inventories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Greenhouse Gas Registries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Mandatory Greenhouse Gas Reporting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Mandatory Programs to Reduce Greenhouse Gases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Emission Reduction from Power Plants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Emission Reductions from Motor Vehicles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
California’s Statewide Emission Reductions Law . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Other Mandatory Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Issues for Congress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Potential Effects of State Actions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
States as Policy Laboratories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Possible Market Influences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Patchwork of Regulations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Limitations of State Actions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
List of Figures
Figure 1: States with Climate Change Action Plans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
List of Tables
Table 1: Statewide Greenhouse Gas Targets Compared with Emissions Data
from 1990 and Recent Years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Table 2: Top Carbon Dioxide Emissions by Nation and
U.S. States (2001 data) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Climate Change: Action by States
To Address Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Introduction
Over the past century, particularly in recent decades, scientists have documented
increases in global temperature and sea levels, decreases of sea ice in the Arctic, and
melting of continental ice sheets and mountain glaciers. There is increasing evidence
that human activities are at least partially responsible for some of these effects.1 This
is based upon the combination of two conclusions. First, global temperature
increases are linked in some manner to the measurable increases of greenhouse gas
concentrations in the atmosphere.2 Second, human activities (e.g., fossil fuel
combustion, industrial processes, and deforestation) have contributed to the increased
concentration of greenhouse gases in the earth’s atmosphere.
The link between greenhouse gas emissions and climate change has motivated
efforts to achieve reductions of emissions. In 1992, the United States ratified the
United Nations’ Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), which
called on industrialized countries to initiate greenhouse gas reduction.3 However, in
early 2001, President George W. Bush rejected the UNFCCC 1997 Kyoto Protocol,
which called for legally binding commitments by developed countries to reduce their
greenhouse gas emissions.
Over the past decade, the federal government has promulgated or proposed a
variety of voluntary and regulatory actions that, while not specifically seeking to
reduce greenhouse gases, may have yielded emission reductions as a byproduct.4 In
recent years, there has been some congressional support for a mandatory reduction
1 This report does not address the debates associated with the climate change science nor the
role of human activity.
2 For example, carbon dioxide, the primary greenhouse gas, has risen worldwide from 280
parts per million (ppm) to over 380 ppm over the past 150 years.
3 The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) defines
greenhouse gases to include carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons,
perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluorane.
4 For example, federal programs that promote energy efficiency or the use of renewable
energy sources have the potential to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

CRS-2
program. For example, the Senate version of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 included
a “sense of the Senate” Resolution5 stating:
It is the sense of the Senate that Congress should enact a comprehensive and
effective national program of mandatory, market-based limits and incentives on
emissions of greenhouse gases that slow, stop, and reverse the growth of such
emissions at a rate and in a manner that, No. 1, will not significantly harm the
U.S. economy and, No. 2, will encourage other action and key contributors to
global emissions.
In the 109th Congress, members introduced several bills that would have established
a mandatory greenhouse gas reduction program, but none of the proposals were
reported out of committee.6
In the absence of action by the federal government to establish a national
program that directly addresses greenhouse gas emissions, a number of states (and
local governments, whose actions are not covered in this report7) have taken action
in this arena. States’ efforts cover a wide spectrum, from developing climate action
plans to setting mandatory greenhouse gas emission standards. While state action is
not a new development — some states set greenhouse gas reduction goals as early as
1989, and many states completed action plans in the 1990s — much of the early
activity was focused mostly on rhetoric outlining preferable actions rather than on
regulatory requirements. However, recent state action has been more significant.
Several states now have regulatory programs that limit greenhouse gases from
particular sources. A partnership of northeastern states is in the process of setting up
a cap-and-trade system aimed at limiting carbon dioxide emissions from power
plants.8 California has recently enacted legislation and regulations limiting
greenhouse gas emissions. In 2004, the state issued requirements to reduce
greenhouse gases from motor vehicles, a large source of carbon dioxide emissions
in the state. In 2006, California passed two significant laws. The first establishes a
mandatory state-wide cap on greenhouse gases; the second sets a greenhouse gas
5 Senate Amendment No. 866 to H.R. 6, passed by voice vote June 22, 2005. A motion to
table the amendment was rejected by a roll call vote (44 - 53).
6 For a more thorough discussion regarding federal climate change legislation and policy,
see CRS Report RL31931, Climate Change: Federal Laws and Policies Related to
Greenhouse Gas Reductions
, by Brent D. Yacobucci and Larry Parker, and CRS Report
RL32955, Climate Change Legislation in the 109th Congress, by Brent D. Yacobucci.
7 A number of local governments are pursuing activities that may directly or indirectly
reduce greenhouse gas emissions. For example, 171 local governments (cities, counties) in
35 states have joined the Cities for Climate Protection (CCP). Participating entities commit
to reduce local emissions that contribute to global warming. For more information on this
program, see [http://www.iclei.org/index.php?id=1118].
8 In a cap-and-trade system, regulators set a cap (or limit) on the overall emissions of a given
gas from a specified group of sources, such as power plants. The emissions allowed under
the new cap are then allocated in the form of credits (or permits) to individual sources.
Sources that emit more than their allowance must buy credits from those who emit less than
their allowance, thus creating a financial incentive for sources to reduce their own
emissions. For more information on cap-and-trade systems, see EPA’s website at
[http://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/capandtrade].

CRS-3
performance standard for power plants that applies to both in-state facilities and
facilities exporting electricity to California.
The motivating factors for the various states’ actions may be as diverse as the
actions themselves. Some actions are motivated by projections of climatic changes,
such as sea level rise or agricultural impacts. Some states view their greenhouse gas
policies as economic opportunities. States want to position themselves for a “less-
carbonized” future,9 by promoting, for example, alternative energy supplies,
particularly sources available in-state. Other states champion greenhouse gas
reduction policies because of the possible co-benefits: improved air quality, reduced
traffic congestion, and less reliance on foreign energy supplies. Another motivating
factor for state action is the possibility of catalyzing federal legislation.
This report covers state actions that directly and explicitly address greenhouse
gas emissions. First, the report describes the different types of state actions, both
individual and cooperative efforts, that are either proposed or underway, and
highlights several of the more significant developments. Second, the report examines
state actions from a federal policymaking perspective, including both the potential
effects of state-led actions and their limitations.
Direct Action Versus Indirect Action
Direct state actions that address greenhouse gas emissions include laws,
regulations, or policies that are established explicitly to reduce greenhouse gas
emissions. In some cases, it is difficult to draw a line between direct and indirect
actions, because a specific policy may be undertaken for multiple purposes, including
greenhouse gas reduction. One of the best examples of this ambiguity is a
Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS). An RPS requires that a certain amount or
percentage of electricity is generated from renewable energy resources (e.g., solar,
biomass). Twenty-one states have implemented an RPS.10 Although greenhouse gas
reduction is not the primary driver for an RPS in most states, some states list their
RPS as part of a comprehensive strategy to reduce greenhouse gases.
Indirect actions are often characterized as “no regrets” approaches, providing
net benefits regardless of the magnitude of their impacts on climate change. For the
purposes of this report, indirect actions are those developed primarily to address other
concerns, such as improvements in energy efficiency, energy security, or air quality.
Examples of indirect actions include:
9 See Rabe, Barry, 2006, “Second Generation Climate Policies in American States:
Proliferation, Diffusion, and Regionalization,” Issues in Governance Studies, The Brookings
Institution, August 2006.
10 Two additional states are considering an RPS. See EPA, Summary of State Clean Energy-
Envi ronment Policy Data T able (current as of 11/2 1 / 2 0 05), at
[http://www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/stateandlocal/activities.htm]. See also the Pew Center on
Global Climate Change, Map: States with Renewable Portfolio Standards, at
[http://www.pewclimate.org]. This map identifies Illinois and the District of Columbia as
also having established an RPS.

CRS-4
! Building codes: A majority of states have building codes that
promote energy efficiency in commercial and residential structures.11
! Appliance Standards: Twelve states have set energy efficiency
standards for appliances that are not covered under the federal
program.12
! Agricultural policies: Several states promote agricultural practices
that may indirectly reduce greenhouse gas emissions. For example,
a “no-till” farming technique saves fuel and man hours, while
keeping carbon stored in the soil.13
This report, however, does not attempt to discuss the extremely wide variety of
such indirect actions.
Direct Actions by States
States are implementing a range of direct actions to address greenhouse gas
emissions. States’ efforts have progressed recently in both quantity and substance.
Arguably, early state actions were largely symbolic. In the late 1980s, Vermont14 and
Oregon15 were the first states to set greenhouse gas reductions goals, but during the
subsequent decade (1990-2001), both states increased their greenhouse gas
emissions: Vermont by 18% and Oregon by 30%.16 However, a majority of states
have more recently begun to develop their own climate change strategies or policies,
with a small but increasing number of states adopting or proposing more significant
provisions, including mandatory greenhouse gas reductions.
States have developed and are crafting climate change policies both individually
and in cooperation with other states. This section describes the spectrum of direct
state actions, identifies the level of participation in various activities, and highlights
individual and cooperative state programs when appropriate.
11 EPA data indicates 35 states have commercial codes and 31 states have residential codes
for energy efficiency. See EPA, Summary of State Clean Energy-Environment Policy Data
Table (current as of 11/21/2005).
12 See EPA, Map: State Energy Efficiency Actions - State Appliance Efficiency Standards
(as of 6/23/06), at [http://www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/stateandlocal/activities.htm].
13 Georgia promotes this technique through its No-Tillage Assistance Program (NTAP),
which provides equipment and funding assistance. See Pew Center on Global Climate
Change, State and Local Net Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Programs, at
[http://www.pewclimate.org].
14 Vermont Executive Order 79 (October 23, 1989) called for a 15% reduction below 1989
levels by 2000. See U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, 1991, Changing by
Degrees: Steps to Reduce Greenhouse Gases
, p. 327.
15 Oregon Senate Bill 576 (1989) set a goal of 20% reduction of 1988 levels by 2005. See
U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, 1991, Changing by Degrees: Steps to
Reduce Greenhouse Gases
, p. 327.
16 See World Resources Institute, Climate Analysis Indicators Tool, at [http://cait.wri.org/].

CRS-5
State Action Plans
Thirty states have either completed or are in the process of preparing climate
change action plans (see Figure 1). Typically, state action plans are drafted by a
climate change task force, composed of members with diverse backgrounds and
expertise. In general, task force members examine their state’s sources of greenhouse
gases, and identify and rank the policy options that are most appropriate (i.e., cost-
effective, politically feasible, etc.) for controlling emissions in their state. Often the
state action plan is made available for public comment, revised if necessary, and then
submitted for approval to state officials.
Reflecting the fact that states have different economic sectors, natural resources,
and political structures, state climate change action plans can vary substantially.
Some state action plans focus more on indirect, “no regrets” strategies, such as
improved energy efficiency, which will likely yield benefits irrespective of climate
change effects. Other state action plans are more comprehensive and recommend a
portfolio of direct efforts that address greenhouse gases. Although the state climate
change action plans may recommend an array of policy options, the plans do not
necessarily result in direct actions to reduce greenhouse gases. However, the number
of completed state plans indicates the interest that a majority of states have in
addressing climate change mitigation on some level.
Figure 1: States with Climate Change Action Plans
Source: Prepared by the Congressional Research Service with data from U.S. EPA Climate Change
Division. Florida (not shaded) is developing an action plan. Online links to individual state action
plans are available through EPA’s website, at [http://www.epa.gov/climatechange].

CRS-6
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Targets
State emissions targets are goals by which a state can measure its progress in
achieving greenhouse gas emissions reduction. By themselves, state emissions
targets do not directly reduce greenhouse gases, but a target signals that state officials
consider climate change an important issue.
Twelve states have established statewide targets for greenhouse gas emissions
(see Table 1).17 Other than California’s 2020 target (discussed later), the statewide
targets do not constitute legally binding requirements. Nearly all of these states are
either in the Northeast or on the west coast of the United States. The New England
states’ targets are identical, because they are part of a cooperative plan developed in
2001.18 Of the 12 states in Table 1, New Mexico stands out, because it is the first
state with substantial coal and petroleum resources to set an overall emissions
target.19
Considering the greenhouse gas limits and targets set on the international stage
in past years, these state targets are relatively modest. Only New Jersey’s greenhouse
gas target — 3.5% below 1990 levels by 2005 — was comparable to the U.S. target
set by the Kyoto Protocol.20 However, New Jersey did not meet its 2005 target.21
Table 1 compares the states’ emissions in 1990 with emissions from the most
recent three years of available data (overall greenhouse gases and carbon dioxide).
The emissions data show the reductions states would need to make to meet their
established targets. Although some of the 12 states appear within reach of their 2010
targets, the most recent data from many of these states suggest that emissions are not
decreasing, but at best are leveling off. More years of data are needed to evaluate
progress, primarily because many of the states issued their greenhouse gas targets
after 2003, and state-level data after 2003 are not yet available. Moreover, the
emissions targets were typically created in conjunction with greenhouse gas reduction
policies — some of them mandatory limits on specific industries or segments of state
activities — whose implementation is not reflected in the available emissions data.
17 Several states have also developed more narrow targets, either for industry or electricity
generation or only for carbon dioxide emissions.
18 New England Governors/Eastern Canadian Premiers, Climate Change Action Plan
2001
, August 2001, at [http://www.negc.org].
19 In 2005, New Mexico ranked 11th in coal production and 6th in crude oil production. The
state also ranked 3rd in natural gas production, a fuel that releases significantly less
greenhouse gas than coal or oil when burned. See U.S. Department of Energy, Energy
Information Administration Statistics, at [http://www.eia.doe.gov/].
20 The U.S. Kyoto target was 7% below 1990 levels, averaged over the commitment period
2008 to 2012. For more on international climate agreements and U.S. involvement, see CRS
Report RL33602, Global Climate Change: Major Scientific and Policy Issues.
21 Per telephone discussion with New Jersey state official (January 5, 2007).

CRS-7
Table 1: Statewide Greenhouse Gas Targets Compared with
Emissions Data from 1990 and Recent Years
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Carbon Dioxide Emissions
State
Greenhouse
(million metric tons of CO2
from Fossil Fuel
Gases Target
equivalent)
Combustion (million
metric tons)
1990
1999 2000
2001
1990 2001
2002
2003
AZ22
2000 levels by
70
87
91
94
62
87
87
88
2020
CA23
2000 levels by
2010; 1990
415
417
434
451
359
383
380
384
levels by 2020
CT24
1990 levels by
2010; 10%
43
44
45
44
41
41
40
42
below 1990 by
2020
ME25
1990 levels by
2010; 10%
21
21
23
23
19
22
23
23
below 1990 by
2020
MA26
1990 levels by
2010; 10%
89
85
86
87
83
81
82
86
below 1990 by
2020
NH27
1990 levels by
2010; 10%
16
18
18
18
15
17
17
20
below 1990 by
2020
NJ28
3.5% below
123
132
133
132
114
123
123
124
1990 by 2005
22 Arizona Executive Order 2006-13 (September 7, 2006).
23 California Executive Order S-3-05 (June 1, 2005) set the 2010 and 2020 targets; AB 32
(discussed below) made the 2020 target mandatory.
24 Connecticut Public Act No. 04-252 (June 14, 2004).
25 Maine LD 845 (HP 622) (effective September 13, 2003).
26 Massachusetts Climate Protection Plan of 2004 (Spring, 2004).
27 The Climate Change Challenge (December 2001).
28 New Jersey Administrative Order 1998-09 (March 17, 1998).

CRS-8
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Carbon Dioxide Emissions
State
Greenhouse
(million metric tons of CO2
from Fossil Fuel
Gases Target
equivalent)
Combustion (million
metric tons)
1990
1999 2000
2001
1990 2001
2002
2003
NM29
2000 levels by
2012; 10%
59
64
66
67
52
57
55
57
below 2000 by
2020
NY30
5% below 1990
by 2010; 10%
234
236
239
239
208
207
200
214
below 1990 by
2020
OR31
Stabilize by
2010; 10%
39
52
50
51
31
42
40
40
below 1990 by
2020
RI32
1990 levels by
2010; 10%
10
14
12
13
9
12
12
11
below 1990 by
2020
VT33
1990 levels by
2010; 10%
7
8
8
8
5
7
6
6
below 1990 by
2020
Source: Prepared by the CRS with data from the following: state targets compiled by Pew Center on
Global Climate Change, at [http://www.pewclimate.org]; greenhouse gas emissions data from World
Resources Institute, Climate Analysis Indicators Tool, at [http://cait.wri.org/] (this website notes that
the greenhouse gas data excludes land use changes); carbon dioxide data from EPA’s Climate Change,
State Emissions website, at [http://epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/state.html].
Note: The states’ targets are for all greenhouse gases. Carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuel
combustion are also included, because (1) this is the primary source of greenhouse gases in most states
and (2) the carbon dioxide data provide two additional years of information.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Tracking
Reliable greenhouse gas emissions data are a keystone component of any
climate change program. To implement effective solutions to climate change,
29 New Mexico Executive Order 05-033 (June 9, 2005).
30 New York State Energy Plan (June 2002).
31 Oregon Strategy for Greenhouse Gas Reductions (December 2004).
32 Rhode Island Greenhouse Gas Action Plan (July 2002).
33 This target is discussed in Vermont’s state plan, Fueling Vermont’s Future: Vermont
Comprehensive Energy Plan and Vermont Greenhouse Gas Action Plan (July 1998).

CRS-9
policymakers need up-to-date and accurate information detailing the volume and
sources of greenhouse gases in their states. Precise monitoring is particularly vital
for market-oriented approaches to greenhouse gas control. Whether a
market-oriented program is based on tradeable emissions credits or a carbon tax,
reliable and transparent emissions data would be the foundation for developing the
allocation systems, reduction targets, and enforcement provisions.
The federal government has several programs in place that either track or
estimate greenhouse gas emissions:
! Power plants subject to the 1990 Clean Air Act acid rain program
must monitor and report to EPA various air pollutants, including
carbon dioxide.34
! The Department of Energy administers a voluntary greenhouse gas
reduction registry. This program started in 1994, pursuant to Section
1605(b) of the Energy Policy Act of 1992 (P.L. 102-486).35
! The EPA prepares an annual inventory of the nation’s greenhouse
gas emissions and sinks, which is submitted to the United Nations
in accordance with the Framework Convention on Climate Change.
Many states have developed, or begun to develop, their own greenhouse gas
tracking programs. Although tracking programs may overlap in purpose and
terminology, for this report, tracking programs are divided into three categories:
inventories, registries, and mandatory reporting.
Greenhouse Gas Inventories. Forty-two states have developed greenhouse
gas inventories. Inventories typically provide estimates of emissions for various
categories: economic sector (e.g., energy, agriculture), emissions source (e.g.,
automobiles, power plants), greenhouse gases (e.g., carbon dioxide, methane). In
general, states create their inventories by following guidelines developed by the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) that are based on internationally recognized
standards. Inventories are often used to obtain an overall assessment of a state’s
emissions levels and sources, and are perhaps best suited for monitoring trends
and/or developing comprehensive strategies. Although some states have performed
inventory updates, most of the states’ inventories only cover 1990 emission levels.
Greenhouse Gas Registries. A state greenhouse gas registry is a further
step in greenhouse gas tracking. In general, state greenhouse gas registries are
voluntary programs that allow facilities to submit and officially record emissions
34 Section 821, 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments (P.L. 101-549, 42 USC 7651k). For more
information regarding federal programs see CRS Report RL31931, Climate Change:
Federal Laws and Policies Related to Greenhouse Gas Reductions
, by Brent D. Yacobucci
and Larry Parker.
35 For more information on this program, see [http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/
frntvrgg.html].

CRS-10
data. Five states have passed legislation to establish greenhouse gas registries, of
which three are now underway:36
! New Hampshire: The New Hampshire Greenhouse Gas Registry
went into effect in 2001. The registry is intended to record
emissions reductions in a state database that can be used in
addressing possible future requirements.
! California: The California Climate Action Registry began operations
in 2002. This state registry is arguably the most comprehensive, as
participants register all of their GHG emissions for operations in
California; other state (and federal) registries cover only emission
reductions. The registry has over 100 participants.
! Wisconsin: The Wisconsin Voluntary Emission Reduction Registry,
a registry of voluntary reductions of greenhouse gases, went online
in 2003.
Other states are joining forces to establish regional registries. Ten New England and
Mid-Atlantic states are developing the Eastern Climate Registry.37 In addition, the
Lake Michigan Air Directors Consortium (LADCO) is working on a registry for
several states in the Midwest.38
The states’ voluntary registry programs encourage participation through
incentives. Perhaps the primary incentive is the opportunity for participants to create
an official record of emissions reductions, which the parties hope will count as
emissions credits in future mandatory reduction programs. At a minimum,
participants typically receive some public recognition for their efforts, which may
help promote a company’s environmental stewardship profile.
Mandatory Greenhouse Gas Reporting. Mandatory reporting programs
allow states to monitor greenhouse gas emissions from precise sources. Although the
primary purpose of mandatory reporting is typically to support an emission reduction
program, a reporting program can potentially provide benefits without an
accompanying reduction requirement. For example, if companies’ greenhouse gas
emissions were made publicly-available and thus comparable, the companies might
36 The other two states are Maine and Georgia. Maine’s registry is not yet operational.
Georgia, instead of tracking greenhouse gas emissions, established a registry for counting
the offsetting reductions in greenhouse gases obtained by carbon sequestration. Not counted
as one of the five states, New Jersey repealed a previously enacted registry program in 2004.
37 These states include Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Massachusetts, New York, New
Hampshire, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Vermont. For more information
on this partnership, see [http://www.easternclimateregistry.org/].
38 Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, and Wisconsin. For more on this registry, see
[http://www.ladco.org/regional_greenhouse.htm].

CRS-11
have an incentive to reduce emissions voluntarily.39 However, there is some concern
that emissions may increase under a mandatory reporting program, especially if
companies suspect that the state will establish a mandatory reduction regime in later
years. For instance, facilities may attempt to “game” the system by deliberately
increasing emissions (or over-reporting them) in order to gain additional allowances
once a reduction program is established.
A few states already require, and others are in the process of developing,
greenhouse gas emissions reporting as part of an emissions reduction program
(discussed in the next section). Four states currently have a mandatory reporting
program that is not linked with an emissions reduction requirement:
! Wisconsin: In 1993, the state established a mandatory reporting
program that includes carbon dioxide reporting for facilities
generating over 100,000 tons annually.40
! New Jersey: Certain facilities in New Jersey that report air pollutant
emissions must also submit emission data for carbon dioxide and
methane. This requirement went into effect in 2003.41
! Maine: Facilities in Maine that emit any criteria pollutant over a
specific reporting threshold must also report greenhouse gas
emissions. This provision went into effect July 2004.42
! Connecticut: Starting in 2006, facilities subject to federal reporting
under Title V of the Clean Air Act must submit greenhouse gas
emissions data on an annual basis.43
Mandatory Programs to Reduce Greenhouse Gases
Mandatory programs to require greenhouse gas reductions represent the most
aggressive end of the state action spectrum.44 As with state actions overall, these
programs can vary significantly in scope, stringency, and design. Mandatory
programs are generating considerable interest and some controversy. This section
39 This notion is analogous to the arguments in support of EPA’s Toxic Release Inventory
(TRI) Program, which requires facilities to submit annual data concerning their releases of
chemicals to the environment. The TRI program is generally considered a success, as
releases have decreased since the program’s inception. Rabe, Barry, 2002, Greenhouse &
Statehouse: The Evolving State Government Role in Climate Change
, Prepared for the Pew
Center on Global Climate Change.
40 Wisconsin Chapter NR 438.03.
41 New Jersey Administrative Code 7:27-21.3.
42 Maine Department of Environmental Protection Rules, Chapter 137 (per 38 MRSA,
Section 575).
43 Connecticut Public Act No. 04-252 (June 14, 2004).
44 Several states have voluntary reduction programs. Most of these were discussed earlier
in the context of state emissions registries.

CRS-12
discusses the different types of mandatory programs and highlights particular state
actions that are currently in effect or under development.
Emission Reduction from Power Plants. A sector-specific approach that
focuses on carbon dioxide is relatively easier to implement than an economy-wide
program that includes multiple greenhouse gases. The electricity-generating sector
is often considered a primary candidate for emission reduction, because in most states
electric power plants account for the highest percentage of carbon dioxide
emissions.45 Many of these facilities are already tracking their carbon dioxide
emissions as required by the 1990 Clean Air Act.
Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative. One of the more significant climate
change developments at the state level is the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative
(RGGI). RGGI is a market-oriented effort of seven states — Connecticut, Delaware,
Maine, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, and Vermont — to reduce carbon
dioxide emissions from power plants. RGGI would set up the nation’s first
mandatory cap-and-trade program for carbon dioxide. The initial objective of RGGI
is to stabilize current carbon dioxide emissions from power plants in RGGI states,
starting in January 2009, followed by a 10% reduction by 2019. A primary strategy
of RGGI is to create a program with flexibility, so that in the future other emission
sources/sectors, greenhouse gases, or states could be included. Maryland and
Massachusetts are expected to join RGGI in 2007.
Some observers consider RGGI to be a possible test-case for a federal cap-and-
trade program, and thus several of RGGI’s design elements are generating interest
and debate. For example, one specific feature — the emission allocation scheme —
is drawing both praise and criticism. In both RGGI’s Memorandum of
Understanding and its Model Rule, states agreed that at least 25% of emission
allowances will be allocated for a “consumer benefit or strategic energy purpose.”46
Some states (e.g., Vermont, New York) have indicated that they intend to allocate
100% of their states’ allowances for that purpose. This action would require power
plants to purchase the set-aside allowances, most likely through an auction, instead
of receiving them at no charge.47
Although RGGI is one of the more aggressive state programs addressing climate
change, the program will likely face several obstacles. For example, RGGI
proponents expect the program to face legal challenges, which could delay program
initiation. In addition, a critical design detail — electricity imports from non-RGGI
states — is unresolved. This is often described as the “leakage” problem. Leakage
can occur when an emissions reduction program does not include all sources
contributing to the environmental problem. For example, if a RGGI state lowers its
45 Based on 2001 data. Energy Information Administration, Emissions of Greenhouse Gases
in the United States 2004 (Table C2).
46 See RGGI Model Rule, issued August 15, 2006, p. 42; and RGGI Memorandum of
Understanding, Section G(1), signed by participating state governors December 20, 2005,
both available at [http://www.rggi.org/modelrule.htm].
47 For more discussion regarding these issues, see CRS Report RL33799, Climate Change:
Design Approaches for a Greenhouse Gas Reduction Program
, by Larry Parker.

CRS-13
emissions by importing more power from a non-RGGI state, the emissions reductions
in the RGGI state may be offset by an emission increase in the exporting state.
Individual State Efforts. Two states have already established emission
reduction requirements at existing power plants:
! Massachusetts: In 2001, Massachusetts became the first state to take
formal action on carbon dioxide emissions at operational power
plants. As part of a multi-pollutant strategy, which went into effect
in 2006, the state’s six largest power plants must reduce carbon
dioxide to levels consistent with those produced in the late 1990s.
In 2008, this cap is lowered further.48 The program allows the plants
to either make the reductions, demonstrate offsite reductions, or
purchase emissions credits from other verifiable sources.
! New Hampshire: In 2002, the state enacted multi-pollutant
legislation49 requiring its three fossil fuel power plants to reduce
carbon dioxide to 1990 levels by the end of 2006. In order the meet
the cap, the law allows sources to bank early reductions or buy
credits through other programs deemed acceptable by state officials.
Both Oregon and Washington have programs that require new power plants to
reduce carbon dioxide emissions or purchase offsets. In 1997, Oregon became the
first state to regulate carbon dioxide emissions by passing legislation50 requiring new
power plants to equal or exceed carbon dioxide levels that are 17% below the best
natural gas-fired plant in the nation. Plants can either reduce emissions directly or
purchase offsets from a nonprofit organization (the Oregon Climate Trust) that was
established with the 1997 law. This organization helps develop various projects that
will reduce or sequester greenhouse gases. These projects generate the pool of
offsets available (by purchase) to the power plants. So far, all of the new facilities
have chosen to purchase offsets instead of reducing onsite emissions.51 Washington
passed similar legislation in 2004, requiring new power plants to offset 20% of their
carbon dioxide emissions.52
Emission Reductions from Motor Vehicles. The U.S. transportation
sector accounts for a substantial percentage — 33% in 200553 — of the nation’s
carbon dioxide emissions. In 14 states, the transportation sector is the single largest
48 310 Massachusetts Code of Regulations 7.29.
49 New Hampshire Clean Power Act (May 9, 2002), codified in New Hampshire Statute,
Title X, Chapter 125-O (Multiple Pollutant Reduction Program).
50 HB 3283, codified in Oregon Administrative Rules, Chapter 345, Division 24.
51 Point Carbon, 2006, “Carbon Trading in the US: The Hibernating Giant,” Carbon Market
Analyst
, September 13, 2006.
52 HB 3141 (signed into law on March 31, 2004).
53 Energy Information Administration, Emissions of Greenhouse Gases in the United States
2005
, at [http://www.eia.doe.gov/].

CRS-14
source of carbon dioxide emissions.54 California’s transportation sector, in particular,
generates almost 60% of the state’s carbon dioxide emissions.55
California is in a unique position regarding the regulation of air emissions from
motor vehicles. It is the only state with conditional authority (i.e., the state needs a
waiver from EPA) to develop motor vehicle pollution standards that are more
stringent than federal requirements.56 The law permits other states to choose to
follow California’s more stringent provisions,57 and many states have adopted
California standards in the past.
In 2002, California enacted the first state law (AB 1493) requiring greenhouse
gas limits from motor vehicles.58 As directed by the statute, the California Air
Resources Board (CARB) issued regulations in September 2004, limiting the “fleet
average greenhouse gas exhaust mass emission values from passenger cars, light-duty
trucks, and medium-duty passenger vehicles.”59 The fleet average caps first apply to
model year 2009 vehicles. The caps become more stringent annually, so that by
2016, the fleet average would be 30% below the 2009 level.
At least 10 states (Oregon, Washington, and eight states in the Northeast) have
formally adopted the California regulation. However, whether the more stringent
standard goes into effect remains uncertain. California requested a waiver (as
required by Section 209 of the Clean Air Act) in December 2005, but EPA has yet
to respond. Although EPA has approved every California waiver request since 1975,
this waiver request may not follow the same pattern. EPA has generally displayed
a resistance to use the Clean Air Act to control greenhouse gases.60 A second hurdle
involves several legal challenges from automotive industry groups. Car dealers and
trade associations have filed suits in California, Vermont, and Rhode Island, seeking
to halt the regulations on various grounds. For example, the plaintiffs contend that
California’s regulations are preempted by the Energy Policy and Conservation Act
(P.L. 94-163), which directs states not to regulate fuel economy standards. For more
54 Based on 2001 data. Energy Information Administration, Emissions of Greenhouse Gases
in the United States 2004 (Table C2).

55 Only Vermont had a higher percentage from its transportation sector, but Vermont
transportation emissions (3.7 million metric tons of carbon dioxide) are minor compared to
California (210 million metric tons of carbon dioxide). Based on 2001 data. Energy
Information Administration, Emissions of Greenhouse Gases in the United States 2004
(Table C2).

56 See Clean Air Act Section § 209, codified at 42 U.S.C. § 7543.
57 Clean Air Act § 177, codified at 42 U.S.C. § 7507.
58 AB 1493 (or the California Vehicle Global Warming Law) was signed into law by
Governor Gray Davis on July 22, 2002.
59 Title 13, California Code of Regulations § 1961.1.
60 In an EPA General Counsel memorandum (August 28, 2003), EPA took the position that
the Clean Air Act does not authorize EPA to regulate greenhouse gases for the purpose of
addressing climate change, and the agency has argued this position in court. See CRS
Report RL32764, Global Warming: The Litigation Heats Up, by Robert Meltz.

CRS-15
discussion concerning these legal issues, see CRS Report RL32764, Global
Warming: The Litigation Heats Up
, by Robert Meltz.
California’s Statewide Emission Reductions Law. In September 2006,
California enacted landmark legislation that would establish a comprehensive
greenhouse gas reduction regime. The legislation — AB 32 or the Global Warming
Solutions Act61 — directs the California Air Resources Board (CARB) to develop
and implement a statewide program that would reduce the state’s greenhouse gas
emissions to 1990 levels by 2020.
The statute grants considerable authority to CARB, which is charged with
determining critical details concerning the framework and applicability of the
program. For example, the law does not specifically require the use of a market-
based system, such as a cap-and-trade program, to reduce greenhouse gases. Instead,
AB 32 authorizes CARB to develop regulations to “achieve the maximum
technologically feasible and cost-effective greenhouse gas emission reductions....”
Moreover, the statute does not include a list of regulated emission sources or
categories,62 but instructs CARB to determine which sources are necessary to meet
the statewide target.63
The law establishes a schedule for various agency deadlines. By June 30, 2007,
AB 32 instructs CARB to identify the early reduction options, which can be
implemented prior to the mandatory program, and for which a facility will receive
emissions credit. The law requires CARB to set up a mandatory reporting scheme
by January 1, 2008. Data from the reporting program will be used to establish
baselines for emissions sources, which will be subject to emission reductions starting
in 2012.
The statute requires the program to account for greenhouse gas emissions from
all electricity consumed in California. The agency will need to count emissions
connected with electricity that is generated from outside the state. This provision is
significant, because it addresses the “leakage” issue. Without this provision,
California utilities might have a financial incentive to import more electricity from
out-of-state generators, who are not subject to the cap. In such a scenario, California
emissions would decrease, but the benefit would be negated by increased emissions
in neighboring states.
When developing the emission reduction program in California, AB 32 instructs
CARB to consider other greenhouse gas reduction regimes, including RGGI and the
European Union’s emission trading program. This instruction might open the door
for future emissions trading between California and other states.
61 California Governor Schwarzenegger signed the legislation September 27, 2006.
62 Earlier drafts of the legislation specifically cited the electric power, oil/gas, and cement
industries, and landfills as significant emitters.
63 The statute instructs CARB to regulate mobile sources if the 2004 mobile sources
regulatory program (described above) does not remain in effect (presumably due to legal
challenges).

CRS-16
Other Mandatory Programs. Although they do not require emission
reductions or offsets from specific facilities or sources, other mandatory programs
may have an impact on greenhouse gas emissions. A few states, California in
particular, have recently developed requirements that aim to influence investment in
long-term power generation. These state actions may impact greenhouse gas levels
by influencing which energy sources — coal, oil, natural gas, etc. — are used to
generate electricity for consumers.
California’s Greenhouse Gas Emissions Performance Standard.
The most significant state action in this regard is California’s greenhouse gas
performance standard. In September 2006, the state passed legislation that will
forbid “load-serving entities”64 from entering into new “long-term financial
commitments”65 with power plants unless the plant’s greenhouse gas emissions are
as low or lower than those of a new, combined-cycle natural gas facility.66 This
emissions performance standard will apply to both in-state power plants and out-of-
state facilities that seek to export electricity to California. The law directs the
California Public Utilities Commission (PUC) to develop the performance standard
by February 1, 2007.
Once the new performance standard is applicable (and previous commitments
expire), it will effectively prohibit California consumers from using electricity
generated by conventional coal-fired power plants. Compared with a combined-cycle
natural gas plant, a conventional coal-fired power plant emits more than twice the
amount of carbon dioxide. Using current technologies, coal-fired generators would
fail to meet the new emissions standard.67 As the law takes effect, California will
likely need to replace its coal-generated electricity with alternative sources of power.
The new emissions standards will impact not only California, but also other
states in the West. Although California’s electricity imports generally fall between
22% and 32% of the state’s total electricity consumption, its imports are responsible
for 39% to 57% of the total greenhouse gas emissions linked with electricity.68 This
64 Defined as “every electrical corporation, electric service provider, or community choice
aggregator serving end-use customers in the state.” SB 1368 (codified in Public Utilities
Code, Section 8340(h)).
65 Defined as a “new ownership investment in baseload generation or a new or renewed
contract with a term of five or more years, which includes procurement of baseload
generation.” SB 1368 (codified in Public Utilities Code, Section 8340(j)).
66 SB 1368 was signed by the Governor on September 29, 2006.
67 As technology advances, coal-fired plants might be able to reduce greenhouse gas
emissions through carbon capture and sequestration (CCS). However, “there is relatively
little experience in combining CO2 capture, transport and storage into a fully integrated
CCS system. The utilization of CCS for large-scale power plants (the potential application
of major interest) still remains to be implemented.” Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change (IPCC), 2005, IPCC Special Report Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage,
Summary for Policymakers
, p. 8.
68 California Energy Commission, 2006, Inventory of California Greenhouse Gas Emissions
(continued...)

CRS-17
is due to the fact that most of California’s in-state electricity is produced from
sources other than coal, while most of the state’s imported electricity is generated
through coal combustion. Once the standard takes effect, the coal-fired plants in
neighboring states, which previously provided electricity to California, will need to
look elsewhere for customers. The same goes for coal-fired power plants still in
development in western states, which may have been designed, at least in part, to
serve California consumers.69
Greenhouse Gas “Adders.” Another state action that may affect a state’s
sources of electricity generation is the adoption of a greenhouse gas (or carbon)
adder. In general, adders require utilities to weigh the future costs of greenhouse gas
emissions when considering different energy investment options (e.g., fossil fuels,
renewable energy supplies). For example, California’s Public Utilities Commission
requires investor-owned-utilities to include a value of $8/ton of carbon dioxide
emissions when conducting long-term planning or procurement activities.70 The
agency stated that this requirement “will serve to internalize the significant and
under-recognized cost of [greenhouse gas] emissions, [and] help protect customers
from the financial risk of future climate regulation....”71 Only a few other states72
require some type of greenhouse gas adder, and California’s adder may be rendered
less relevant due to its new emission performance standard (discussed above). At
this stage, the adders have not been credited with changing any procurement
decisions.73
Issues for Congress
The climate change activity in the states raises several issues that may be of
interest to Congress. This section discusses some of the potential effects of state
action in lieu of federal legislation. This section also examines the limitations of
state actions, both from a climate change policy perspective and in the context of
legal challenges.
Potential Effects of State Actions
Many states generate significant emissions of greenhouse gases. If individual
U.S. states were classified as sovereign nations, 21 states would rank in the top 60
68 (...continued)
and Sinks: 1990 to 2004, Draft Staff Report, p. 12.
69 See Holly, Chris, “California PUC Issues IOU Greenhouse Rules; Muni Nixes Coal Deal,”
The Energy Daily, December 15, 2006.
70 California Public Utilities Commission, Decision 05-04-024, April 7, 2005.
71 California Public Utilities Commission, Decision 04-12-048, December 16, 2004.
72 Oregon and Colorado. See Pew Center on Global Climate Change website, at
[http://www.pewclimate.org/states.cfm].
73 Pew Center on Global Climate Change, “California PUC Carbon Adder” (case-study).

CRS-18
for nations that annually emit the most carbon dioxide.74 Compared with other
nations, Texas, the combined RGGI states, and California rank as top carbon dioxide
emitters (see Table 2).
Table 2: Top Carbon Dioxide Emissions by Nation and U.S.
States (2001 data)
Carbon Dioxide Emissions
Country, State, or Group
(million metric tons)
United States
5,728
European Union
3,928
China
3,452
Russian Federation
1,544
Japan
1,221
India
1,068
Germany
884
Texas
678
RGGI states75
594
United Kingdom
562
Canada
522
South Korea
473
Italy
448
France
389
Mexico
388
California
386
Source: Prepared by CRS with data from World Resources Institute, Climate Analysis Indicators
Tool, at [http://cait.wri.org/] Note that the carbon dioxide data excludes land use changes.
Although the states developing mandatory reduction programs — California and
the RGGI participants — account for an appreciable percentage of U.S. carbon
dioxide emissions (almost 20%), most of the states are pursuing considerably less
aggressive climate change policies. Unless the more aggressive state actions foster
greater participation or catalyze a federal program, the current state actions are
unlikely to impact global climate change. With this range of state activity, it is
74 This is based on 2001 data from the World Resources Institute, Climate Analysis
Indicators Tool, at [http://cait.wri.org/].
75 The RGGI states are Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New
York, and Vermont. Maryland and Massachusetts are expected to join in 2007, and their
emissions are included above.

CRS-19
difficult to predict the precise consequences of state-led climate change actions. This
section highlights possible effects from state actions.
States as Policy Laboratories. A central argument in support of state
climate change action is that states can serve as laboratories for policymaking. States
can test different ideas and policies on a smaller scale, and help determine which
climate change solutions are most effective. For example, there has been some
debate regarding how a cap-and-trade program might work on a national level.
Although the federal acid rain program, which involves sulfur dioxide emissions
trading, is generally considered a success, emissions trading programs for other
purposes have encountered problems during implementation. State programs offer
the opportunity to iron out logistical details that are crucial in a cap-and-trade system:
for example, which sources to regulate; how to allocate emissions allowances; how
high to set the emissions cap; when to allow offsets instead of actual reductions.
State programs can inform federal policymakers in other ways. The political
process by which states create climate change policy can be enlightening and perhaps
adaptable on the federal level. For instance, by examining the development and
passage of state legislation, federal policymakers may better understand the
motivations of different stakeholders and learn how best to frame the issues.
Possible Market Influences. Mandatory emission reduction programs may
have some effect on energy markets. For example, California’s recently enacted
greenhouse gas performance standards, once underway, will effectively bar
California consumers from using electricity generated by conventional coal-fired
power plants. In general, states with emission reduction requirements might see an
increase in the use and support of less carbon-intensive fuels. This increase in
carbon-regulated states may shift more carbon-intensive fuel use to states without
emissions regulations. The increased supply of more carbon-intensive fuels
(primarily coal) could result in lower electricity prices in states without greenhouse
gas emissions requirements. Federal policymakers may consider whether these
possible outcomes coincide with federal energy priorities.
Patchwork of Regulations. One concern shared by many observers,
particularly industry stakeholders, is that state climate change programs (in lieu of
a federal program) will create a patchwork of regulations across the nation. A
patchwork system of standards may hinder a company’s efficiency and possibly
create economic burdens for firms that operate in multiple states. The prospect of
regulations that vary from state to state is driving some companies to support a
federal climate change program with comparable requirements across the entire
United States.
Limitations of State Actions
Climate change has been described as the “ultimate global commons problem.”76
The global warming and climate impacts associated with increased greenhouse gases
76 Stavins, Robert, 2006, “A Utility Safety Valve for Cutting CO2,” The Environmental
Forum
, Volume 23, Number 2, March/April, 2006, p. 14.

CRS-20
in the atmosphere cannot be linked with specific emission sources. Unlike localized
reductions in other air pollutants (e.g., sulfur dioxide, particulate matter), when an
emissions source reduces its carbon dioxide emissions, it does not generate a
corresponding local climate change benefit unless there are similar widespread
reductions globally or at least in wide areas.
From a practical standpoint, the actions of one or a group of states or nations
cannot by themselves reduce the global accumulation of greenhouse gases in the
atmosphere. However, as discussed above, actions now underway by many states in
the United States may create examples and/or models that will prove instructive in
more widespread applications. Moreover, when business and industry have
confronted a growing patchwork of state requirements, these sectors have historically
begun to favor a national policy — as has begun to happen in the case of state-level
actions on climate change. However, the lack of a national program or a truly global
approach to greenhouse gas emissions reductions does limit what individual states
can accomplish in actually reducing greenhouse gas emissions and accumulations.
Legal challenges may further limit the effectiveness of state action. The
possibility of legal challenges creates considerable uncertainty regarding the future
of state climate change actions, particularly the more progressive programs. There
are already several lawsuits (discussed above) against state actions that seek to
regulate greenhouse gas emissions from motor vehicles. Further litigation
confronting other types of state action is anticipated. For example, many expect a
legal challenge against the RGGI program when the first state’s rule is officially
issued.77 There is some question as to whether California’s recently enacted
greenhouse gas performance standards are constitutional.78 Arguably, the standards
disproportionately impact the neighboring states that have historically exported coal-
generated electricity to California consumers. The legal arguments in these cases are
beyond the scope of this report, but many observers conclude that it is difficult to
predict how the courts will interpret and decide upon these issues.
77 New York state is expected to be the first state to issue its rule implementing RGGI,
according to statements made from state officials at a climate change workshop: Pew Center
on Climate Change, Innovative Approaches to Climate Change: A State and Regional
Workshop, Washington, DC, October 10-11, 2006.
78 See Potts, Brian, 2006, “Regulating Greenhouse Gas Leakage: How California Can Evade
the Impending Constitutional Attacks,” Electricity Journal, Vol. 19, Issue 5, June 2006.