America on the Move

State Leadership in the Fight Against Global Warming, and What it Means for the World America on the Move State Leadership in the Fight Against Global Warming, and What it Means for the World

Tony Dutzik, Rob Kerth and Kari Wohlschlegel, Frontier Group Rob Sargent, Environment America Research & Policy Center Dan Jacobson, Environment California Research & Policy Center

December 2009 Acknowledgments

The authors wish to thank Arthur Marin of Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management, Tom Peterson of the Center for Climate Strategies, Terry Tamminen, Kathryn Zyla of the Georgetown Climate Center, and Keith Hay of Environment Colorado Research & Policy Center for their thoughtful review of this report. Thanks also to Susan Rakov and Elizabeth Ridlington of Frontier Group for their editorial support.

Environment America Research & Policy Center thanks Tom and Janet Unterman, Yolanda Parker, Lisa Boyle, Amy Smart, and Debbie Levin of the Environmental Media Association for making this project possible.

The authors bear responsibility for any factual errors. The recommendations are those of Environment America Research & Policy Center. The views expressed in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of our funders or those who provided review.

Environment America Research & Policy Center is a 501(c)(3) organization. We are dedicated to protecting America’s air, water and open spaces. We investigate problems, craft solutions, educate the public and decision makers, and help Americans make their voices heard in local, state and national debates over the quality of our environment and our lives. For more information about Environment America Research & Policy Center or for additional copies of this report, please visit www.environmentamerica.org.

Frontier Group conducts independent research and policy analysis to support a cleaner, healthier and more democratic society. Our mission is to inject accurate information and compelling ideas into public policy debates at the local, state and federal levels. For more information about Frontier Group, please visit www.frontiergroup.org.

Cover Photos: Solar panels: Gary Weber, Oregon Department of Transportation. Light rail: istockphoto.com/Nancy Johnson. Layout: tothepointpublications.com Table of Contents

Executive Summary 4 Introduction 8 The Challenge: Preventing Dangerous Global Warming 10 The Stakes at Copenhagen 10 The Consequences of Failure 11 What the World Must Do 12 What the United States Must Do 13 State Governments Play an Important Role in Fighting Global Warming 14 States as Important Policy Decision-Makers 14 States as Policy Innovators 16 States as Drivers of Technological Innovation 18 Energy Savings and Emission Reductions from State-Led Actions 20 State-Level Actions 20 State Caps on Global Warming Pollution 20 Regional Emission Caps 22 Renewable Electricity Standards 23 Energy Efficiency Resource Standards 24 Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Programs 25 Generation Performance Standards 25 Other State-Led Actions 26 State Leadership Has Triggered Nationwide Action 29 The Clean Cars Program 29 Building Energy Codes 30 Appliance Efficiency Standards 31 States Play a Critical Role in Implementing New Federal Initiatives 32 Adding it Up: The Contribution of State Actions to Reducing Global Warming Pollution 34 Progress to Date 35 Future Emission Reductions From State-Led Actions 36 Taking the Next Step 37 Methodology 39 Notes 49 Appendix: Estimated Impact of State and Selected National Policies on Global Warming Emissions, 2020 54 Executive Summary

s world leaders prepare to meet The impact of state-level actions in Copenhagen to develop a plan to reduce global warming pollution is Aof action to combat global warm- significant on a global scale. A review ing, all eyes are on the United States. of dozens of individual state policies, fed- As the world’s largest economy, the eral policies based on state models, and second-largest emitter of global warm- new federal policies in which states will ing pollution, and the nation responsible have key roles in implementation sug- for more of the human-caused carbon gests that state actions will reduce carbon dioxide pollution in the atmosphere dioxide emissions by approximately 536 than any other, the success of the Co- million metric tons per year by 2020. penhagen negotiations – and the future That is more global warming pollution of the planet – depend on American than is currently emitted annually by all leadership. but eight of the world’s nations, and rep- The United States has gained a repu- resents approximately 7 percent of U.S. tation, exacerbated during the presiden- global warming pollution in 2007. cy of George W. Bush, of obstructionism America’s clean energy revolution in the fight against global warming. But, – led by the states – shows that the na- over the last decade, America’s state gov- tion is ready to commit to the emission ernments – where the bulk of on-the- reductions science tells us are necessary ground energy policy decision-making to prevent the worst impacts of global is made in America’s federal system of warming. President Obama should government – have taken the nation on build on these actions by working to a different course, one of innovative and forge a strong international agreement increasingly aggressive action to reduce to address global warming during the global warming pollution. Copenhagen talks.

4 America on the Move Figure ES-1. Projected Emission Reductions from Selected State and Federal Policies

600 Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative National Lighting Efficiency 500 Standard Recovery Act Efficiency Programs (a) 400 Updated Building Energy Codes

E), 2020 E), State & Federal Clean Cars 2 300 Program State & Federal Appliance Standards (MMTCO 200 Energy Efficiency Resource Standards Reductions vs. Reductionsvs. Business as Usual

EstimatedGlobal Warming Emission 100 Renewable Electricity Standards State Emission Caps 0

(a) Includes only those programs in which funding has already been allocated. Chart excludes emission reductions from overlapping policies.

In America’s federal system of Six U.S. states, and one U.S. re- government, states matter. gion, have adopted enforceable caps on global warming pollution. • State governments have an important – often primary – role in setting • Six U.S. states – California, Con- environmental and energy policy in necticut, Hawaii, Massachusetts, the United States. States have the Maryland and New Jersey – have power to limit carbon dioxide emis- adopted binding caps on global sions, to regulate electric and natural warming pollution from their gas utilities, to adopt standards for states’ economies. Combined, these the energy performance of buildings six states produce nearly a quarter and equipment, to regulate land use of America’s economic output and and transportation policy and, on a 13 percent of its fossil fuel-related limited basis, to establish emission carbon dioxide emissions. If these standards for vehicles. six states were a separate country, they would rank as the world’s • Over the past decade, states have be- fifth-biggest economy and seventh- gun to employ their power to reduce leading emitter of carbon dioxide. global warming pollution in a variety of ways. As “laboratories of democra- • Collectively, these six states have cy,” states have developed innovative committed to reducing global policies to address global warming warming pollution by approximate- that have later been adopted by other ly 13 percent below 2005 levels by states, or at the federal level. 2020.

Executive Summary 5 Figure ES-2. Emission Reductions from Selected State and Federal Policies by State in 2020 (Compared with No Action)

180 160 140 120 100 E) 2 80 60 (MMTCO 40 20 0 Global Warming Global Emission Reductions in 2020

• Ten northeastern U.S. states have reduce global warming pollution by created a regional cap-and-trade 79 million metric tons nationwide, in system for emissions from electric addition to the reductions achieved power plants, and two other regions by emission caps. of the country are considering simi- • Energy efficiency resource stan- lar regional efforts. dards: 22 states have adopted • State and regional emission caps will policies that require a share of their reduce carbon dioxide emissions by energy needs to be met through 113 million metric tons below 2005 energy efficiency improvements. levels by 2020, and by approximate- These energy efficiency standards ly 270 million metric tons versus will deliver additional reductions of what emissions otherwise would approximately 67 million metric tons have been under business-as-usual of carbon dioxide by 2020. conditions. • Other actions: States have also pur- sued other innovative clean energy Dozens of U.S. states have adopted initiatives, such as low-carbon fuel clean energy policies designed to re- standards designed to reduce the im- duce global warming pollution. pact of transportation fuels on global • Renewable electricity standards: warming, and “lead by example” 29 states have adopted minimum efforts to reduce energy consump- standards requiring a percentage tion and pollution from government of their electricity to come from activities. renewable energy. These efforts will

6 America on the Move State actions have triggered recent State efforts to encourage energy ef- steps to reduce global warming pol- ficiency and renewable energy are already lution at the federal level. making a material difference in reducing global warming pollution. • The Clean Cars Program – originally adopted by 14 states and now • Energy efficiency programs implemented in the process of adoption at the by utilities, typically at the behest of state federal level – will dramatically regulators, averted approximately 37 mil- reduce per-mile emissions of global lion metric tons of global warming pollu- warming pollution from vehicle tion in 2007. tailpipes. The national program will • Similarly, the growth in renewable energy reduce emissions by approximately generation between 2004 and 2009 – much 31 million metric tons of carbon of it driven by state policy initiatives, dioxide equivalent per year by 2020 including renewable electricity standards, in states without economy-wide and federal tax incentives – averted the emission caps. release of approximately 44 million metric • The federal government is in the tons of carbon dioxide pollution in 2009. process of issuing new appliance and lighting efficiency standards, America’s track record of state energy following up on standards adopted policy innovation and the broad support of by 14 states. Should those standards the American people for a transition to a take full advantage of the potential clean energy economy suggest that America for energy efficiency improvements, is ready to make a strong commitment to they will reduce emissions by as do its part to reduce global warming pol- much as 61 million metric tons per lution. year by 2020. • President Obama should lead the way in • States have also pioneered the negotiating an international agreement adoption of strong building energy that will deliver sufficient emission codes, which will become more reductions to prevent an increase in global widespread as a result of the recent average temperatures of more than 2° C federal economic recovery package. (3.6° F) above pre-industrial levels – a Improved building energy codes commitment that would enable the world will reduce emissions by approxi- to avoid the most damaging impacts of mately 12 million metric tons per global warming. year by 2020, with those emission • The United States should commit to emis- reductions locked in for decades to sion reductions equivalent to a 35 percent come. reduction in global warming pollution from 2005 levels by 2020 and an 83 per- • The American Recovery and cent reduction by 2050, with the majority Reinvestment Act (ARRA) in- of emission reductions coming from the cludes several new federal energy U.S. economy. efficiency initiatives in which state and local governments will have • Individual states should move forward prominent roles in implementation. with effective implementation of policies Programs already funded under the already adopted while continuing to law can be expected to reduce emis- shift toward a clean energy economy and sions by approximately 10 million aggressively reducing global warming metric tons per year by 2020. pollution.

Executive Summary 7 Introduction

It was during the presidency of climate policies were an unmitigated George W. Bush that the United disaster – a failure of leadership with mas- States finally began to take serious sive consequences for the planet. action to deal with the challenge But in America’s 50 states, where the of global warming. “rubber meets the road” on many areas of energy policy in our federal system – o most observers, the above state- from utility regulation to transportation ment might seem nonsensical – to home energy efficiency – a different Teven absurd. But when the history story was being written. There, building of humanity’s efforts to address global on a legacy of state energy policy innova- warming is finally written, the Bush tion dating back to the mid-1970s, states years may well be looked back upon as began to devise and implement strategies the time when America began to rise to to shift to cleaner sources of energy and the challenge. reduce global warming pollution. The change certainly did not emanate While leading-edge states – particu- from the White House. George W. Bush larly on the East and West coasts – moved withdrew the United States from the first, the clean energy revolution has Kyoto Protocol, reneged on a campaign spread rapidly into America’s heartland. promise to regulate carbon dioxide as Today, most states have taken at least the an air pollutant, and promoted energy first steps to encourage improved en- policies designed to deepen America’s ergy efficiency in homes and businesses, dependence on fossil fuels. By any reason- spur the use of renewable energy, curb able measure, the Bush administration’s emissions from automobiles, and plan

8 America on the Move for future reductions in global warming pollution. States had once been forced to steer It is the record of widespread their clean energy efforts into the head- state innovation and leadership wind created by the pro-fossil fuel policies of the Bush administration. But with on global warming … that the arrival of the Obama administration, state clean energy innovators now have should characterize America’s the wind at their backs. The first year of reputation before the world as the new administration has seen the lift- ing of federal policies that once impeded the crucial negotiations begin state action, as well as the nationwide in Copenhagen. adoption of key clean energy policies ini- tially developed in the states. States also have been given a key role in implementing the specifics of President Obama’s economic recovery strategy, which is built around the promise of enduring prosperity achieved through a transition to a clean energy economy. Taken together, the actions initiated by Time and again, when the American the states, coupled with the clean energy people have been given the choice, they policies and programs implemented thus have demonstrated that they are ready to far by the Obama administration, rival the move the nation toward a clean energy scope and ambition of the actions taken economy and reduce global warming pol- to address global warming anywhere in lution. The states, America’s laboratories the world. of public policy, have demonstrated the Of course, there is far more work to be path forward. The Obama administra- done. To date, the actions taken by the tion is beginning to make good on the United States and the rest of the world promise of renewed American leadership pale in comparison to the challenge posed to meet the challenge of addressing global by global warming. The United States warming. must implement mandatory emission re- When it comes to addressing global ductions at the pace and scale science tells warming, America is on the move. us are necessary to prevent the most dangerous impacts of global warming. The rest of the world must do the same. But make no mistake: it is the record of widespread state innovation and leadership on global warming over the past decade – not the recalcitrance of the Bush administration, nor even the slow legislative pace of a U.S. Senate that, in the American system of government, is uniquely sensitive to regional interests – that should characterize America’s reputation before the world as the crucial negotiations begin in Copenhagen.

Introduction 9 The Challenge: Preventing Dangerous Global Warming

ime is running out for the world to According to Yvo de Boer, the prevent the worst impacts of global executive secretary for the United Twarming. Over the past decade, sci- Nations Framework Convention on entific warnings about the threats posed Climate Change, there are four issues by global warming have become increas- that the countries will grapple with ingly dire. Without immediate action to during the summit: how much should curtail emissions of global warming pol- industrialized countries reduce their lutants – and even more ambitious efforts global warming pollution; to what in the years to come – the world risks cata- extent should developing countries strophic changes that would result in the mitigate their emissions; what financial destruction of key ecosystems, the death support should industrialized nations of countless species, and unimaginable provide to developing countries to as- threats to human health and welfare. sist in their emission reductions; and how should that financial support be The Stakes at Copenhagen managed.1 In December, delegates from 192 na- While addressing global warming tions will meet in Copenhagen with the will require cooperation from all na- task of crafting an international agreement tions, China and the United States to reduce global warming pollution. The have crucial roles in ensuring the suc- talks, scheduled to begin on December 7, cess of the Copenhagen talks. These are the latest in a series of meetings that two nations are the world’s top emitters began in 1992 at the Earth Summit in Rio, of global warming pollution by a large and are intended to produce a successor margin, and neither has yet committed agreement to the Kyoto Protocol, which to enforceable reductions in emissions expires in 2012. of global warming pollution.

10 America on the Move There are signs of movement in both countries. In September, Chinese leader Hu Jintao pledged to reduce the nation’s carbon intensity – the amount of global warming pollution produced per unit of economic output – by a “notable margin” by 2020.2 Such a commitment would enable emissions to continue to increase, but it could slow China’s runaway growth in emissions, which have roughly doubled over the past decade, and put China in a better position to stabilize and ultimately reduce its emissions in the years to come.3 Meanwhile, in the United States, the U.S. House of Representatives passed legislation in June that would, if ad- Scientists warn that continued emissions of global warming opted by the U.S. Senate and signed by pollution could accelerate melting of glaciers worldwide. President Obama, commit the nation to Credit: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration its first-ever mandatory, economy-wide reductions in global warming pollution. Despite these signs of hope, international negotiators in Copenhagen face the difficult task of crafting an agreement that does what is necessary to prevent the worst impacts of global warming while, at the same time, balancing the needs of de- more than 1.4° F. Meanwhile, sea level veloped and developing countries. While has risen 8 inches as glaciers have melted climate negotiators from the countries and the ocean has absorbed much of the party to the convention have been meet- extra heat in the climate system, causing 4 ing since March to establish a framework the water to expand. In certain climates, for the agreement, the big decisions, such hurricanes have become more intense as the setting of emissions-reduction and the frequency of extreme rain and 5 targets, are unlikely to be made until the snowstorms has increased. In other re- final days of the Copenhagen talks. The gions, droughts have become longer and 6 talks could even extend into 2010. more severe. In the United States, rising temperatures are changing the timing of the seasons, while the habitable areas for The Consequences of plants and animals are shifting north- Failure ward and higher in altitude across the The Copenhagen talks take place country.7 High levels of carbon dioxide against a backdrop of increasingly urgent are also causing the oceans to become scientific warnings about the dangers of more acidic, contributing to the decline global warming. of ocean ecosystems. The Florida Keys Global warming is already happen- have already witnessed a 50 to 80 per- ing. Since pre-industrial times, average cent decline in coral on reefs.8 And in global temperatures have increased by western forests, the milder winters have

The Challenge: Preventing Dangerous Global Warming 11 increased the survival of winter beetles, immediate action on an international allowing the beetle population to increase scale, we still have a chance to avoid dramatically. Coupled with hotter sum- many of the most catastrophic impacts mers, which have impaired the ability of of global warming. trees to fight off the beetles, the increase The international community has in population has enabled the insects to committed to limit global warming to destroy more than 6.5 million acres of 3.6°F above temperatures in the pre- forest in the United States.9 industrial period.15 According to cur- Unfortunately, these climatic changes rent scientific understanding, to have are only the beginning of the impacts the a 50-50 chance of meeting this goal, world can expect if emissions of global humanity can emit no more than a to- warming pollutants continue to increase. tal of 3.7 trillion metric tons of carbon Indeed, the damaging impacts of warm- dioxide from the beginning of history ing are happening even faster than the onward through the next 500 years.16 most eye-opening predictions made by Humanity has already emitted more the United Nations Intergovernmental than 1.9 million metric tons of carbon Panel on Climate Change just two years dioxide pollution so far, and at current ago.10 Scientists warn that critical climate emission rates we are on pace to exceed “tipping points” are a matter of years or a our “carbon budget” in less than four few decades away. Crossing those tipping decades.17 For the world to have a 75 points would make inevitable dramatic percent chance of limiting warming to and irreversible changes to our world and 3.6°F, we will have to accept a global our way of life.11 budget of 1 trillion metric tons of car- If global warming emissions con- bon dioxide emissions during the first tinue unabated, global temperatures half of this century.18 may increase 11.5°F and sea levels could In order to meet this target, the chief rise 6.5 feet by the end of the century, of the Intergovernmental Panel on causing massive flooding and displace- Climate Change, Rajendra Pachauri, ment.12 Warming on this scale would has called for global emissions to peak have catastrophic consequences for the no later than 2015.19 Emissions must planet, such as the extinction of as much then fall rapidly thereafter. A large as 70 percent of all species on earth; panel of top United Nations scientists widespread drought across as much as a and Nobel Prize winners has called on third of the globe; more intense wildfires developed nations to reduce emissions and hurricanes; extreme heat waves with of global warming pollution by 25 to 40 temperatures reaching 120°F in the cen- percent below 1990 levels by 2020.20 tral, southern, and western United States; The world must then continue to and the loss of unique ecosystems like the slash emissions rapidly, achieving cuts of Amazon.13 at least 50 percent by mid-century, and perhaps substantially more.22 Developed countries with the largest capacity to act will need to reduce emissions by 80 to What the World Must Do more than 95 percent.23 Afterwards, the Given the pollution humans have al- world must then embark on a program ready produced, some impacts, such as to zero out all emissions of global warm- the melting of mountain glaciers and the ing pollution, and very possibly deploy resulting disruption of water supplies, technologies to remove carbon dioxide will be unavoidable.14 However, with from the atmosphere.24

12 America on the Move Figure 1. Limiting Total Global Emissions of Carbon Di- What the United States oxide to 1 Trillion Metric Tons From 2000 to 2050 Would Must Do Yield a 75 Percent Chance of Limiting Warming to 3.6° F (2° C) or Below21 Until recently, the United States was the largest emitter of global warming pollution. Though China has surpassed the United States in annual emissions, we are still responsible for more of the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere than any other nation. As a result, the United States must act more quickly and more aggressively to reduce emissions than developing countries. Specifically, the United States must endeavor to reduce global warming emissions by 35 percent below 2005 levels by 2020 and by at least 83 percent by 2050.25 The United States could achieve some of its near-term emission reductions through assistance to other nations – particularly efforts to reduce tropical deforestation. But in any event, the U.S. must achieve the majority of its emission reductions – even in the near term – domestically. There are many options available for the United States to reduce global warming pollution while still maintain- ing a robust economy and a high quality of life for its people. But with every year of delay, the scale of the emission reductions required becomes greater, and the challenge of meeting our obligations becomes harder. Had the United States taken strong national action over the past decade to reduce emissions, the nation would be farther along in the transition to a clean energy economy – and face an easier path toward achieving our emission reduction goals. But while the Bush administration squandered that opportunity, state governments picked up some of the slack – adopting a series of innovative public policies to reduce global warming pollution and set the nation on course to a cleaner energy future.

The Challenge: Preventing Dangerous Global Warming 13 State Governments Play an Important Role in Fighting Global Warming

he United States is the largest States as Important Policy economy in the world, the second- Decision-Makers Tleading emitter of global warming pollution, and the third-largest nation In America’s federal system of gov- by population. There is no solution ernment, states have great authority to the prospect of dangerous global over energy and environmental policy. warming that does not include the In some areas, such as land-use regula- involvement – and leadership – of the tion, states have the policy playing field United States. virtually to themselves. In other areas, But the United States is not a mono- such as electricity regulation, states have lith. Despite the perceived power of the primary authority. In still other areas, U.S. federal government – embodied including environmental regulation, fed- in the president – power over environ- eral law leaves the states with important mental and energy policy is actually roles in policy implementation. dispersed throughout various levels of government. Individual states have the Environmental Regulation power to reduce global warming pollution within their borders, to develop States have broad authority to regu- innovative policy solutions that can be late emissions of global warming pollu- honed and implemented elsewhere, and tion – particularly in the absence of any even to spur the development of clean federal law that preempts state action. technologies that can benefit people and States have used their environmental the environment around the world. regulatory powers both to limit pollution Over the past decade, state govern- from specific facilities and to establish ments have begun to use that power enforceable caps on global warming pol- to drive globally significant reductions lution from entire state economies. in America’s contribution to global In 2001, Massachusetts became the warming. first U.S. state to regulate carbon dioxide

14 America on the Move emissions from power plants, adopting regulations targeting six highly polluting power plants in the state. Massachusetts’ action – followed by adoption of a similar policy in neighboring New Hampshire – paved the way for creation of the Re- gional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, a 10- state pact to limit emissions from electric power plants. (See page 22.) More recently, states have used their broad regulatory power over air pollution to adopt economy-wide limits on global warming pollution. In 2006, California became the first state do so by adopting the Global Warming Solutions Act (AB 32), which requires reducing California’s global warming pollution to 1990 levels by 2020. Five other states have adopted similar caps. (See page 20.) State governments are the primary Utility Regulation regulators of utilities that supply electricity States are also the primary regulators and natural gas, which, combined, pro- of both electric and natural gas utilities duce more than half of the nation’s global – which are responsible for more than warming pollution. half of the nation’s emissions of global Credit: Stock.xchng warming pollution.26 As far back as the 1980s, utility regulators in some states were experimenting preference to clean over dirty resources, with ways to integrate environmental and paved the way for new investments impacts and a conservation ethic into in the electric grid that will expand the utility decision-making. Those efforts ability of renewable energy and energy included the incorporation of the cost of conservation to meet the nation’s energy environmental externalities – such as the needs. health impacts of air pollution – into utility decision-making, as well as requirements that utilities invest in cost-effective Transportation Policy energy efficiency programs. State and local governments are also In recent years, utility regulators – primarily responsible for carrying out often at the direction of legislators, but public policy with regard to transporta- sometimes on their own authority – have tion, which accounted for 28 percent taken even bolder steps. States have of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions in required utilities to invest in renewable 2007.27 energy and energy efficiency, established While federal transportation funding policies leveling the playing field for policies tend to encourage certain types clean energy resources to compete with of transportation projects and discour- traditional fossil fuel-fired power plants, age others (often with the end result of implemented “loading orders” giving promoting highway construction that

State Governments Play an Important Role in Fighting Global Warming 15 contributes to increased global warm- states have great capacity for leadership ing pollution), states have a significant in addressing the root sources of global amount of flexibility in how they spend warming pollution – even in the absence federal transportation money. States of a strong federal commitment to reduce can decide to invest in expanded public emissions. transportation networks or in bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure in lieu of more highways. States with chronic air States as Policy Innovators pollution problems also have the power under the federal Clean Air Act to adopt It is one of the happy incidents of California’s limits on global warming pol- the federal system that a single lution from vehicle tailpipes – a step 13 courageous state may, if its citizens states have taken. (See page 29.) choose, serve as a laboratory; States also have authority – shared and try novel social and economic with local governments – over land-use experiments without risk to the and development regulation. Historically, rest of the country. local land-use regulation in the United – U.S. Supreme Court Justice States has tended to foster dependence Louis Brandeis, dissenting opinion on automobiles for transportation, but in New State Ice Co. v. Liebmann, some local and state governments have 193230 taken steps to promote land-use practices that encourage transit-oriented develop- U.S. states have long been, in a popular ment, limit suburban sprawl, and preserve paraphrase of Justice Brandeis’ opinion natural areas, all of which can contribute from the 1930s, “laboratories of democ- to reducing global warming pollution. racy,” experimenting with new approaches to solving social problems. Successful Building Codes experiments are often adopted by other states, and even the federal government. Finally, state and local governments Therefore, state policy can often be a are primarily responsible for setting rules “leading indicator” of the policy direction for the construction of buildings, which of the entire nation. If states are adopting account for 76 percent of electricity con- large numbers of widely varying policies sumption in the United States, and 48 to address global warming pollution, it is 28 percent of overall energy consumption. likely that the most successful approaches Building codes are set entirely on the state will eventually find their way into federal level or below, although many state and legislation. local codes are based on model codes ad- The pattern of state innovations lead- opted by national or international bodies. ing to broader changes in national policy Building energy codes help to dictate the has occurred over and over throughout energy efficiency of the 5 billion square the nation’s history – including on envi- feet of new building space built in the ronmental and energy policy. United States each year, meaning that the adoption and enforcement of strong codes can have a large impact on long- Appliance Efficiency Standards term demand for energy.29 An early example of state innovation In sum, state authority over the sources on energy policy came during the energy of global warming pollution is wide- crisis of the 1970s, when researchers ranging and multi-layered. As a result, in California recognized that common

16 America on the Move household appliances, such as refrig- erators, were wasting large amounts of energy. Simple changes in design could Appliance efficiency standards dramatically reduce refrigerator energy consumption, but manufacturers were – both state and federal – not adopting those changes on their will result in U.S. electricity own. In 1974, California’s then-governor, consumption in 2020 being Ronald Reagan, signed into law the 11.5 percent lower than it nation’s first set of appliance efficiency standards. Other states followed suit. By would have been otherwise. 1986, enough momentum had been created that the federal government adopted its first appliance efficiency standards. Due in part to the chain reaction started by California’s initial step, appliance efficiency standards – both state and federal – will result in U.S. electricity consumption announced that it would apply standards in 2020 being 11.5 percent lower than it similar to those in place in California would have been otherwise.31 across the nation – the latest example of state leadership resulting in nationwide Automobile Emission Standards change. (See page 29.) In addition to being the first state to Renewable Electricity adopt appliance energy efficiency standards, California was also the first state Standards in the nation to adopt tailpipe emission Policy innovation does not need to standards for automobiles, in the late reach the federal level to have a broad 1960s. Because California’s air pollution impact. Renewable electricity standards is the worst in the nation – and because (RESs) set minimum thresholds for the it acted in advance of the federal govern- share of electricity produced with renew- ment – the federal Clean Air Act gives able resources. The first such standard California, alone among the states, the was adopted in Iowa in 1983. Then, in power to set vehicle air pollution stan- the late 1990s, Massachusetts, Nevada, dards stronger than those in place at the Connecticut, Maine, New Jersey and federal level. Other states with chronic air Wisconsin all enacted standards in the pollution problems can choose to adopt space of a few years.32 RESs spread even the California standards if they wish. more widely in the 2000s, while many For decades, California has set ambi- states that had been among the first to tious tailpipe standards for vehicles, only adopt the policy updated their legisla- to be followed years later by the fed- tion to adopt more aggressive renewable eral government. Most recently, in 2004, energy goals and to smooth implemen- California adopted the nation’s first-ever tation of the policy. Today, 29 states and standards for vehicle tailpipe emissions the District of Columbia have RESs and of global warming pollutants – standards those states have been national leaders in that were also adopted by the 13 other renewable energy development. Seventy states with California’s vehicle emission percent of the record amount of wind rules. In 2009, the Obama administration power developed nationwide in 2008,

State Governments Play an Important Role in Fighting Global Warming 17 Figure 2. The Spread of Renewable Electricity Standards for example, was built in states with a renewable electricity standard.33 (See Figure 2.) To date, despite widespread public support for federal policies to promote renewable energy, Congress has not enacted a federal RES.34 Yet, as will be dis- cussed later (see page 23), state RESs will make a measurable contribution toward reducing global warming pollution.

States as Drivers of Technological Innovation States can make an even larger contribution toward environmental protection by driving the development and adoption of clean technologies. By pushing forward technological progress, state policy- makers can have an impact that extends far beyond their borders – and even the borders of the United States. States can achieve the goal of foster- ing technological innovation by adopting “technology-forcing” regulations – standards for environmental protection that cannot be met with current technologies. The idea behind technology-forcing standards is to drive investments in research and development that will result in cleaner technologies. A good example was the federal Clean Air Act of 1970, which set ambitious standards for air pollution from vehicle tailpipes. Those standards eventually led to the development and widespread implementation of cata- lytic converters, which are now standard equipment on vehicles worldwide.35 California has been the leading U.S. state engaged in adoption of technology- forcing environmental standards. A clas- sic example was the 1990 adoption of the state’s Zero-Emission Vehicle program, which originally required that electric vehicles make up 2 percent of new car sales by 1998 and 10 percent of sales by 2003. Ultimately, California did not achieve

18 America on the Move those targets, but by forcing the automak- ers to invest in research and development of electric car technologies, the standards helped bring about advances in batter- ies and other vehicle components that ultimately led to the commercialization of hybrid vehicles. A 1994 California Air Resources Board review of the standard found universal agreement that the requirement had driven significant technological advancement.36 Indeed, in the United States alone, the number of pat- ents for electric car technology rose from two in 1989 to 200 in 1995.37 Consumers worldwide have access to superior and cleaner vehicles, in part because of this state-level policy from the 1990s.38 The most recent example of the impact of technology-forcing standards California’s Zero-Emission Vehicle program did not has been the effort to improve the en- lead to the widespread commercialization of electric ergy efficiency of lighting. In 2007, both vehicles, but it did spark technological innovation that Nevada and California adopted energy led to the development of gas-electric hybrids. efficiency standards for light bulbs that Credit: Electric Vehicle Association of Canada were thought to be unachievable by traditional incandescent bulbs. The U.S. federal government adopted legislation in late 2007 that would require similar standards to be implemented nationwide by 2012.39 The standards – coupled with similar efforts in other nations – have triggered a surge in research and development efforts by incandescent light bulb manufacturers, which has led to the creation of incandescent bulbs that meet the new efficiency standards. According to one industry consultant, quoted in the New York Times, “[t]here have been more incandescent innovations in the last three years than in the last two decades.”40

State Governments Play an Important Role in Fighting Global Warming 19 Energy Savings and Emission Reductions from State-Led Actions

tates have great power over envi- State-Level Actions ronmental and energy policy within Stheir borders. Over the past decade, U.S. states have begun to use that power State Caps on Global Warming to implement a wide variety of policies Pollution to reduce global warming pollution. Six U.S. states have adopted com- Some of those policies have served as prehensive, multi-sector caps on global models for action at the federal level. warming pollution. Those states – Cali- And in other cases, the federal govern- fornia, Connecticut, Hawaii, Maryland, ment is relying on states to implement Massachusetts, and New Jersey—repre- new energy efficiency initiatives. sent 23 percent of U.S. gross domestic The emission reductions produced product.41 Internationally, they would by these efforts – while difficult to rank as the world’s fifth largest economy, quantify with certainty – are significant behind the U.S. as a whole, China, Japan, on a global scale, and represent a down and Germany.42 payment toward future nationwide re- In terms of emissions, these six states ductions in global warming pollution in account for approximately 13 percent the United States. of America’s fossil fuel-related carbon

20 America on the Move Figure 3. Carbon Dioxide Emissions from Six States with Caps, Compared with Lead- ing Emitting Countries45

7,000

6,000

5,000

4,000

3,000

2,000 (million metric tons) metric (million 1,000

Carbon Dioxide Emissions in 2007 in Emissions Dioxide Carbon 0

dioxide emissions.43 Taken together, they emissions from idling ships. Other states would represent the world’s seventh big- are currently in the process of develop- gest emitter of carbon dioxide, behind ing their own strategies for meeting their only China, the U.S. as a whole, Russia, emission reduction targets. India, Japan and Germany.44 Taken together, the emission caps California became the first U.S. state adopted by these six leading states will to cap global warming pollution with reduce emissions in those states by 13 the adoption of the Global Warming percent below 2005 levels – or by 113 Solutions Act in 2006. The legislation million metric tons of carbon dioxide ordered the California Air Resources equivalent – by 2020. This equates to Board (CARB) to develop a comprehen- approximately 1.5 percent of total U.S. sive strategy for reducing emissions to global warming emissions in 2005.48 1990 levels by 2020.46 The plan approved Compared with business-as-usual pro- by the CARB in 2008 employs over 60 jections produced by the various states, specific measures, mixing regulatory the global warming emission caps will and market-based approaches, to achieve produce emission reductions of 270 the pollution reductions.47 These range million metric tons by 2020 – a 26 from large, sector-wide measures—such percent reduction. as implementing a cap-and-trade system The six states with mandatory caps are for power plants—to narrow programs not the only ones considering economy- aimed at small categories of sources, wide measures to reduce global warming such as electrifying seaports to eliminate pollution. An additional 17 states have

Energy Savings and Emission Reductions from State-Led Actions 21 Table 1. Emission Reductions Required Under State Global Warming Emission Caps49

State Reduction 2005 2020 emission below emissions target 2005 levels

(MMTCO2E) (MMTCO2E) (MMTCO2E) California 479.9 427.0 52.9 New Jersey 142.0 131.0 11.0 Hawaii (a) 24.3 23.1 1.1 Massachusetts (b) 97.0 85.0 12.0 Connecticut 48.7 40.4 8.3 Maryland (c) 107.5 80.3 27.2 Total 899 787 113 Percentage reduction below 13% 2005 emissions

(a) Emission reduction based on Hawaii 2007 emissions, in lieu of 2005 emissions, due to the availability of a detailed greenhouse gas inventory for 2007. (b) Emission reduction based on minimum 10% emission reduction target in Global Warming Solutions Act. Emission reductions could be as high as 25% below 1990 levels, depending on the outcome of an ongoing state rulemaking. (c) Emission reduction based on Maryland 2005 emissions, as opposed to the 2006 emissions level used as the benchmark for compliance in the law. Detailed 2006 emission data were unavailable.

adopted non-binding goals for reducing power plants in 10 northeastern states. global warming pollution, and many have The emission reduction goals of the completed climate action plans laying out RGGI program are modest – the 10 states a policy framework for achieving targeted have agreed to cap global warming pol- emission reductions.50 lution from power plants through 2014 (at projected 2009 levels) and to reduce Regional Emission Caps emissions by 10 percent by 2018. How- ever, the program has broken new ground In addition to the economy-wide emis- through its embrace of an auction-based sion caps described above, states in sev- system for distributing pollution allow- eral U.S. regions have joined together to ances. Virtually all emission allowances develop regional approaches to reducing under RGGI are auctioned, rather than global warming pollution. These regional distributed to polluters for free, prevent- bodies reflect the reality that energy mar- ing the accumulation of windfall profits kets in the United States – particularly for and generating needed revenue that can electricity – cross state lines. be invested in energy efficiency improve- The first such regional program to ments and other programs to reduce be implemented – indeed, the first cap- global warming pollution. Despite the and-trade program for global warming program’s small size and limited emission pollution implemented anywhere in the reduction goals, the RGGI allowance United States – is the Regional Green- auction is already the world’s largest.51 house Gas Initiative (RGGI), which aims Compared with actual 2005 emission to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from data, the RGGI program will reduce

22 America on the Move emissions from power plants in the re- Figure 4. Regional Global Warming Initiatives in gion by approximately 8 percent by 2018, the United States for total reductions versus 2005 levels of approximately 13.9 million metric tons.52 Since four states in the RGGI region – Connecticut, Maryland, Mas- sachusetts and New Jersey – already have economy-wide emission caps, the cuts driven by RGGI will not be additional in those states. Not counting the capped states, the RGGI program will deliver additional emission reductions of approximately 6.6 million metric tons by 2018.53 RGGI is just one of several regional efforts to address global warming pollution. (See Figure 4.) Seven U.S. states and four Canadian provinces have joined together in the Western Climate Initiative (WCI), which has set a goal of reducing emissions across the region by 15 percent below to consumers from renewable resources. 2005 levels by 2020. The WCI states plan No two RESs are exactly alike: some to begin the first phase of a cap-and-trade include specific mandates for renewable program in 2012. When the program is energy production instead of percentage fully implemented in 2015, it will cover goals, the mix of resources eligible for close to 90 percent of emissions from the credit varies greatly from one state to participating states’ economies.54 the next, some include “carve outs” for Meanwhile, in the Midwest, the lead- particular technologies (most often solar ers of six U.S. states and one Canadian power), and some allow out-of-state re- province signed the Midwest Greenhouse sources to count on an equal basis with in- Gas Reduction Accord, signaling their state resources through credit trading. intention to work together to reduce Thus far, 29 states and the District of emissions. A recent report from an ad- Columbia have adopted an RES.56 The visory group convened by the region’s Union of Concerned Scientists projects leaders recommended the adoption of an that, if the renewable energy targets in emission reduction target of 20 percent the policies are met, they will reduce U.S. below 2005 levels by 2020.55 carbon dioxide pollution by 183 million metric tons per year by 2025.57 Renewable Electricity Based on our review of RES policies nationwide, we assume that state RESs Standards will reduce carbon dioxide pollution by A renewable electricity standard (RES) approximately 119 million metric tons (sometimes known as renewable portfolio by 2020 – including emission reductions standard) is a law that requires utilities in states with emission caps but also to develop renewable energy resources factoring in the reductions in electricity as part of their energy portfolio. In most consumption that will result from other cases, an RES requires utilities to obtain a policies examined in this report. Exclud- certain share of the electricity they deliver ing the 12 states in which emissions from

Energy Savings and Emission Reductions from State-Led Actions 23 on the books.58 (See Figure 5, next page.) The amount of electricity consumption covered by EERSs amounts to 13 percent of world electricity consumption, and accounts for more electricity than is consumed by any other nation besides the U.S. as a whole and China.59 EERSs vary in their form and method of implementation. Some establish annual percentage savings goals on a set schedule, similar to most renewable electricity standards. In other cases, such as in Rhode Island and Washington, states have adopted mandates requiring that utilities pursue “all cost-effective” energy efficiency, with utility regulators charged with setting specific energy efficiency targets. In still other cases, energy efficiency is considered one of Renewable electricity standards have helped drive the dramatic many resources that can be used to meet growth in renewable energy production in the United States. a renewable electricity standard. Photo: ACUA The amount of energy efficiency savings that will be driven by EERSs is significant. Some leading states, such as electric power plants are already capped, New York, Illinois and Minnesota, aim RES policies will deliver at least 79 mil- to reduce projected electricity consump- lion metric tons in additional emission tion by 15 percent or more within the reductions nationwide in 2020. next 10 to 15 years. The experience of ratepayer-funded energy efficiency programs (see page 36) suggests that these Energy Efficiency Resource targets are eminently achievable. Standards Quantifying the impact of energy The success of renewable electricity efficiency resource standards on future standards in sparking the development global warming pollution is difficult – in of clean energy has led to similar efforts part because the impact of many stan- to ensure that energy efficiency improve- dards is tied to future changes in elec- ments have a place in the nation’s electricity consumption and in part because tricity resource mix. Energy efficiency specific energy savings targets for some resource standards (EERSs) are, broadly states have yet to be set. Including only speaking, requirements to achieve specific those targets that have already been set, levels of energy savings through pro- EERSs for electricity and natural gas grams to improve the energy efficiency will likely deliver emission reductions of of homes, businesses and factories. approximately 94 million metric tons of As with the RES, the concept of the carbon dioxide in 2020, in the absence of EERS has spread quickly. Currently, 23 any other policies to reduce emissions. states, accounting for 57 percent of U.S. Not counting the 12 states with caps electricity sales, have some form of EERS on power plant emissions, EERS will

24 America on the Move deliver additional emission reductions of Figure 5. Percentage of U.S. Electricity Sales in approximately 67 million metric tons of States with Energy Efficiency Resource Standards carbon dioxide by 2020.

Covered by Energy Efficiency and Energy Efficiency Renewable Energy Programs Resource Standards Some states, in addition to setting 43% specific targets for renewable energy de- Not Covered by velopment and energy efficiency savings, 57% an Energy provide ratepayer funding for efforts to Efficiency encourage these clean energy resources. Resource As of 2007, all but three U.S. states pro- Standard vided at least minimal funding for energy efficiency programs, with leading states such as Vermont, Washington, California and Oregon spending more than 2 percent of utility revenue on energy efficiency.60 In addition, 26 states provide some electricity to their states can produce level of funding for natural gas energy carbon dioxide pollution. efficiency programs.61 Other states have Washington state, for example, now similar programs designed to encourage bars utilities from entering into new renewable energy development. long-term contracts with power plants Because funding for these programs that produce more carbon dioxide per often varies from year to year – and be- unit of electricity produced than a typical cause many of the programs are designed natural gas-fired power plant.62 Among to assist in achieving the goals of an EERS coal-fired power plants, only those that – we do not estimate their future impact use carbon capture and storage (CCS) on emissions here. A review of the emis- could meet such a standard. California sion reductions already being delivered has similar standards.63 by state energy efficiency programs can Other states have taken action to pre- be found on page 36. vent the construction of new conventional coal-fired power plants contingent upon other actions to address carbon dioxide Generation Performance pollution. Montana, for example, has Standards adopted legislation preventing the con- Even an ambitious program to develop struction of new coal-fired power plants additional clean energy resources will until the federal or state governments have little impact on global warming if adopt rules governing CCS or unless the the United States simultaneously builds new plant captures and stores at least 50 large numbers of high-emitting coal-fired percent of its carbon dioxide pollution.64 power plants. A number of states – par- Minnesota adopted legislation in 2007 ticularly in the western U.S. – have taken preventing the construction of any new steps to prevent an increase in coal-fired fossil fuel-fired plants that would lead generation by adopting generation per- to a net increase in emissions until the formance standards, which limit the rate state adopts a comprehensive law limiting at which new power plants that supply global warming pollution.65

Energy Savings and Emission Reductions from State-Led Actions 25 led to a collapse in demand for new coal- fired power plants. As recently as 2006, analysts were predicting a “coal rush” in the United States that could include the construction of up to 150 new coal- fired power plants. Instead, coal-fired generation capacity in the United States has held relatively steady over the last five years.68

Other State-Led Actions States have also taken numerous other actions to reduce global warming pollution. The Center for Climate Strate- gies and New America Foundation, for example, have documented hundreds of state policy proposals – some already implemented, others in the process of implementation, and still others under consideration – intended to reduce emissions of global warming pollutants.69 The impact of many of these actions is difficult to quantify, but they hold a great deal of potential to reduce emissions of Generation performance standards in several states aim to global warming pollutants. A few of the most significant actions are described prevent the construction of new coal-fired power plants that below. contribute to global warming. Credit: istockphoto.com/Andy Olsen Low-Carbon Fuel Standards Improving the energy efficiency of vehicles is just one step toward addressing the challenge of global warming pollution from transportation. Indeed, Finally, a number of U.S. states have those efforts may prove to be fruitless if adopted temporary moratoriums on the drivers come to rely on carbon-intensive construction of new coal-fired power sources of fuel – oil from tar sands and oil plants. In 2006, Idaho approved a two- shale, coal-to-liquids fuels, and forms of year moratorium on new coal-fired biofuels that result in deforestation and power plants in the state – a move that other harmful land-use changes. The led directly to the cancellation of at least emission reductions from more efficient one proposed plant.66 Maine adopted a vehicles could be magnified, however, if similar moratorium in 2008.67 vehicles were instead run on low-carbon The adoption of generation perfor- fuels, such as sustainable biofuels and mance standards, coal plant moratoriums, electricity generated from renewable and caps on global warming pollution sources of energy. from the electric sector – coupled with Low-carbon fuel standards are policies changing economic circumstances – has that require fuel marketers to lower the

26 America on the Move carbon intensity of their products. Such and by 50 percent by 2050.71 The state standards attempt to account for emis- plans to achieve those targets through sions produced over the entire life cycle of a wide variety of measures including fuels, including their production, delivery investments in public transportation, and consumption, and promote the use of ride-sharing, changes in land-use pat- alternative fuels with lower overall global terns, road pricing, and encouragement warming pollution impacts. Low-carbon of cycling and walking.72 fuel standards are alternatives to renew- Washington and Oregon are among able fuel standards adopted in the United the states with the most success in ad- States and elsewhere that push the use dressing the growth of car travel – they of non-petroleum fuels that may or may are the only two states in the nation where not reduce global warming pollution in fewer vehicle-miles were traveled per the aggregate. person in 2007 than in 1990.73 Both states In early 2009, California adopted regu- have experienced strong increases in lations to implement a low carbon fuel public transportation ridership over the standard requiring a 10 percent decrease past two decades. Washington has long in the carbon intensity of transportation been a leader in transportation demand fuel by 2020. A group of 11 northeastern management – the use of a variety of tools and mid-Atlantic states has also commit- to improve the efficiency of the trans- ted to implementing a low carbon fuel standard in that region, while Oregon has adopted legislation that will lead to implementation of a similar standard there.70 By the early 2010s, therefore, as many as 13 states may have low-carbon fuel standards on the books, helping to encourage a transition away from petroleum and toward low-carbon forms of vehicle fuel.

Land Use and Transportation Policy Another approach to reducing emissions from transportation involves reducing growth in the number of vehicle-miles traveled (VMT). States have taken a variety of steps to reduce the need to drive through land-use policies that restrain sprawl-style development, support for transit-oriented development, and efforts to promote the use of transportation alternatives. The most ambitious states have adopted statewide goals for reducing VMT and are marshalling resources to achieve those Cities and states have expanded access to public goals. Washington state, for example, has transportation in recent years, reducing global warming adopted a legislative target of reducing pollution and providing alternatives to driving. per-capita VMT by 18 percent by 2020 Photo: istockphoto/Nancy Johnson

Energy Savings and Emission Reductions from State-Led Actions 27 portation system. Oregon, meanwhile, was responsible for 64,000 jobs in 2006.76 has a track record of promoting “smart By promoting the development of clean growth” policies that stretches back to energy industries, states make it easier for the 1970s. Smart growth can reduce the the private market to follow their lead. number of miles driven by encouraging Lastly, lead by example programs re- compact, mixed-use development where sult in outright energy savings and global more tasks can be completed by bike, on warming emission reductions. State and foot, or via transit. Since the early 1970s, local governments own and operate Oregon has also been a leader in invest- 16 billion square feet of building space ing in infrastructure for bicyclists and nationwide and spend $11 billion a year pedestrians. Those investments have paid on energy.77 Efficiency improvements dividends – residents of Portland bike to and clean energy purchasing undertaken work at approximately eight times the by state governments can directly result 74 national average rate. in appreciable reductions in the state’s Local governments have also begun emissions. to institute policies to reduce driving Nationwide, 42 states and the District and encourage the use of transportation of Columbia have implemented one or alternatives. New York City’s “PlaNYC” more lead by example programs for their includes a number of initiatives to pro- buildings, vehicle fleets, or purchasing.78 mote the use of transportation alterna- In New York, for example, former Gov- tives. The city installed more than 80 ernor George Pataki issued an executive miles of bike lanes in 2008 and reported order in 2001 calling for energy savings a 35 percent increase in bike commuting and use of clean energy across all sectors 75 between 2007 and 2008. of state government. The program called for 35 percent reductions below 1990 Government “Lead by Example” levels of energy use in all state owned, Measures operated, or leased buildings; instructed One of the first steps states looking to state agencies to meet the Leadership reduce global warming pollution can take in Energy and Environmental Design is to set goals for the use of clean energy (LEED) standard for green building in resources in state government operations. new construction; set targets for state “Lead by example” measures, as these electricity purchasing of 10 percent re- efforts are called, help move towards a newable energy by 2005 and 20 percent cleaner economy in several ways. by 2020; and required state agencies to First, state programs demonstrate the purchase an increasing percentage of feasibility of steps that reduce global alternative-fueled vehicles, reaching 100 warming pollution. Private corporations percent by 2010. As of 2006-7, the pro- are more likely to renovate buildings gram had reduced state energy usage by for energy efficiency or construct more 12 percent since 2001, and state renew- efficient buildings after seeing a similar able energy purchasing had increased to state program save money. 9.3 percent.79 Second, state purchasing and con- Arizona, meanwhile has taken a direct struction decisions can also help create approach to demonstrating the feasibil- a market for clean energy technologies ity of renewable energy generation in and services. States have significant its high solar-potential environment. purchasing power, and state demand for To provide electric power to the state’s renewable energy and energy efficiency Army Aviation Training Facility, Arizona

28 America on the Move constructed a $196,000 solar power plant reductions in global warming pollution that provides one third of the facility’s from tailpipes – a level later established electricity and saves the state $20,000 at a 34 percent reduction in per-mile every year. emissions from cars by 2016 and a 25 percent reduction in emissions from light trucks. State Leadership Has Thirteen other states and the District of Columbia – accounting for 40 percent Triggered Nationwide of the U.S. market for new cars and light Action trucks – followed California in adopt- In addition to the steps above, states ing the rules.80 But the state efforts ran have taken a variety of actions that have into major obstacles thrown up by the led to similar emission reduction steps automobile industry and the Bush ad- being taken at the federal level. Often, ministration Environmental Protection the imposition of energy-saving stan- Agency (EPA). dards in multiple states creates pressure The automobile industry filed a series on the federal government to impose of lawsuits challenging the legality of the similar standards nationwide – relieving standards. Meanwhile, the Bush admin- manufacturers of the need to comply with istration EPA delayed issuing the waiver several different sets of rules. This “state necessary for California to implement the to federal” policy dynamic has acceler- standards, ultimately denying the waiver ated in the early months of the Obama outright in 2008. As the legal battles administration, which has adopted many played out – and particularly in the wake of the best policy ideas from the states of the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark as a foundation for a strong federal push 2007 decision acknowledging the EPA’s toward clean energy. authority to regulate carbon dioxide as an air pollutant under the Clean Air Act – it became increasingly likely that The Clean Cars Program California and the states would eventu- The most significant recent example ally have the opportunity to implement of a state-pioneered policy being adopted the standards. federally is the Clean Cars Program. As In late 2007, the U.S. Congress took noted earlier, California has the unique the first step toward following the states’ right under the federal Clean Air Act to lead by adopting stronger federal cor- impose its own, more stringent standards porate average fuel economy (CAFE) for air pollution from vehicle tailpipes. standards for automobiles. It was the first States with severe air pollution problems increase in the standards since 1990 and may choose to follow California’s stan- set a fuel economy target of 35 miles per dards in lieu of the more lenient federal gallon by 2020. rules. Then, in 2009, the Obama adminis- Historically, California’s emission tration came to an agreement with the standards targeted air pollutants that automobile industry and the state of contribute to the formation of smog and California in which car makers agreed soot. But that changed in 2002, when to drop legal challenges to the Clean California adopted the nation’s first law Cars Program in exchange for national regulating global warming pollution from adoption of a modified version of the automobiles. The law required California California standards. In September 2009, to achieve the maximum, cost-effective the EPA and the National Highway Traf-

Energy Savings and Emission Reductions from State-Led Actions 29 fic Safety Administration (NHTSA) ings stand for decades, investments now in proposed a nationwide vehicle carbon reducing the amount of fossil fuels used to emissions program for the model years power buildings can reap big dividends in 2009-2016. Assuming that the final reduced emissions of global warming pol- federal standards closely mirror the lution in the years to come.81 California program, this will result Building codes have been used for in nationwide emission reductions of centuries to ensure that new buildings

33.2 MMTCO2E by 2020 more than are safe for their inhabitants, but it wasn’t would be achieved by the 2007 CAFE until the early 1970s that energy efficiency standards. In addition, the Obama ad- criteria began to be integrated into build- ministration finally granted California ing codes.82 The establishment and imple- the waiver needed to implement the mentation of building codes is exclusively original emission standards. That deci- a state (and sometimes local) matter, but sion has limited relevance between now states are aided in setting energy codes and 2016, since California has agreed to by several nongovernmental bodies that allow compliance with the new federal prepare model codes, including the In- standards to count as compliance with ternational Code Council, publishers California law. However, the granting of of the International Energy Conserva- the waiver gives California the ability to tion Code (IECC), and the American adopt stronger standards beyond 2016, Society of Heating, Refrigerating and something the state has communicated Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE). its intention to do. Other states would The ASHRAE 90.1 code for commercial be able to adopt the California stan- construction and the IECC code for resi- dards as well. dential and commercial construction are By 2020, this second phase of the the two most widely adopted codes, and Clean Cars Program could result in 14 are updated every three years. States can percent greater reductions in per-mile choose between adopting an edition of emissions than the first phase alone. one of these codes in its entirety, adopting In the 14 states that have adopted the one of these codes with amendments, or program, this would reduce emissions creating their own code.

by an additional 13 MMTCO2E. As of 2009, 39 states and the District of Between the new federal standards Columbia had adopted either a residential and the assumed adoption of stronger or a commercial energy code equivalent to post-2016 standards by the 14 states or better than the 2001 IECC codes. Many that have adopted the program, the of these states, moreover, are continuing Clean Cars Program will deliver emis- to push for stronger energy efficiency sion reductions of approximately 46 measures. In 2009, the IECC released a

million metric tons (CO2 equivalent) code that is by far its most aggressive to of global warming pollution. Excluding date, reducing energy usage by 9 to 14 states that have adopted economy-wide percent compared with the 2006 editions emission caps, the program will deliver of that code.83 By 2011, eight states and additional emission reductions of 31 the District of Columbia will have adopted million metric tons by 2020. codes equivalent to or more stringent than the 2009 IECC. Several other states – including California, Florida, Oregon and Building Energy Codes Washington – already have state codes that Nearly half of America’s energy is are either stronger than the 2009 code or consumed in buildings. And since build- nearly as strong.84

30 America on the Move The federal government does not force states to adopt a particular energy code, but it does provide carrots and sticks – as well as technical and financial support – to encourage states to adopt stronger codes. The American Recovery and Re- investment Act, passed in February 2009, requires state governors to demonstrate that their states are taking steps toward implementing an energy code equivalent to or better than the 2009 IECC, and achieving 90 percent compliance with it, by 2018 in order to qualify for $3.1 billion to be dispensed to states for energy efficiency improvements through the Department of Energy’s State Energy Program.85 States that have already adopted the most recent IECC and ASHRAE codes, combined with those that will do so as a result of the provisions of the economic recovery bill, can expect to reduce global warming pollution by a total of 12.6 86 MMTCO2E by 2020. Excluding states Residential clothes washers are among the with emission caps (or states in which appliances for which stronger federal appliance energy savings from building codes count efficiency standards are due to be set over the next toward achievement of EERS targets), several years. Photo: David Jones the additional emission reductions would be 11.7 million metric tons CO2- equivalent by 2020.Those short-term savings, however, are only the beginning, energy efficiency standards or to develop as more efficient buildings will continue new ones – new momentum began to to yield emission reductions for decades build at the state level for improved ap- to come. pliance efficiency standards. Between 2001 and 2007, 14 states moved to adopt Appliance Efficiency Standards energy efficiency standards for a range of appliances and products – ceiling fans, States have adopted appliance energy clothes washers, commercial refrigera- efficiency standards since the 1970s to tors and freezers, light fixtures, vending clamp down on sources of energy waste. machines and many more.87 Over the past three decades, the setting In 2007, the federal government of appliance standards has followed a fa- responded to those actions by imple- miliar pattern: leading-edge states adopt menting standards for many of those standards for new appliances, followed products as part of that year’s energy bill. a few years later by the federal govern- The most significant such action will be ment. the imposition of new energy efficiency During the 2000s – with the federal standards for certain types of fluorescent government neglecting to update old and incandescent lamps. Those standards

Energy Savings and Emission Reductions from State-Led Actions 31 will reduce carbon dioxide pollution by should lead to quantifiable reductions in approximately 12.9 million metric tons global warming pollution over the next by 2020.88 decade: Meanwhile, the Obama administration is moving toward the release of a number • Weatherization: The ARRA pro- of overdue standards between 2009 and vides $5 billion in funding to ex- 2014. In addition, some states are con- pand the Weatherization Assistance tinuing to implement their own standards Program, which works with states until their federal replacements take to implement programs to improve effect, and are looking at new products residential energy efficiency for low- such as televisions as potential targets for income homeowners. Weatherization energy savings. Assuming that the federal programs typically reduce heating government implements strong standards bills by approximately 32 percent, curbing emissions and helping low- for appliances for which new standards 89 are due, and that states continue to pursue income families make ends meet. their own standards in the interim, the • State energy program: The ARRA nation can expect emission reductions of also allocates $3.1 billion to the De- approximately 59 million metric tons of partment of Energy’s State Energy carbon dioxide by 2020, exclusive of other Program, which distributes funds to policies to reduce emissions. Between help state governments improve en- prospective appliance standards and the ergy efficiency and expand the use of new federal lighting standard, and taking renewable energy in their states. The into account states that have capped emis- program has historically saved more sions, total savings from new efficiency than $7 in energy costs for every standards could total 61 million metric federal dollar invested.90 tons by 2020. • Energy efficiency and conservation block grants: An additional $2.6 billion is directed under the States Play a Critical Role ARRA toward grants to state and in Implementing New local governments for specific energy Federal Initiatives efficiency initiatives. With the arrival of the Obama ad- • Public housing energy efficiency: ministration in Washington, D.C., the Finally, $250 million is allocated federal government is now a willing part- through the U.S. Department of ner – not an obstacle – in state efforts to Housing and Urban Development reduce global warming pollution. States for improving the energy efficiency have important roles in implementing of public housing developments, some of the clean energy policies already which are generally owned and oper- adopted by Congress and the Obama ated by local government agencies. administration over the past year – most notably the programs created under the Programs already funded through the American Recovery and Reinvestment ARRA can be expected to deliver emis- Act (ARRA). sion reductions of at least 12 million Many ARRA programs have a sig- metric tons of carbon dioxide, including nificant state or local government com- 10 million metric tons in states without ponent. At least four of those programs global warming emission caps. Because

32 America on the Move not all funding under ARRA has been distributed, emission reductions will likely be even greater than this estimate. In addition to funding state-based efforts, the recovery act also makes long-term investments in clean energy development. The ARRA allocates $2.5 billion for research into renewable energy and $400 million for research into electric vehicle technologies. An additional $2 billion has been allocated for constructing battery system components. The ARRA will also help spark renewable energy deployment by extending until 2014 tax credits for renewable energy that had previously been scheduled to expire and by providing $6 billion worth of loan guarantees for renewable electricity development. As a result of The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act gave a these provisions, the EIA projects that 36 boost to home weatherization programs, which are proven percent more renewable energy will be to save both energy and money. generated in 2020 than would otherwise Photo: West Virginia Governor’s Office of Economic Opportunity would have been the case, and 24 percent more will be generated in 2030.91 The recovery act also invests funds in developing an improved electricity grid. Infrastructure upgrades to the country’s projects that the $4.5 billion spent on transmission system have the potential to smart grid demonstration projects will reduce energy losses, make clean energy result in a 10-15 billion kilowatt-hour available over greater distances, and re- reduction in line losses in 2030.92 Beyond duce demand at peak times. These effects this, $11 billion will be invested in general are difficult to quantify, especially since improvements to the grid, another im- the stimulus investments will result in an portant step towards a grid that will allow incremental, not a wholesale, transfor- for more flexible and efficient generation mation of the grid. The EIA, however, and use of power.

Energy Savings and Emission Reductions from State-Led Actions 33 Adding it Up: The Contribution of State Actions to Reducing Global Warming Pollution

he clean energy movement in the benefits of state and recent federal actions states is widespread and it is sig- in an effort to highlight the role these ac- Tnificant. States have adopted more tions will play in efforts to reduce global than 100 individual policies in just the warming pollution. categories of action reviewed in this Specifically, we look at the impact of report. This does not count myriad recent measures through three lenses: other state and local efforts to promote • The emission reductions delivered to a transition to a clean energy economy date by state energy efficiency efforts through transportation policy reform, and recent renewable energy installa- reductions in energy consumption in tions (many, though not all, of which government buildings, realignment of are driven by state or federal policy the tax code to encourage clean energy initiatives). investments, and other initiatives. Those efforts are yielding reductions • The emission reductions required in in global warming pollution that are 2020 compared to 2005 levels as a result significant on a global scale – and the of state global warming pollution emission reductions will only increase caps. in the years to come as states follow • The emission reductions that will through on the commitments they’ve occur by 2020 compared to what would made to clean energy. In this analysis, have occurred otherwise, as a result of we use simple, transparent methodol- various state and federal clean energy ogy to estimate the emission reduction initiatives.

34 America on the Move Progress to Date Figure 6. Projected Carbon Dioxide Emissions by Year in Which U.S. Department of Energy Made the Projection99

The future ain’t what it used to 8,500 be. -Yogi Berra 2005 projection 2006 projection 8,000 2007 projection America’s future emissions of global 2008 projection warming pollution look fundamentally 2009 (March) projection 7,500 different than they did just five years ago. 2009 (April) projection At that time, the nation appeared to be heading toward a future of ever-increas- 7,000 ing carbon dioxide emissions. Emissions of global warming pollutants set new 6,500 records on a nearly annual basis. Gas- tons) metric (million guzzling SUVs continued to proliferate 6,000 on American roads, while the number of Emissions CarbonDioxide Projected miles driven in those vehicles each year marched steadily upwards. And more 5,500 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 2024 2026 2028 2030 than 150 new coal-fired power plants were on the drawing boards across the United States.93 Future projections of U.S. carbon dioxide emissions were unsettling. In 2005, the U.S. Department of Energy projected Clearly, something has happened to that carbon dioxide emissions would change America’s course. One important increase by one-third by 2025, adding change, obviously, is the worldwide re- another 2 billion metric tons of pollution cession that is the leading reason for the to the atmosphere every year.94 sharp decline in emissions over the past Today, just under five years after year.100 But there is also strong evidence those predictions were made, the future that the revolution in clean energy policy looks very different. Over the past four that has been taking place across the years, more wind power has been added country is also driving emission reduc- to the grid than coal-fired generation.95 tions. Vehicle fuel economy is on the rise, the Indeed, recent renewable energy de- number of miles traveled on America’s velopment and state energy efficiency highways has been falling, and public programs, combined, are reducing carbon transportation ridership hit a 52-year dioxide emissions by approximately 81 high in 2008.96 million metric tons per year. Since The U.S. Department of Energy now many state programs to encourage energy projects that the nation’s energy-related efficiency and renewable energy are just carbon dioxide emissions in 2009 will be now getting underway, those savings will the lowest since 1995, down 8 percent likely grow in the years to come. from the 2005 peak.97 Looking forward, the federal government anticipates that – even in the absence of further action Renewable Energy to reduce emissions – America’s carbon The past five years have seen a surge dioxide emissions will not return to in renewable energy development in the 2005 levels until the mid-2020s.98 (See United States – aided by renewable elec- Figure 6.) tricity standards and other state policies

Adding it Up: The Contribution of State Actions to Reducing Global Warming Pollution 35 Figure 7. Installed Wind and Solar Power, United States101 emissions in 2009 by roughly 44 million metric tons. 30,000 1,400

25,000 Wind Power Capacity 1,200

Solar Solar Power Capacity (MW) Energy Efficiency Programs Solar Power Capacity 1,000 Energy efficiency programs run by 20,000 800 electric and natural gas utilities – typi- 15,000 cally undertaken at the direction of state 600 utility regulators – are also helping to 10,000 400 reduce emissions. As of 2007, energy

5,000 saved through those efforts was averting Wind Power Capacity (MW) Capacity Power Wind 200 approximately 37 million metric tons of 105 0 0 carbon dioxide pollution per year. With leading states such as California having expanded their energy efficiency efforts over the last two years, the amount of emissions averted in 2009 is virtually certain to be greater today.

to encourage the development of clean energy sources, as well as federal tax Future Emission credits. Since 2004, the amount of wind power capacity installed in the United Reductions From State-Led States has quadrupled, to nearly 30,000 Actions MW. (See Figure 7.) In 2008, the United As noted above, mandatory global States surpassed Germany to reclaim warming emission caps in six states, the world’s leadership in installed wind combined with the northeast’s Regional power capacity. Similar rapid increases Greenhouse Gas Initiative, will lock in have been occurring with installation of significant reductions in global warming solar power. pollution in those states compared with In 2008, wind turbines generated 3.7 2005 levels. Those policies will yield times more electricity in the United reductions of approximately 113 million States than they did in 2004.102 Had that metric tons from covered states and sec- electricity been generated instead by tors of the economy by 2020 when com- typical power plants in the U.S. elec- pared with 2005 emission levels, and 270 tricity mix, emissions of carbon dioxide million metric tons by 2020 compared would have been 26.6 million metric tons with business-as-usual assumptions. greater than they were.103 Moreover, the Adding in the impact of state policies, U.S. Department of Energy attributes state policies that have been adopted approximately 17 million metric tons of federally, and recent federal actions that the decline in carbon dioxide emissions will be implemented by the states, the during 2009 to expanded production of total emission reduction that will be zero-emission electricity compared to achieved by the policies reviewed in this 2008 levels, primarily from wind.104 As a report will be approximately 536 million result, the increase in renewable energy metric tons per year by 2020, relative to production since 2004 – much of which anticipated emission levels. was driven by state and federal poli- These emission reductions are sig- cies – could be assumed to have reduced nificant on a global scale, exceeding the

36 America on the Move annual energy-related carbon dioxide Figure 8. Projected Emission Reductions from Selected emissions of all but eight nations in the State and Federal Policies world. Indeed, the steps taken by lead- 600 Regional Greenhouse Gas ing individual states, such as California, Initiative are themselves important from a global National Lighting Efficiency perspective. (See Figure 9.) 500 Standard Recovery Act Efficiency Unfortunately, it is beyond the scope Programs (a) 400 of this report to project the ultimate level Updated Building Energy of U.S. global warming emissions in 2020 Codes

E), 2020 E), State & Federal Clean Cars 2 300 resulting from these policies. The esti- Program mated emission reductions reported here State & Federal Appliance Standards are compared with “business as usual” (MMTCO 200 Energy Efficiency Resource projections produced at various times by Standards Reductions vs. Reductionsvs. Business as Usual various entities using various methodolo- EstimatedGlobal Warming Emission 100 Renewable Electricity Standards gies. The impact of many – though not all State Emission Caps – of these state policies is reflected in the 0 EIA’s projections of future carbon dioxide emissions from energy use. The programs (a) Includes only those programs in which funding has already been allocated reviewed in this report will likely drive U.S. global warming pollutant emissions below the level projected by the EIA, but Figure 9. Emission Reductions from Selected State the degree of the additional reductions is and Federal Policies by State in 2020 (Compared with difficult to ascertain. No Action) The unmistakable conclusion, however, is that state actions are making a 180 meaningful and measurable contribution 160 to reducing global warming pollution 140 in the United States … and that those 120 100

actions are paving the way for similar ac- E) 2 tions at the federal level. Those actions, 80 coupled with broader economic shifts, 60 (MMTCO have already changed America’s projected 40 emission trajectory from one of ever- 20 increasing emissions of global warming 0

pollution to one of stable emissions for Warming Global Emission Reductions in 2020 decades to come. The next challenge for the United States is to move quickly beyond policies to stabilize emissions and to take action to reduce global warming pollution consistent with the nation’s obligation to do now at the federal level – the American its share to prevent the worst impacts of people have shown that they are ready for global warming. the United States to take a leadership role in grappling with the challenge of global warming. Now it is time for the Obama Taking the Next Step administration, Congress and the states to Through their support for cutting- take the next steps toward putting Amer- edge energy policies at the state level – and ica on track for a clean energy future.

Adding it Up: The Contribution of State Actions to Reducing Global Warming Pollution 37 Specifically: tion fuel and discourage the use of carbon-intensive forms of energy • President Obama should take leader- such as oil from tar sands and oil ship in negotiating an international shale, coal-to-liquids fuel, and treaty that does what is necessary to environmentally damaging forms prevent the most dangerous impacts of biofuel. of global warming. • The federal government should limit • States should ensure full implemen- emissions of global warming pollu- tation of the clean energy policies tion to levels consistent with what they have already developed and im- science says is necessary to prevent prove those policies to achieve even the most dangerous impacts of global greater emission reductions wherever warming. Specifically, the United possible. States should achieve emission reductions equivalent to 35 percent of • States should continue to build on 2005 levels by 2020 (with the major- their track record of innovation in ity of those reductions occurring clean energy policy, including by: domestically) and reduce emissions îî Developing and implementing by 83 percent by 2050. more ambitious building codes • The federal government should that will put the nation on track implement nationally the best clean toward ensuring that all new energy policies adopted by the states, buildings use zero net energy by including: 2030. îî A renewable electricity standard îî Continuing investments in the that would require 25 percent of retrofits of existing buildings with the nation’s electricity to come a goal of reducing energy con- from renewable sources by 2025. sumption in existing buildings by îî A federal energy efficiency re- at least 30 percent by 2030. source standard requiring a 15 îî Providing policy and financial percent reduction in electric- support to accelerate the deploy- ity consumption and 10 percent ment of solar energy technologies reduction in natural gas consump- – including rooftop solar panels tion versus business as usual in and solar water heating systems. 2020. îî Developing the infrastructure that îî Generation performance stan- would allow for a long-term tran- dards that will prevent the con- sition to plug-in vehicles, includ- struction of new coal-fired power ing plug-in hybrids and electric plants (without carbon capture cars. and storage), the expansion of existing coal-fired plants, or the îî Reprioritizing transportation construction of other, high-emit- funding to expand the trans- ting forms of power generation. portation choices available to îî A federal low-carbon fuel standard Americans, including public trans- that will encourage the develop- portation and passenger rail. ment and use of electricity and îî Launching efforts to train workers sustainable biofuels as transporta- for jobs in clean energy industries.

38 America on the Move Methodology

his analysis attempts to quantify cut” at quantifying the impact of these the reductions in global warming policies and leaves key questions – such as Tpollution that would occur from the ultimate level of U.S. emissions after implementation of clean energy policies implementation of these state policies – adopted by the states, as well as federal unanswered. policies initiated by the states or in which The authors strongly believe that state the states have prominent roles in policy policy initiatives have the potential to implementation. play a meaningful role in reducing global This report represents, to the authors’ warming emissions in the United States – knowledge, the first attempt to quantify and that assessing the impact of those ini- the impact of the recent wave of state tiatives is a topic deserving of additional energy and climate policies on future attention and study by the energy analysis global warming pollution across various community. We welcome efforts by future policy instruments and segments of the researchers to refine and expand upon this economy. It is built upon policy-specific analysis in the hopes of both arriving at a analyses of energy savings and emission better understanding of the role of state reductions produced by a variety of policy and of providing useful perspective governmental and non-profit entities, as for state and federal decision-makers as well as original analysis of federal energy they evaluate potential policy options to data. However, it is admittedly a “first address global warming.

Methodology 39 renewable electricity standards was not Cross-Cutting Issues assumed to affect the projected emission factor derived from AEO 2009 Updated, Energy Consumption since many state renewable electricity Projections and Emission Factor standards are already factored into the EIA’s electric sector projections.) To Calculations generate state-specific emission factors Many of the policies evaluated here – for electricity generation, we relied on including renewable electricity standards AEO 2009 Updated for data on projected and energy efficiency resource standards electricity generation and power plant – are articulated in terms of percentage emissions for each EIA electricity market change compared either with a histori- module (EMM) region. cal base year or a projected future year. For states in a single EMM region, All estimates of energy consumption are the emission factor was calculated by based on data from the U.S. Department dividing carbon dioxide emissions from of Energy, Energy Information Admin- power plants by total electricity genera- istration (EIA). Baseline 2007 electricity tion in the region, with both data points consumption numbers are based on EIA, coming from AEO 2009 Updated. For Electric Sales, Revenue and Price, down- states with utilities in more than one loaded from www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/ EMM region, we used a weighted aver- electricity/esr/esr_sum.html, 15 October age emission factor, with the emission 2009. Natural gas consumption figures factors from the various EMM regions in were based on EIA, Natural Gas Naviga- the state weighted by the percentage of tor, accessed on 16 October 2009. electricity sales by utilities in each region. Energy consumption projections for Utilities were assigned to EMM regions future years are based on regional energy using EIA’s Form 861 database for 2005 consumption projections derived from (the last year in which Form 861 used EIA, An Updated Annual Energy Outlook the same regional definitions as used in 2009 Reference Case Reflecting Provisions of AEO 2009 Updated). The one exception the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act to this was Iowa, where the 2004 version and Recent Changes in the Economic Outlook, of Form 861 was used. Electricity sales by April 2009 (AEO 2009 Updated). The utility were based on the 2007 edition of regional energy consumption figure for the Form 861 database. For future year each fuel (delivered electricity or natural projections, it was assumed that the share gas) was allocated to the states based on of electricity delivered by utilities in each their share of 2007 regional consumption EMM region in a state would remain of that fuel, derived from the EIA sources constant through 2020. listed above. To estimate carbon dioxide emission reductions from reductions in electricity Avoiding Double Counting consumption, we assumed that renewable To the extent possible, emission re- energy added to the grid as a result of ductions from overlapping policies were state policies or electricity saved through adjusted to avoid double counting. Total energy efficiency policies would offset emission reductions from states with carbon dioxide at the average emission global warming pollution caps were based rate for a power plant in the region in solely on the impact of the cap – all other which the state resides and in the year policies were assumed to have no net ad- being evaluated. (The implementation of ditional effect. (The one exception to this

40 America on the Move is Hawaii, where the most recent refer- projections for 2020 were based on Cali- ence case projection of global warming fornia Air Resources Board, Greenhouse emissions shows 2020 emissions to be Gas Inventory – 2020 Forecast, downloaded below the level of the cap, due in large from www.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/data/ part to recent state and federal policy forecast.htm, 21 October 2009. action. In order to accurately represent New Jersey: Mandated emission the impact of these policies in achieving reductions were based on the emission Hawaii’s emission reduction targets, we target (1990 emissions), 2005 emission calculate emission reductions in Hawaii level, and 2020 business-as-usual pro- as if no cap were in place.) States with jection from New Jersey Department of electric sector emission caps were as- Environmental Protection, New Jersey sumed to gain no additional benefit Greenhouse Gas Inventory and Reference from policies that reduce electric sector Case Projections, 1990-2020, November emissions. In Minnesota, the state’s en- 2008. ergy efficiency resource standard allows Hawaii: The level of mandated emis- energy savings from building codes, sion reductions was based on Hawaii appliance standards and other measures H.B. 226, 24th Legislature, 2007, down- to count toward compliance. Therefore, loaded from www.capitol.hawaii.gov/ emission reductions from those policies session2007/bills/HB226_cd1_.htm, 19 were considered to be non-additional. October 2009. Emissions from 2007 were used in lieu of 2005 emissions due to the availability of a detailed emission Caps on Global Warming inventory for that year. Emissions in 2007 were based on ICF International, Pollution Hawaii Greenhouse Gas Inventory: 1990 The amount of emission reductions and 2007, 31 December 2008. Reference required per state, along with baseline case projections for 2020 were based on emissions of global warming pollutants ICF International, Reference Projections of for 2005 and business-as-usual projec- Hawaii’s Greenhouse Gas Emissions, 2007- tions for 2020, were calculated based 2020, 3 September 2009. on the following sources, and with the Massachusetts: Emission reductions following caveats: are based on the minimum required re- California: The level of mandated duction of 10 percent below 1990 levels emission reductions was based on by 2020 under the Global Warming Solu- California AB 32, Nunez and Pavley, tions Act (the act empowers the Secretary Chapter 488, Statutes of 2006. The tar- of Energy and Environmental Affairs to geted emission level of 427 MMTCO2E set an emission reduction target of up to by 2020 was based on California Air 25 percent below 1990 levels by 2020). Resources Board, California 1990 Green- The emission reduction target, 2005 house Gas Emissions Level and 2020 Limit, emission levels, and 2020 business-as- downloaded from www.arb.ca.gov/cc/ usual projection were from Massachusetts inventory/1990level/1990level.htm, 19 Department of Environmental Protec- October 2009. Emissions in 2005 were tion, Summary of Massachusetts GHG based on California Air Resources Emissions, downloaded from www.mass. Board, Greenhouse Gas Inventory Data – gov/dep/air/climate/gwsa_appendix1_fi- 2000 to 2006, downloaded from www. nal.pdf, 19 October 2009. arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/data/data.htm, Connecticut: There is no state-issued 19 October 2009. Business as usual global warming emission inventory that

Methodology 41 covers both emissions for the 1990 base electricity created by each state’s stan- year and 2005. For both years, Con- dards would reduce emissions by the necticut global warming emissions were projected carbon dioxide emission factor based on Timothy Telleen-Lawton and for electricity consumption for that state Sarah Payne, Environment Connecticut in 2020 (calculated as described above). Research & Policy Center and Clean State RES policies were reviewed using Water Fund, Falling Behind: New England summary information and links provided Must Act Now to Reduce Global Warming in the Database of State Incentives for Re- Pollution, March 2008. The 2020 refer- newables & Efficiency (DSIRE), accessed ence case projection was based on Con- during October 2009 at www.dsireusa. necticut Governor’s Steering Committee org. For each state, an estimate of the on Climate Change, Connecticut Climate percentage of renewable energy required Change Action Plan, January 2005. by the RES in 2020 was developed, as- Maryland: Maryland’s emission reduc- suming that the nominal targets of the tion target is established in reference to a RES would be met using renewable 2006 baseline. A detailed 2006 emission energy. For states with different RES inventory was unavailable, so a target of requirements for various classes of utili- 25 percent below 2005 levels was used ties (e.g., municipal utilities and co-ops), to simulate the impact of the policy. All the share of the electricity market subject emission information was taken from to the RES was determined using 2007 Maryland Commission on Climate electricity sales data from EIA, Form 861 Change, Interim Report to the Governor Database, file 2, downloaded from www. and the General Assembly: Climate Action eia.org, 29 September 2009. For states Plan, January 2008. in which electricity from existing renew- Regional Greenhouse Gas Initia- able generators was counted toward RES tive: Emission reductions versus 2005 goals, existing renewables were removed levels under RGGI were estimated as from our estimate of renewable energy follows. First, the emission budget per production based on data from EIA, state and historical carbon dioxide emis- State Electricity Profiles 2007 Edition, April sion levels were obtained from Regional 2009.

Greenhouse Gas Initiative, CO2 Emis- With regard to specific states, the Iowa sion Data Files for 2000-2007 for Electric and Texas RESs were not assumed to pro- Generating Units (EGUs) Subject to RGGI duce any additional renewable electricity Program (Excel spreadsheet), 22 Febru- by 2020, as the target thresholds for these ary 2009. Required emission reductions states have already been met (however, the for 2018 were assumed to be 10 percent city of Austin’s local RES was counted in below the emission budget set by the the Texas total). The impact of the Kansas program, with reductions assumed to oc- RES, which is expressed in the form of cur proportionately by state. The RGGI percentage of peak demand (rather than emission cap was assumed to continue at energy provided), was estimated based its 2018 level through 2020. on projected peak demand from Kansas utilities from Kansas Electricity Council, Kansas Electric Generation: Capacity and Renewable Electricity Peak Load, 2008 to 2028, 24 November 2008. Current renewable electricity Standards capacity (obtained from the EIA’s State To estimate emission reductions from Electricity Profiles) was subtracted from the RESs, we assumed that the renewable total used to calculate the renewable en-

42 America on the Move ergy goal. After applying the percentage original legislation. Generally speaking, target for renewable energy development year-by-year energy efficiency savings to the capacity figure, and correcting for were estimated to accrue over time, with the 10 percent bonus for new renewable the estimated reduction in 2020 energy generation, the amount of electricity consumption being the sum of the year- expected to be produced by the RES in by-year savings. Because this method 2020 was calculated by multiplying the does not reflect the potential for energy capacity figure by a projected capacity consumption to change over time due to factor for wind energy installations of factors independent of energy efficiency 38 percent. improvements, this method yields only a The percentage of new renewable en- rough estimate of energy efficiency sav- ergy required by the RES was multiplied ings from EERSs. by projected 2020 electricity consump- Many states with EERSs have estab- tion in each state (calculated as described lished only short-term energy savings above) to arrive at the amount of renew- targets. These targets were generally used able electricity anticipated to be pro- to estimate energy savings in 2020 on the duced by the RES. To estimate projected theory that those savings would – at a bare emission reductions, we multiplied the minimum – be maintained through 2020. electricity created by renewables under In all likelihood, the EERS requirements the RES by the projected carbon dioxide in these states will generate additional emission factor for that state, calculated emission reductions that are unaccounted as described above. for in this analysis. For all policies in which reductions To follow are detailed assumptions for in electricity consumption due to en- the impact of EERSs in states without ergy efficiency measures were calculated, specific percentage requirements, or we reduced projected 2020 electricity for which additional assumptions were consumption by the amount of energy necessary: saved before calculating the amount of renewable electricity that would be re- Electricity quired under the RES. This step, which is necessary to avoid double-counting, Colorado: Estimated savings based reduces the amount of renewable electric- only on projected savings from Public ity from what would be required were no Service Company of Colorado’s filing energy efficiency measures in place, and before the Colorado PUC, from Public therefore reduces the amount of carbon Utilities Commission of the State of dioxide emission reductions projected as Colorado, In the Matter of the Application a result of the RES. of Public Service Company of Colorado for Authority to Implement an Enhanced De- mand Side Management Program and to Revise Its Demand-Side Management Cost Energy Efficiency Resource Adjustment Mechanism to Include Current Standards Cost Recovery and Incentives: Order Grant- Energy savings from EERSs were ing Application in Part, Docket No.: 07A- based on descriptions of the impact of 420E, 23 May 2008. Savings from other EERS policies from several sources – utilities covered under Colorado’s EERS including the American Council for an were not quantified. Energy-Efficient Economy’sState Energy Hawaii: Hawaii’s EERS goal of saving Efficiency Policy Database, DSIRE, and the 40 percent of electricity consumption in

Methodology 43 2030 was prorated to 2020 assuming that ergy efficiency. However, the first firm energy savings of 25 percent would be energy savings targets under the Wash- achieved, a similar ratio as is achieved by ington EERS have yet to be set and, as the state’s RES. See Hawaii H.B. 1464, a result, savings from the Washington 25th Legislature, 2009. EERS are not included in this analysis. Iowa: Estimated savings from the Iowa EERS were based on Iowa Utilities Natural Gas Board, Energy Efficiency in Iowa’s Electricity and Natural Gas Sectors: Report to the Iowa California: Savings from California’s General Assembly, 1 January 2009. natural gas EERS were estimated through Massachusetts: Massachusetts re- 2013, based on Public Utilities Commis- quires utilities to tap all cost-effective sion of California, Application of Southern sources of energy efficiency. Savings California Edison Company for Approval of included here are through 2012 and are its 2009-2011 Energy Efficiency Program based on National Grid, NSTAR, et al., Plans and Associated Public Goods Charge 2010-2012 Massachusetts Joint Statewide (PGC) and Procurement Funding Requests Three-Year Electric Energy Efficiency Plan, and Related Matters: Decision Approving 16 July 2009. 2010 to 2012 Energy Efficiency Portfolios Rhode Island: Rhode Island requires and Budgets, Application No. 08-07-021, utilities to tap all cost-effective sources 24 September 2009. of energy efficiency. Savings included Iowa: See “Electricity” above. here are through 2011 and are based on Massachusetts: Savings are through State of Rhode Island and Providence 2012 and are based on NSTAR, National Plantations Public Utilities Commission, Grid, et al., 2010-2012 Massachusetts Joint National Grid Least Cost Procurement: Statewide Three-Year Gas Energy Efficiency Report and Order, Docket No. 3931, 2 Plan, 16 July 2009. September 2008. New Mexico: New Mexico’s EERS Texas: Texas’ EERS requires the requires natural gas utilities to achieve state to avert 20 percent of load growth all cost-effective energy efficiency but through energy efficiency. Load growth does not set a numerical target for natu- th in Texas was estimated by calculating the ral gas. See New Mexico H.B. 305, 48 projected increase in electricity consump- Legislature, 2008. tion in Texas through 2020, calculated as Electricity savings were converted described above and based on AEO 2009 into avoided carbon dioxide emissions Revised. by multiplying them by the projected Vermont: Vermont savings are through carbon dioxide emission factor for elec- 2011 and based on Efficiency Vermont, tricity generation in 2020, arrived at as Annual Plan 2009-2011, 16 December described above. The emission factor 2008. for natural gas was assumed to be 117.08 Virginia: Virginia’s EERS calls for pounds of CO2 per million BTU of savings equivalent to 10 percent of 2006 natural gas. electricity sales by 2022. Savings in 2020 were prorated based on consistent achievement of energy savings over time, Clean Cars Program with savings by 2020 assumed to equal 8.5 For the 14 states that adopted the percent of 2006 electricity sales. Clean Cars Program, estimates of emis- Washington: Washington requires sion reductions from the program are utilities to achieve all cost-effective en- based on California Air Resources Board

44 America on the Move (CARB), Addendum to the February 25 Building Energy Codes Technical Assessment (Addendum), May To analyze the impact of state building 2008. These emission reductions are codes, we began by cataloguing existing based on the assumptions that a) the fed- building codes and changes scheduled eral global warming emissions program to come into effect in coming years, for automobiles will closely resemble based on data from the Building Codes the California program in its impact on Assistance Project, Code Status Web site, emissions, b) the 14 states will all adopt accessed on 16 October 2009. We also as- a second phase of the standards, which sumed, following the assumptions of the would run from 2017 to 2020, and c) that EIA, that by 2018 all states will adopt the those future standards will resemble those 2009 IECC code for residential construc- anticipated by the CARB. tion and the ASHRAE 90.1-2007 code The estimated benefits of the national for commercial construction in response vehicle emissions program were also based to the requirements of the economic on CARB’s May 2008 Addendum, but with recovery package.106 the difference that states taking part in the To estimate energy savings and emis- national program are not assumed to fol- sion reductions from building codes, we low along with the proposed second phase multiplied the estimated energy savings of the program. To estimate the emission that would be delivered by the updated reductions that would not occur in these building code per residential unit or states, we relied on CARB, Comparison of square foot of commercial space by Greenhouse Gas Reductions for the US and the number of new residential units or Canada Under U.S. CAFE Standards and amount of square footage of commercial California Air Resources Board Greenhouse space projected to be completed between Gas Regulations, February 2008. In Table the year that the updated code is imple- 11 of this report, CARB estimates the reduction in emissions in 2020 from the mented and 2020. (Emission reductions vehicle fleet by model year. We assumed from the application of codes to major that the percentage emission reduction renovations of existing buildings were for states following the national program not calculated.) would remain at the 2016 level through To calculate the quantity of new resi- model year 2020, and recalculated the dential units or square footage of com- fleetwide emission reductions based on mercial space projected to be added over that assumption. That calculation showed a period of time, we followed the method- that failure to implement the second ology of the 2004 Brookings Institution phase of the program would reduce the Metropolitan Policy Program report, emission savings under the program by Toward a New Metropolis: The Opportunity 14 percent in California. We then applied to Rebuild America. That report estimated that 14 percent reduction to the state-by- the need for residential and commercial state estimates of emission savings from space based on constant ratios of state the May 2008 Addendum to arrive at the residents to residential units and com- estimated emission reduction that would mercial workers to square feet of com- result from the national program. mercial space. It also provided a means The emission reductions projected of calculating the annual rate of loss of from the Clean Cars Program are relative existing residential and commercial space to the increased corporate average fuel for each state. economy standards resulting from the To estimate new residential con- 2007 federal energy bill. struction, we multiplied the figure for

Methodology 45 residential units per state resident in tion, and Air-Conditioning Engineers’ 2000 from the Brookings Toward a New Advanced Energy Design Guide for Small Metropolis report by the U.S. Census Warehouses and Self Storage Buildings, up- Bureau’s projection of state population dated 11 June 2008) with the U.S. Census in 2020 from Table 5 of the U.S. Census Bureau’s estimates of 2008 population for Bureau’s report State Interim Population each county from U.S. Census Bureau, Projections by Age and Sex, 2004-2030, U.S. Counties Data Files: Population – Total accessed at www.census.gov/population/ and Selected Characteristics, downloaded www/projections/projectionsagesex.html from www2.census.gov/prod2/statcomp/ on 20 October 2009. We used the differ- usac/excel/POP01.xls, 7 October 2009. ence between that figure and the existing By this method, we were able to identify number of residences in 2000 as the basis what percentage of each state’s popula- for our annual growth figures, assuming tion falls into each climate zone within linear growth during those years. From that state. We used these population this annual growth figure, we subtracted breakdowns as a proxy for breakdowns the annual loss figure and multiplied by of new construction between the state’s the existing number of residential units in climate zones. 2000, to obtain an estimate of the number The basis for our analysis of the effect of residential units constructed each year. of commercial codes is the 2009 report This form of estimation is conservative from the U.S. Department of Energy, as a result of subtracting loss rates from Building Energy Codes Program, Impacts a constant, rather than expanding, base- of Standard 90.1-2007 for Commercial Con- line, and as a result of using the Brook- struction at State Level. This report com- ings report’s intentionally conservative pares the efficiency of newly constructed numbers. buildings built to the state’s existing code To estimate commercial construction, and the ASHRAE 90.1-2007 code in we took the Brookings report’s figure for each climate zone of each state. For each the size of the commercial workforce in climate zone in each state, we used the each state in 2030, and assumed a constant estimates of electricity usage and natural rate of growth between 2000 and 2030 in gas usage under both standards to obtain order to interpolate an estimate for the an annual, per square foot reduction from size of the commercial workforce in the old standard to 90.1-2007. We then 2020. We multiplied this annual growth combined the climate zone numbers into number by the ratio of square footage a population-weighted average for the of commercial space to workers that the state as a whole. We then credited each Brookings report provides for each state state with the reduction that would result to obtain an estimate for growth in com- from construction between the adoption mercial space each year. We then derived of the 2007 standard and 2020. (We as- a number for square feet lost each year sumed that ASHRAE 90.1-2007 would be and total annual construction in a man- adopted in 2018 in all states that had not ner directly analogous to that used for made specific plans to adopt it sooner.) residential construction. For four states (Washington, Oregon, We next broke down each state’s California and Florida), we were not population by DOE climate zone. To do able to obtain estimates, since they use this we combined a list of which coun- building codes of their own that differ ties fall into each climate zone (from the significantly from the codes the DOE American Society of Heating, Refrigera- modeled.

46 America on the Move The basis for our estimate of the im- • Appliance standards due to be issued pact of residential code changes is the data by the federal government between compiled on the effect of the transition 2009 and 2013. from the 2006 IECC to the 2009 IECC in • The federal lighting efficiency each climate zone compiled by ICF Inter- standard announced by the Obama national for the Energy Efficient Codes administration in 2009. Coalition.107 This source provided us with an estimate of electricity and natural gas • State appliance standards for which savings per residential unit in each cli- there are no federal standards sched- mate zone. We took population-weighted uled. averages of these numbers for each state to produce a statewide per-unit savings Energy savings from the first class of estimate, and then followed the same products (those with federal standards methodology as with commercial codes due during the next four years) were to estimate the energy savings in 2020 based on detailed state-by-state estimates from the adoption of the 2009 IECC. from Max Neubauer, et al., American (We assumed that the 2006 IECC was the Council for an Energy Efficient Econ- baseline standard in all states; this leads omy (ACEEE) and Appliance Standards to an extremely conservative estimate of Awareness Project (ASAP), Ka-BOOM! the savings estimated for upgrading to The Power of Appliance Standards, July the 2009 version of that code.) All states 2009. The ACEEE/ASAP report reflects were assumed to adopt the 2009 IECC by the impact of the organizations’ recom- 2018, in the absence of plans calling for mended standards; since the DOE has its adoption before that time. yet to propose specific standards for the To estimate savings in Florida, we used products listed, the ultimate energy sav- the Building Codes Assistance Project’s ings and emission reductions could be estimate that the Florida Residential greater or less than those estimated in Construction Code (FRCC) is 17 percent the report. more efficient than the 2006 IECC, but 3 Carbon dioxide emission reductions percent less efficient than the 2009 IECC, from the Obama administration’s light- to obtain a figure for expected savings ing standards were based on estimated from the FRCC over the 2006 IECC.108 annualized reductions as published in In the case of Washington and Oregon, Energy Conservation Program: Energy we treated their existing codes as equiva- Conservation Standards and Test Procedures lent to the 2006 IECC and credited them, for General Service Fluorescent Lamps and as in most other states, with the savings Incandescent Reflector Lamps; Final Rule, as that would come from transitioning to published in the Federal Register, 74 FR the 2009 IECC in 2018. No estimate was 34079-34179. These emission reductions obtained for California. were assigned to states based on their share of U.S. population. (Because the Federal Register notice included only an Appliance Efficiency estimate for emission reductions, rather than electricity consumption reductions, Standards emission reductions from this measure Energy savings from appliance effi- may be double counted in some states.) ciency standards were based on separate Savings from standards that have estimates of three policy packages: not been adopted federally were based

Methodology 47 on estimates from Steven Nadel, et al., apps1.eere.energy.gov/weatheriza- ACEEE and ASAP, Leading the Way: tion/recovery_act.cfm, 15 October Continued Opportunities for New State Ap- 2009. pliance and Equipment Efficiency Standards, • State Energy Program: U.S. Depart- March 2006. ment of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, 2009 Recovery Act and the State Energy Federal Initiatives Program, downloaded from apps1. The impact of energy efficiency initia- eere.energy.gov/state-energy_pro- tives in the American Recovery and Re- gram/recovery_act.cfm, 15 October investment Act (ARRA) were estimated 2009. based on ICF International/Greenpeace • Energy Efficiency and Conservation USA, Summary Report: GHG Impact of the Block Grants: Based on U.S. Depart- Economic Stimulus Package: Preliminary ment of Energy, Office of Energy Findings, 29 January 2009. To adjust for Efficiency and Renewable Energy, the lower levels of spending on the pro- EECBG Grantees as of 09302009 grams in the final economic recovery bill (Excel spreadsheet), downloaded compared to those assumed in the ICF/ from www.eecbg.energy.gov/ Greenpeace analysis, we reduced the downloads/EECBG_Grantees_as_ emission benefits of the programs from of_09302009.xls, 15 October 2009. the ICF/Greenpeace analysis in propor- tion to the reduction in funding. We then • Public Housing Energy Efficiency: allocated the emission reductions to the Funding based on an Excel spread- states based on the allocation of ARRA sheet associated with the following funding as of 15 October 2009. Infor- press release: U.S. Department of mation on state allocations was from the Housing and Urban Development, following sources: HUD Announces $500 Million in Recovery Act Grants to Add Afford- • Weatherization Assistance Program: able Rental Housing, “Green” Existing U.S. Department of Energy, Office Public Housing (press release), 23 of Energy Efficiency and Renewable September 2009. Energy, 2009 Recovery Act and Weath- erization Funding, downloaded from

48 America on the Move Notes

1. Yvo de Boer, Executive Secretary of the Faster and Sooner: New Science Report Under- United Nations Framework Convention on lines Urgency for Governments to Seal the Deal Climate Change, “Four Essential Steps to in Copenhagen (press release), 24 September Copenhagen Agreement,” COP15 Copenha- 2009; United Nations Environment Pro- gen, 30 March 2009. gramme, Climate Change Science Compendium 2. Damian Carrington, “China Makes its 2009, September 2009. First Commitments to Climate Change Tar- 11. Ibid. gets,” The Guardian, 22 September 2009. 12. Temperature: A.P. Sokolov, et al., 3. U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Information Administration, International Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Energy Annual 2006, June-December 2008. Global Change, “Probabilistic Forecast for 4. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate 21st Century Climate Based on Uncertainties Change, “Summary for Policy Makers,” in: in Emissions (without Policy) and Climate Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Parameters,” Journal of Climate 22 (19): 5175- Basis, Contribution of Working Group I to the 5204, in press (doi: 10.1175/2009JCLI2863.1), Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmen- 2009; Vicky Pope, United Kingdom Met tal Panel on Climate Change, 2007. Office, Head of Climate Change Advice, 5. James Elsner, et al., “The Increasing “Met Office Warn of ‘Catastrophic’ Rise in Intensity of the Strongest Tropical Cyclones,” Temperature,” The Times Online (London), Nature 455, 92-95, 4 September 2008; In- 19 December 2008. 6.5 feet: W.T. Pfeffer, et tergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, al., Institute of Arctic and Alpine Research, “Summary for Policy Makers,” in Climate University of Colorado, Boulder, “Kinematic Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis, Con- Constraints on Glacier Contributions to tribution of Working Group I to the Fourth As- 21st-Century Sea-Level Rise,” Science 321: sessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel 1340-1343, September 2008. on Climate Change, 2007. 13. Extinction: Intergovernmental Panel 6. See note 4. on Climate Change, Fourth Assessment Report, 7. U.S. Global Change Research Program, Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report, 2007; Global Climate Change Impacts in the United Brian Walsh, “The New Age of Extinction,” States, Cambridge University Press, 2009. Time, 1 April 2009. Drought: E.J. Burke, S.J. 8. Michael Roddy, “Climate Change Turn- Brown, and N. Christidis, “Modeling the ing Seas Acid: Scientists,” Reuters, 31 May Recent Evolution of Global Drought and 2009; David Adam, “How Global Warming Projections for the Twenty- First Century Sealed the Fate of the World’s Coral Reefs,” with the Hadley Centre Climate Model,” The Guardian, 2 September 2009. Journal of Hydrometeorology 7: 1113–1125, 9. Causes: Paul R. Epstein and Evan Mills, 2006; Susan Solomon, et al., U.S. National eds., The Center for Health and the Global Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Environment, Harvard Medical School, Cli- “Irreversible Climate Change due to Carbon mate Change Futures: Health, Ecological and Emissions,” Proceedings of the National Acad- Economic Dimensions, November 2005. 6.5 emy of Sciences 106: 1704-1709, 10 February million: Charles Hanley, “Beetles, Wildfire: 2009. Wildfires: Donald McKenzie, et al., Double Threat in a Warming World,” Associ- U.S. Department of Agriculture, “Climatic ated Press, 24 August 2009. Change, Wildfire, and Conservation,” Con- 10. United Nations Environment Pro- servation Biology 18(4): 890-902, August gramme, Impacts of Climate Change Coming 2004. Hurricanes: Researchers at Florida

Notes 49 State University calculate that for every 1° 22. See note 17. C increase in sea-surface temperatures, the 23. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate frequency of severe hurricanes (category 4 Change, Climate Change 2007: Mitigation of and 5) increases by nearly one-third. James Climate Change, Contribution of Working Group Elsner, et al., “The Increasing Intensity of III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Inter- the Strongest Tropical Cyclones,” Nature governmental Panel on Climate Change, 2007, 455: 92-95, 4 September 2008. Heat waves: Box 13.7, p. 776. Andreas Sterl, et al., Royal Netherlands 24. See note 17. Meteorological Institute, “When Can We 25. See emission reduction targets for Expect Extremely High Surface Tempera- Annex I countries for 450 ppm stabilization tures?” Geophysical Research Letters 35, L14703 scenario: S. Gupta, et al., “Policies, Instru- (doi:10.1029/2008GL034071), 19 July 2008. ments, and Co-operative Arrangements,” in Amazon: Rachel Warren, “Impacts of Global Climate Change 2007: Mitigation, Contribution Climate Change at Different Annual Mean of Working Group III to the Fourth Assessment Global Temperature Increases,” in Hans Report of the IPCC, 2007, 776. Joachim Schnellnhuber, ed., Avoiding Danger- 26. Based on U.S. Department of Energy, ous Climate Change, Cambridge University Energy Information Administration, Emis- Press, 2006; HM Treasury, Stern Review: The sions of Greenhouse Gases in the United States Economics of Climate Change, 2006, 57. 2007, December 2008. Includes all emissions 14. For example, mountain glaciers are from electricity sector and all emissions of melting, which will reduce the availability of natural gas from non-electricity use. drinking water, irrigation and hydropower for 27. U.S. Department of Energy, Energy as much as 25 percent of all people on earth. Information Administration, Emissions of See note 10. Greenhouse Gases in the United States 2007, 15. Nathaniel Gronenwold, Climatewire, December 2008. “IPCC Chief Raps G-8, Calls for Global 28. Architecture 2030, Meeting the 2030 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Cuts After 2015,” Challenge Through Building Codes, 20 June New York Times, 21 July 2009. 2008. 16. Myles R. Allen, et al., “Warming 29. Architecture 2030, The Building Sec- Caused by Cumulative Carbon Emissions tor: A Historic Opportunity, downloaded from Towards the Trillionth Tonne,” Nature 458: www.architecture2030.org/current_situation/ 1163-1166, 30 April 2009; Malte Mein- hist_opportunity.html, 9 October 2009. shausen, et al., “Greenhouse-Gas Emission 30. 285 U.S.C. 262 Targets for Limiting Global Warming to 2° 31. Max Neubauer, Andrew deLaski, Mari- C,” Nature 458: 1158-1162, 30 April 2009. anne DiMascio & Steven Nadel, American 17. See discussion in Myles Allen, et al., Council for an Energy Efficient Economy “The Exit Strategy,” Nature Reports Climate and Appliance Standards Awareness Project, Change (doi:10.1038/climate.2009.38), 30 Ka-Boom! The Power of Appliance Standards, April 2009. July 2009. 18. Malte Meinshausen, et al., “Green- 32. North Carolina Solar Center, Database house-Gas Emission Targets for Limiting of State Incentives for Renewables & Efficiency, Global Warming to 2 °C,” Nature 458: 1158- accessed at www.dsireusa.org, 10 October 1162, 30 April 2009. 2009. 19. See note 15. 33. Ryan Wiser and Mark Bolinger, U.S. 20. Alex Morales, “Global Carbon Budget Department of Energy, Office of Energy Ef- Needed to Fight Warming, Nobel Winners ficiency and Renewable Energy, 2008 Wind Say,” Bloomberg News, 28 May 2009. Technologies Market Report, July 2009. 21. See note 18.

50 America on the Move 34. Public support: For example, an ABC State statistics from U.S. Environmental Pro-

News/Washington Post poll found that 91 tection Agency, CO2 Emissions from Fossil Fuel percent of those surveyed supported action Combustion, downloaded from www.epa.gov/ by the federal government to build more climate/climatechange/emissions/downloads/ wind and solar power. ABC News/Washing- CO2FFC_2007.pdf, 4 November 2009. ton Post poll conducted 13-17 August 2009, 46. Office of the Governor of California, downloaded from www.pollingreport.com/ Governor Schwarzenegger Signs Landmark energy.htm, 4 November 2009. Legislation to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions, 35. David Gerard and Lester B. Lave, 27 September 2006. Center for the Study and Improvement of 47. California Air Resources Board, Scop- Regulation, Implementing Technology Forcing ing Plan Implementation Timeline, 12 October Policies: The 1970 Clean Air Act Amendments 2009. and the Introduction of Advanced Automotive 48. See note 27. Emissions Controls, May 2003. 49. See methodology for detailed descrip- 36. Jack Doyle, Taken for a Ride: Detroit’s tion of how these numbers were derived. Big Three and the Politics of Pollution, Four 50. Pew Climate Group, Greenhouse Gas Walls Eight Windows, 2000, 292. Emissions Targets, 9 September 2009 37. Ibid., 303. 51. Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, 38. Ibid., 323. RGGI Executive Summary, 22 April 2009. 39. APEC Energy Standards Information 52. Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative,

System, A Global Movement Toward Phasing CO2 Emissions Data Files for 2000-2007 for Out Energy Inefficient Light Bulbs Is Emerging! Electric Generating Units (EGUs) Subject to (press release), 23 January 2008. RGGI Program (Excel spreadsheet), down- 40. Leora Broydo Vestel, “Incandescent loaded from www.rggi.org/about/documents, Bulbs Return to the Cutting Edge,” New York 22 October 2009. Times, 5 July 2009. 53. See methodology for method of cal- 41. $3.24 trillion, based on Bureau of Eco- culation. nomic Analysis, Regional Economic Accounts, 54. Western Climate Initiative, The WCI downloaded from www.bea.gov/regional/gsp, Cap-and-Trade Program, downloaded from 21 October 2009. www.westernclimateinitiative.org, 17 October 42. International Monetary Fund, World 2009. Economic Outlook Database, October 2009, 55. Midwest Greenhouse Gas Reduction downloaded from www.imf.org/external/ Accord, Advisory Group Draft Final Recom- pubs/ft/weo/2009/02/weodata/index.aspx, mendations, June 2009. 19 October 2009. 56. See note 32. 43. Based on 2007 data from U.S. Depart- 57. Union of Concerned Scientists, Re- ment of Energy, Energy Information Admin- newable Energy Standards Toolkit, downloaded istration, Emissions of Greenhouse Gases in the from www.ucsusa.org, 21 October 2009. United States 2007, December 2008. 58. Maggie Eldridge, et al., American 44. Energy Information Administration, Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, International Energy Outlook 2009, 27 May The 2009 State Energy Efficiency Scorecard, 2009. October 2009. 45. International statistics from U.S. 59. 13 percent of world based on com- Department of Energy, Energy Infor- parison between state electricity consumption mation Administration, International En- in 2007 from U.S. Department of Energy, ergy Statistics, downloaded from tonto. Energy Information Administration, Electric eia.doe.gov/cfapps/ipdbproject/IEDIndex3. Power Annual 2007 – State Data Tables, 26 cfm?tid=90&pid=44&aid=8, 4 November 2009. January 2009 and international electricity

Notes 51 consumption data from U.S. Department of from www.wsdot.wa.gov, 21 October 2009. Energy, Energy Information Administration, 72. Washington State 2008 Climate Action World Total Net Electricity Consumption, Most Team, Transportation Implementation Working Recent Annual Estimates, 1980-2007 (Excel Group Final Report, 5 November 2008. spreadsheet), 8 December 2008. 73. U.S. Department of Transportation, 60. See note 58. Federal Highway Administration, Highway 61. Ibid. Statistics, Summary to 1995, April 1997, and 62. Edward S. Rubin, Pew Center on U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Global Climate Change, A Performance Stan- Highway Administration, Highway Statistics

dards Approach to Reducing CO2 Emissions from 2007, October 2008. Power Plants, June 2009. 74. Based on data from U.S. Census 63. Ibid. Bureau, 2005-2007 American Community 64. Montana Environmental Informa- Survey, obtained via American Fact Find- tion Center, Highwood and Deregulation, er at factfinder.census.gov, 7 July 2009. downloaded from www.meic.org/energy/ 75. City of New York, PlaNYC Progress power_plants/highwood/highwood-and-hb- Report 2009, 22 April 2009. 25, 22 October 2009. 76. U.S. Environmental Protection 65. Minnesota House of Representatives, Agency, Clean Energy Lead by Example Guide, Energy—New Laws 2007, downloaded from 18 June 2009. www.house.leg.state.mn.us, 22 October 77. Ibid. 2009. 78. See note 58. 66. Craig D. Rose, “Sempra Abandons Bid 79. New York State Energy Resource and to Build Two Coal-Fired Electric Plants,” San Development Authority, Executive Order Diego Union-Tribune, 30 March 2006. 111 “Green and Clean” State Buildings and 67. National Resources Council of Maine, Vehicles—Statewide Annual Energy Report for

Placing Limits on CO2 Emissions from Coal Fiscal Year 2006/07, January 2009. Gasification—LD 2126, downloaded from 80. U.S. Environmental Protection www.nrcm.org, 21 October 2009. Agency and National Highway Traffic 68. Amount of coal-fired generation in Safety Administration, Proposed Rulemaking 2008 based on U.S. Department of Energy, to Establish Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Energy Information Administration, Existing Emission Standards and Corporate Average Fuel Generating Units in the United States by State, Economy Standards; Proposed Rule, 28 Septem- Company and Plant, 2008 Preliminary, down- ber 2009. loaded from www.eia.doe.gov, 20 October 81. See note 27. 2009. Data for previous years from U.S. 82. Lynn Benningfield and John Hogan Department of Energy, Energy Information for the Natural Resources Defense Council, Administration, Electric Power Annual 2007 – Building Energy Code Enforcement: A Look at State Data Tables, 26 January 2009. California and Seattle, 7 November 2003. 69. New America Foundation, State 83. Energy Efficient Codes Coalition, Climate Policy Tracker (Excel spreadsheet), Energy And Cost Savings Analysis of 2009 IECC downloaded from www.newamerica.net/pro- Efficiency Improvements, January 2009. grams/climate/building_blocks/action_matrix, 84. Based on Building Codes Assistance 10 November 2009. Project, Code Status, downloaded from www. 70. California Air Resources Board, Cali- bcap-energy.org, 16 October 2009. fornia’s Low Carbon Fuel Standard, October 85. U.S. Department of Energy, 2009 2009. Recovery Act and the State Energy Program, 71. Washington State Department of downloaded from apps1.eere.energy.gov, 21 Transportation, Climate Change, downloaded October 2009.

52 America on the Move 86. This figure does not include savings ergy Outlook Supplement: Understanding the from building codes in California, Oregon Decline in Carbon Dioxide Emissions in 2009, or Washington, or commercial energy codes October 2009. in Florida. These states have adopted strong, 101. Wind: American Wind Energy custom energy codes in lieu of the model Association, U.S. Wind Energy Projects as of codes developed by ASHRAE and the IECC. 6/27/09, downloaded from www.awea.org/ As a result, while those codes will deliver projects/, 22 October 2009 and American significant energy savings, their impact is Wind Energy Association, Annual Wind difficult to quantify and they have been left Energy Report, Year Ending 2008, undated. out of this analysis. Solar: European Photovoltaic Industry Asso- 87. Appliance Standards Awareness Proj- ciation, Global Market Outlook for Photovoltaics ect, Energy Efficiency Standards Adopted and Until 2013, April 2009, cited in Earth Policy Pending by State, January 2009. Institute, Cumulative Installed Solar Photovol- 88. See methodology for manner of cal- taics Capacity in the United States, 1998-2008 culation. (Excel spreadsheet), downloaded from www. 89. U.S. Department of Energy, Weather- earth-policy.org/datacenter/xls/update83_5. ization Assistance Program, 7 October 2009. xls, 4 November 2009. 90. U.S. Department of Energy, State 102. Based on 2008 data from U.S. De- Energy Program Frequently Asked Questions, partment of Energy, Energy Information Ad- 17 September 2009. ministration, 2008 December EIA-923 Monthly 91. Energy Information Administration, Time Series File (Excel spreadsheet), down- An Updated Annual Energy Outlook 2009 Refer- loaded from www.eia.doe.gov, 20 October ence Case, April 2009. 2008 and 2004 data from U.S. Department of 92. Ibid. Energy, Energy Information Administration, 93. Travis Madsen and Rob Sargent, U.S. Electric Power Annual 2007 – State Data Tables, PIRG Education Fund, Making Sense of the 26 January 2009. “Coal Rush”: The Consequences of Expanding 103. See methodology. America’s Dependence on Coal, July 2006. 104. See note 100. 94. Energy Information Administra- 105. Consortium for Energy Efficiency, tion, Annual Energy Outlook 2005, February 2008 Annual Industry Report, downloaded 2005. from www.cee1.org/ee-pe/2008/member_im- 95. U.S. Department of Energy, 2008 pacts.php, 6 November 2009. The U.S. sav- Wind Technologies Market Report, July 2009. ings estimate is prorated from the U.S. and 96. Lena H. Sun, “Public Transit Ridership Canada total. Hits Highest Level in 52 Years,” Washington 106. See note 91. Post, 9 March 2009. 107. ICF International, ICF’s Analysis of 97. See note 27; U.S. Department of the Energy Savings Achieved by the 2009 IECC, Energy, Energy Information Administra- downloaded from www.thirtypercentsolu- tion, Short Term Energy Outlook Supplement: tion.org/solution/ICF-data.pdf, 4 November Understanding the Decline in Carbon Dioxide 2009. Emissions in 2009, October 2009. 108. Building Codes Assistance Project, 98. See note 91. Code Status: Florida, downloaded from bcap- 99. U.S. Department of Energy, Energy energy.org/node/61, 4 November 2009. Information Administration, Annual Energy Outlook series of reports, 2005-2009 and updated reference case for 2009. 100. U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration, Short Term En-

Notes 53 Appendix: Estimated Impact of State and Selected National Policies on Global Warming Emissions, 2020

Economy- Renewable Wide Electricity Sector Energy Transportation Caps Emission Limits Programs Energy Efficiency Policies (a) Policies Total Emission Statewide Energy Reductions in Regional Generation Renewable Residential Commercial Appliance Global Efficiency Efficiency Lighting Recovery Act 2020 State Emission Performance Electricity Building Building Efficiency Efficiency Clean Cars Warming Resource Standards Program Cap Standard Standard Codes Codes Standard Programs (MMTCO2E) Emission Caps Standard (f) (b) Alabama 0.1 0.1 1.1 0.2 0.2 0.6 2.2 Alaska 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.3 Arizona 6.0 0.1 0.0 2.2 0.1 0.2 1.4 10.1 Arkansas 0.3 0.0 0.7 0.3 0.1 0.3 1.9 California 169.4 * 21.5 7.5 ** ** 3.6 1.6 0.9 9.8 169.4 Colorado 5.6 2.6 0.1 0.1 1.4 0.2 0.2 0.5 10.7 Connecticut 15.8 0.9 1.8 0.4 0.1 0.0 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.8 15.8 Delaware 0.6 0.8 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.9 Dist. Of Columbia 0.5 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1 1.0 Florida 2.5 0.0 3.7 0.9 0.5 2.0 9.7 Georgia 0.2 0.1 2.0 0.4 0.4 1.1 4.1 Hawaii (c) 0.0 1.2 2.1 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.1 3.8 Idaho 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.5 Illinois 11.0 15.4 0.6 0.7 2.8 0.5 0.5 1.2 32.7 Indiana 0.1 0.2 2.0 0.3 0.3 0.8 3.6 Iowa (d) 0.0 1.6 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.1 0.2 0.4 3.2 Kansas 5.4 0.0 0.1 0.9 0.1 0.1 0.3 6.9 Kentucky 0.1 0.1 1.3 0.2 0.2 0.4 2.2 Louisiana 0.1 0.0 1.1 0.2 0.2 0.5 2.0 Maine 0.3 * 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.4 1.2 Maryland 46.5 2.8 4.0 4.1 0.0 0.1 0.7 0.3 0.2 1.3 46.5 Massachusetts 9.2 2.0 2.1 0.9 0.1 0.1 0.6 0.2 0.3 1.4 9.2 Michigan 6.8 12.6 0.1 0.4 3.1 0.4 0.5 1.1 25.1 Minnesota * 5.7 10.8 0.1 0.2 1.5 0.2 0.3 0.6 17.4 Mississippi 0.0 0.1 0.6 0.1 0.1 0.4 1.4 Missouri 4.0 0.1 0.2 0.9 0.2 0.3 0.7 6.5 Montana * 0.5 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 1.0 Nebraska 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.9 Economy- Renewable Wide Electricity Sector Energy Transportation Caps Emission Limits Programs Energy Efficiency Policies (a) Policies Total Emission Statewide Energy Reductions in Regional Generation Renewable Residential Commercial Appliance Global Efficiency Efficiency Lighting Recovery Act 2020 State Emission Performance Electricity Building Building Efficiency Efficiency Clean Cars Warming Resource Standards Program Cap Standard Standard Codes Codes Standard Programs (MMTCO2E) Emission Caps Standard (f) (b) Nevada 2.2 *** 0.1 0.0 0.4 0.1 0.1 0.3 3.3 New Hampshire 0.7 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 1.3 New Jersey 28.9 1.7 7.0 **** 0.1 0.1 1.2 0.4 0.3 2.1 28.9 New Mexico 2.0 1.2 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.1 0.1 0.5 4.6 New York 4.7 2.2 13.4 0.1 0.1 1.9 0.8 0.8 2.8 11.2 North Carolina 6.8 *** 0.2 0.1 2.0 0.4 0.3 0.9 10.8 North Dakota 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.4 Ohio 8.4 15.0 0.1 0.1 3.6 0.4 0.5 1.2 29.4 Oklahoma 0.1 0.1 1.2 0.1 0.2 0.4 2.1 Oregon (e) * 2.3 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.2 0.1 0.8 4.0 Pennsylvania 3.1 1.4 0.1 0.1 1.4 0.5 0.5 2.5 9.6 Rhode Island 0.2 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.7 South Carolina 0.1 0.0 1.0 0.2 0.2 0.6 2.0 South Dakota 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.5 Tennessee 0.1 0.1 1.4 0.3 0.3 0.7 2.8 Texas 1.8 4.5 0.7 0.9 4.7 1.1 0.9 2.6 17.2 Utah 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.8 Vermont 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.4 Virginia 0.2 0.1 1.3 0.3 0.3 0.9 3.1 Washington (e) * 3.2 **** 0.1 0.0 0.9 0.3 0.2 1.3 6.0 West Virginia 0.4 0.0 0.6 0.2 0.1 0.2 1.5 Wisconsin 2.5 0.0 0.1 1.4 0.1 0.3 0.6 5.0 Wyoming 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.3 TOTAL REDUCTIONS 269.8 6.6 * 79.1 67.2 7.3 4.4 50.6 10.0 10.3 30.7 535.9 (without overlap) REDUCTIONS FROM ALL STATE POLICIES (including 269.8 13.9 119.3 93.8 7.8 4.8 58.7 12.9 12.2 46.1 overlap)

See explanatory notes, next page Appendix: Estimated Impact of State and Selected National Policies on Global Warming Emissions, 2020

Explanatory notes Colored cells indicate states that have adopted policies in these areas. Bold numbers indicate savings from state policies. Italicized numbers indicate savings from federal policies. Bold and italicized numbers indicate combined savings from state and federal policies. (a) Some unquantified overlap likely exists between energy efficiency policies described here. (b) Estimated impact of appliance standards is based on projected savings from aggressive standards, not actual proposed standards. (c) Total emission reductions are based on the sum of Hawaii’s existing individual policies, which will provide the savings needed to achieve the state’s cap. (d) Iowa’s RES is projected to provide no additional renewable energy, as its target has already been surpassed. (e) Oregon and Washington have relatively strong building codes, but the impact of those codes is not quantified here. Rather, they are given credit only for adoption of stronger residential codes after 2018. (f) Savings from the EERS include only those specific energy efficiency targets that have already been set through legislation or regulatory decisions. The policies will likely deliver greater savings in many states in future years. * Emission reductions from generation performance standards not included in this analysis. ** California has strong residential and commercial building codes, but the impacts of these codes were not quantified here. *** Energy efficiency can be used toward RES compliance. Emission reductions are accounted for in RES column. **** Energy efficiency savings targets have yet to be set. Row and column totals may not equal the sum of the individual measures due to rounding.