National Governor’s Association Center for Best PracticesApril 29, 2004

2

BackgroundNew England Governors – Eastern Canadian Premiers Climate Change Action Plan

• NEG-ECP Annual Conference 2001 in Westbrook, CT– Connecticut Governor Rowland and Quebec Premier Landry (Co-Chairs)– Resolution 26-4 – Resolution Concerning Energy and the Environment– Climate Change Action Plan – first-of-its-kind (short, medium, and long term GHG

emission reductions targets)

• Climate Change Action Plan Summit– Led to the creation of the GSC and C4– Developed a framework for a public stakeholder process to issue recommendations to

the GSC (Pocantico Paper #6)

3

Connecticut Climate Change Action Plan SummitDeveloping a Stakeholder Process for Connecticut

• Historic Kykuit Conference Center of the Rockefeller Brothers Fund in Terrytown, NY in October 2002

• 13 state agencies represented (DRS to state universities)• Presentations by Bill Moomaw (Tufts University), Sonia Hamel (MA)

and Janet Keller (RI)• Goal – develop a framework for Connecticut to identify actions to

reduce GHG emissions– Hire a facilitator and/or consultants to assist us with the process– Identify funding resources to support the process– Identify stakeholders to serve as decision-makers in the process

4

Identify Funding PartnersShared Investment Reduces Risks

• Foundations are key funding partners– Emily Hall Tremaine Foundation (Meriden, CT)– Rockefeller Brothers Fund (New York City, NY)– Energy Foundation (San Francisco, CA)

• Agency partners provide critical financial resources– Connecticut Clean Energy Fund (Rocky Hill, CT) – Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection (Hartford, CT)

5

State TeamGovernor’s Steering Committee (GSC) and Climate Change Coordinating Committee (C4)

Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection Connecticut Department of Public Utility Control Connecticut Department of Transportation Connecticut Department of Administrative Services Office of Policy and Management Connecticut Clean Energy Fund – coordinator Connecticut Department of Revenue Services (C4 only)

Different missions…different cultures, but same purpose…Public service – to serve the people of the State of Connecticut!

6

7

Co-BenefitsBeyond GHG Emission Reductions to Local Benefits

• Savings• Public Health• Energy Security and Reliability• Economic Development

Fuel Cell Manufacturing Companies in the US and Canada2004

FLORIDAApollo Energy

GEORGIAFuel Cell Resources

TEXASLynnTech

CALIFORNIAMetallic Power

Direct Methanol Fuel Cell

Anuvu

BRITISH COLUMBIABallard Power

Palcan Fuel Cell

WASHINGTONAvista LabsNu ElementNeah Power

IDAHOIdaTech

UTAHCerametec

VersaPower

COLORADOAscent Power Sys.

Protonetics

ALBERTAGlobal Thermoelectric

ILLINOISMosaic Energy

OHIOMcDermott

Tech

PENNSYLVANIASiemens Power

ONTARIOHydrogenicsAstris Energi

Fuel Cell Technologies Ltd

NEW YORKPlug Power

Mechanical Technology

CONNECTICUTFuel Cell Energy

UTC Fuel CellProton Energy

GenCellInfinity

MASSACHUSETTS

AcumentricsNuvera

ZtekCell Tech Power

Protonex

NEW JERSEYMillenium Cell

Symbols Designate Company SizeLarge

MediumSmall

- Gary Simon, Sigma Energy Group

9

Goals for 2003

• Develop a Connecticut GHG Emissions Reduction Plan– Publish and distribute RBF report (Complete)– Update GHG emissions inventory (Complete)– Publish and distribute a Connecticut GHG emissions reduction plan (Complete)

• Establish baselines and targets • Achieve collaboration and cooperative solutions within the process • Specify range of costs vs. benefits of each mitigation strategy• Prioritize a listing of mitigation strategies• Identify implementing agencies / organizations and resource needs

• Identify, Analyze, and Recommend Opportunities – Identify public policy opportunities and barriers – Identify and implement “lead by example” opportunities for the state– Identify opportunities for stage agency and/or Governor leadership on climate change

10

Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory1990 – 2000 Actual Emissions for Connecticut

41.65141.071 41.012 40.786

40.011

43.089

46.38145.963 46.249 46.377

39.986

36

38

40

42

44

46

48

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000

2010

2020

11

Connecticut Climate Change Stakeholder DialogueDeveloping GHG Emission Reduction Actions

• Process Decision-Making– Governor is the final authority– GSC receives stakeholder recommendations and

issues recommendations to the Governor– Stakeholders issue recommendations to the GSC– Working groups analyze options– Public participation

• Facilitation/Consultation – CCAP• Goal – meet or exceed NEG-ECP targets

Energy/Solid Waste

Buildings/Facilities

Transportation/Land use

Education/Outreach

Technology

Governor’sSteering

Committee

12

Stakeholder SelectionDiversity and Leadership

TRANSPORTATION/TRANSPORTATION/LAND USELAND USE

EDUCATION/EDUCATION/OUTREACHOUTREACH

TECHNOLOGYTECHNOLOGY

ENERGY/WASTEENERGY/WASTE

BUILDINGS/BUILDINGS/FACILITIESFACILITIESA

REA

OF

FOC

US

AR

EA O

F FO

CU

S

BUSINESSBUSINESS GOVERNMENTGOVERNMENTNON-PROFITNON-PROFITACADEMIAACADEMIA

SECTORSSECTORS

OTHERSOTHERS

Department of Transportation,City of New Haven

MTAC, Pitney Bowes Connecticut Fund for theEnvironment

League of Conservation Voters, Yale University, Institute for Sustainable Energy

Connecticut Clean Energy Fund

UTC

Office of Policy and Management

PSEG, Northeast Utilities CRRA, Department of PublicUtility Control

Environment Northeast, Nature Conservancy

Department of AdministrativeServices

IBEW, Mohegan Tribe, Fleet Bank

SmartPower

Connecticut Global Fuel Cell Center

Department of EnvironmentalProtection

CBIA

5

5

3

5

1

6

9 8 8 25

13

Assessment Criteria

• Assessments for each recommendation– GHG reduction potentialGHG reduction potential– Estimated cost per ton GHG removedEstimated cost per ton GHG removed– Ancillary issues (as needed)– Feasibility issues (as needed)– Implementation pathway

14

Meeting SummaryStakeholder Process in Review 2003

• 6 GSC meetings• 6 stakeholder meetings (3 multi-day)

– 25 active stakeholders• 66 meetings/calls of five technical working groups

– 57 interested parties (beyond stakeholders)• 4 public meetings with about 40 participants each meeting• Public comment on stakeholder recommendations and draft final

report, with 40 public comments and over 500 letters to the GSC

15

Final ResultsConnecticut Climate Change Stakeholder Process Conclusion

55 recommendations– 52 by UC– 3 one vote short

Substantial progress toward NEG targets– 72.7% in 2010 and 70.7% in 2020 w/out black

carbon– 75.6% in 2010 and 80.1% in 2020 with black carbon

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

1990 2000 2010 2020

MM

TC

O2E

Baseline Emissions

Projection with New Measures

NEG Target Emissions Level

70.9%

29.1%

71.3%

28.7%

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

1990 2000 2010 2020

MM

TC

O2E

Baseline Emissions

Projection with New Measures

NEG Target Emissions Level

70.9%

29.1%

71.3%

28.7%

16

CT All-Sector GHG Reductions

17

Stakeholder RecommendationsTotal MMTCO2e Reductions in Greenhouse Gas Equivalents

OROR

The emissions of 250,000 – 1,150,000

from passenger cars for 2010 and 2020 respectively

The planting of 31,200,000 – 33,750,000

trees for 2010 and 2020 respectively

The emissions of 3,900,000 – 15,600,000

from barrels of oil for 2010 and 2020 respectively

The emissions from electricity usage of 105,000 – 250,000

homes for 2010 and 2020 respectively

18

Recommended ActionsSuggested Pathways to Implementation

• Variety of implementation approaches– Funding and or incentive mechanisms– Regulatory adjustments – Voluntary approaches– Research– Reporting – Regional cap and trade

• Legislative and administrative actions• State and regional actions

19

Lessons LearnedIssues that Standout as a Result of the Process

• State implementation strategy is a necessary next step – Learn from the past (Global Warming Act of 1990)

• Success in mitigating GHG emissions is contingent upon performance of the RCI and Transportation sectors

– RCI sector needs further near-term analysis, recommendations, and actions– Transportation sector needs long-term focus – Hydrogen Technology

• Education is imperative• Public participation is a necessary part of a climate change process• Collaboration is key and recognition for participation is necessary• Separate facilitation and consultation functions• Interstate exchange and guidance going forward is necessary

– Sharing best practices

20

ExecutionActions Taken to Date

• Procurement policy for 10% of state vehicles to be HEV’s• Executive Order 32 – state purchase of renewable energy

(20%x2010, 50% x2020, and 100%x2050) and sharing of conservation savings

• Legislation – clean cars (Cal LEV II standards essentially) and appliance standards

• Bonding – farmland preservation• www.ctclimatechange.com

21

“Connecticut’s Climate Change Action Planning Process reflects what is good about democracy!”

- Dr. R.K. Pachauri, Chairman of the IPCC

Special thanks to the Emily Hall Tremaine Foundation, Rockefeller Brothers Fund, and the Energy Foundation for their continued support of Connecticut’s (and other states) climate change programs.