Below is a WEST Associates member survey concerning regional climate issues. As you recall, last year, WEST Associates engaged in a similar endeavor concerning national climate issues which was very helpful. That endeavor ultimately resulted in our Climate principles. Given the focus of the Western Climate Issues (WCI), this survey addresses regional issues.
Please take a moment to complete it. So that we will be able to compile the results for the WEST Associates' meeting in San Diego on the 13th and 14th, we will need your completed questionnaire by Friday, March 7.
It will take approximately 20-30 minutes to complete the questionnaire.
Your survey responses will be stricly confidential and data from this research will be reported only in the aggregate. Your information will be coded by the survey vendor and will remain confidential. The results will be only used as the basis for discussion, not binding and the WEST Associates' Board of Directors will set the policy and positions for the organization.
If you have questions at any time about the survey or the procedures, you may contact me at (520) 321-1111 or by email at: [email protected] or Lyle at [email protected]
Thank you very much for your time and support. Please start with the survey now by clicking on the Continue button below.
Thank you
David S. Steele
|
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
| Do you currently participate in WEST Associates activities? |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| How do you participate in WEST Associates activities? |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| Are there other members of your company that participate in WEST Associates activities? |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
This series of questions will ask respondents their views on various aspects of a regional climate program being considered by the Western Climate Initiative. |
| |
|
|
|
The WCI anticipates adopting regional cap and trade program design features for partners to implement prior to adoption of a national climate change program. Which of the following program designs being considered for the WCI regional cap and trade program are best suited for a regional or national program or either?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Which of the following sectors can be readily adapted to a regional WCI cap and trade program, and should they be regulated upstream or downstream?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Can a broad based “Carbon Content of Fossil Fuels Program” implemented as far upstream as possible at the fuels importer, mining, producing, processing, and fuel distribution points of control (“regulatory choke points”) serve to replace all of the fuel combustion based sectors listed above? |
| |
|
|
|
|
If your answer is no to the previous question, then for which sectors can an upstream point of regulation be used?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Individual partners (e.g., states like California) are enacting CO2 emissions reduction requirements for the electricity and other fuel combustion sectors with differing reduction glide path (% reduction) requirements, and with multiple, disparate program design features (load based versus emission source based, emission standard based versus allowance trading credit based, etc).
Is it feasible to integrate disparate state by state requirements in:
|
|
|
|
|
|
Is it necessary to preempt individual state requirements in a:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Electricity Sector Options
|
| |
|
|
|
Which proposed WCI options does your company prefer?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Which WCI option(s) can function in a regional (i.e., WCI) program?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Which WCI option(s) can reasonably adapt to a national program? |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Which WCI option(s) can best address leakage and contract shuffling issues? |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Can a WCI region cap and trade program work if some of the US WECC states do not participate in the WCI program? |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
| Can a WCI region cap and trade program work if some mechanism is used to address imported power (CO2 emissions) into each WCI partner state? |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Some states (e.g., CA’s AB32 regulatory process) are developing regulations implementing cap and trade (or other) CO2 emission reduction programs for the electricity sector in advance of a WCI regional cap and trade program. Some states may have a more stringent “glide path” under their state cap requiring greater reductions than the over-all regional WCI cap and trade program. |
| |
|
|
|
|
| Can an effective credit market develop for the WCI region? |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
| Will the WCI state (partner) with the greatest % reduction in CO2 emissions set the market price for allowance credits for the entire WCI region? |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
| Are there cap and trade design options available for a WCI region cap and trade program to prevent credit market price dysfunctions due to disparate individual state program requirements? |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Can a load-based, or hybrid-based, regional WCI cap and trade program be “flanged” or matched up with a national cap and trade program that is source-based such as the Lieberman-Warner bill’s provisions? |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| WEST Associates has advocated use of a “backstop” CO2 emissions reduction program for the electricity sector within the WCI region, similar to the regional haze/visibility SO2 backstop trading program under 40 CFR 51.309. Can such a backstop program trading program be either a load-based, or hybrid-based program? |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| The WCI is wrestling with whether a centralized entity should administer the allocation of allowances, or should each partner be distributed allowances after which the partner would address the distribution of allowances. Which approach does WEST support: |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
| If allowances are distributed from a centralized WCI entity, how should allowances be disbursed? |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| If allowances are distributed to individual partners, how should allowances be disbursed? |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
| If allowances are distributed to individual partners, how should allowances be disbursed within each partner? |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If the WCI, or its partners, use an auction for part or all of annual allowance allocations, how should the proceeds from the auction be distributed?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Should WEST support a WCI program provide incentives for sources to take Early Actions in abating GHG emissions? |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
How many years before start of the WCI cap and trade, should allowances for early actions be granted?
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
| Should early action allowances be granted with a multiplier value for use in submittal for future compliance under a cap and trade program? |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
| If yes, what should be the multiplier? |
| |
|
|
|
|
How should the WCI and its Partners adopt criteria and guidelines for distribution and disbursement of allowances?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Should WEST support the WCI allowing use of allowances created by creation of GHG emission offsets? |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
| Should WEST support WCI allowing use of allowances created outside the WCI cap and trade region? |
| |
|
|
|
|
If yes, what locations for creation of offset allowances should be admissible for compliance within the WCI cap and trade (check all that apply)?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Should there be a quantitative limit on the use of offsets for cap and trade compliance? |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Should offsets be allowed to be created based on projects only appearing on a WCI “pre-approved offsets project list”? |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
| If answer is NO, what criteria should be used by the WCI to approve the legitimacy of such offsets for compliance use? (Check all that apply): |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Should offsets be required to be verified by an independent 3rd party auditor entity? |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
| Should offsets be created from sources within a cap and trade program? |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
| If the YES, what categories of offsets may be eligible? [Check all that apply]: |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Should WCI GHG emissions reporting be required only from sources contained within the cap and trade program, and only as phased in over time? |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
| Should all sources within the WCI cap be included for reporting at the outset of the program, even though not yet phased in? |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
| Should mandatory reporting begin before the WCI cap and trade program commences (is implemented)? |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
| Should the WCI adopt a single set of criteria or guidelines for mandatory reporting by all partners? |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
| Should the WCI adopt guidelines for WCI partners to reference, but not be mandated to use, by each partner in adopting its own reporting requirements for the cap and trade program? |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
| Should the WCI adopt guidelines for WCI partners to reference, but not be mandated to use, by each partner in adopting its own reporting requirements for the cap and trade program? |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
| Should sources within the WCI cap and trade region report their GHG emissions only to their partner governance, after which each partner refers its collected GHG emissions data to a coordinator WCI entity for regional cap and trade management? |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
| Should the WCI require 3rd party auditor entity verification of all GHG emissions reporting? |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
| Should the WCI require only 3rd party auditor entity verification only of GHG emissions reporting from “hard to measure and monitor” sources (i.e., sources without CEMS, fuel measurement apparati, etc.)? |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
| Should WCI’s reporting requirements begin before, the commencement of the WCI cap and trade program? |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
| If YES, how many years before cap and trade begins? |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
| Should WCI cap and trade GHG emissions reporting be designed to be adaptable to any National Climate Registry, or EPA GHG Emissions Reporting Program? |
| |
|
|
|
|
Loading...
