Search Climate Insights Directory

The Union of Concerned Scientists analyzed 50 U.S. states to identify those at high risk of natural gas overreliance in the power sector. The analysis uses five metrics: the share of in-state electricity production from natural gas in 2014, the increase in that share from 2008 to 2014, the share of new capacity being built from natural gas (2014–2017), total projected natural gas capacity in 2017, and 2013 power sector carbon dioxide emissions. The report highlights that excessive reliance on natural gas exposes ratepayers to fuel price volatility and the risk of 'stranded assets' from infrastructure that may become underused or abandoned. It also notes that a shift from coal to gas is insufficient for long-term climate goals due to continued significant emissions upon combustion.

The research addresses the 'activity gap' in international carbon markets by proposing bilateral agreements as a way to pilot sectoral carbon market approaches. The study developed a country prioritization methodology based on climate policy ambition and tested benchmarking concepts for defining credited baselines in Chile's electricity sector and South Africa's building sector.

Energy Innovation proposes a post-2020 policy framework for California centered on a 2030 statewide carbon cap of 40 percent below 1990 levels. The recommendations include decarbonizing the electricity sector through carbon standards and a 50 percent renewable energy target, expanding transportation policies via the Low Carbon Fuel Standard and vehicle electrification, and establishing global benchmarks for methane emission standards in oil and gas operations.

The briefing analyzes Canada's 2014 emissions trends, highlighting a projected 116 Mt gap between 2020 emissions (727 Mt) and the Copenhagen Accord target (611 Mt). While policies in the electricity and transportation sectors provide mitigation, growth in the oil sands and general economic expansion drive emissions upward. The report notes that the oil and gas sector became Canada's largest emission source in 2012 and that significant reductions are concentrated in Ontario due to its coal phase-out, while Alberta sees the most growth.

The author defends the EPA's use of the Clean Air Act to mandate deep carbon pollution reductions in the power industry, rejecting claims by certain members of Congress that federal subsidies for clean coal projects prohibit those technologies from being used to set performance standards. The author asserts that the EPA relies on a global array of projects to demonstrate that carbon capture and sequestration is a viable 'best system of emissions control'.

The policy brief analyzes the effectiveness of coal-fired electricity regulations in Canada and the United States. It finds that the U.S. approach, which targets the broader electricity sector and existing plants, will deliver significantly higher national emission reductions by 2020 and 2030 than the Canadian approach, which focuses on new plants and those reaching the end of their useful life. Despite these policies, neither country is projected to meet its Copenhagen Accord target of a 17% reduction in emissions by 2020 relative to 2005 levels.

The document examines the risks of relying on natural gas for US electricity, noting that while it burns cleaner than coal, its expected replacement of nuclear power and its role in meeting rising electricity demand would prevent necessary emission cuts. It highlights that methane leaks from production and transport further erode climate benefits, and suggests that a transition to 80% renewable energy by 2050 is a viable, more cost-effective alternative.

The document argues that Ontario should implement a unified carbon-pricing scheme, specifically a cap-and-trade system, to preempt federal sector-by-sector regulations and ensure cost-effective mitigation. Using economic modelling, the authors suggest that full compliance flexibility—including offsets and potential linking with the Western Climate Initiative (WCI)—could reduce compliance costs to below $15 per tonne by 2020. The brief cautions against overcompensating firms through free permit allocations, particularly in the electricity sector, to avoid windfall profits, and suggests a 25,000 tonne coverage threshold to align with California and Quebec systems.

The authors contend that natural gas cannot solve the climate problem without carbon capture and storage (CCS), as it only offers a 50 per cent carbon dioxide reduction relative to coal, assuming no methane leakage. Given that fossil fuels are projected to remain a major energy source to meet growing global demand, particularly in developing countries, the document asserts that large-scale CCS is essential for all fossil power. While post-combustion capture (PCC) is commercially available for natural gas plants and faces fewer technical hurdles than coal PCC, the authors warn that relying on cheap, unabated natural gas may delay the commercialization of CCS. They recommend stricter CO2 emission limits, expanded incentives for enhanced oil recovery, and increased governmental support to scale up CCS technology.

The brief uses the Canadian Integrated Modelling System (CIMS) to evaluate proposed regulations requiring new or modified coal plants to meet a performance standard of 375 g CO2e/kWh. The analysis projects that these regulations would reduce electricity sector emissions by 5 million tonnes (Mt) in 2020 and 20 Mt by 2030, with an average cost of $26 per tonne of GHG reduced. The findings indicate that coal generation would be primarily displaced by natural gas turbines, which are expected to account for 77-78% of the replacement, while carbon capture and storage (CCS) and renewables would play smaller roles.

The document criticizes 260 U.S. House members who voted on June 21, 2012, to include a provision in a transportation bill that allows coal ash ponds to operate without basic safety standards and prevents the EPA from establishing national health and safety regulations. It highlights that these members represent districts containing the vast majority of the U.S.'s hazardous coal ash sites and notes a correlation between these votes and campaign contributions from the electric utility and mining industries.

The paper examines the EU power sector's transition toward a low-carbon future, highlighting the critical role of the electricity sector in decarbonizing transport and buildings. It identifies significant risks in current investment trends, such as carbon lock-in from new gas and coal plants, and argues that the EU Emissions Trading System (ETS) fails to provide a credible long-term signal for post-2020 investments. The authors recommend establishing post-2020 emissions caps and calibrating the ETS to ensure carbon scarcity after accounting for energy efficiency and renewable energy objectives.

The research evaluates the transition from voluntary to mandatory emissions trading in Japan using the CASE-ASIA model. It compares two primary designs—one including the electricity sector in the ETS and one applying a CO2 tax to it—across various allocation modes including full auctioning, border adjustments (BA), and output-based allocation (OBA). The findings highlight a critical trade-off between electricity prices and industrial product prices, noting that border adjustments for exports are essential for Japan due to its high export volume of steel and cement. While OBA is most effective at limiting production decreases, the study concludes there is no single superior design, and policy choices will depend on government priorities regarding revenue and competitiveness.

The paper uses the CASE II model to analyze how different EU ETS allocation modes and emissions targets (-21% to -34%) affect carbon leakage and production in the cement, aluminium, steel, and electricity sectors. It finds that while output-based allocation (OBA) and border adjustments (BA) can mitigate leakage, they create different trade-offs regarding production levels and electricity prices. The author concludes that carbon leakage must be readdressed if the EU raises its ambition, as the impacts vary significantly by sector and allocation method.

The report identifies the 'Carbon Fat Cats'—ten companies, primarily in the steel and cement sectors, that amassed a combined surplus of 240 million emissions allowances between 2008 and 2010, valued at approximately €4.1bn. This over-allocation is attributed to inflated growth projections and the economic recession, allowing these firms to profit through windfall sales or banking permits for future use. In contrast, the power sector faces a significant deficit, effectively subsidising industrial surpluses. The report also highlights the use of cheap international offsets, some from direct rivals in China and India, which undermines industry claims regarding competitiveness and carbon leakage. Sandbag recommends increasing the EU emissions reduction target to 30%, implementing an allowance 'set-aside' for Phase III, restricting the use of offsets from rival industries, and improving data transparency regarding company ownership and waste gas transfers.

The study finds that climate policy elements, including the EU ETS and long-term targets, are generally rated as less relevant to corporate investment decisions in the power sector than market factors and technology-specific regulations like feed-in tariffs. For technology providers, long-term targets are significantly more relevant than the EU ETS for both RD&D and sales. Power generators show a high correlation between the perceived relevance of the EU ETS and long-term targets. The research also indicates that technology providers' reliance on technology-specific policies is strongly linked to their product portfolios, while power generators' relevance ratings are less dependent on their technology portfolios. Higher long-term CO2 price expectations and greater certainty about those prices correlate with a higher perceived relevance of the EU ETS for new plant investments.

The study finds that climate policy elements, including the EU ETS and long-term targets, are generally less influential in corporate investment decisions than market prices and technology-specific regulations like feed-in tariffs. While technology providers view long-term targets as significantly more relevant than the EU ETS for RD&D and sales, power generators see the EU ETS as slightly more relevant for new plant adoption. The research emphasizes that a coordinated policy mix of stringent, predictable instruments and ambitious long-term targets is necessary to drive low-carbon innovation.

The document argues that technological innovation, particularly in the electricity sector, is essential for reducing greenhouse gas emissions, but is currently hindered by high risks and long investment cycles. It highlights that while solar PV has seen rapid growth driven by European feed-in tariffs and US tax incentives, carbon capture and storage (CCS) remains stalled in the 'valley of death' due to insufficient funding and political commitment for large-scale demonstration. The authors emphasize the need for a combination of 'push' (R&D) and 'pull' (market creation) mechanisms to ensure sustainable technological scaling and suggest that market formation must expand beyond Europe to ensure global stability for these industries.

The report identifies 'Carbon Fat Cats'—companies that received excessive free emissions permits under Phase 2 of the EU ETS (2008-2012). It finds that the top ten companies held 35 million surplus permits in 2008, valued at €500 million, with projected surpluses reaching 230 million permits (€3.2 billion) by 2012. This over-allocation in industrial sectors like iron, steel, and cement means that a small number of power companies, specifically RWE and EON, must deliver the majority of the scheme's net emissions reductions. The report argues that this creates competitive distortions and undermines climate targets, recommending higher ambition (a 30% cut by 2020), limited access to overseas offsets, and the cancellation of Member State reserves.

The document examines China's heavy reliance on coal-fired power, which makes it a global leader in sulphur dioxide and carbon dioxide emissions. It analyzes the 'big up/small down' strategy to replace inefficient small thermal units with larger, cleaner ones and reviews international best practices—including carbon taxes, feed-in tariffs, and emission trading—to suggest policy options for China to reduce its carbon intensity and protect its exports from future climate-related trade barriers.