All Stories
BioSequestration Policy Pathways
BioSequestration Policy Pathways
A policy research and evaluation effort led by:
The Clean & Prosperous Institute
Our Operating Framework
Climate change is real, caused mostly by combusting fossil fuels
It’s a crisis –
Risk to our health, way of life, and economy
IPCC: we only have 10 years to cut net emissions in half.
The severity of the crisis depends on the net of:
+ Ongoing GHGs emissions
– Atmospheric GHGs absorbed and stored on the planet (“sequestration”)
Bio-sequestration can
play a major role in meeting our net reductions
~30% of gross emissions are being offset by naturally occurring biosequestration
Create a stable and growing financial boon for Rural America – “farming carbon”
Webinar Q&A: Banking of Excess Carbon Permits
CaPI Webinar Series: Cap & Invest in Washington StateWebinar Q&A: Introduction to Cap & Invest in Washington StateIs banking of allowances incompatible with the objective to reduce emissions? Is banking of excess carbon permits a necessary and fundamental...
Webinar Q&A: RGGI GHG reduction
CaPI Webinar Series: Cap & Invest in Washington StateWebinar Q&A: Introduction to Cap & Invest in Washington StateIs it true that RGGI GHG reduction stalled during the Great Recession because need for energy declined and there was no political will to...
Webinar Q&A: California’s Cap & Trade Program
CaPI Webinar Series: Cap & Invest in Washington StateWebinar Q&A: Introduction to Cap & Invest in Washington StateIs it true that California’s Cap & Trade program does not address transportation emissions?Shorter Answer False. Transportation emissions can...
Webinar Q&A: Is Cap and Trade better than a Carbon Fee?
CaPI Webinar Series: Cap & Invest in Washington StateWebinar Q&A: Introduction to Cap & Invest in Washington StateWhy is a cap approach better than a carbon fee, especially an accelerating fee? Corollary Questions: Do you believe cap & invest is the best...
Webinar: 100% Clean Power: What it Means for Business
This webinar covers the emerging details of the House and Senate 100% greenhouse gas free power policies, and presents findings from our own modeling of the anticipated carbon reduction and cost impacts from these policies taking effect. Important distinctions between different utilities are explored. We also reviewed a recently introduced proposal to link with other states in establishing an economy wide GHG Cap.
Analysis of 100% Clean Bill (SB 5116) Cost Cap
This updated Clean & Prosperous Institute (CaPI) analysis examines the rate impacts of eliminating coal power, achieving an 80% clean energy standard by the year 2030, and a 100% clean energy standard by the year 2045. CaPI relies on a variety of sources, and deploys its own utility-specific model.
UPDATED: Effect on GHG Emissions and Rates from 100% Clean Power
This updated Clean & Prosperous Institute (CaPI) analysis examines the rate impacts of eliminating coal power, achieving an 80% clean energy standard by the year 2030, and a 100% clean energy standard by the year 2045. CaPI relies on a variety of sources, and deploys its own utility-specific model.
Analysis: Cost and Rate Impact of 100% Clean Energy
This analysis examines the rate impacts of eliminating coal power, achieving an 80% clean energy standard by the year 2030, and a 100% clean energy standard by the year 2045. CaPI relies on a variety of sources, and deploys its own utility-specific model.
Kalama Methanol Plant – Review of Greenhouse Gas Impact Assessments
Click Following Link For Full Report CaPI_KMMEF_GHG_Analysis_12-13_FullReport Kalama Methanol Plant Offers Strong Prospects for Net Global Greenhouse Gas Reduction Benefits Analysis published by the Clean & Prosperous Institute shows new industrial facilities can...
Visualizing cost-managed approaches to reducing WA emissions
To date, there is no Washington Specific MAC Curve that provides more than a cursory glance at carbon reduction measures specific to our state. The Clean & Prosperous Institute (CaPI) has decided that the time has come to undertake a more comprehensive, statewide look at MAC opportunities in our state. CaPI is actively looking for partners and funders to carry this project through to a robust tool for policymakers and businesses.
Review of Climate Policy Options
Evaluating regulations, subsidies, pricing mechanisms, and hybrid policies Abstract: There is a growing recognition among businesses, policymakers, and the general public regarding the economic and societal risks of climate change. The latest, most urgent...
The Future of Climate Policy After I-1631
Wed, November 28, 2018, 3:00 PM – 5:00 PM PST | Mercer Island Community & Event Center
Purpose: Inform community about views of electorate, Resolve post-election tensions & align towards cooperative success, Invite engagement in achieving desired outcomes, Set framework for 2019 legislature
The prospects for I-1631 eliminating 20 million tons of carbon pollution annually by 2035
This analysis aims to answer the following central question: What cost-performance must I-1631 investments in carbon reduction achieve in order to meet the state’s 2035 emissions target and trigger a freeze in the rate of fee increase?
Appendix A: Initiative 1631 Funding to Offset Increases In Lower Income Energy Burdens
To project the potential for revenue to be used for relieving the energy burden of people with lower incomes CaPI examined data on median household income by county (American Community Survey (ACS), 2016) and the share by county of income to poverty levels (also from the ACS, 2016). By this method, 39.7% of the populations would be covered by either the federal poverty line or the area median income designation. Including 40.8% in rural counties and 39.4% in urban counties.
Appendix B: Initiative 1631 Detailed Scenario Results
In this Appendix, we present detailed projections for the two available funds scenarios, each with four investment pathway cases that were the focus of this study.
Volcanoes, Forests, and Farms: A Carbon Policy That Works for Washington—and Puts All of Washington to Work
We absolutely must sequester carbon on a large scale, and this technology is one of several with the potential to implement Plan B — carbon negativity. Washington is possibly the best region in the world do to so economically. The combination of Washington’s biomass-producing industries and unique geologic formations make us uniquely well suited to the task.
Wasted energy: Increasing efficiency can reverse a major drag on Washington’s prosperity
Clean & Prosperous Institute (CaPI) analysis indicates that Washingtonians spent over $24 billion on energy in 2015 – down from nearly $28 billion in 2014 – with nearly 60% ($13 billion) spent on wasted energy. Efficiency gains are an opportunity to generate immediate economic benefit and foster a clean technology boom.
Wasted energy: Ten opportunities to reduce a $13 billion annual bill
Clean technology can boost energy efficiency, reduce waste, and save Washington State billions of dollars annually, while developing a competitive advantage in a multi-trillion dollar industry. Here’s a sample of some significant strategies to make this happen.
Appendix: Wasted Energy additional details
Section 1: Updating the Sankey diagram
Sankey Diagrams, like those produced by LLNL, are an information-rich visual depiction of energy or other (e.g. carbon, money) flows from inputs to final use.
Section 2: Carbon content of wasted energy
CaPI analysis estimates around 50 million metric tons of carbon dioxide (MtCO2) associated with wasted energy in 2015.
California Reaches Climate Change Mitigation Goal Ahead of Schedule
Former Republican California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who signed California’s landmark AB 32 climate legislation in 2006, celebrated beating the target with remarks published in the San Francisco Chronicle: “Surpassing our 2020 emissions goal ahead of schedule while our economy grows by a nation-leading 4.9 percent and our unemployment rate is at a historic low should send a message to politicians all over the country: you don’t have to reinvent the wheel—just copy us. Business will boom and lives will be saved.”
Revenue & Emissions Preliminary Impact Analysis – Senate Bill 6203
Using a proprietary modeling system, the Washington Business Alliance analyzed the expected outcomes of Senator Palumbo’s Carbon Tax Bill, Senate Bill 5930. SB 5930 is projected to generate a peak of roughly $1.8 billion/year in 2024 (in USD, 2018), and reduce greenhouse gas emissions by a similar amount as the Clean Air Rule (CAR): around 180 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents (MtCO2e) give or take around twenty percent. Emissions in 2035 are projected to be around 9% lower than 1990 levels.
House Bill 1646: Revenue and Emissions Impact – Preliminary Analysis
The Washington Business Alliance developed the Washington State GHG Reduction Explorer to project the outcomes of various policy proposals that tax/regulate greenhouse gas emissions. We evaluate two scenarios for this analysis: one with what we believe are relatively optimistic assumptions about Clean Energy Account investments and one with what we believe are relatively pessimistic assumptions about the Clean Energy Account investment cost-effectiveness.
Modeling Analysis of SB 5930 (Sen. Palumbo) Carbon Tax Proposal – Additional Details
Using a proprietary modeling system, the Washington Business Alliance analyzed the expected outcomes of Senator Palumbo’s Carbon Tax Bill, Senate Bill 5930. SB 5930 is projected to generate a peak of roughly $1.8 billion/year in 2024 (in USD, 2018), and reduce greenhouse gas emissions by a similar amount as the Clean Air Rule (CAR): around 180 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents (MtCO2e) give or take around twenty percent.