The shining sun and the coastal breezes refreshed the 28th Annual NAESCO Conference in San Diego, CA earlier this month. Exhibitors displayed energy-efficient innovations, presenters touted streamlined procurement protocols and economically viable projects. Yet a cloudy outlook was conveyed through stories of government gridlock and a maze of policy obstacles that inevitably attaches to energy initiatives large and small.
During the 2 ½ day conference, the Hilton’s halls were filled with energy industry thought leaders and regulatory designees; each of them – along with brilliant, high-powered attendees – was more impressive than the next. Immersed in this amazing brain trust, it occurred to me that everyone there needed to be an expert not just in their respective fields, but also incredibly savvy in ever-complicated public policy dynamics.
It’s rare in these politically turbulent times for a government entity to make a unanimous decision, but that’s exactly what happened as California’s Air Resourced Board (ARB) adopted the nation’s first cap-and-trade program. The program is one the measures being carried out under California’s Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, also known as AB 32, which calls for the state to reduce carbon emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. The law did not require enactment of cap-and-trade, but simply “to achieve the maximum technologically feasible and cost-effective reductions in greenhouse gas emissions” to reach the stated reduction goal as stated in AB 32. Requirements go into effect in 2012 and enforcement begins in 2013, starting with large industrial plants and electrical utilities.