Planning for a Voluntary Midwest Regional

Greenhouse Gas Registry

Michael Koerber

Lake Michigan Air Directors Consortium

July 18, 2006

Midwest States

Objectives

• Provide credible GHG emissions reporting platform

• Support multiple policy objectives

• Use best practice GHG accounting standards

• Facilitate corporate GHG management strategies

Guiding Principles • Strive for consistency with other registries

• Consider Eastern Climate Registry and California Registry approaches in assessing design issues

• Consider existing requirements of other registries and GHG Protocol Standards

• Maintain Midwest identity • Sector-specific calculation protocols (e.g., agriculture)• Relevant to region’s economic, policy, and business

context

Accomplishments• Formed workgroup of state representatives (IL,

IN, MI, OH, WI, plus IA, MN, MO)

• Consulted with Eastern Climate Registry and California Registry

• Hired contractor (WRI) to provide technical support

• Prepared papers on major design topics:• Options Paper• Linkages and Collaboration with Other Registries• Considering DOE 1605(b), EPA Climate Leaders, and CCX

• Held three meetings with interested stakeholders (April 12, June 9, July 11)

Papers• Options Paper (February 17, 2006)

• Addresses program design issues, and database and calculation issues

• Linkages and Collaboration with Other Registries (March 22, 2006)

• Examines two main approaches for linking with other registries: stand-alone or multi-state registry (aka Registry Alliance)

• Considering DOE 1605(b), EPA Climate Leaders, and CCX (June 2006)

• Compares objectives of MW registry with those of other existing programs

Comparison w/ Other Registry Programs

Multiple Public Accepted Policy Reporting Accounting

Program Objectives Platform Standards

MW Registry X X X

DOE 1605(b) (track GHG reductions) X

EPA Climate Leaders (track GHG manage- X ment strategies)

CCX (track allowance X trading)

Advantages of a Multi-State Climate Registry

• Increase participation

• Increase credibility

• Standardize best practices

• Create common “currency”

• Leverage resources

• Facilitate development of innovative state programs

Stakeholder Involvement• Meetings

• Survey (re: establishment of MW registry)• Mixed reaction

• Things to work on….• Identify/promote incentives for participation

» What’s in it for me (PR, social responsibility, etc.)

» Local/state connection (“states must be engaged and have some skin in the game”)

» State support and assistance

» Minimal reporting requirements (link to existing program)

» Minimal fees (cannot expect participants alone to foot the bill)

• Reach out to other sectors (e.g., public/government, and agriculture)

Funding

• Received first grant for $100K from Joyce Foundation on July 21, 2005

(project period: Aug 2005 – Aug 2006)

• Received second grant for $35K from Energy Foundation on June 20, 2006

(project period: Sept 2006 – Feb 2007)

• Need additional funding for implementation phase

Next Steps

• Continue to work with Eastern Climate Registry and California Registry

• Participate on technical workgroup for multi-state registry

• Continue to meet with interested stakeholders

• Pursue funding

For additional information….

• Michael Koerber

847-296-2181

koerber@ladco.org

• www.ladco.org

www.ladco.org/regional_greenhouse.htm