CONNECTICUT RESPONDS TO GLOBAL WARMING - Frontier Group · Implement a Public Sector Emission...

Clean Water Fund / The State PIRGs 1

CONNECTICUT RESPONDSTO GLOBAL WARMINGAn Analysis of Connecticut’s Emission Reduction Goals,Current Strategies, and Opportunities for Progress

CLEAN WATER FUNDTHE STATE PIRGS

Spring 2004

Written by:Tony Dutzik and Elizabeth Ridlington, State Public Interest Research Groups (PIRGs)Brooke Suter, Clean Water Fund

With Contributions from the New England Climate Coalition Steering Committee:Clean Water Fund: Roger Smith (Conn.), Cindy Luppi (Mass.), Jed Thorp (Mass.), Doug Bogen(N.H.), Sheila Dormody (R.I.), Emily Rochon (R.I.)State PIRGs: Kate Strouse Canada (R.I.), Frank Gorke (Mass.), Colin Peppard (Mass.), JoshIrwin (N.H.), Drew Hudson (Vt.)Natural Resources Council of Maine: Sue Jones, Mark HaysMassachusetts Climate Action Network: Marc Breslow

2 Connecticut Responds to Global Warming


ACKNOWLEDGMENTSSpecial thanks to Charles Rothenberger of Connecticut Fund for the Environment, Michael Stoddard of Envi-ronment Northeast, and Christopher Phelps of ConnPIRG for their editorial review and to Rob Sargent of theState PIRGs for his project leadership. The authors thank the members of the New England Climate Coalitionsteering committee, who invested significant time and energy in crafting this project and reviewing this report.Thanks also to Susan Rakov, Jasmine Vasavada and Travis Madsen for their editorial and technical assistance,and Jane Wong of Public Interest GRFX in Philadelphia for her assistance in securing cover graphics.

The authors also wish to thank Bruce Biewald, Geoff Keith and Lucy Johnston of Synapse Energy Economicsfor providing technical review of this publication and making numerous editorial and other suggestions thathave improved the quality of the final product.

Clean Water Fund and the State PIRGs express our most sincere thanks to the Jessie B. Cox Charitable Trust, theEnergy Foundation, the John Merck Fund, the Pew Charitable Trusts and the Rockefeller Brothers Fund fortheir generous financial support of this project.

The authors alone bear responsibility for any factual errors. The recommendations are those of Clean WaterFund and the State PIRGs. The views expressed in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarilyreflect the views of our funders or those who provided editorial or technical review.

© 2004 Clean Water Fund and the State PIRGs

Clean Water Fund is a national environmental organization whose work features neighbor-hood-based action and education programs which join citizens, businesses, and governmentfor sensible solutions ensuring safe drinking water, pollution prevention, and resource con-servation.

The State Public Interest Research Groups (PIRGs) are a network of nonprofit, nonpartisanpublic interest organizations working on consumer, environmental and good governmentissues.

The New England Climate Coalition is a coalition of more than 160 state and local environ-mental, public health, civic and religious organizations concerned about the drastic effects ofglobal warming in the Northeast.

For additional copies of this report, send $20 (including shipping) to:Clean Water Fund645 Farmington Avenue, Third FloorHartford, CT 06105

For more information about Clean Water Fund, call 860-232-6232.For more information about the state PIRGs, visit www.pirg.org.For more information about the New England Climate Coalition, visit www.newenglandclimate.org.

Photo credits: Wind turbines in winter: DOE/NREL; Solar panels: DOE/NREL; Energy Star: DOE; ToyotaPrius: Paul Madsen.

Design and Layout: Kathleen Krushas, To the Point Publications


TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ....................................................................... 6

INTRODUCTION .............................................................................. 9

GLOBAL WARMING AND CONNECTICUT .................................................. 10

Causes of Global Warming ............................................................................................... 10

Current Indications of Climate Change ............................................................................ 12

Potential Impacts of Global Warming ............................................................................... 12

Global Warming Emission Trends ..................................................................................... 13

Regional and State Responses ............................................................................................ 15

THE CONNECTICUT CLIMATE CHANGE STAKEHOLDER DIALOGUE RECOMMENDATIONS:

A POSITIVE FIRST STEP ................................................................ 18

Summary of the Recommendations .................................................................................. 18

Transportation and Land Use.................................................................................... 18

Residential, Commercial and Industrial Sectors ........................................................ 19

Agriculture, Forestry and Waste Sectors .................................................................... 19

Electricity Generation ............................................................................................... 20

Cross-Cutting Recommendations ............................................................................. 21

Cumulative Impact of the Recommendations ........................................................... 21

BEYOND THE STAKEHOLDER RECOMMENDATIONS: CONNECTICUT’S NEXT STEPS ON...

GLOBAL WARMING ..................................................................... 22

Strategies for Near-Term Adoption ................................................................................... 22

1. Adopt Energy Efficiency Standards for Seven Appliances and Allow for Administrative ....

Adoption of Future Efficiency Standards .................................................................. 22

2. Improve Energy Efficiency by Increasing Funding for the Conservation & Load

Management Fund ................................................................................................... 24

3. Reduce Natural Gas and Heating Oil Consumption by Increasing Funding for Proposed .

Conservation Programs ............................................................................................. 25

4. Implement “Pay-As-You-Drive” Auto Insurance ............................................................ 26

5. Require the Sale of Low-Rolling Resistance Tires .......................................................... 27

6. Implement a Public Sector Emission Reduction Strategy With Concrete, Measurable

Goals ........................................................................................................................ 28


7. Adopt a Solar Photovoltaic Strategy With Adequate Funding........................................ 29

8. Adopt a Strong Carbon Cap for Reducing Electric Sector Emissions Without Relicensing of

Nuclear Reactors ........................................................................................................... 30

Summary of the Near-Term Strategies ............................................................................... 33

Additional Strategies Requiring Investigation .................................................................... 33

Transportation ............................................................................................................. 33

Land Use ..................................................................................................................... 38

Residential, Commercial, Industrial Sectors ................................................................. 39

CONCLUSION: TAKING THE LONG VIEW ................................................. 41

APPENDIX A: GLOSSARY OF ABBREVIATIONS ............................................. 42

APPENDIX B: METHODOLOGY AND TECHNICAL DISCUSSION .......................... 43

NOTES ...................................................................................... 51


Connecticut can make major strides towardreducing its emissions of global warminggases over the next several decades – and

meeting reduction goals outlined by the New En-gland Governors and Eastern Canadian Premiers –by adopting the policy recommendations of theConnecticut Climate Change Stakeholder Dialogue(CCSD) in conjunction with a series of additionalglobal warming measures outlined in this report.

In 2001, the governors of the six New England statesand the premiers of the eastern Canadian provincesadopted a landmark commitment to reduce theregion’s emissions of carbon dioxide and other gasesthat contribute to global warming. In December2003, the Connecticut climate stakeholder group– which included participants from business, gov-ernment, academia and the nonprofit sector – is-sued a series of 55 policy recommendations thatwould significantly reduce Connecticut’s emissionsof global warming gases if implemented.

However, the stakeholder recommendations wouldnot, on their own, reduce emissions to the degreecalled for in the regional agreement (to 1990 levelsby 2010 and 10 percent below 1990 levels by 2020).In addition, the recommendations are not designedto achieve the long-term goal agreed to by the gov-ernors and premiers of stabilizing atmospheric con-centrations of global warming gases at levels thatwill prevent dangerous interference with the climatesystem – a goal that will require emission reduc-tions of 75 to 85 percent below current levels.

By adopting eight near-term policy strategies – andconsidering adoption of an additional eight strate-gies – Connecticut can achieve its short-term glo-bal warming emission reduction goals and lay thegroundwork for further medium- and long-term re-ductions.

Global warming, caused by human-inducedchanges in the climate, is a major threat toConnecticut’s future.

• Since the beginning of the Industrial Age, at-mospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide –the leading global warming gas – have increased

by 31 percent, a rate of increase unprecedentedin the last 20,000 years. Global average tem-peratures increased by about 1° F during the20th century, a rate of increase greater thanany in the last 1,000 years.

• The effects of global warming are beginningto appear in Connecticut and worldwide. Av-erage temperatures in Connecticut have in-creased by about 1.4° F since 1895 and areexpected to increase by between 2° F and10° F over the next century. These tempera-ture increases are expected to be accompaniedby increased precipitation.

• The results of these changes could includehigher sea levels, degraded air quality, increasedheat-related deaths, and the loss ofConnecticut’s hardwood forest species. Theseimpacts can be expected to negatively affectConnecticut’s economy, the health of its citi-zens, and the state’s delicate environmental bal-ance.

Emissions of global warming gases are on therise in Connecticut.

• Between 1990 and 2000, Connecticut’s netemissions of global warming gases increasedby 11 percent. According to projections com-piled for the stakeholder dialogue, emissionscould increase by an additional 21 percent be-tween 2000 and 2020 in the absence of fur-ther action to reduce emissions.

Implementation of the Connecticut ClimateChange Stakeholder Dialogue recommendationswould represent a positive first step for Connecti-cut.

• Implementation of the stakeholder recommen-dations would reduce global warming emis-sions in Connecticut by 9 percent belowprojected levels by 2010 and 22 percent belowprojected levels by 2020. The recommenda-tions achieve these goals largely through im-proved energy efficiency and reduced use offossil fuels.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY


• Implementation of all 55 CCSD recommen-dations, however, would still not achieve emis-sion reductions of the magnitude called for inthe regional Climate Change Action Plan. TheCCSD’s final report estimated that globalwarming emissions in Connecticut in 2010would remain 4 percent above 1990 levels in2010 and 2 percent above 1990 levels in 2020(assuming continued operation of the state’snuclear reactors beyond the expiration of theiroperating licenses).

Connecticut could significantly reduce its glo-bal warming emissions by adopting eight addi-tional policy strategies.

• These eight policy strategies, if adopted andimplemented along with the CCSD recom-mendations, would reduce Connecticut’s emis-sions of global warming gases to 1990 levelsby 2010, and bring the state closer to achiev-ing the regional reduction goal for 2020 – evenwithout the relicensing of the region’s nuclearreactors, which pose significant threats to pub-lic health and the environment. (See Fig. ES-1.) The strategies would also put Connecticutin a better position to make the long-termchanges necessary to achieve the goal of elimi-nating the state’s negative impact on the cli-mate.

The strategies are:

1. Setting energy-efficiency standards for at leastseven residential and commercial appliances.

2. Reducing electricity use by increasing fundingfor energy efficiency programs through thestate’s Conservation and Load ManagementFund.

3. Reducing heating oil and natural gas usethrough conservation programs with sufficientfunding to maximize efficiency savings.

4. Implementing “pay-as-you-drive” automobileinsurance, in which insurance rates are calcu-lated by the mile, rewarding those who driveless, while potentially reducing accidents.

5. Requiring the sale of low-rolling resistance re-placement tires that improve vehicle efficiencywithout compromising safety.

6. Implementing a public sector emission reduc-tion strategy with concrete, measurable goals.

7. Implementing and funding an aggressive strat-egy to promote the use of solar photovoltaicsystems in homes and commercial buildings.

8. Adopting limits on carbon dioxide emissionsfrom power plants.

Fig. ES-1. Connecticut Emissions of Global Warming Gases

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

1990 2000 2010 2020

Year

Glo

bal

War

min

g E

mis

sio

ns

(MM

TC

O2

E)

Base Case (Without NuclearRelicensing)Regional Goal

Stakeholder Plan (WithoutNuclear Relicensing)Stakeholder Plan + EightNear-Term Strategies


Connecticut should also investigate additionalpolicy strategies to further reduce global warm-ing emissions.

• Connecticut should also consider the futureadoption of a series of other strategies thatcould help the state achieve its emission re-duction goals in both the short and long term.These strategies focus heavily on reducingemissions from cars and trucks, promoting“smart growth,” and encouraging the genera-tion of clean electricity close to the point ofuse.

Connecticut should seize the opportunity to re-duce its emissions of global warming gases.

• The governor and legislature should move for-ward with implementation of the recommen-dations of the Connecticut Climate ChangeStakeholder Dialogue, and build upon thestakeholder process by continuing dialogue onsuch difficult issues as reducing vehicle-milestraveled, limiting suburban sprawl, and encour-aging the development of non-fossil, non-nuclear sources of energy.

• The state should adopt the near-term measureslisted in this report, thus closing the gap be-tween the stakeholder process results and theregional goal for 2010 and narrowing the gapfor 2020.

• Connecticut should continue to participate inregional efforts to reduce global warming gasemissions, particularly the efforts of the Con-ference of New England Governors and East-ern Canadian Premiers and the northeasternstates’ negotiations to establish a regionalpower-sector carbon cap.

• Connecticut should commit to achieving theregional long-term global warming emissionreduction goal by 2050 and begin to plan formaking the technological and other changesthat will be needed to achieve that goal.

• Connecticut can and should reduce its globalwarming emissions without increasing the useof nuclear power or extending the life of thestate’s nuclear reactors beyond their currentoperating licenses.

2010 2020

Appliance Efficiency Standards 0.29-0.66 0.80

Increased Funding for Electricity Conservation 0.29-0.68 0.68

Increased Funding for Oil and Gas Conservation 0.40 0.91

Pay-as-You-Drive Auto Insurance 0.72 0.80

Low-Rolling Resistance Tires 0.20 0.33

Public Sector Energy Savings 0.09 0.12

Solar Energy Strategy 0.003-0.006 0.010

Electric Sector Carbon Cap Included as high end of rangein above estimates

Table ES-1. Projected Global Warming Emission Reductions from PolicyStrategies (MMTCO E)2


INTRODUCTION

Scientists have concluded that human activities– particularly the burning of fossil fuels – arewarming the planet. Yet, in the United States,

at least, political consensus to address the problemhas been lacking at the federal level.

In New England, however, concern about the poten-tially devastating effects of global warming on the re-gion has begun to mature into a political consensusthat something must be done – as evidenced by thelandmark commitment made by New England’s gov-ernors and the premiers of the eastern Canadian prov-inces in 2001 to reduce the region’s emissions of globalwarming pollution. The governors’ and premiers’ Cli-mate Change Action Plan committed the region toreducing global warming emissions to 1990 levels by2010, to 10 percent below 1990 levels by 2020, andeventually by the 75 to 85 percent scientists believewill be necessary to prevent dangerous interferencewith the climate.

To develop a policy roadmap for achieving its globalwarming goals, the state of Connecticut initiated a“stakeholder dialogue” in 2003 among representativesof business, government, academia and the nonprofitsector. In December 2003, the Connecticut ClimateChange Stakeholder Dialogue (CCSD) issued its rec-ommendations – a package of 55 proposals that wouldstabilize and begin to reduce Connecticut’s emissionsof global warming gases over the next two decades.

The recommendations, which achieved nearly unani-mous support from the diverse group of stakehold-ers, provide a solid starting point for Connecticut as

it begins to respond to the challenge of global warm-ing. But they are just a start. The stakeholders’ finalreport acknowledged that implementation of all 55recommendations would not likely achieve the short-and medium-term emission reduction targets set forthin the New England governors’ and eastern Canadianpremiers’ agreement. Nor do the recommendationsprovide enough reductions to put Connecticut oncourse to make the deeper, long-term changes thatwill be needed to bring human activities back intoharmony with the climate.

This report looks at and beyond the stakeholder rec-ommendations to envision a policy pathway that willenable Connecticut to achieve its global warmingemission reduction goals. Several of the steps alongthat pathway can be adopted in the near term andmake an immediate, concrete contribution toConnecticut’s developing policy on global warming.Others represent needed investments in technologiesand infrastructure that will pay long-term dividends.Still others require further development and discus-sion, but are potentially potent tools in the effort toprevent global warming.

Addressing the issue of global warming can seem over-whelming, but Connecticut has taken the first im-portant steps in delineating the specific actions needed.Implementing those actions in conjunction with thepolicy suggestions in this report can achieve the ini-tial greenhouse gas reduction goals. The path has beenprovided, the opportunity is here, and now action isneeded.


Global warming poses a clear danger toConnecticut’s future health, well-being andprosperity. Connecticut contributes to glo-

bal warming primarily through the combustion offossil fuels, which emits carbon dioxide to the atmo-sphere. Connecticut’s emissions of carbon dioxide andother global warming gases have increased significantlyover the last decade and will likely continue to in-crease in the absence of concerted action.

Causes of Global Warming

Global warming is caused by human exacerbation ofthe greenhouse effect. The greenhouse effect is a natu-ral phenomenon in which gases in the earth’s atmo-sphere, including water vapor and carbon dioxide, trapheat from the sun near the planet’s surface. The green-

house effect is necessary for the survival of life; with-out it, temperatures on earth would be too cold forhumans and other life forms to survive.

Unfortunately, human activities, particularly over thelast century, have altered the composition of the at-mosphere in ways that intensify the greenhouse effectby trapping more of the sun’s heat near the earth’ssurface. Since 1750, for example, the concentrationof carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has increased by31 percent as a result of human activity. The currentrate of increase in carbon dioxide concentrations isunprecedented in the last 20,000 years.1 Concentra-tions of other global warming gases have increased aswell. (See Fig. 1.)

As the composition of the atmosphere has changed,global temperatures have increased. Global average

GLOBAL WARMING AND CONNECTICUT

Fig. 1. Atmospheric Concentrations of Greenhouse Gases2


temperatures increased during the 20th century byabout 1° F. In the context of the past 1,000 years, thisamount of temperature change is unprecedented, with1990 to 2000 being the warmest decade in the mil-lennium. Figure 2 shows temperature trends for thepast 1,000 years with a relatively recent upward spike.Temperatures in the past 150 years have been mea-sured; earlier temperatures are derived from proxymeasures such as tree rings, corals, and ice cores.3

This warming trend cannot be explained by naturalvariables—such as solar cycles or volcanic eruptions—but it does correspond to models of climate changebased on human influence.4

Global Warming GasesSix substances are primarily capable of exacerbating thegreenhouse effect that causes global warming. Themajor global warming gases are:

• Carbon Dioxide – Released mainly through thecombustion of fossil fuels, carbon dioxide is by far theleading gas responsible for global warming.

• Methane – Methane gas escapes from garbagelandfills, is released during the extraction of fossil fuels,and is emitted by livestock and some agriculturalpractices. It is the second-most important globalwarming gas in New England in terms of its potential toexacerbate the greenhouse effect.

• Fluorocarbons – Used in refrigeration and otherproducts, many fluorocarbons are capable of inducingstrong heat-trapping effects when they are released tothe atmosphere. Because they are generally emitted insmall quantities, however, they are estimated to beresponsible for only about 1 percent of New England’scontribution to global warming.6

• Nitrous Oxide – Nitrous oxide is released inautomobile exhaust, through the use of nitrogenfertilizers, and from human and animal waste. Likefluorocarbons, nitrous oxide is a minor, yet significant,contributor to global warming.

• Sulfur Hexafluoride – Sulfur hexafluoride is mainlyused as an insulator for electrical transmission anddistribution equipment. It is an extremely powerfulglobal warming gas, with more than 20,000 times theheat-trapping potential of carbon dioxide. However, itis released in only very small quantities and wasresponsible for only about 0.2 percent ofConnecticut’s global warming emissions in 2000.7

• Black Carbon – Black carbon, otherwise known as“soot,” is a product of the burning of fossil fuels,particularly coal and diesel fuel. Recent research hassuggested that, because black carbon absorbssunlight in the atmosphere, it may be a majorcontributor to global warming, perhaps second inimportance only to carbon dioxide. Research iscontinuing on the degree to which black carbonemissions contribute to global warming.

This report focuses mainly on emissions of carbondioxide from the combustion of fossil fuels in homes,businesses, industrial facilities and electric powerplants – both because those emissions are responsiblefor the majority of Connecticut’s contribution toglobal warming and because resource limitationsprevent the consideration of other gases in thisreport. Steps to reduce emissions of other globalwarming gases must also be part of the state’s effortsto curb global climate change.

Fig. 2. Northern Hemisphere Temperature Trends5


Current Indications of

Climate Change

The first signs of global warming are beginning toappear, both in Connecticut and around the world.

Average temperatures have risen. Global average tem-peratures have increased by about 1° F in the pastcentury. In the same period, the average temperaturein Storrs, Connecticut has increased by more than 2°F. 8 Statewide, average temperatures are estimated tohave increased by 1.4° F between 1895 and 1999.9

Precipitation patterns have changed. Over the lastcentury, precipitation has increased by 20 percent insome parts of Connecticut. 10 Maine, New Hamp-shire, and Vermont have experienced a 15 percentdecrease in snowfall since the 1950s.11 In other partsof the world, such as Asia and Africa, droughts havebeen more frequent and severe, a change that is con-sistent with models of climate change.12

Cold seasons have been shorter and extreme low tem-peratures less frequent. Since the late 1960s, North-ern Hemisphere snow cover has decreased by 10percent and the duration of ice cover on lakes andrivers has decreased by two weeks.13 Glaciers aroundthe world have been retreating.14

Oceans have risen as sea ice has melted. Average sealevels have risen 0.1 to 0.2 meters in the past cen-tury.15

Potential Impacts of

Global Warming

The earth’s climate system is extraordinarily complex,making the ultimate impacts of global warming in aparticular location difficult to predict. There is littledoubt, however, that the first signs of global warmingare beginning to appear, both in Connecticut andaround the world.16 There is also little doubt that glo-bal warming could lead to dramatic disruptions inConnecticut’s economy, environment, and way of life.

Temperature increases in the past century have beenmodest compared to the increases projected for thenext 100 years. Global temperatures could rise by anadditional 2.5° to 10.4° F over the period 1990 to

2100.17 In Connecticut, some projections suggest thattemperatures could increase by 2° to 8° F by 2100.18

Others estimate that a 1.8° F increase in average tem-perature could occur across New England as soon as2030, with a 6 to 10° F increase over current averagetemperatures by 2100.19

Precipitation levels could also change. Connecticutcould experience an increase in precipitation of 10 to20 percent, with greater change in winter and lesschange in spring and summer.20

In any event, the impacts of such a shift in averagetemperature and precipitation would be severe.Among the potential impacts:21

• Longer and more severe smog seasons as highersummer temperatures facilitate the formation ofground-level ozone, resulting in additional threatsto respiratory health such as aggravated cases ofasthma.

• Increased risk of heat-related illnesses and deaths– perhaps a 20 percent increase in heat-relateddeaths.

• Increased spread of mosquito and tick-borne ill-nesses, such as Lyme disease, Eastern equine en-cephalitis, malaria and dengue fever.

• Declines in freshwater quality due to more severestorms, increased precipitation and intermittentdrought, potentially leading to increases in water-borne disease.

• Increases in toxic algae blooms and “red tides,” re-sulting in fish kills and contamination of shellfish.

• Shifts in fish populations due to changing watertemperatures and changes in the composition ofcoastal estuaries and wetlands.

• Shifts in forest species due to increased spread ofexotic pests and changing temperatures – includ-ing the loss of hardwood forests responsible forConnecticut’s vibrant fall foliage displays, a stapleof the state’s tourist economy.

• Increased coastal flooding due to higher sea levels,with sea level along the Connecticut coast projectedto rise by about 22 inches over the next century.


Table 1. Connecticut Carbon Dioxide Emissions from Energy Use(MMTCO

E)25

Percent1990 2000 Increase

Residential 7.14 8.31 16%Commercial 3.51 4.36 24%Industrial 2.96 3.20 8%Transportation 14.59 16.10 10%Electricity 10.68 10.88 2%TOTAL 38.88 42.85 10%

The cumulative cost to protect Connecticut’s coast-line from a 20-inch rise in sea level has been esti-mated at between $500 million and $3 billion by2100.

• Disruption to traditional New England industriessuch as fall foliage-related tourism, maple syrupproduction and skiing.

• Negative repercussions throughout the economy.For example, the Reinsurance Association ofAmerica reported that insurers paid $57 billion forweather-related losses in the first half of the 1990scompared with $17 billion for the whole previousdecade – costs that can only be expected to in-crease with increased disruption of the climate.22

The severity of these potential impacts is difficult topredict. But this much is certain: climate changes suchas those predicted by the latest scientific researchwould have a dramatic, disruptive effect onConnecticut’s environment, economy and publichealth – unless immediate action is taken to limit ouremissions of global warming gases.

Global Warming

Emission Trends

In 2000, Connecticut was responsible for net emis-sions of 46.5 million metric tons carbon dioxideequivalent (MMTCO

2E) of global warming gases into

the atmosphere (not counting emissions of black car-bon). This level of emissions represented an 11 per-cent increase from 1990, when the state wasresponsible for 41.7 MMTCO

2E of net emissions.23

The vast majority of Connecticut’s global warmingemissions come in the form of carbon dioxide fromthe combustion of fossil fuels in homes, businesses,industrial facilities and electric power plants. In 2000,fossil fuel combustion in Connecticut released 42.9MMTCO

2E into the atmosphere, accounting for

about 89 percent of the state’s emissions in terms ofglobal warming potential (not including black car-bon).24

Emissions of carbon dioxide from all segments of theConnecticut economy increased between 1990 and2000, at varying rates. Direct emissions from the com-mercial sector (not including electricity use) increasedat the fastest rate. (See Table 1.) The transportationsector, however, remains the largest source of carbondioxide emissions in the state, responsible for about38 percent of the state’s emissions. (See Fig. 3.)

A Note on UnitsThere are several ways to communicatequantities of global warming emissions. Inthis report, we communicate emissions ofdifferent global warming gases in terms ofmillion metric tons of carbon dioxideequivalent (MMTCO

E) – in other words, the

amount of carbon dioxide that would berequired to create a similar global warmingeffect. Another frequently used term tocommunicate emissions is “carbonequivalent.” To translate the latter measureto carbon dioxide equivalent, one can simplydivide by 0.273.

2

2


Transportation37.6%

Residential19.4%

Commercial10.2%

Industrial 7.5%

Electricity25.4%

Modeling performed for the Connecticut GreenhouseGas Stakeholder Dialogue projects that global warm-ing emissions in the state will increase by 4 percentbetween 2000 and 2010 and by 21 percent between2000 and 2020 in the absence of further action to

Fig. 3. Connecticut Carbon DioxideEmissions by Sector, 2000

The Dangers of Nuclear Power

For the last several decades, New England hasrelied upon nuclear power for a significantshare of its electricity. However, between nowand 2026, the operating licenses of all of NewEngland’s operating nuclear reactors arescheduled to expire. For environmental andpublic health reasons, neither the relicensingof existing nuclear reactors beyond theiroriginal 40-year lifespans nor the constructionof new nuclear facilities should be consideredas a means to reduce global warmingemissions.

• Terrorism and sabotage – The securityrecord of nuclear power plants is far fromreassuring. In tests at 11 nuclear reactors in2000 and 2001, mock intruders were capableof disabling enough equipment to causereactor damage at six plants.29 A 2003 GeneralAccounting Office report found significantweaknesses in the Nuclear RegulatoryCommission’s oversight of security atcommercial nuclear reactors.30

reduce emissions.26 This projection, however, includesa dramatic projected drop in electricity sector emis-sions between 2000 and 2010 that may not be realis-tic.27

The stakeholders also assume the continued opera-tion of the Millstone 2 nuclear reactor beyond theexpiration of its operating license in 2015. For envi-ronmental and public health reasons, the relicensingof existing nuclear plants or the construction of newplants is not an appropriate strategy to address globalwarming. (See “The Dangers of Nuclear Power,” be-low.) Should the Millstone 2 reactor be closed downat the end of its operating license, and the generatingcapacity it represents be replaced by natural gas-firedpower plants within Connecticut, the state could ex-pect global warming emissions in 2020 to be at least3.0 MMTCO

2E greater in 2020 than is reflected in

the stakeholder report.28

• Accident risk – In the short history ofnuclear power, the industry has experiencedtwo major accidents – at Three Mile Island andChernobyl – that endangered the health ofmillions of people. The Chernobyl accidentalone contaminated an area stretchingapproximately 48,000 square miles, with apopulation of 7 million. Even today, 18 yearsafter the accident, the region surrounding thereactor continues to suffer from highlyelevated rates of thyroid and breast cancer andlong-term damage to the environment andagriculture.31

While the United States has thus far beenspared an accident of the scale of Chernobyl,there have been numerous “near-misses.” Forexample, in 2002, workers discovered afootball-sized cavity in the reactor vessel headof the Davis-Besse nuclear reactor in Ohio.Left undetected, the problem could haveeventually led to the leakage of coolant fromaround the reactor core.32


history of international cooperation within the regionto address environmental threats such as acid rain.

In the short term (by 2010), the plan calls for thereduction of global warming emissions in the regionto 1990 levels. The medium-term goal, to be achievedby 2020, is to reduce emissions to 10 percent below1990 levels. In the long run, the plan aims to achievethe reductions needed to eliminate any dangerousthreat to the climate. Scientists currently estimate thatthis will require reductions of 75 to 85 percent belowcurrent emission levels.36

The agreement acknowledged that not every jurisdic-tion or every economic sector has the same potentialto reduce its global warming emissions. However, inorder to achieve the goals of the plan, it was envi-sioned that each state and sector of the economy wouldstrive to make its share of the reductions.

The regional agreement also included a series of spe-cific commitments for reductions in global warmingemissions from conservation activities and from the

Regional and State

Responses

The threat posed by global warming has provoked avariety of responses in Connecticut and the New En-gland region. Despite a lack of leadership at the fed-eral level – as evidenced by the U.S. government’sunwillingness to support the Kyoto Protocol – regionalorganizations, governmental agencies, non-profits andsome business groups have made efforts to craft solu-tions that would reduce New England’s contributionto global warming.

New England/Eastern CanadaClimate Change Action PlanIn August 2001, the governors of the six New En-gland states, along with the premiers of the easternCanadian provinces, adopted a regional ClimateChange Action Plan that set specific goals for the re-duction of global warming emissions in the region.The governors’ and premiers’ action was based on a

• Spent Fuel – Nuclear power productionresults in the creation of tons of spent fuel,which must be either stored on-site or in acentralized repository. Both options posesafety problems. Centralized waste repositoriesrequire the transport of high-level nuclearwaste across highways and rail lines withinproximity of populated areas. Once the wastearrives, it must be held safely for tens ofthousands of years without contaminating theenvironment or endangering the public. On-site storage poses its own problems. Nearly allU.S. nuclear reactors store waste on site inwater-filled pools at densities approachingthose in reactor cores. Should coolant fromthe spent-fuel pools be lost, the fuel couldignite, spreading radioactive material across alarge area. The cost of such a disaster, were itto occur, has been estimated at 54,000-143,000 extra deaths from cancer andevacuation costs of more than $100 billion.33

• Cost – Nuclear power has often proven to beexpensive in market terms, due to the highcost of building, maintaining and

decommissioning nuclear reactors. But lookingonly at market costs obscures the more than$100 billion spent by U.S. taxpayers insubsidies for an otherwise financiallyinefficient technology.34 Without taxpayermoney for protection against liability fromaccidents, research and development, andother subsidies for nuclear power, the nuclearindustry likely could not have survived.

• Aging – Continued operation of nuclearreactors beyond their initial projected 40-yearlifespan could lead to unforeseen safetyproblems. In 2001, the Union of ConcernedScientists identified eight instances in just theprevious 17 months in which nuclear reactorswere forced to shut down due to age-relatedequipment failures.35

For these reasons and others, nuclear powershould remain “off the table” as a potentialmeans to reduce global warming emissions inNew England, and the region should begin toplan for the orderly retirement of NewEngland’s nuclear reactors.


transportation, electric and government sectors. Evenif these sector-specific commitments are fulfilled, how-ever, a 2003 New England Climate Coalition reportestimated that the region’s emissions of global warm-ing gases will not be reduced enough to meet the goalsof the Climate Change Action Plan.37 (See Fig. 4.) Toclose the gap between the regional goals and the emis-sion levels that would result from the sector-specificcommitments, the Action Plan called upon states todevelop their own plans and policies to reduce globalwarming emissions.

The Conference of New England Governors and East-ern Canadian Premiers (NEG/ECP) is continuing worktoward implementation of the plan, focusing specifi-cally on the development of an updated regional green-house gas inventory, the implementation of “lead byexample” measures by state and provincial governments,and the investigation of measures to reduce transporta-tion sector emissions and improve energy efficiency.

Connecticut Climate ChangeStakeholder DialogueThe regional Climate Change Action Plan also calledupon each of the states to evaluate their current car-bon dioxide emission levels and develop a plan forachieving required global warming emission reduc-tions.

In the spring of 2003, the state of Connecticut initi-ated an extensive, public process designed to develop

a list of recommended actions the state could take toachieve its global warming emission reduction goals.The recommendations from the stakeholder process– if adopted and implemented – would represent apositive step toward the achievement of the goals.However, the road to adoption and implementationof those policies is just beginning, and it is likely thatmore aggressive action in some areas (for example, inthe transportation sector) will be needed to enableConnecticut to meet its climate protection goals. Wewill discuss the stakeholders’ recommendations ingreater detail in the next section.

In addition to the recommendations of the stakeholderprocess, Connecticut has also implemented severalpolicies that will result in significant reductions inglobal warming emissions. Among the most impor-tant such policies are the state’s revised renewableportfolio standard (RPS) for electricity generation,which will require 7 percent of the state’s electricityto come from new, clean renewable resources by 2010,and systems benefit charges (SBC) on electricity billsthat generate funding for energy efficiency and re-newable energy programs (although recent moves toraid these renewable energy and energy efficiencyfunds severely undermine their effectiveness).

New England Climate CoalitionAction PrinciplesIn 2001, in response to the development of the re-gional Climate Change Action Plan, a coalition of

Fig. 4. Carbon Dioxide Emission Reductions in New England WithImplementation of Climate Change Action Plan Commitments38

0

50

100

150

200

250

2001

2003

2005

2007

2009

2011

2013

2015

2017

2019

Year

Car

bo

n D

ioxi

de

Em

issi

on

s (M

MT

CO

2E) Base Case

Emissions AfterRegional CommitmentsAction Plan Goal


leading organizations throughout New Englandworked together to articulate a set of principles toguide the region’s efforts toward achieving reductionsin global warming emissions. The New England Cli-mate Coalition’s 10 action principles have been en-dorsed by 160 environmental, public health, civic andreligious organizations in the six New England statesand Canada.

1) By 2010, reduce greenhouse gas emissions tolevels 10 percent below 1990 levels. The inter-national community has negotiated a treaty withbinding commitments on most of the industrial-ized nations to reduce emissions to well below 1990levels. The U.S. has failed to sign onto the treaty,but as the biggest emitter of heat-trapping gases,we must lead by reducing our emissions by at leastthe same percentage as the other largest polluters.

2) The NEG-ECP’s long-term goal of reducinggreenhouse gas emissions by 75-85 percentshould be given a target date of 2050. This time-table is necessary to minimize global temperatureincreases.

3) Each consuming sector should be responsiblefor at least its proportionate share of the tar-geted emission reductions. Any changes to theseresponsibilities should be based on an explicit pro-cess, which justifies changes by the relative cost-effectiveness in each sector, and ensures that anyshortfalls in one sector are offset by greater reduc-tions in another. (The sectors to be included aretransportation, industrial, commercial, institu-tional and residential. This recognizes that the elec-tricity sector targets will overlap.)

4) The region and each of the states should estab-lish a system of mandatory reporting of CO

2

and other greenhouse gas emissions by 2005.

5) Reduce emissions from the electricity sector asa whole by 40 percent from current levels. Ev-ery plan should include provisions for reducingCO

2 emissions from grandfathered plants. Increas-

ing the use or output of nuclear power is an unac-ceptable strategy for reducing electricity sectorgreenhouse gas emissions.

6) The region and each of the states should set atarget of 10 percent of electricity consumptionfrom new, clean renewable sources by 2010, and20 percent of electricity consumption from new,clean renewable sources by 2020.

7) Every plan should include a target of increas-ing energy efficiency in each sector by 20 per-cent by 2010. The plans should consider moreefficient generation of power, strong efficiency andconservation measures and greater use of combinedheat and power and micropower options.

8) The states should lead by example by:a. Purchasing 20 percent of state facility electric-

ity from clean, renewable sources by 2010.b. Greening the state fleet by establishing poli-

cies that require each vehicle purchased to bethe model that emits the least CO

2 and other

air pollutants per mile traveled while fulfillingthe intended state function; prohibiting the useof inefficient vehicles such as SUVs for non-essential purposes; and establishing a schedulefor replacing all state vehicles with the mostefficient models available.

c. Reducing state government’s energy use by 25percent overall by 2010.

9) Each plan should include long-term plans forcontrolling sprawl, which is one of the primaryfactors raising emissions from transportationand buildings. At a minimum, this should startby incorporating an assessment of CO

2 impacts

into the state environmental review process.

10)Each plan should recognize the economic de-velopment and job creation benefits of strate-gies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. And,each plan should also recognize the importance ofassisting displaced workers in making a successfultransition to new employment.

Many of the recommendations of the ConnecticutClimate Change Stakeholder Dialogue achieve resultsthat go beyond those envisioned by the principles; inother cases, they fall short, and additional actions willbe needed. But the principles provide a yardstickagainst which to measure the policy options proposedby the stakeholders, and those advocated in this re-port and elsewhere.


In December 2003, the Connecticut ClimateChange Stakeholder Dialogue (CCSD) recom-mended a set of 55 policies for the state to pur-

sue in reducing its emissions of global warming gases.If implemented, the policies would result in signifi-cant reductions in global warming emissions in Con-necticut, moving the state closer to achieving theregional short- and medium-term goals for emissionreductions.

Summary of the

Recommendations

The 55 stakeholder recommendations are brokendown into five categories: transportation and land use;residential, commercial and industrial; agriculture,forestry and waste; electricity generation; and cross-cutting issues.

Transportation and Land UseThe transportation sector poses the greatest challengefor reducing global warming emissions in Connecti-cut. Not only is transportation the largest source ofglobal warming emissions in Connecticut, but it isalso projected to produce a growing share of theregion’s emissions over the next 20 years. The CCSDprojected that transportation-sector global warmingemissions (including black carbon) would increase by9 percent over 2000 levels by 2010, and by 20 per-cent over 2000 levels by 2020.39

For several reasons, the options available to Connecti-cut for reducing transportation emissions in the short-and medium-term are limited. First, the spread ofwidely dispersed suburban development in Connecti-cut since World War II has created dependency onthe automobile for many daily tasks. Adjusting land-use patterns to allow for the effective provision of tran-sit service and the creation of other transportationalternatives in these communities is a long-term en-deavor.

Second, transportation technologies often have a longlife-span. The average car or SUV sold in Connecti-cut in 2004, for example, will likely remain on theroad for the next 12 to 15 years. Other types of ve-

hicles – such as airplanes, buses, trucks and trains –may remain in service even longer. As a result, tech-nological advances that improve fuel economy or re-duce emissions often take a long time to percolatethrough entire vehicle fleets.

Finally, Connecticut’s range of action in the transpor-tation sector is circumscribed by federal law. Connecti-cut is barred by federal law from adopting policiesregulating the fuel economy of cars and trucks or fromadopting emissions standards for light-duty cars andtrucks other than those in place at the federal level orin California. Similarly, Connecticut does not havecomplete latitude in how it directs the spending offederal transportation funds, although the level of flex-ibility has increased in recent years.

To begin to surmount these challenges, the CCSDmade a series of nine recommendations for state ac-tion. To reduce global warming emissions from mo-tor vehicles, the stakeholders recommended adoptionof the California Low Emission Vehicle II program(which sets sales requirements for hybrid-electric andother clean vehicles) and California’s forthcomingtailpipe emission standards for carbon dioxide; imple-mentation of a “feebate” program to assess fees on thesales of cars with high carbon dioxide emissions andextend rebates to purchasers of low-carbon vehicles;and the creation of incentives for the purchase of low-carbon vehicles by fleets.

In addition, the CCSD proposed a package of mea-sures to reduce the growth of vehicle travel in Con-necticut, a multi-state project to encourage the use offreight rail, a program to reduce black carbon emis-sions from diesel vehicles, a project to support researchon hydrogen fuel cells for transportation, and a pub-lic education initiative.

The CCSD projects that the recommendations – ifimplemented – would reduce transportation-sectoremissions by approximately 5.3 MMTCO

2E below

projected levels by 2020 (including black carbon). Thislevel of reductions would still leave transportation-sector emissions in 2020 about 1.9 MMTCO

2E above

1990 emissions.

THE CONNECTICUT CLIMATE CHANGE STAKEHOLDERDIALOGUE RECOMMENDATIONS: A POSITIVE FIRST STEP


Residential, Commercial andIndustrial SectorsConsidered as a whole, the residential, commercialand industrial (RCI) sectors are responsible for thebulk of Connecticut’s global warming emissions, boththrough the direct combustion of fossil fuels for spaceheating and other uses, and through the consump-tion of electricity. Strategies to reduce RCI sectoremissions focus on attaining the highest energy effi-ciency for new buildings and equipment, replacingolder, less-energy efficient equipment, and retrofit-ting existing structures to maximize efficiency.

The potential for energy efficiency gains in Connecti-cut is large. The American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE) estimated in 2003 thatthe cost-effective potential for efficiency savings inConnecticut within the next five years is approximately1,083 gigawatt-hours, or about 4 percent of electric-ity consumption. Efficiency measures could reducenatural gas consumption in the state by about 5 per-cent over the next five years.40

Energy efficiency improvements often make economicsense, especially in the long run, but a number of bar-riers reduce their penetration in the market. Potentialusers may not know about the technologies or havean accurate way of computing the relative costs andbenefits of adopting them. Even when efficiency im-provements are plainly justifiable in the long run,consumers may resist adopting technologies that causean increase in the initial cost of purchasing a buildingor piece of equipment. In some cases, as with low-income individuals, consumers may not be able toafford the initial investment in energy efficiency, re-gardless of its long-term benefits.

As a result, the CCSD recommendations focusedmainly on improving the baseline energy efficiencyof new buildings and equipment, while eliminatingbarriers to improved energy efficiency.

To improve the efficiency of new buildings and equip-ment, the CCSD recommended the regular updatingof energy efficiency codes for residential and com-mercial construction, the adoption of efficiency stan-dards for eight appliances, the creation of strongstandards for the efficiency of new state-funded pub-lic sector buildings, and the establishment of programsto encourage the construction of energy efficienthomes and other private-sector buildings.

Alleviating the upfront cost of energy efficiency mea-sures was the focus of several recommendations, in-cluding restoration of the electricity Conservation andLoad Management Fund (which had its funding cutby approximately half last year amid the state’s fiscalcrisis) and the creation of similar funds to promoteoil and natural gas conservation. The oil and gas fundswould be supported in the same manner as the elec-tricity fund: through a small surcharge on energy bills.Each of the funds would promote efficiency througheducational programs, rebates and other incentives.

The stakeholders also proposed plans to finance effi-ciency, including tax credits for green buildings, bulkpurchasing programs for energy-efficient appliances,“pay-as-you-save” programs to reduce the upfront costof replacing old appliances and heat pump water heat-ers, and increased funding for low-income energy ef-ficiency and weatherization programs. In addition, thestakeholders recommended other steps – includingpublic education and voluntary programs – to encour-age energy savings in homes, businesses and industry.

The stakeholder recommendations are projected toreduce global warming emissions from the direct com-bustion of fossil fuels within the RCI sector (not in-cluding electricity use) by about 1.9 MMTCO

2E by

2020 – or about 9 percent below projected emissions.Even with adoption of the recommendations, how-ever, RCI sector emissions would remain significantlyhigher than they were in 1990. The recommendationswould also reduce indirect global warming emissionsfrom electricity consumption by about 2.8MMTCO

2E by 2020.

Agriculture, Forestry and WasteSectorsAgriculture, forestry and waste management (AFW)are responsible for only a small portion ofConnecticut’s global warming emissions. Emissionsof methane and carbon dioxide from landfills, car-bon dioxide and nitrous oxide from waste combus-tion, methane from livestock and manure, and nitrousoxide from soil fertilization are among the relativelysmall, but still significant, sources of emissions fromAFW activities.

However, agriculture, forestry and land managementalso play a positive role by acting as “sinks” for the


removal and storage of atmospheric carbon dioxide.Because plants use carbon dioxide in photosynthesisand store carbon within their tissues, the reforesta-tion of land in Connecticut can reduce the state’s netemissions of global warming gases.

The CCSD proposed 10 strategies to reduce AFWemissions. Two of the recommendations (centralizedmanure digesters and landfill gas-to-energy projects)seek to harness methane emissions as energy sources.Three recommendations (forest management research,urban tree planting, and forest and agricultural landpreservation) attempt to capitalize on the potentialdevelopment of Connecticut’s croplands and woodsas carbon sinks. Other recommendations aim at re-ducing energy use by promoting recycling and sourcereduction, the purchase of locally grown produce, andthe use of durable wood products in construction.

The strategies recommended by the stakeholderswould reduce net global warming emissions fromAFW activities within Connecticut to below zero. Thatis, the amount of carbon stored within the state’s for-ests and crops would exceed the amount of globalwarming gases produced through other agricultural,forestry and waste management activities.

Electricity GenerationGlobal warming emissions from electricity generationcan be reduced in two ways: by reducing the con-sumption of electricity and by reducing the amountof global warming gases produced per unit of elec-tricity consumed. Reducing electricity consumptionis mainly achieved through actions in the residential,commercial and industrial sectors. So the stakeholderrecommendations for the electric sector focus mainlyon encouraging less carbon-intensive forms of elec-tricity generation.

Several of the CCSD recommendations focus on pro-moting renewable sources of electricity by extendingthe minimum renewable portfolio standard (RPS) forelectricity consumed in the state, encouraging thepurchase of renewable power by government and pri-vate entities, spurring research on and installation ofrenewable energy sources through a production taxcredit and restoration of the Clean Energy Fund, andencouraging clean combined heat-and-power (CHP)systems. The CCSD also urged that Connecticut pro-ceed with development of a regional cap-and-tradeprogram for carbon dioxide emissions from electric-ity generation with other northeastern states.

Table 2. Historic and Projected Global Warming Emissions inConnecticut as Related to Regional Goal (MMTCO

E) 41

1990 2000 2010 2020Base Case

(Without Nuclear Relicensing) 42.4 46.5 48.1 59.1

Regional Goal 42.4 38.2

Stakeholder Plan(Without Nuclear Relicensing) 43.9 46.4

Additional Savings Required to Meet Regional Goal 1.5 8.2

2


Cross-Cutting RecommendationsIn addition to the sector-specific recommendations,the stakeholders also recommended that Connecti-cut engage in broader efforts to educate and involvethe public in issues related to global warming, and todevelop the state’s capacity to inventory, register andtrack global warming emissions.

Cumulative Impact of theRecommendationsEven with the adoption and successful implementa-tion of the 55 recommendations, Connecticut willstill have much work to do to meet the New EnglandGovernors/Eastern Canadian Premiers short- andmedium-term regional global warming emission re-duction goals and prepare itself to make the long-termemission reductions necessary to bring the state’s ac-tivities into balance with the climate.

Not counting transportation emissions of black car-bon (and assuming the closure of Millstone 2 upon

the expiration of its operating license in 2015), thestakeholder recommendations would reduce globalwarming emissions in Connecticut by 4.2MMTCO

2E (9 percent) below projected levels by

2010 and 12.7 MMTCO2E (22 percent) by 2020.

These reductions would leave the state 1.5MMTCO

2E short of achieving the goal of reducing

emissions to 1990 levels by 2020, and 8.2MMTCO

2E short of achieving the goal of reducing

emissions to 10 percent below 1990 levels by 2020.(See Table 2.)

Thus, while the stakeholder recommendations are apositive first step – and should be implemented asquickly as possible – Connecticut still needs to takeadditional steps to rein in its emissions of global warm-ing gases. The next section suggests a number of waysConnecticut could meet this challenge.


As noted above, even if all 55 of the stakeholderrecommendations were implemented, Con-necticut would still fall short of achieving the

short- and medium-term global warming emission re-duction goals envisioned in the Conference of NewEngland Governors and Eastern Canadian PremiersClimate Change Action Plan. And while certain ofthe recommendations would help Connecticut movetoward achievement of the region’s long-term goals,they fail to take full advantage of crucial opportuni-ties for technological transformation – such as thewidespread development of Connecticut’s solar powerpotential.

Clearly, Connecticut will need to implement addi-tional policy solutions to achieve its global warminggoals. In some cases, these solutions are well-devel-oped and can be adopted and implemented in theshort-term. In other cases, significant hurdles will haveto be overcome prior to adoption.

Strategies for Near-Term

Adoption

1. Adopt Energy Efficiency Standardsfor Seven Appliances and Allow forAdministrative Adoption of FutureEfficiency StandardsPotential Savings: 0.29-0.66 MMTCO

2E by 2010;

0.80 MMTCO2E by 202042

Household appliances and those used by business area major source of energy demand. Since the first stateappliance efficiency standards were adopted in themid-1970s (followed by federal standards beginningin the late 1980s), the energy efficiency of many com-mon appliances has dramatically improved. For ex-ample, residential refrigerators complying with thelatest national standards consume less than one-thirdthe electricity of refrigerators manufactured in the early1970s.43

BEYOND THE STAKEHOLDER RECOMMENDATIONS:CONNECTICUT’S NEXT STEPS ON GLOBAL WARMING

Table 3. Products Covered Under Proposed Efficiency Standards46

Residential Products

Furnace fans x

Torchiere light fixtures x

Ceiling fans

Consumer electronics (standby power)

Central air conditioners and heat pumps* x

Commercial Products

Unit and duct heaters x

Small packaged air conditioners and heat pumps* x

Beverage vending machines

Dry-type building transformers x

Commercial refrigerators and freezers x

Traffic signals x

Exit signs x

Commercial (coin-operated) clothes washers x

Ice makers

Large packaged air conditioners x

* Subject to stronger federal standards recently reinstated through court action.

In StakeholderPlan

FederalPreemption Exists


The federal appliance standards program has led togreat improvements in the efficiency of many appli-ances, but progress has slowed in recent years. Federalstandards have failed to keep up with advances in ef-ficiency technologies. In addition, the federal programdoes not cover some appliances with great potentialfor improved efficiency.

States are pre-empted from adopting their own effi-ciency standards for products covered by federal stan-dards, but there are two opportunities for states totake action. First, states may adopt efficiency stan-dards for products not specifically covered by the fed-eral program. In addition, states have the opportunityto apply for a waiver of federal pre-emption to applystronger standards to products currently covered byfederal standards.

An analysis conduced in 2002 by Northeast EnergyEfficiency Partnerships (NEEP) assessed the poten-tial energy savings that would result from the adop-tion of improved efficiency standards for 15commercial and residential products. (See Table 3.)Using NEEP’s projections for total electricity savings,moving forward with standards for all such productswould yield electricity savings of 2,343 gigawatt-hours(GWh) in 2020 – equal to about 8 percent ofConnecticut’s electricity use in 2001.44 The NEEPstudy estimated that adoption of the package of ap-pliance standards would bring Connecticut approxi-mately $1.5 billion in net economic benefit by 2020.45

In estimating the carbon dioxide reductions thatwould result from efficiency standards and other mea-sures that reduce electricity use, a key factor is thetype of electricity generation that is assumed to beaffected by the reduction in consumption. Coal- andoil-fired power plants (particularly older plants) re-lease significantly greater amounts of carbon dioxideper unit of electricity produced than modern naturalgas-fired power plants. Thus, the resulting emissionreductions are low if it is assumed that electricity sav-ings reduce the need for the construction of new gas-fired power plants, and high if they reduce the amountof power coming from older coal- and oil-fired plants.

In this report, where applicable, we present a range ofemission reductions based on these different assump-tions. The low end of the range is based on the as-sumption that electricity savings are first used to offsetany reduction in generation from nuclear plants that

would be closed down upon expiration of their li-censes, with the remaining savings used to reduce theneed for gas-fired generation in the New England grid.The high end of the range is based on the assumptionthat savings are first used to offset retired nuclearpower, with the remainder used to reduce coal-firedgeneration. It is likely that the higher emission reduc-tion estimate would only be achieved under a strongstate or regional cap on electric-sector emissions. (SeeStrategy #8.)

The stakeholders recommended that Connecticutadopt efficiency standards for eight of the appliancesidentified in the NEEP report. While these eight prod-ucts are the easiest to move forward with (not requir-ing a federal waiver and with alternatives readilyavailable on the market and standards fully developed),they miss out on much of the potential for energysavings identified by NEEP. For example, the adop-tion of standards for standby power for consumer elec-tronics and residential ceiling fans (neither of whichis subject to federal preemption) would save more elec-tricity than adopting standards for the eight productsrecommended by the CCSD.47 Adding in productssubject to federal preemption – such as furnace fans –would create even more savings.

Based on NEEP’s projected electricity savings for theseven appliances not covered by the stakeholder rec-ommendations, adoption of efficiency standards forthose appliances could result in carbon dioxide emis-sion reductions of 0.8 MMTCO

2E by 2020.

The stakeholder recommendations are attractive inthat they can be implemented quickly, with less con-troversy and without a federal waiver, and the adop-tion of a package of standards along those lines wouldbe a good start for Connecticut. However, the signifi-cant energy savings that would result from other ap-pliance standards suggest that Connecticut should alsowork to adopt standards that encourage manufactur-ers to install known efficiency technologies on theirproducts (such as low-wattage standby power) and byforcing the issue of improved efficiency standards atthe federal level.

Another way in which Connecticut can expand thebenefits of efficiency standards is to grant administra-tive authority for the adoption of new standards, with-out the need for additional legislative action. Rapidadvances in consumer electronics and other technolo-


gies mean that new devices are arriving on the marketvirtually every day – providing new opportunities forenergy savings. Connecticut should have the flexibil-ity to take advantage of these opportunities as soon asthey become available.

2. Improve Energy Efficiency byIncreasing Funding for theConservation & Load ManagementFundPotential Savings: 0.29-0.68 MMTCO

2E by 2010;

0.68 MMTCO2E by 2020

One of the most promising opportunities for reduc-ing carbon dioxide emissions in Connecticut isthrough improved energy efficiency, which also fre-quently saves money on fuel costs. Traditionally, stateshave required electric utilities to make investments inefficiency programs through the rate-setting process.In the wake of electric industry restructuring, how-ever, some states have dropped efficiency requirements,while others – including Connecticut – have createda new means of financing efficiency improvementsthrough the assessment of systems benefit charges(SBCs) on consumers’ electric bills.

The concept behind the SBC is that all electric con-sumers share in the benefits when any consumer im-proves his or her energy efficiency. These benefits areboth social (reduced global warming emissions andair pollution and improved long-run energy security)and purely economic (reduced need for expensive peakgeneration and ratepayer investments in transmissionand distribution systems).

Connecticut established its system of SBCs throughelectric restructuring legislation adopted in 1998.SBCs are assessed in Connecticut to support energyefficiency programs through the Conservation andLoad Management Fund, the development of renew-able energy sources through the Clean Energy Fund,and low-income assistance programs.

The efficiency SBC is assessed to customers of UnitedIlluminating and Connecticut Light & Power, whichprovide about 95 percent of Connecticut’s electric-ity.48 The SBC rate is 3 mills ($0.003) per kilowatt-hour (kWh), an assessment that generated more than$87 million in efficiency funding in 2002.49

Connecticut’s efficiency programs are run by the twoelectric utilities with the coordination and approvalof the Energy Conservation Management Board. In2002, the board reported that efficiency programssaved approximately 246 GWh of electricity (a sav-ings rate of about 3 kWh annually per dollar spent),which will lead to economic savings of about $373million over the lifetime of the efficiency measures.50

SBC funds supported a wide variety of efficiency-re-lated programs, ranging from research and develop-ment and public outreach to incentives for thepurchase of energy efficient equipment for homes andbusinesses.

Unfortunately, with the state in the midst of a fiscalcrisis, the Legislature moved in 2003 to divert SBCfunds to fill shortfalls in the general state budget. TheLegislature’s action is expected to reduce by about halfthe amount of money available for efficiency pro-grams.51 As a result, efficiency improvements – andtheir associated short- and long-term economic ben-efits – will be reduced.

The stakeholders recommended that full funding berestored to the Conservation and Load ManagementFund. But even with full funding, Connecticut’s fullpotential for energy efficiency improvements will likelyremain untapped. Should Connecticut increase theSBC for energy efficiency by 2 mills, the state couldgenerate tens of millions of additional dollars for effi-ciency improvements. Even assuming that efficiencysavings from added SBC revenue would come at asubstantially lower rate (given the decreasing avail-ability of “low-hanging fruit” over time), Connecti-cut could still achieve electricity savings of upwardsof 650 GWh per year by 2010 and 1,500 GWh peryear by 2020.52 These savings represent 2 percent and5 percent, respectively, of Connecticut’s electricityconsumption in 2001.53

The near-term impacts of expanded residential, com-mercial and industrial energy efficiency programs mayrepresent just the tip of the iceberg of the potentialbenefits of an expanded SBC program. By fundingresearch and development into efficient new technolo-gies and practices and broadening public understand-ing of the potential benefits of energy efficiency, theseprograms can create new opportunities for cost-effec-tive energy savings in the years to come.


3. Reduce Natural Gas and HeatingOil Consumption by IncreasingFunding for Proposed ConservationProgramsPotential Savings: 0.40 MMTCO

2E by 2010; 0.91

MMTCO2E by 2020

The stakeholder recommendations proposed the cre-ation of two new funds to support energy efficiency:a natural gas conservation fund and a heating oil con-servation fund. Both funds would be supported by asmall levy on oil and gas bills, in much the same waythat improvements in electrical energy efficiency aresupported through Connecticut’s systems benefitcharge on electricity bills. The stakeholder recommen-dation proposes that each fund operate on a $20 mil-lion initial budget, funded through a roughly 2 percentcharge on fuel bills.

The recommendation for oil and gas conservationfunds is a good one, correcting the discrepancy bywhich electricity customers pay to support energy ef-ficiency, while users of oil, gas and other fuels face nosuch obligation. While the stakeholder recommenda-tion is a step in the right direction, it does not fullyclose the equity gap and should be expanded upon tocreate more funds with which to undertake energyefficiency improvements in homes, businesses andindustry.

In comparing the proposed conservation charges foroil, gas and electricity, one can use one of two yard-sticks. First, one can compare the proposed chargesbased on the percentage of the charge relative to en-ergy cost. Based on EIA projected residential energycosts for 2005, the proposed 2 percent oil and gassurcharges appear to be smaller than the current elec-tric SBC for efficiency.54 (See Table 4.)

A second yardstick is the charge per unit of energyconsumed. Assuming a New England-wide averageheat rate for electricity generation of 9,581 BTU/kWhfor 2005 (heat rate being a measure of the amount ofenergy consumed at power plants to produce a kWhof electricity at the point of use), and assuming thatall residential, commercial and industrial sales of re-sidual and distillate fuel oil are covered by the charge,oil and gas consumers would still pay significantly lessper unit of energy than electricity customers.56 ( S e eTable 5, next page.)

By either measure, electricity customers would con-tribute more to energy conservation than oil and gasusers. This disparity would be exacerbated if, as rec-ommended above, the electric SBC for efficiency wereincreased to 5 mills/kWh.

An oil and gas conservation charge of approximately$0.35 per million BTU of energy consumed wouldhelp to level the playing field among the fuels, whilegenerating approximately double the revenue of theconservation funds proposed by the CCSD. With sucha charge, residential distillate fuel oil and natural gascustomers would pay conservation charges amount-ing to about 4.6 percent and 3.7 percent, respectively,of their projected 2005 energy bills, while electricitycustomers paying a 5 mill SBC would pay charges ofabout 5 percent of their projected bills.

Assuming the same rate of energy savings as assumedin the stakeholder report (the equivalent of 34 cubicfeet of gas per dollar spent), adjusted downward by25 percent to account for the declining availability of“low-hanging fruit” savings over time, the proposedincrease in the oil and gas conservation charges wouldreduce carbon dioxide emissions by about 0.91 mil-lion metric tons by 2020. In the meantime, by reduc-ing consumption of natural gas and heating oil,

Table 4. Current and Proposed Efficiency Charges in Connecticut byPercent of Projected Residential Electric Price in 200555

Proposed Charge Percent of Residential Price

Existing Electric SBC (3 mills/kWh) ~3%

Natural Gas Conservation Fund ~2%

Oil Conservation Fund ~2%


Table 5. Current and Proposed Efficiency Charges in Connecticut byPrimary Energy Use (Million BTU)57

Proposed Charge Cost Per Unit of Primary Energy Use (Million BTU)

Existing Electric SBC (3 mills/kWh) $0.31

Natural Gas Conservation Fund $0.15

Oil Conservation Fund $0.18

Connecticut would enjoy improved energy security,be less susceptible to fuel price spikes, and send less ofits dollars outside the local economy for fossil fuelpurchases.

The effect of increased conservation charges on low-income households should play a role in determininghow funds from the charges are spent. Weatheriza-tion, appliance-swapping and other efficiency pro-grams should place a special focus on reducing theenergy bills of low-income residents. For those whoparticipate in the programs, more efficient energy usecan offset or eliminate the increased cost per unit ofenergy used.

4. Implement “Pay-As-You-Drive”Auto InsurancePotential Savings: 0.72 MMTCO

2E by 2010; 0.80

MMTCO2E by 2020

In a perfect market, the rates individuals paid for in-surance coverage would accurately reflect the risk theypose to themselves and others. Automobile insurersuse a host of measures – including vehicle model, driv-ing record, location and personal characteristics – toestimate the financial risk incurred by each driver.

One measure that is not frequently used with accu-racy is travel mileage. Common sense and academicresearch suggest that drivers who log more miles be-hind the wheel are more likely to get in an accidentthan those whose vehicles rarely leave the driveway.58

Many insurers do provide low-mileage discounts todrivers, but these discounts are often small, and donot vary based on small variations in mileage. Forexample, a discount for vehicles that are driven lessthan 7,500 miles per year does little to encourage those

who drive significantly more or less than 7,500 milesper year to alter their behavior. As a result, the systemfails to effectively encourage drivers to reduce theirrisk by driving less.

Requiring automobile insurers to offer mileage-basedinsurance is just one of many potential policies thatattempt to reallocate the upfront costs of driving. Highinitial cost barriers to vehicle ownership – such as in-surance, registration fees and sales taxes – may reducedriving somewhat by denying vehicles to those whocannot afford these costs. But for the bulk of the popu-lation that can afford (or has little choice but to af-ford) to own a vehicle, these high initial costs serve asan incentive to maximize the vehicle’s use. Per-milecharges operate in the opposite fashion, providing apowerful price signal for vehicle owners to minimizetheir driving and, in the process, minimize the coststhey impose on society in air pollution, highway main-tenance, congestion and accidents.

A pay-as-you-drive system of insurance in Connecti-cut might work this way: vehicle insurance could besplit between those components in which risk is di-rectly related to the ownership of a vehicle (compre-hensive) and those in which risk is largely related todriving (collision, liability). The former could becharged to consumers on an annual basis, as is donecurrently. The latter types of insurance could be soldin chunks of mileage – for example, 5,000 miles – orbe sold annually, with the adjustment of premiumsbased on actual mileage taking place at the end of theyear. Of critical importance to the success of the sys-tem would be the creation of accurate, convenientmethods of taking odometer readings and communi-cating them to the insurer.

A pay-as-you-drive system of insurance would havegreat benefits for Connecticut – not only for reduc-


ing global warming emissions but also for improvinghighway safety and reducing insurance claims. Becauseinsurers would still be permitted to adjust their per-mile rates based on other risk factors, mileage-basedinsurance would add an additional incentive for un-safe drivers to drive sparingly.

Most importantly, however, a mileage-based insurancesystem would reduce driving – particularly in a statewith high auto insurance rates such as Connecticut.Converting the average collision and liability insur-ance policies to a per-mile basis in Connecticut wouldlead to an average insurance charge of about nine centsper mile.59 (By contrast, a driver buying gasoline at$1.50 per gallon for a 20 MPG car pays only 7.5 centsper mile for fuel.)

Research conducted by the U.S. EPA and updated bythe Victoria Transport Policy Institute suggests that if80 percent of the cost of collision and liability insur-ance in Connecticut were collected by the mile, ve-hicle-miles traveled would be reduced by about 11.2percent, with carbon dioxide emissions from light-duty vehicles declining by roughly the same amount.60

Assuming that half of Connecticut drivers participatein the program, this would translate to carbon diox-ide emission reductions of about 5.6 percent fromlight-duty vehicles.

While many insurers remain resistant to the adminis-trative changes that would be needed to implementmileage-based insurance, the concept is beginning tomake inroads. The Progressive auto insurance com-pany has offered a pilot pay-as-you-drive (PAYD) in-surance system in Texas and other pilot programs areunderway elsewhere. In 2003, the Oregon Legisla-ture adopted legislation to provide a $100-per-policytax credit to insurers who offer PAYD options.61

Connecticut should choose to introduce the conceptby requiring insurers to offer it as an alternative totraditional insurance. If the concept proves success-ful, the state (or insurers) could then require liabilityand collision rates to be expressed in cents-per-mile.

5. Require the Sale of Low-RollingResistance TiresPotential Savings: 0.20 MMTCO

2E by 2010; 0.33

MMTCO2E by 2020

Automobile manufacturers typically include low roll-ing resistance (LRR) tires on their new vehicles in orderto meet federal corporate average fuel economy(CAFE) standards. However, LRR tires are generallynot available to consumers as replacements when origi-nal tires have worn out. As a result, vehicles with re-placement tires do not achieve the same fuel economyas vehicles with original tires.

Policy Alternative:Pay-At-The-Pump InsuranceA close relative of pay-as-you-driveinsurance, pay-at-the-pump policies wouldrequire the state to collect a surcharge ongasoline sales that would then provideminimal insurance coverage to drivers.Drivers would still purchase additionalinsurance coverage in the traditionalmanner.

Pay-at-the-pump systems have threeadvantages. First, they do not requireverification of odometer readings. Second, asa global warming measure, they tie insurancecoverage to the amount of fuel used –encouraging both reductions in vehicle traveland the purchase of more efficient vehicles.Third, drivers of larger, less-fuel efficientvehicles (such as large SUVs) impose greatercosts when they get into accidents. Evidenceshows that SUVs and other large vehicles aremore likely to kill or severely injureoccupants of other vehicles in a collisionand that the sense of security provided bydriving in a large vehicle may lead to moredangerous driving behaviors.62 To the extentthis is true, pay-at-the-pump can put a priceon the additional risk these vehicles pose.

Pay-at-the-pump has disadvantages,however, that make it an inherently lessappealing policy. First is the administrativeissue of whether the state itself or a privateinsurer provides the minimal coverage paidfor at the pump. Second, pay-at-the-pumpsystems do not discriminate based on drivingrecord or any other indicator of risk.


The potential savings in fuel – and carbon dioxideemissions – are significant. A 2003 report written forthe California Energy Commission found that LRRtires would improve the fuel economy of vehicles op-erating on replacement tires by about 3 percent, withthe average driver replacing the tires on their vehicleswhen the vehicles reach four, seven and 11 years ofage. The resulting fuel savings would pay off the ad-ditional cost of the tires in about one year, the reportfound, without compromising safety or tire longev-ity.63

Several potential approaches exist to encourage thesale and use of LRR tires – ranging from labeling cam-paigns (similar to the Energy Star program) to man-datory fuel efficiency standards for all light-duty tiressold in the state. A standards program that requiredthe sale of LRR tires beginning in 2005 in Connecti-cut – assuming the same tire replacement scheduleand per-vehicle emission reductions found in theCalifornia study – would ultimately reduce carbondioxide emissions from the light-duty fleet by about1.6 percent by 2010 and 2.3 percent by 2020, whilealso providing a net financial benefit to consumersthrough reduced gasoline costs.

6. Implement a Public SectorEmission Reduction Strategy WithConcrete, Measurable GoalsPotential Savings: 0.09 MMTCO

2E by 2010; 0.12

MMTCO2E by 2020

(Savings overlap with stakeholder recommendations.)

The New England Governors and Eastern CanadianPremiers agreement puts great emphasis on the needfor government to “lead by example” in the effort toreduce global warming emissions. The stakeholderrecommendations include at least six specific initia-tives that embody this principle:

• Requiring new state-owned and state-fundedbuildings to meet high standards for energy effi-ciency.

• Creating a shared savings program to encourageenergy efficiency improvements in state agencies.

• Encouraging colleges and universities to join in a“green campus” initiative.

• Creating new tools for benchmarking, measuringand tracking energy use in municipal buildings.

• Procuring environmentally preferable products.• Purchasing significant amounts of renewably gen-erated power for state use.

State and local governments also play important rolesin several of the CCSD’s recommendations in othersectors.

The policies recommended by CCSD are beneficial,but lack relation to an overarching goal for state en-ergy use. If all of Connecticut is to be held account-able for achieving the NEG/ECP goals, then it onlymakes sense that state government be held account-able to its own aggressive goals for reducing carbondioxide emissions.

We suggest three goals for the state to meet, consis-tent with the New England Climate Coalition’s Ac-tion Principles:

• Purchasing 20 percent of state facility electricityfrom clean, renewable sources by 2010.

• Greening the state fleet by establishing policies thatrequire each vehicle purchased to be the model thatemits the least CO

2 and other air pollutants per

mile traveled while fulfilling the intended statefunction; prohibiting the use of inefficient vehiclessuch as SUVs for non-essential purposes; and es-tablishing a schedule for replacing all state vehicleswith the most efficient models available.

• Reducing state government’s energy use by 25 per-cent overall by 2010.

The first goal has already been adopted and expandedupon by the CCSD. As for vehicle efficiency, it is rea-sonable to expect that an aggressive policy of purchas-ing high fuel-economy gasoline vehicles and dedicated,low-carbon alternative fuel vehicles could reduce car-bon dioxide emissions per mile traveled by 20 per-cent by 2010 and 28.5 percent by 2020(corresponding to a 25 percent increase in real-worldmiles-per-gallon fuel economy by 2010 and a 40 per-cent increase by 2020.)

The proposed 25 percent reduction in state energyuse by 2010 is roughly equivalent to the NEG/ECPcommitment to reduce public-sector global warmingemissions by 25 percent by 2012. In Connecticut,state government consumes about 2 percent of thestate’s electricity, along with large amounts of naturalgas and heating oil.64 Reducing the state’s energy con-


sumption would play a significant role in reducingoverall global warming emissions while setting an ex-ample for private sector actors to follow.

Several of the stakeholder recommendations can playa part in achieving the targeted reductions in stateenergy use. But without an overall goal against whichto mark progress (and the development of tools toinventory and track state government emissions), itwill be difficult for the state to maintain focus on re-ducing its global warming emissions.

7. Adopt a Solar PhotovoltaicStrategy With Adequate FundingPotential Savings: 0.003-0.006 MMTCO

2E by

2010; 0.01 MMTCO2E by 2020.

Solar power is currently a bit player in the generationof electricity in New England. Barring a technologi-cal breakthrough, it will likely remain a bit player forat least the next decade. But Connecticut and otherNew England states can play a leading role in posi-tioning solar power to make a major contribution tothe region’s long-term global warming emission re-duction goals.

Over the long term, solar photovoltaics (PVs) havethe potential to be a major contributor to a clean en-ergy future, offering power that is distributed (reduc-ing transmission and distribution costs), scalable andpollution-free. However, solar PV remains significantlymore expensive than other forms of centrally gener-ated and distributed power.

Solar PV’s path to market competitiveness is throughvolume-driven reductions in the per-piece cost ofmanufacturing, coupled with regulatory, technologi-cal and other changes that make it easier forhomeowners and businesses to take full advantage ofsolar power. The impact of volume on price has beendemonstrated clearly over the past decade, as U.S.shipments of PV modules have increased six-fold,helping to drive a 44 percent reduction in cost.65

Connecticut and other states can hasten the arrival ofmarket-competitive prices for solar PV by investingin solar capacity and easing solar installations. In theshort run, these investments in solar will appear moreexpensive than other renewables or efficiency pro-

grams. But the benefits of such an approach will bemore than worth it in the long run, as Connecticutworks to achieve the 75 to 85 percent long-term re-ductions called for in the NEG/ECP Climate ChangeAction Plan.

One potential tool is to increase the systems benefitcharge for renewables and dedicate the increased rev-enue exclusively to the installation of solar photovol-taic (PV) panels on homes and businesses.Connecticut currently assesses a renewables SBC of0.75 mills per kWh (to increase to 1 mill in 2004),which funds the activities of the Connecticut CleanEnergy Fund to support the development of renew-able power. By adding 0.15 mills to the SBC dedi-cated exclusively to providing incentives for solar PVinstallations, Connecticut could help provide a sig-nificant boost to the development of solar PV.

Solar programs in New England are already beingsupported by SBCs. The Connecticut Clean EnergyFund is funding PV installations up to $5 per Wattfor commercial, industrial and institutional applica-tions.66 In Massachusetts, the Massachusetts Technol-ogy Collaborative (which is supported by the state’srenewables SBC) has launched a program providingsubsidies of up to $5 per Watt for the installation ofsolar PV capacity on commercial buildings and in resi-dential clusters.67

A $4 per Watt subsidy appears to be sufficient to makesolar power cost-competitive in New England. A re-cent analysis found that commercial solar PV systemsin Massachusetts (including the subsidy) could costas much as $11 per Watt and still break even finan-cially for the purchaser. Installed commercial PV sys-tems in the U.S. range in price from $7 to $12 perWatt, making PV systems largely cost-competitive(with subsidy) in Massachusetts.68 Similarly, a $4 perWatt subsidy would enable buyers to spend more than$7 per Watt on residential solar systems in Connecti-cut and still break even, putting solar PV on the mar-gins of economic competitiveness.69

A subsidy program of the kind described here, if fullyutilized, would result in the generation of about 12GWh of power from new solar installations in Con-necticut by 2010 and 47 GWh by 2020. Even withthis ramp-up of solar power, total generation in 2020would represent less than two-tenths of one percentof the electricity generated in the state in 2001.70


Much of this new solar power would likely be used tosatisfy requirements under Connecticut’s renewableportfolio standard for electricity, but it is likely thatat least some of the new solar PV systems would pro-duce renewable power not counted toward the RPSas a result of individuals’ choice not to take RPS creditfor the systems or through the market purchase ofgreen power. The new solar PV systems would noteven begin to tap Connecticut’s potential for solar PVdevelopment, with the equivalent of only about 9,900Connecticut homes bearing rooftop solar PV systemsby 2020.71

These goals for solar development are conservativewhen compared to efforts in some other states andregions. New Jersey, for example, has adopted a state-wide goal of generating 120 GWh of power per yearfrom solar PV by 2008.72

Other financing and regulatory tools beyond the SBCcan also aid in encouraging PV installations, includ-ing “pay-as-you-save” programs (see page 39, below)and the elimination of barriers to the installation ofdistributed generating capacity. Connecticut shouldalso consider and eventually adopt building codes thatrequire the construction of “solar-ready” residentialand commercial buildings. Such codes could requirethat new construction be wired and plumbed to ac-cept PV and solar water heating systems.

While a solar program such as the one envisioned herewould have only a limited short- and medium-termimpact on carbon dioxide emissions, the long-termimpact is potentially great. The increased installationof solar PV systems would improve the economics ofsolar power and begin to change the perception ofsolar systems from exotic curiosities to a day-to-dayfeature of life in many communities. Should Con-necticut and other states make a long-term commit-ment to solar, PV manufacturers would have themarket confidence they need to make investments innew production capacity, ultimately contributing tolower prices for consumers. With such a development,the state and region would then be poised for a dra-matic increase in solar installations in the 2020-2050period; precisely the time when the region will beneeding to make deep reductions in its global warm-ing emissions in keeping with the New England gov-ernors’ long-term goal.

8. Adopt a Strong Carbon Cap forReducing Electric Sector EmissionsWithout Relicensing of NuclearReactorsPotential Savings: Included in above estimates.

Connecticut is currently working with nine othernortheastern states, from Maine to Delaware, to de-velop a regional cap-and-trade system for electric-sec-tor global warming emissions. The initiative, knownas the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI),parallels efforts in Massachusetts and New Hampshireto set carbon dioxide emission limits for electric gen-eration in those states and discussions of similar lim-its at the federal level.

The RGGI process provides a unique opportunity toshift from widespread reliance on polluting, carbon-intensive coal- and petroleum-fired generation to theincreasing use of renewable power and energy effi-ciency to meet the region’s electricity needs. However,the promise of these efforts could easily be lost if thelevel of the cap does not drive significant emissionreductions. It could also lose public support if theprogram makes the dangerous tradeoff of allowingnuclear power to get credit, subsidies or broad mar-ket advantage as a source of “clean” power.

• Cap Levels – The stakeholders recommended thatthe NEG/ECP goals for global warming emissionreductions (1990 levels by 2010; 10 percent be-low 1990 levels by 2020) be the starting point forrecommended cap levels and timing. This goal maybe insufficiently ambitious. Opportunities for re-ducing emissions from the electric sector are nu-merous, including the promotion of energyefficiency in homes, businesses and industry; theretirement of old, inefficient fossil fuel-fired powerplants; and the expansion of renewable and cleandistributed generation.

These initiatives are potentially mutually reinforc-ing. Reducing growth in electricity consumptionreduces the amount of new generating capacity thatmust be built to satisfy demand. Renewable anddistributed generation further reduces demand forfossil and nuclear generation. Together, thesechanges reduce the necessity to maintain existing,inefficient sources of generation and allow theirexpedited replacement with more efficient sources.


The New England Climate Coalition recommendsan overall goal of reducing carbon dioxide emis-sions from electricity generation by 40 percent be-low current levels. The adoption of aggressiveefficiency and renewables programs by all six NewEngland states would bring this goal within reachby 2020, even without relicensing of the region’snuclear reactors. Should those nuclear plants beretired at the expiration of their operating licenses,New England could achieve reductions of as muchas 30 percent below current levels, with furtherreductions possible in the years that follow. (Thiscorresponds to a 22 percent reduction from 1990emission levels. See box next page.)

The centrality of the cap level to the region’s glo-bal warming reduction efforts cannot be overstated.The electric sector represents one of the largest po-tential sources of global warming emission reduc-tions in the region. A cap goal that achieves onlythe level of reductions called for by NEG/ECP willreduce the chances that further electric sector re-ductions can compensate for rising emissions inother sectors – such as the transportation sector –in which the opportunities for near-term emissionreductions are less apparent.

• Nuclear Power and Offsets – A carbon cap-and-trade program should not be allowed to become abackdoor subsidy for nuclear power. For environ-mental and public safety reasons, Connecticut andthe New England states should be moving towarda phase-out of nuclear generating capacity, begin-ning with the retirement of existing nuclear reac-tors upon the expiration of their current operatinglicenses. The expansion or maintenance of nucleargenerating capacity in New England or elsewhereshould not be permitted to qualify as an offsetunder any cap-and-trade program.

The use of offsets as a method of compliance withthe carbon cap also produces other potential prob-lems. Massachusetts’ rule for its electric sector car-bon dioxide emission cap requires that any offsetsprovide “real, surplus, verifiable, permanent andenforceable” emission reductions.73 Practicallyspeaking, designing offsets that meet these criteriais extraordinarily difficult. Demonstrating that anemission reduction is truly “surplus” requires ad-ministrators of a cap-and-trade program to assesswhat would have happened in the absence of a cap

– for example, whether energy efficiency improve-ments used to generate offsets would have hap-pened anyway. And assessing permanence requiresfrequent verification that previous emission reduc-tions or sequestration activities remain in effect.

A sure way to avoid these problems is to draw theinitial boundaries of any trading program very nar-rowly – including only those sources that emit car-bon dioxide, and only those within the regioncovered by the program (in the case of RGGI,within the 10-state region).

• Leakage – Modeling conducted for the CCSD sug-gested that many of the emission reductionsachieved under a regional carbon cap could belargely offset by increased emissions from powerproducers outside the region that export electric-ity to the Northeast. To prevent this “leakage” ofemission reductions, the region must ensure a levelplaying field between electricity generated in theNortheast and imported electricity, perhaps by set-ting carbon dioxide emission standards for im-ported electricity. Another alternative is to expandthe cap to cover the widest possible range of gen-erators over the greatest possible geographic area,while maintaining strong provisions to ensure thatthe cap is enforced.

• Auctioning Credits – Another point of tension re-volves around whether existing electricity genera-tors in the Northeast would be required to buyemission credits at the outset of a carbon cap or begiven them for free. The free granting of emissioncredits to existing generators would act as a de factosubsidy to those plants, as well as grant those plantsan effective “right to pollute.” In addition, the auc-tioning of emission credits could produce a sourceof income that could be returned to all residents,used to support efficiency and renewable power,or used for transition help for displaced workers.

The resolution to these issues will come through ex-tensive negotiations over the coming months. Con-necticut should use its position in the talks tomaximize the potential benefits of the regional car-bon cap, and preserve its options to cap electric-sec-tor emissions through other channels, such as througha New England-wide or state program.


The Role of a Regional Carbon Cap inReducing Electric-Sector EmissionsTo demonstrate the feasibility of a strongelectric sector carbon cap without nuclearrelicensing, estimates were made of current andprojected New England electricity use andcarbon emissions based on the adoption by allsix New England states of the policies describedin this report and a number of other policiessimilar to those recommended by theConnecticut stakeholders. A detailed discussionof the methodology for this analysis is presentedin Appendix B.

The policy case assumes that all six New Englandstates adopt:

• Updated residential and commercial buildingenergy codes and future code updates.• Appliance efficiency standards for allappliances identified in the CCSDrecommendations and this report.• An increase in electric systems benefit chargesfor energy efficiency to 5 mills/kWh.• A renewable portfolio standard for electricgeneration that requires that 10 percent ofelectricity come from new renewables by 2010and 20 percent by 2020.• A solar PV program as described above.• Reductions in state government energy use asdescribed above and the purchase of 20 percent

of state government electricity fromrenewable sources by 2010 and 50 percent by2020.

Were a carbon cap to be structured so as touse efficiency savings and new renewablesfrom these strategies to offset generationfrom nuclear reactors whose licenses expire,then from coal-fired power plants, NewEngland could achieve up to a 29 percentreduction in electric sector carbon dioxideemissions by 2020 versus 2001 levels –assuming that New England produces as muchelectricity as it uses and that there is no“leakage” of emissions benefits out of theregion.74 By contrast, using those efficiencysavings and new renewables to offset naturalgas-powered generation (forecast by EIA tomake up virtually all of New England’s newgenerating capacity after 2009), would resultin reductions of only 3 percent below 2001levels by 2020. (See Fig. 5.) Both casesassume the retirement of New England’snuclear reactors at the expiration of theircurrent licenses.

Decisions regarding the level of a regionalcarbon cap will invariably take many factorsinto account beyond achieving the maximumcarbon dioxide emission reductions. It islikely that emission reductions from a well-

structured cap would fallsomewhere between the 3percent and 29 percentreductions estimated here.However, it is alsopossible that anaggressive regional effortto promote renewablescould enable them tobecome economicallycompetitive with otherforms of generation. Werethat scenario to takeplace, the level ofemission reductionspossible under a carboncap would be significantlygreater.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

20002002

20042006

20082010

20122014

20162018

2020

Year

Pro

jec

ted

Ca

rbo

n D

iox

ide

E

mis

sio

ns

(M

MT

CO

2E

)

Base Case Projection

With Adoption of 14Strategies - LowReduction CaseWith Adoption of 14Strategies - HighReduction CaseRegional Goal

Fig. 5. New England Projected Carbon Dioxide Emissions fromElectricity Generation (MMTCO2E)75


Summary of the Near-TermStrategiesAdoption of the eight near-term strategies listed above,in addition to the stakeholder recommendations,would enable Connecticut to achieve the short-termgoal of reducing carbon dioxide emissions to 1990levels by 2010, reducing carbon dioxide emissions byan additional 2.0-2.8 MMTCO

2E; more than the 1.6

MMTCO2E in additional reductions estimated by the

stakeholders to be necessary to reach the regional goals.The strategies also move the state closer to achievingthe medium-term goal of reducing emissions to 10percent below 1990 levels by 2020, reducing emis-sions by 3.7 MMTCO

2E of the 8.1 MMTCO

2E re-

maining after adoption of the CCSDrecommendations, assuming the closure of Millstone2 at the expiration of its operating license.

Closing the remaining gap in 2020, and achievingthe long-term goal of reducing emissions by 75 to 85percent will require additional action on a variety offronts. The following are suggested strategies that canhelp Connecticut meet those goals.

Additional Strategies

Requiring Investigation

Even with adoption of the stakeholder recommenda-tions, global warming emissions from the transporta-tion and residential/commercial/industrial sectors arestill projected to significantly exceed 1990 emissionlevels in 2020. Energy use in these sectors is closely

tied to land use and development patterns in Con-necticut.

Connecticut and other states are in urgent need ofpolicy strategies that can effectively address the chal-lenges posed in transportation, land use and energyconsumption in homes, businesses and industry. Thestrategies listed below hold significant promise forreducing Connecticut’s global warming emissions, butrequire either further investigation or consensus-build-ing among affected stakeholders before they reach thelevel of policy proposals ready for implementation.

Transportation

Consider Increasing Motor Fuels TaxesIncreased taxes on gasoline and other motor fuels arepotentially powerful tools to reduce global warmingemissions within the transportation sector. The po-litical unpopularity of higher fuel taxes – coupled withlegitimate concerns about social equity and economicimpact – make it difficult to envision adoption in theshort term. But the potential power of higher fuel taxesas a global warming emission reduction strategy de-mands consideration.

Low fuel prices drive all sorts of economic decisionswith short- and long-term ramifications for the cli-mate. The reality and expectation of low fuel pricesshapes the types of vehicles consumers buy; where theychoose to live, work and shop; and how they go abouttheir daily lives. Higher gasoline prices would causemany Connecticut residents to reconsider those

Fig. 6. Connecticut Global Warming Emissions (MMTCO E)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

1990 2000 2010 2020

Year

Glo

bal

War

min

g E

mis

sio

ns

(MM

TC

O2

E)

Base Case (Without NuclearRelicensing)Regional Goal

Stakeholder Plan (WithoutNuclear Relicensing)Stakeholder Plan + EightNear-Term Strategies

2


choices in ways that would reduce the impact of theirdaily activities on the climate.

The academic evidence supporting the potential forhigher motor fuel taxes to reduce fuel use (and, thus,carbon dioxide emissions) is strong. A variety of stud-ies suggests that the short-run elasticity of fuel usewith respect to fuel price ranges from -0.15 to -0.3,meaning that fuel consumption declines between 1.5and 3 percent for every 10 percent increase in fuelprices. Long-run elasticities have been estimated atbetween -0.3 and -1.0, for a 3 to 10 percent decreasein fuel use for every 10 percent increase in fuel price.76

Short-run reductions in fuel use caused by higher fuelprices are driven largely by reduced driving, while long-term reductions are driven mainly by the choice ofmore efficient vehicles. As a result, motor fuels taxesrepresent one of the few policy alternatives to effec-tively and significantly reduce growth in vehicle-milestraveled in the short run, while also providing marketincentives for the purchase of less-polluting vehiclesin the long run.

While a significant increase in the gasoline tax mayseem economically onerous, it is important to recog-nize that current gasoline prices are below the his-toric levels that have prevailed in most of the yearssince World War II, when viewed in inflation-adjustedterms. In constant 1996 dollars, the average price ofgasoline in the U.S. in 2002 was $1.30 per gallon, 40percent below the peak price of $2.17 per gallon in1981. As a result, even a 42-cent increase in the gaso-

line tax would still leave the real cost of gasoline at orbelow the levels that prevailed during the period 1979to 1984.77

Assuming baseline gasoline prices of $1.50 per gallonand the elasticities listed above, a 42-cent increase thatwas adjusted in future years to account for inflationwould bring about 4 to 8 percent reduction in fueluse (and carbon emissions) in the short run, and an 8to 28 percent reduction in fuel use in the long term.This would likely yield carbon dioxide emission re-ductions of at least 0.5 MMTCO

2E by 2010 and 1.1

MMTCO2E by 2020 – a level of reductions greater

than all but two of the transportation-sector recom-mendations endorsed by the CCSD.

A growing number of economists is coming to be-lieve that an increased gasoline tax makes economic,as well as environmental sense. A 1997 survey ofeconomists at top research universities in the U.S.found that, while there were high levels of disagree-ment on all other economic policy proposals, therewas consensus support for a 25-cent increase in thegasoline tax.79 A recent Congressional Budget Officestudy concluded that a 46-cent increase in the gaso-line tax nationwide would save about 50 percent moregasoline over its first 14 years at lower cost than anincrease in Corporate Average Fuel Economy stan-dards (although the CBO’s cost analysis did not in-clude the benefits of a gasoline tax increase for reducingdependence on foreign oil, air pollution, and high-way congestion).80

Fig. 7. Per-Gallon Gasoline Prices in Constant 1996 Dollars78

$-

$0.50

$1.00

$1.50

$2.00

$2.50

1949

1953

1957

1961

1965

1969

1973

1977

1981

1985

1989

1993

1997

2001

Year

Per

-Gal

lon

Gas

olin

e P

rice

(1

996

Do

llars

)


Two groups of consumers, however, could be adverselyaffected by an increased gasoline tax: rural residentswho tend to drive more miles than their urban coun-terparts, and low-income individuals, for whom fuelexpenses account for a greater share of income. Withcreativity, however, the concerns of these groups couldbe addressed. Funds raised by a gasoline tax increasecould be used to improve transportation alternativesin rural and urban areas or to provide subsidies forthe purchase of more fuel-efficient vehicles, lesseningthe impact of the tax.

Another option is to use a gas tax increase primarilyas a “tax-shifting” measure; essentially making the taxincrease revenue neutral by reducing income, sales,property or other taxes. The amount raised by thegasoline tax could be refunded to taxpayers at a flatrate as a credit on their income tax returns, providinga reward for individuals who drove less than averageduring the previous year and a penalty for those whodrove more than average. Or the funds could be usedto offset the most regressive taxes in the system, eas-ing the burden on low-income individuals.

A prudent course of action for the state would in-volve dialogue among various stakeholders to addressconcerns about motor fuels tax increases. A packageof policies could then be developed that attain theefficiency and travel-reduction gains of the gasolinetax while addressing the most significant economicconcerns. Then, the increase in the gasoline tax couldbe phased in over several years to give Connecticutresidents time to adjust. Finally, Connecticut shouldwork with neighboring states to encourage them tofollow a similar path.

Experiment With Congestion Pricing as aTool to Reduce Congestion and VehicularEmissionsAnother way to use pricing tools to address transpor-tation-sector emissions is to set prices for travel oncertain roads, particularly at specified times. LikeVMT-based insurance and gasoline taxes, “congestionpricing” has beneficial side effects – in this case,through reduced congestion on highways coveredunder the program.

The theory behind congestion pricing is simple: road-way space during “rush hour” periods is a scarce com-modity. Currently, there is no disincentive for driving

during rush hour, other than the long delays duringthose periods. These delays, in turn, create externaleffects that are not accounted for in the price of travel,including higher automobile emissions caused by ex-cessive idling. Congestion pricing attempts to con-vert the time cost of travel delays into monetary costspaid for by drivers who contribute to the congestion.

The effectiveness of congestion pricing as a globalwarming strategy has not yet been proven. Other thanany emission savings generated by reduced idling,congestion pricing has a significant effect only if itreduces overall vehicle travel. To achieve that end, anycongestion pricing system would need to have widecoverage, reducing the chances for motorists to “es-cape” by driving alternative routes, which would thenbecome congested. It would also need to have a per-mile charge large enough to alter driver behavior. Fi-nally, congestion pricing relies on the existence ofalternatives to driving – such as carpooling,telecommuting and transit – for success as a globalwarming measure. Even with all of these attributes,however, a congestion pricing system would likelyinduce some drivers to travel at different times of dayrather than travel less – a result that would ease con-gestion during rush hour but achieve little in terms ofreducing global warming emissions.

Still, the potential emission reductions that wouldresult from congestion pricing are significant. A 1996study conducted for the California Air ResourcesBoard projected carbon dioxide emission reductionsranging from 4.8 percent to 9.6 percent by 2010 inmetropolitan areas implementing congestion pricingof 8 to 19 cents per mile on all congested roadways.81

Those savings would be magnified if the revenue fromcongestion pricing were used to support transporta-tion alternatives. One recent analysis projected that acongestion pricing program that charges 10 cents permile on Interstate highways in Connecticut wouldgenerate about $206 million per year.82 Additionalsavings – both in monetary and emissions terms –could be generated if reduced congestion alleviatedthe demand to expand Connecticut’s existing high-way network.

A potential strategy for experimenting with conges-tion pricing would be the conversion of existing,underused high occupancy vehicle lanes on I-84 andI-91 into high occupancy/toll (HOT) lanes, which


drivers of multiple-occupancy vehicles could continueto use for free, but which single-occupancy vehicledrivers would be eligible to use for a fee during rushhour. If the concept proves successful on these high-ways, it can be expanded to current general-use laneson other highways (although states attempting to ex-pand tolls on Interstate highways may be liable forthe reimbursement of federal highway funds).

It is important to note, however, that the creation ofnew HOT lanes that provide additional highway ca-pacity will likely do little to reduce global warmingemissions and may even result in emission increasesversus the status quo. The addition of highway capac-ity has been shown to provoke changes in land-useand transportation patterns that lead to increased ve-hicle travel, which can be expected to lead to higheremissions of carbon dioxide. The conversion ofunderused lanes to HOT lanes, therefore, providesan opportunity to test the reaction of drivers and sys-tem performance, but not the validity of the conges-tion pricing concept itself. To truly succeed as a globalwarming measure, congestion pricing will have to beapplied to the state’s existing highways.

Pursue Truck-Stop Electrification andEnforce the State’s Anti-Idling LawTrucks produce carbon dioxide and black carbonemissions both while they are traveling alongConnecticut’s highways and while they are sitting still.Truck engines are frequently left to idle during reststops to provide power, heating and cooling to thecab and to keep the engine warm. Researchers atArgonne National Laboratory calculated that the av-erage class 8 truck (large single-unit truck or tractortrailer) idles for six hours/day (10 hours/day in win-ter; 4.5 hours/day in summer), 43 weeks per year.83

This is an average of 1,830 hours/year.84 Argonne re-searchers acknowledge that even this estimate may below, citing information from J.B. Hunt, a truckingcompany, that suggests that trucks idle for 40 percentof the day compared to Argonne’s estimate of 25 per-cent.85

An idling truck burns roughly one gallon of fuel perhour, creating total carbon dioxide emissions of about21 tons per truck per year.86 Idling trucks also pro-duce emissions of black carbon, which is thought tobe a significant contributor to global warming. As-suming that an estimated 2,700 trucks idle in Con-

necticut each day, those trucks would emit approxi-mately 58,800 tons of carbon dioxide in the state eachyear.87

There are several alternatives to idling that can pro-vide power, heat and cooling to resting trucks withreduced carbon dioxide and black carbon emissions.Some alternatives, such as providing on-board auxil-iary power or shorepower, require significant modi-fications to the vehicle. Others, such as window-sizedconsoles that provide electricity, telephone, heat andother services, require no such modifications. NewYork has adopted the latter approach by installing atleast 43 truck-stop electrification units at two serviceplazas on the New York Thruway.88 Were Connecti-cut to eventually electrify half of its approximately1,200 private and public truck parking spaces, andeach space were occupied for six hours per day, car-bon dioxide emissions from truck idling could bereduced by about 11,000 tons per year, accompa-nied by significant reductions in black carbon emis-sions. 89

Truck stop electrification (TSE) is a capital-intensiveendeavor and will take time to implement. A goodstarting point would be for the state to begin offeringTSE at rest areas along major Interstate highways suchas I-95, followed by a program to encourage the in-stallation of TSE at private truck stops.

Long-haul trucks are not the only vehicles that pro-duce excessive carbon dioxide and black carbon emis-sions through excessive idling. Buses, local trucks andeven cars often idle excessively, wasting fuel and pol-luting the air. Connecticut law bars idling for morethan three consecutive minutes. However, the lawmakes exceptions for refrigerated trucks, engine warm-ing, operation in temperatures below 20° F, as well asmarine vessels, locomotives, aircraft and other mo-bile sources of pollution.90 Active enforcement of theanti-idling law in Connecticut, however, is minimal.91

Stronger enforcement of anti-idling laws, combinedwith increased truck-stop electrification and the ex-tension of limitations on idling to vehicles such asmarine vessels (as recommended by EnvironmentNortheast), could significantly reduce global warm-ing emissions, while also saving energy.


Expand and Improve Passenger Rail ServiceThe stakeholders recommended that Connecticutengage in a multi-state initiative designed to shift fu-ture growth in freight transport from highways to rail.This initiative is sorely needed, but the state must alsoplace a renewed emphasis on the expansion and im-provement of passenger rail service.

Passenger rail must be an important component ofthe state’s short- and long-range global warming emis-sion reduction plans. In the short term, improvementsin passenger rail service can displace travel growth thatwould otherwise have taken place by automobile. Butthe long-run implications are even greater because –barring an unforeseen technological breakthrough –there is almost no conceivable way in which the statecan achieve its long-range global warming goals with-out shifting much of the travel that currently occursby car to other, more efficient modes of travel.

Passenger rail is already an integral part ofConnecticut’s transportation system. The Connecti-cut Department of Transportation estimates that 75percent of work trips from Connecticut to New YorkCity are accommodated by rail.92 The New HavenLine now serves approximately 33 million riders an-nually, and ridership has increased by 29 percent since1987. Ridership on both Amtrak Northeast Corridortrains and Shore Line East has also increased in re-cent years.93

However, the effectiveness of rail to serve the travelneeds of Connecticut residents is currently constrainedby both limitations in the current system and its lackof geographic scope. Commuter rail ridership hasgrown to such an extent that it is now testing the ca-pacity of the system. A shortage of train cars placeslimitations on the degree to which more frequent ser-vice can be provided on existing lines, while short-ages of parking spaces in park-and-ride lots andinadequate connecting bus service at some stationsmakes rail travel a less-attractive alternative for com-muters.94

Purchasing new rail cars, providing more frequentservice and improving access to rail stations shouldall be short-term priorities of the state. Connecticutshould also experiment with novel ways to deal withthe parking crunch around rail stations. Several NewJersey and Long Island communities have had posi-

tive experiences with low-cost local jitney or shuttlebus services that bring commuters from surroundingcommunities to the train stations.

Rail service in southwestern Connecticut and alongthe Connecticut shore is extensive, but connectionswith other population centers – particularly the Hart-ford area – are limited to infrequent service via Amtrak.The current proposal to initiate commuter rail ser-vice between New Haven, Hartford and Springfield,Mass., with a direct transit link to Bradley Airportwould, if implemented, be a very positive step.

All of these improvements require money. Connecti-cut should prioritize rail when it comes to allocatingfederal and state transportation funds. The state canalso consider using increased motor fuel taxes, road-way tolls or other funding mechanisms to support railimprovements.

But short-term improvements and extensions of theexisting system are only the starting point. Connecti-cut must develop a long-range vision for the state’sfuture rail infrastructure needs and dedicate its trans-portation resources accordingly. Such a plan shouldconsider the extension of rail service to new or cur-rently dormant corridors, the infrastructure invest-ments needed to provide additional high-speedintercity service along the Northeast Corridor andother corridors, and ways to integrate rail with sus-tainable land-use and development practices.

Prioritize Trip Reduction in StateTransportation PlanningAs of 2000, four out of five Connecticut commutersdrove to work alone. During the 1990s, the numberof commuters driving to work alone increased by11,000 statewide, despite a decrease of more than32,000 in Connecticut’s adult working population.The number of commuters traveling by carpool orwalking to work declined by nearly 50,000 over thesame period.95 Trip reduction has not traditionallybeen a major emphasis in overall state transportationplanning. To achieve long-term reductions in vehicle-miles traveled, that must change.

Commuting contributes both to highway congestionand to global warming emissions from automobiles.The state of Connecticut operates or supports a num-ber of programs to reduce single-passenger commut-


ing, including regional ridesharing agencies in south-western Connecticut, and the Waterbury, Hartfordand New Haven areas.96 These agencies work withemployers and commuters to design vanpool pro-grams, employee transit incentives, bike-to-work andtelecommuting programs, guaranteed ride programsand other initiatives that can reduce single-passengercommutes. Expansion of these programs, combinedwith the development of additional incentives for em-ployer and commuter participation would be benefi-cial.

The state and municipalities must also recognize thatcommuting patterns are strongly related to land-useand development patterns in the state. State and localplanning efforts should be directed toward encourag-ing the development of new commercial space in ar-eas that are well-served by transit, eliminating excessiveparking requirements for new commercial space, anddeveloping policies and incentives that encourage in-dividuals to live near where they work.

Ultimately, Connecticut must raise transportationdemand management to a co-equal level in its trans-portation decision-making with highways, transit andother modes of transport. Washington state, for ex-ample, enacted a commute trip reduction law in 1991that covers large employers in major metropolitan ar-eas. As of 2000, the program included 1,100 employ-ers with a half million employees. From 1993 to 1999,the percentage of commuters driving alone to workdropped from 72 percent to 67 percent at participat-ing companies, removing 18,500 vehicles from thestate’s roadways.97 Moreover, demand managementhas become integrated into the region’s transporta-tion planning, with the Seattle metropolitan regiondeveloping a transportation demand managementplan in 1998 and demand management techniquesbeing woven into major multimodal transportationprojects in two highway corridors.98

Connecticut should pursue ways to increase the fund-ing and effectiveness of current commuter trip reduc-tion programs; investigate planning tools to reducethe number of single-occupancy vehicle commutes;and initiate a major effort to develop an ambitioustransportation demand management program withaggressive goals and benchmarks to evaluate progress.

Land Use

Plan For, and Take Credit For, EnergySavings From “Smart Growth”The stakeholders recommended that the state engagein a “smart growth” strategy for future developmentthat would reduce future growth in vehicle miles trav-eled. While smart growth – which can be definedloosely as encouraging new growth to take place athigher densities in or near already-developed areas –has major potential impacts on transportation-sectoremissions, smart growth strategies can also be designedto encourage energy savings in other sectors.

In Connecticut and elsewhere since World War II,planning and zoning laws have tended to encouragethe segregation of land uses (residential, commercialand industrial) and, in many cases, the constructionof new housing on large lots. Through these policies(along with overt taxpayer subsidies for the construc-tion of new roads, infrastructure and public build-ings in suburban areas), increasing public resourceshave been channeled to newly developed communi-ties, while older urban and suburban areas havestruggled to maintain an adequate and diversified taxbase.

In recent years, however, architects, planners and ac-tivists supporting “New Urbanist” forms of develop-ment have brought about a rethinking of these policiesand assumptions. New Urbanist development is typi-cally characterized by the renovation and reuse of ex-isting urban structures, the construction of newmixed-use developments that are friendly to pedes-trian traffic and transportation alternatives such astransit, and a return to more traditional forms of resi-dential development on smaller lots with greater ac-cess to a wider variety of community amenities.

Several aspects of New Urbanism (or TraditionalNeighborhood Development) have the potential toachieve energy savings beyond the transportation sec-tor. The reuse of existing structures reduces the needfor the creation and transportation of new buildingmaterials. Mixed-use development can reduce energyuse by allowing offices, residences and stores to sharebuilding infrastructure. And New Urbanist residen-tial designs are typically characterized by smaller homesthat require less energy to heat and light than“McMansion”-style new suburban development.


Many of the policies recommended by the CCSD (in-cluding channeling state funds to priority growth ar-eas, enhancing regional planning, and expandingpedestrian and bicycling infrastructure) can help moveConnecticut toward more sustainable development,as can financial tools such as Location-Efficient Mort-gages (see below). But it is likely that action will berequired in other policy arenas as well. Connecticut’spolicies on urban redevelopment, brownfield redevel-opment, infrastructure financing, and allocation oftax burden and revenues – among others – have aprofound impact on the course of development in thestate, as do the local planning and zoning decisionsmade by the state’s cities and towns.

It would be appropriate for Connecticut to investi-gate the energy savings that could be gained by thepromotion of smart growth strategies and New Ur-banist developments and identify the policy handlesthat could be used to promote sustainable forms ofdevelopment. Integration of effort among state agen-cies and various levels of government will also be cru-cial.

Encourage Location-Efficient MortgagesThe concept of location-efficient mortgages is similarto the concept of energy-efficient mortgages – house-holds that reduce their daily expenditures on trans-portation or energy use have more disposable incomethat should enable them to be eligible for larger mort-gages than they otherwise would.

Location-efficient residences are those in which auto-mobile use is not necessary for many daily tasks. Typi-cally, they are homes in neighborhoods in which work,shopping, recreation and other services can be accessedeither on foot or by using transit. As a result, trans-portation expenses – including the cost of owning,maintaining and insuring one or more automobiles –can be significantly lower than in less densely popu-lated areas. It is estimated that doubling residentialdensity reduces vehicle travel by 20 to 25 percent,potentially saving individuals hundreds of dollars inmonthly transportation expenses.99

Under location-efficient mortgages, these transporta-tion savings are factored into the overall calculationof a household’s ability to make mortgage payments.Prospective homebuyers in location-efficient neigh-borhoods are permitted to borrow up to higher hous-

ing-to-income and debt-to-income ratios, enablingthem to purchase housing that might be outside theirreach in less location-efficient areas.100

Location-efficient mortgages have the advantage ofbeing a tool to promote “smart growth” development,particularly in urban and suburban infill areas thatare serviced by transit. Mortgage lending giant FannieMae is currently sponsoring a $100 million experi-ment in location-efficient mortgages in the Chicago,San Francisco, Los Angeles and Seattle areas.

Location-efficient mortgages would appear to be agood fit for Connecticut, where high automobile in-surance rates make the cost of owning a car a signifi-cant drain on household expenses. The state shouldconsider ways to encourage lenders to issue location-efficient mortgages within Connecticut.

Residential, Commercial, IndustrialSectors

Investigate a Pay-As-You-Save Program forDistributed Electricity GenerationDistributed generation of electricity – that is, genera-tion close to the point of use – has the potential toachieve reduced emissions of carbon dioxide and otherglobal warming gases. Several clean distributed gen-eration technologies – including solar PV, fuel cells,small-scale wind and combined heat-and-power(CHP) – produce electricity with greater efficiencyor lower carbon emissions than central, fossil fuel-fired power plants. These efficiency gains are magni-fied by the avoidance of power losses that result fromthe transmission of electricity from central powerplants to points of use.

Clean distributed generation can also reduce demandon the electric grid, particularly in areas such as south-western Connecticut in which current transmissioncapacity is strained, thus avoiding the need for costlyimprovements to the grid that would be paid for byratepayers.

A series of regulatory and market hurdles, however,are restraining the deployment of distributed genera-tion technologies in homes and businesses. The stake-holders recommended the removal of regulatorybarriers (including permitting and interconnectionhurdles and standby power rates) as part of their rec-


ommendation to promote clean combined heat andpower; an action that would also improve the pros-pects for other distributed generation technologies.The economic barriers facing distributed generation,however, would remain the same as the barriers forenergy efficiency: high upfront costs, lack of consumerinformation about costs and benefits, etc.

One way to lower the economic barriers to distrib-uted generation would be to implement a pay-as-you-save (PAYS) plan for installations that meet certainemission and safety standards. The CCSD has rec-ommended that Connecticut implement pilot PAYSprograms for the purchase of efficient appliances andheat pump water heaters, and the same principle couldbe applied to distributed generation.

A pay-as-you-save system is akin to a loan to a con-sumer to install energy efficiency measures or distrib-uted generating capacity, but with several importantdifferences. First, the consumer pays for the equip-ment over time through a charge on his or her electricbill. To be approved to participate in a PAYS installa-

tion, the amount of money saved by the efficiencymeasure must exceed its cost. A second difference isthat the PAYS charge continues to be assessed on theelectric bill regardless of who is currently residing atthat location. This removes a major hurdle that im-pairs energy efficiency improvements: the concern thata resident or business may not stay at one locationlong enough to recoup the benefits of efficiency in-vestments. Finally, because the monthly energy sav-ings are estimated ahead of time to be greater thanthe monthly addition to the bill, consumers begin tosee monetary savings from the measures right away.101

Should the state follow the stakeholder recommen-dation, its experience with a PAYS program for effi-ciency measures should provide a solid grounding forthe expansion of the concept into distributed genera-tion. In addition, the state, regional grid managersand utilities will need to work together to determinehow to maximize the benefits of PAYS for the electricsystem and minimize any potential problems.


CONCLUSION: TAKING THE LONG VIEW

Connecticut’s efforts to reduce global warm-ing emissions will ultimately be judged notby the state’s ability to achieve arbitrary goals,

but by the speed with which the state can reduce –and eventually eliminate – its contribution to the al-teration of the climate. Achieving the long-term re-ductions in emissions of 75-85 percent that scientistsbelieve will be needed to eliminate any harmful threatto the climate – and doing so in time to prevent ma-jor damage to the climate (by about 2050) – is thetrue test by which the state’s efforts must be assessed,and should remain the state’s overarching goal.

Implementing the stakeholder recommendations andthe supplementary recommendations in this reportwill not only move Connecticut far toward achieve-ment of the short- and medium-term goals, but theyalso begin to lay the groundwork for a deeper transi-tion that will bring the long-term goals within reach.

Adoption of a clean cars requirement, standards tolimit global warming emissions from automobiles, andprograms to reduce diesel emissions will ensure thateach mile traveled on Connecticut’s highways pro-duces less global warming pollution. Developing“smart growth” policies, investing in rail transporta-tion, and setting appropriate prices for driving com-mensurate with its impact on the state’s infrastructureand climate will all make a large contribution to slow-ing – and ultimately reversing – the trend toward au-tomobile dependency and increased vehicle travel.

Meanwhile, new buildings and appliances will havemaximum levels of energy efficiency built in, whileowners of existing buildings and appliances will beable to take advantage of energy efficiency programsto reduce their energy consumption. Homeowners andbusinesses will be able to generate more of their ownpower, while the power they receive from the region’selectric grid will increasingly come from renewablesources.

The vision of Connecticut’s future contained in theseproposals is a bold one. Affecting these changes willrequire an unprecedented amount of research, discus-sion, cooperation and political will – as well as a com-mitment to achieve the long-term goal within areasonable time frame; for example, by 2050. The earlysigns are positive: Connecticut and the other NewEngland states are now engaged in the discussion andstudy of global warming, its impacts, and the meansof addressing the problem in a way they have neverbeen before. But the critical test – implementation –lies ahead.

The strategies laid out in this report show the wayforward. By using existing technologies and reason-able public policy tools, Connecticut can reduce itscontribution to global warming in the near term, whilein many cases improving public health, economic well-being, and energy security, and providing a model ofleadership for others to follow.


APPENDIX A: GLOSSARY OF ABBREVIATIONS

ACEEE – American Council for an Energy Efficient EconomyAFW – Agriculture, forestry and waste sectorsBTU – British Thermal UnitCCSD – Connecticut Climate Change Stakeholder DialogueCHP – Combined heat and powerDG – Distributed generationEIA – U.S. Energy Information AdministrationHOT lanes – High-occupancy/toll lanesLRR – Low-rolling resistance tiresMMBTU – Million British Thermal UnitsMMTCO

2E – Million metric tons carbon dioxide equivalent

NEEP – Northeast Energy Efficiency PartnershipsNEG/ECP – Conference of New England Governors and Eastern Canadian Pre-miersPAYD – Pay-as-you-drive insurancePAYS – Pay-as-you-saveRCI – Residential, commercial and industrial sectorsRGGI – Regional Greenhouse Gas InitiativeRPS – Renewable portfolio standardSBC – Systems benefit chargeSUV – Sport utility vehicleVMT – Vehicle-miles traveled


General Assumptions andLimitationsThis report relies primarily on data and projectionsfrom the U.S. Energy Information Administration(EIA) to estimate present and future global warminggas emissions in Connecticut. Future emission trendsin Connecticut are generally based on EIA’s projectedrates of growth for New England as a whole. Trendswithin Connecticut will differ, but the EIA growthprojections provide a reasonable approximation offuture trends, particularly given the regional contextof Connecticut’s global warming emission reductionefforts.

In assessing the potential benefits of the various poli-cies, we have attempted to take a conservative ap-proach to the available data. In other words, weanticipate that the global warming emission benefitsof these policies are likely to be greater than projectedhere.

This analysis focuses exclusively on emissions of car-bon dioxide from energy use in Connecticut. Manyof the policies discussed here will also result in reduc-tions in other global warming gas emissions.

This report also limits its scope of analysis to the sixNew England states. Several of the policies describedhere could have effects outside the region that wouldeither create additional carbon dioxide emissions orreduce emissions further than projected here. Becauseglobal warming is a global problem, it is important toconsider these potential spill-over effects when set-ting policy, but it is beyond the scope of this report todo so.

All fees, charges and other monetary values are in 2003dollars and are assumed to be indexed to inflation. Inother words, the systems benefit charge assessed onelectricity purchases in 2020 is assumed to have thesame buying power as a 5-mill charge would have to-day.

Baseline Emission EstimatesAll emission reductions estimated here are based onreductions from baseline estimates calculated by ap-plying projected growth factors for New England es-

timated by EIA in Annual Energy Outlook 2003 (AEO2003) to baseline emission levels from 2000 basedlargely on EIA, State Energy Data 2000 (SEDR 2000).To calculate carbon dioxide emissions, energy use foreach fuel in each sector (in BTU) was multiplied bycarbon coefficients for 2000 as specified in EIA, Emis-sions of Greenhouse Gases in the United States 2001,Appendix B.

Significant changes in EIA’s methodology for collect-ing and presenting data render some information inSEDR 2000 unreliable for estimating 2000 carbondioxide emissions. Specifically, EIA has changed thesources of some of its energy use data and reallocatedenergy use and emissions from non-utility producersof power from the industrial to the electric sector.

There are several possible methods for obtaining state-specific energy use data for fuels and sectors in whichSEDR 2000 data are inaccurate. Our approach was toseek out the most recent available data for 2000 fromEIA’s fuel-specific reports or to follow EIA-specifiedmethodologies for adjusting data presented in SEDR2000.

The following sources and methods were used by fuel:

• Coal – Coal use and emissions were reallocatedbetween the industrial and electric sectors basedon the following method, adapted from EIA, Emis-sions of Greenhouse Gases in the United States 2000,Appendix A:

1) Total coal use for all sectors in BTU was ob-tained from SEDR 2000.

2) Residential and commercial coal use in BTUwas subtracted from the total, leaving totalindustrial and electric sector consumption.

3) Electric utility consumption was estimated bymultiplying utility consumption of coal inshort tons from EIA, Electric Power Annual2001, Consumption by State by the appropri-ate heat rate, obtained from EIA, SEDR 2000,Appendix B.

4) Consumption by non-utility power producerswas estimated by multiplying the remainingcoal consumption from the electric power sec-

APPENDIX B: METHODOLOGY AND TECHNICAL DISCUSSION


tor (from Electric Power Annual 2001) by theappropriate heat rate.

5) Estimated consumption by utility and non-utility power producers was summed to arriveat total electric energy use from coal. This fig-ure was then subtracted from the electric-plus-industrial consumption estimate to arrive atestimated consumption in the industrial sec-tor.

This method appears to result in lower estimatedenergy use and emissions from the industrial sec-tor for 2000 than are reported in the regional datacompiled by EIA in AEO 2003. These estimatesshould be revised when EIA updates its state-spe-cific energy use data to account for the new meth-odology.

• Natural Gas – Sector-specific natural gas consump-tion data for Connecticut in million cubic feet wereobtained from EIA, Connecticut Natural Gas Con-sumption by End Use, downloaded from http://t o n t o . e i a . d o e . g o v / d n a v / n g /ng_cons_sum_sct_m_d.htm, updated 21 August2003. Consumption data were converted to BTUvalues using a conversion factor from SEDR 2000,Appendix B.

• Petroleum – Data for consumption of distillateand residual fuel were obtained from EIA, Fuel Oiland Kerosene Sales 2001, and then converted toBTU values using heat rates from AEO2003, ex-cept for use of petroleum in the electric power sec-tor, which was obtained from EIA, Electric PowerAnnual 2001 spreadsheets, Consumption by State.Estimated use of other petroleum products wasbased on SEDR 2000.

Several additional assumptions were made:

• Carbon dioxide emissions due to electricity im-ported into New England were not included inthe emissions estimates, nor were “upstream” emis-sions resulting from the production or distribu-tion of fossil or nuclear fuels.

• Combustion of wood and other biomass was ex-cluded from the analysis per EIA, Emissions ofGreenhouse Gases in the United States 2001, Ap-pendix D. This exclusion is justified by EIA on

the grounds that wood and other biofuels obtaincarbon through atmospheric uptake and that theircombustion does not cause a net increase or de-crease in the overall carbon “budget.”

• Electricity generated from nuclear and hydroelec-tric sources was assumed to have a carbon coeffi-cient of zero.

• Carbon emissions from the non-combustion useof fossil fuels in the industrial and transportationsectors were derived from estimates of the non-fuel portion of fossil energy use and the carbonstorage factors for non-fuel use presented in U.S.EPA, Comparison of EPA State Inventory Summa-ries and State-Authored Inventories, downloadedfrom http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/g loba lwarming .ns f /UniqueKeyLookup/JSIN5DTQKG/$File/pdfB-comparison1.pdf, 31July 2003. To preserve the simplicity of analysisand to attain consistency with future-year esti-mates, industrial consumption of asphalt and roadoil, kerosene, lubricants and other petroleum, andtransportation consumption of aviation gasolineand lubricants were classified as “other petroleum”and assigned a carbon coefficient of 73.3MMTCO

2E per quad BTU for that portion that

is consumed as fuel.

Known Discrepancies with Other PublishedEstimatesDue to variations in methodology, the adjustment ofenergy use figures over time, and inherent disagree-ment in the data presented in various EIA reports,the emissions estimates for 2000 on which the esti-mated savings in this report are based differ some-what from those presented in the ConnecticutGreenhouse Gas Inventory and regional emission esti-mates derived from AEO 2003. Total carbon dioxideemissions from energy use for the 2000 baseline usedin this report were 2 percent below those reported inthe Connecticut Greenhouse Gas Inventory, due to adifference in estimated industrial sector emissions.

Because the baseline estimates used in this report werecompiled using a common methodology applied toall six New England states, it is also possible to com-pare the regional total emissions estimate with esti-mates derived from AEO 2003 and presented in theNew England Climate Coalition’s 2003 report, Glo-


bal Warming in New England. Estimated 2000 car-bon dioxide emissions for the region based on thesources and methodology in this report are about 3percent lower than estimated emissions based on AEO2003’s regional energy use figures – assuming the con-tinued operation of the region’s nuclear power plantsin both cases. Specifically, the methodology of thisreport appears to significantly underestimate emissionsfrom petroleum use in the commercial sector andnatural gas use in the industrial sector and to overes-timate emissions from natural gas use in the commer-cial sector when compared to estimates based on AEO2003. These discrepancies are likely due to the use ofvarying EIA reports for fuel use estimates. The ex-pected publication of an updated version of SEDR in2004 should clear up these discrepancies and we en-courage a revisiting of the data at that time.

Future Year ProjectionsProjections of energy use and carbon dioxide emis-sions for Connecticut are based on applying the NewEngland year-to-year projected growth rates for eachfuel in each sector from AEO 2003 to the Con-necticut baseline emissions estimate for 2000, withtwo exceptions.

1) In the transportation sector, EIA’s estimates of ve-hicle travel increases are significantly higher thanprojections produced by the Connecticut Depart-ment of Transportation and recent experience inthe state. Instead of using EIA’s projected growthrates for motor gasoline use, we used a growth rateof 1 percent per year, commensurate with the Con-necticut DOT’s projections of vehicle miles trav-eled increases for 2002 to 2020, obtained from PaulBuckley, Transportation Supervising Planner, Con-necticut Department of Transportation, personalcommunication, 22 October 2003. While it islikely that EIA’s methodology also overstates emis-sions for diesel fuel use, we used the EIA assump-tions because of the difficulty of disaggregatingvehicular diesel fuel use from use by other trans-portation modes.

2) Unlike EIA, we assume that nuclear reactors inNew England are retired at the expiration of theircurrent operating licenses. Thus, the base case es-timate for power-sector energy use in Connecti-cut was adjusted by eliminating any nucleargeneration from the power-sector energy mix be-

yond 2015 and replacing it with gas-fired genera-tion. The level of electric-sector natural gas con-sumption needed to replace nuclear generation wasestimated first by determining the percentage ofnuclear generation in Connecticut represented bythe Millstone 2 plant. This was done by dividingthe capacity of Millstone 2 by Connecticut’s totalnuclear generating capacity, based on figures fromthe Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Facility InfoFinder, downloaded from http://www.nrc.gov/info-finder/region-state/, 26 January 2004. Thispercentage was then multiplied by the projectedelectric-sector nuclear energy consumption inConnecticut for 2016 through 2020 based on AEO2003 annual New England growth rates appliedto 2000 energy use figures as described above. Thisfigure – which represents nuclear generation “lost”due to the closure of Millstone 2 – was then mul-tiplied by the ratio of the calculated heat rate fornatural gas generation divided by the imputed heatrate for nuclear generation, from SupplementaryTable 66 of AEO2003, to arrive at the amount ofadditional natural gas consumption that would beneeded to replace power from Millstone 2. Heatrates were calculated by dividing energy consump-tion for each fuel by net generation for each fuel.This method will tend to slightly overstate energyuse – and therefore emissions – from natural gas,since it is likely that new natural gas-fired genera-tion will be more efficient than the average effi-ciency of all natural gas plants in the region.

Carbon Dioxide Reductions fromElectricity Savings and RenewablesCarbon dioxide reductions for measures that reduceelectricity use or expand renewable resources weregenerally estimated based on the impact of the reduc-tions on the entire New England grid. For individualstrategies, a range of savings was projected based ontwo sets of assumptions:

• Low savings estimate – The low-savings estimatewas based on the use of efficiency savings andrenewables to first offset power lost through theclosure of in-state nuclear plants whose licenseshave expired, then to offset natural gas generationon the New England grid, which is projected byEIA in AEO 2003 to account for virtually all ofNew England’s new electric generating capacity


beyond 2009. The formulas used to calculate thesereductions are similar to those described above forthe replacement of nuclear power in the base case,with differences in heat rates among the fuels usedto estimate the amount of generating capacity thatwould be displaced. This case is intended to repli-cate a scenario in which efficiency and renewablesavings are used to avoid the need to construct newgenerating capacity, rather than retire less-efficientold generators.

• High savings estimate – The high-savings estimatewas based on the use of efficiency savings andrenewables to first offset power lost through theclosure of in-state nuclear plants whose licenseshave expired, then to offset coal-fired generation,followed by oil-fired generation. The assumed off-set of coal-fired generation may not yield the maxi-mum carbon reductions possible under a regionalcarbon cap, since some oil-fired generating unitsin New England produce greater carbon dioxideemissions per unit of delivered electricity than coal-fired plants. The examination of power plant-by-power plant data was, however, beyond the scopeof this report. As a result, the simplifying assump-tion to reduce coal-fired generation likely producesa conservative estimate of the maximum potentialbenefits of an electric-sector carbon cap.

The two estimates suggest the potential impact of anelectric-sector carbon cap, with greater savings aris-ing from a strong cap that creates pressure to retireold generation and lesser savings arising from a weakcap or the absence of a cap. In reality, it is likely thatboth the high and low estimates are somewhat ex-treme – that is, that some old coal- or oil-fired gen-eration would be retired in the absence of a cap andthat some will remain even with a cap.

In addition, all electricity-related estimates assume thatNew England produces all the power it consumes andis neither a net importer nor a net exporter of elec-tricity. The potential for “leakage” of emission reduc-tions – in which public policies result in increasedimportation of high-emission electricity from else-where, thus leading to greater emissions in the aggre-gate – is an important issue for policy-makers toaddress, but was beyond the scope of this report toincorporate.

Savings from Policy Strategies

Low Rolling Resistance TiresAll estimated reductions from transportation-sectorstrategies were derived by estimating the percentagereductions in light-duty vehicle motor gasoline usefrom the base case projection arrived at by the meth-ods above. Light-duty vehicle gasoline use was esti-mated by multiplying the transportation motorgasoline estimate by the percentage of transportationmotor gasoline used by light-duty vehicles, derivedfrom the supplementary tables to AEO2003.

Percentage reductions in emissions were calculated bymultiplying grams/mile emission factors for carbondioxide (based on a modified version of the ArgonneNational Laboratory’s Greenhouse Gases, RegulatedEmissions and Energy Use in Transportation, orGREET, model, version 1.5a) by projected percent-ages of total VMT accumulated by type and age ofvehicle, calculated as described below. Estimates forlight-duty carbon dioxide emissions were based onthe following sources:

• Vehicle-miles traveled (VMT) percentages – VMTpercentages by vehicle class were derived by divid-ing projected national light-duty VMT for eachyear by the projected national light-duty vehiclestock as reported in supplementary tables to AEO2003. This average VMT/vehicle/year figure wasthen adjusted to reflect the slightly higher VMT/vehicle/year of passenger cars vs. light trucks (basedon a two-year average of VMT/vehicle derived fromFederal Highway Administration data) and multi-plied by the projected nationwide passenger carand truck stocks in AEO2003. Light-duty truckVMT was further divided into heavy and lightcategories by multiplying the total truck VMT byvehicle stock percentages contained in EPA, FleetCharacterization Data for MOBILE6, September2001. The projected VMT for each vehicle classwas then divided by the total light-duty VMT toarrive at the percentage of total VMT traveled byvehicles in each class in each year.

VMT were further disaggregated into VMT bymodel year and vehicle class for each year between2001 and 2020, based on estimates of VMT accu-mulation rates presented in EPA, Fleet Character-ization Data for MOBILE6. No attempt was made


to customize the national VMT percentages forConnecticut.

• Carbon dioxide emission factors – Grams-per-mileemission factors for each model year and class werebased on modifications to the GREET model, ver-sion 1.5a. For conventional gasoline vehicles, theonly modification to the model was the substitu-tion of “real-world” fleet average miles per gallon(MPG) estimates for each model year from 1970to 2020. For 1975 through 1999, real-world MPGwas calculated by multiplying EPA-rated MPG forcars and light trucks (as reported in EPA, LightDuty Automotive Technology and Fuel EconomyTrends, 1975 Through 2003, April 2003) by anadjustment factor of 0.8. For model years prior to1975, 1975 figures were used. For 2000-2020, newcar and truck on-road miles per gallon was basedon Supplementary Table 49 to AEO2003.

Real-world fuel economy projections were then in-put into the GREET model, producing grams-per-mile carbon dioxide emission factors for vehicleoperations. Carbon dioxide emissions resultingfrom feedstock and fuels were not included in thisanalysis. The resulting emission factors for vehiclesgreater than three years old were then divided by0.97 to account for the loss of fuel economy re-sulting from the replacement of low-rolling resis-tance tires with less-efficient replacement tires.

Savings from the use of low-rolling resistance replace-ment tires were estimated by reducing carbon diox-ide emission factors by 3 percent from baselineassumptions for vehicles reaching four, seven and 11years of age beginning in 2005, per California EnergyCommission, California Fuel-Efficient Tire Report,Volume II, January 2003. This estimate assumes thatthe tire stock will completely turn over; that is, thatLRR tires will supplant non-LRR replacement tiresin the marketplace through a state requirement. Otherpolicies to encourage, but not mandate, LRR tires willlikely produce reduced savings.

Pay-As-You-Drive Automobile InsuranceEstimates of the impact of PAYD insurance are basedon the assumption that 80 percent of collision andliability insurance payments in Connecticut would betransferred to a mileage-based system, with participa-tion in the system increasing by 10 percent per year

from 2005 to 2010, and 50 percent of all light-dutyvehicle drivers participating in the system from 2010to 2020. The average per-mile cost of insurance wascomputed by multiplying the average expenditure oncollision and liability insurance in Connecticut in2001 (as reported by the Insurance Information In-stitute, Facts and Statistics: The Rising Cost of Auto In-surance, downloaded from http://www.iii.org/media/facts/statsbyissue/auto/content.print/, 29 October2003) by the number of light-duty vehicle registra-tions in Connecticut from FHWA, Highway Statistics2001. This total expenditure figure was then dividedby light-duty VMT derived from adjusted FHWA fig-ures to arrive at an average per-mile cost for liabilityand collision insurance. This per-mile cost was thenmultiplied by 0.8 to account for any non-mileage re-lated aspects of liability and collision coverage and toensure the conservatism of the estimate, yielding anaverage per-mile charge of 7.4 cents. The estimatedreduction in VMT that would result from such acharge was obtained from Victoria Transport PolicyInstitute, Online TDM Encyclopedia: Pay-As-You-DriveVehicle Insurance, downloaded from http://www.vtpi.org/tdm/tdm79.htm, 3 December 2003. Itwas assumed that the decrease in VMT (11.2 per-cent) for drivers participating in the program wouldtake place beginning immediately upon programimplementation in 2005. We also assume that theaverage VMT of drivers opting for pay-as-you-driveinsurance is the same as for drivers overall. In reality,individuals who drive fewer miles may be more likelyto opt for pay-as-you-drive insurance, reducing thepotential for VMT reductions. Policy-makers shouldconsider this factor as they discuss whether to makepay-as-you-drive insurance an optional or mandatoryprogram.

Other Transportation Assumptions• We assume a “rebound effect” of 20 percent on

measures that improve fuel economy or reduce per-mile carbon dioxide emissions. The rebound ef-fect occurs when reduced per-mile costs of driving(such as would result from purchasing a vehiclewith better fuel economy) encourage drivers toincrease their VMT.

• We assume no mix shifting effects from any of theabove policies. In other words, we assume that thestrategies would not encourage individuals who


would have purchased a car to purchase a lighttruck, or vice versa.

Appliance Efficiency StandardsEstimates of potential energy savings from applianceefficiency standards were based on Ned Raynolds andAndrew Delaski, Northeast Energy Efficiency Part-nerships, Energy Efficiency Standards: A Low-Cost, HighLeverage Policy for Northeast States, Summer 2002.Savings were assumed to begin in the adoption yearspecified in the NEEP report, with savings increasingin a linear fashion until 2020. We assume that stan-dards for all products listed in the NEEP report, butnot included in the CCSD recommendations, areadopted as described, including those subject to fed-eral preemption. We assume that the adoption of fu-ture efficiency standards would yield savingsequivalent to 20 percent of the annual savings result-ing from the above standards beginning in 2012.

Increase in Funding for Conservation andLoad Management FundProjections of benefits from a 5-mill electric SBC forefficiency were computed based on the average kilo-watt/dollar savings rates from five New England SBC-supported programs for the most recent period forwhich data were available.102 (Maine was excluded dueto a recent transition in the program from utility tostate management.) Additional revenues generated bythe increased SBC were determined by subtractingthe projected revenue of existing SBC programs fromprojected revenue of a 5-mill efficiency SBC, thenmultiplying the increased fee by projected electricityuse in Connecticut. These revenues were then multi-plied by the average kWh/$ savings rate, with the sav-ings reduced by 33 percent to reflect the likely highermarginal cost of additional kWh savings due to thereduced availability of “low-hanging fruit” as a resultof the original SBC programs. This produced an esti-mate of annual electricity savings as a result of effi-ciency programs due to the increased SBC. Futureyear savings from efficiency measures were assumedto be 90 percent of annual savings in the first throughfourth years after implementation of the measures,80 percent in years five through nine, 60 percent inyears 10-14 and 50 percent afterward. These estimatesare arbitrary, but yield maximum “lifetime” savingsof about 12 times annual savings by the end of thestudy period, a rate lower than most estimates of life-

time savings from efficiency programs. Carbon diox-ide savings were then calculated as described in “Car-bon Dioxide Reductions from Electricity Savings andRenewables” above.

Increase in Funding for Proposed Oil andNatural Gas Conservation FundsSavings resulting from the implementation of an oil/gas conservation fund program were estimated basedon projected BTU per dollar savings rates of a Ver-mont gas conservation program, as documented inCenter for Clean Air Policy, Connecticut ClimateChange Stakeholder Dialogue: Recommendations to theGovernor’s Steering Committee, January 2004. Thissavings rate was then reduced by 25 percent to ensurethe conservatism of the estimate. The rate of the chargewas set at 3.5 cents per 100,000 BTU for natural gasand distillate and residual oil used in the residential,commercial and industrial sectors, with the total BTUsavings estimated in a manner similar to savings fromthe 5-mill electric SBC. Carbon dioxide reductionswere then estimated by allocating the total BTU sav-ings from the charge proportionally among the threefuel types based on use and then multiplying the re-sult by the appropriate carbon coefficients.

Solar Program Supported by Renewables SBCThe amount of funding that would be provided by a0.15-mill earmark for solar programs in a renewablesSBC was estimated in a similar manner as the SBCand conservation fund programs above. The amountof new solar capacity that would be created with thatfunding was estimated by assuming the rate of sub-sidy needed to spark installation of solar PV systems.This figure was estimated at $4,000/kW for 2005-2010, $3,000/kW for 2011-2015, and $2,000/kWfor 2016-2020. The initial $4,000/kW figure is basedon the amount that would be required to increase thebreakeven turnkey cost of residential solar to greaterthan $7,000/kW, per Christy Herig, Richard Perez,Susan Gouchoe, Rusty Haynes, Tom Hoff, Customer-Sited Photovoltaics: State Market Analysis, 2002. Fig-ures for later years are conservative estimates basedon the anticipated drop in prices for solar PV systemsas estimated in U.S. Department of Energy and Elec-tric Power Research Institute, Renewable Energy Tech-nology Characterizations, 1997, 4-5, and other sources.Electricity output from this new installed capacity wasestimated based on operation at average 18 percent


efficiency. All new solar capacity was assumed to bedistributed, with no line losses. One-half of the newsolar electricity was assumed to count toward fulfill-ment of RPS requirements, the other half surplus tooffset existing or new generation as described in “Car-bon Dioxide Reductions from Electricity Savings andRenewables” above. This split is arbitrary, but wouldallow for the addition of solar capacity above and be-yond RPS requirements through individual purchasesfor which RPS credit is not sought as well as the pur-chase of solar power through green power purchasingoptions.

Public Sector StrategyEmissions savings from state government are basedon two categories of action. In each case, we assumedthat government does not grow, an approach thatmakes our savings estimates conservative.

Data on current state energy use was provided by RayWilson, State of Connecticut, Energy ManagementServices, personal communication, 7 November 2003.To calculate the emissions savings from reducing en-ergy use in state facilities by 25 percent by 2020, wemultiplied the energy savings for each fuel by its car-bon coefficient.

Savings from improving the efficiency of the state’svehicle fleet come from both gasoline and diesel sav-ings. Data for state government transportation fueluse were not available; thus we relied on the FederalHighway Administration’s figures for gasoline use bynon-federal governments—meaning our data repre-sents fuel consumption by state, county, and localgovernments. Total statewide diesel use figures arefrom the same source. We estimated non-federal publicsector diesel use by assuming that government dieseluse is the same portion of total diesel use as govern-ment gasoline use is of total gasoline use. Projectedefficiency improvements assume that non-federal gov-ernment vehicle fleets achieve 20 percent more gal-lons per mile by 2012 and 28.5 percent more gallonsper mile by 2020. We assumed that there would beno rebound effect of increased miles driven. Carbonsavings were calculated by multiplying the energy sav-ings for each fuel by its carbon coefficient.

New England Electric Sector CarbonReduction CaseTo estimate the potential for carbon dioxide emissionreductions in the electricity sector without therelicensing of nuclear reactors, a policy case was con-structed assuming that all six New England statesadopt the package of measures described on page 32,with demand reductions from conservation and newrenewable generation being used either a) to offsetnuclear power from retired reactors, then coal-firedresources, or b) to offset nuclear power and then natu-ral gas, which EIA estimates will provide most of NewEngland’s new electric generating capacity through2020.

The methodology for estimating benefits from appli-ance efficiency standards, increases in electric systemsbenefit charges, solar photovoltaic programs and re-ductions in state government energy use in the otherfive New England states is similar to the methods de-scribed above.

The projected impact of residential energy codes wasderived by estimating the percentage of residentialenergy use that would take place in new homes underEIA projections and applying estimated percentagereductions in energy use that would take place underupdated codes. Revised codes were not assumed toaffect energy use in existing homes.

The proportion of projected residential energy usefrom new homes was derived by subtracting estimatedenergy use from homes in existence prior to 2004 fromtotal residential energy use for each year based on AEO2003 growth rates. Consumption of energy by sur-viving pre-code homes was calculated by assumingthat energy consumption per home remains stable overthe study period and that 0.4 percent of homes areretired each year, per EIA, Assumptions to AEO2003.

Energy savings from updating residential buildingcodes to 2000 IECC standards were assumed to be15 percent below projected levels for 2004-2010 forstates that have not already adopted the code, basedon Steven Nadel and Howard Geller, American Coun-cil for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE), StateEnergy Policies: Saving Money and Reducing PollutantEmissions Through Greater Energy Efficiency, Septem-ber 2001. Additional energy savings from future up-


dates to residential building codes were assumed tobe 20 percent from 2011-2020, also based on ACEEE.Energy savings from residential building energy codeswere assumed to take place equally among the vari-ous fuels.

For commercial building codes, New England-spe-cific commercial building retirement percentages wereestimated by determining the approximate median ageof commercial floorspace in New England based ondata from EIA, 1999 Commercial Building EnergyConsumption Survey (CBECS), estimating a weighted-average “gamma” factor (which approximates the de-gree to which buildings are likely to retire at themedian age), and inputting the results into the equa-tion: Surviving Proportion=1/(1+(Building Age/MedianLifetime)Gamma as described in EIA, Model Documenta-tion Report: Commercial Sector Demand Module of theNational Energy Modeling System, March 2003.Baseline 2003 commercial energy demand was thenmultiplied by the percentage of surviving pre-codecommercial buildings to estimate the energy use frombuildings not covered by the code. Energy use bybuildings subject to the code was estimated by sub-tracting energy use from surviving pre-code buildingsfrom the total commercial energy use projected basedon the application of regional energy use growth ratesin AEO 2003 to baseline 2000 energy use figures asdescribed above. For new buildings in states not al-ready covered by the code, electricity use was reducedby 8 percent between 2005 and 2010 to reflect thesavings projected from adoption of the ASHRAE90.1-1999 code. These savings are based on a quanti-tative analysis of the differences between the 1989 and1999 versions of the code obtained from the U.S.Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiencyand Renewable Energy at http://w w w . e n e r g y c o d e s . g o v / i m p l e m e n t /determinations_com.stm, November 2003. The adop-tion of future upgrades to commercial energy codeswas estimated to result in an additional 20 percentreduction in the use of all fuels in new construction

from 2011 to 2020 per Nadel and Geller (ACEEE),State Energy Policies. No attempt was made to esti-mate the impact of commercial code revisions on en-ergy use due to renovations of existing commercialspace.

For renewable portfolio standards, emission savingswere estimated by first determining the electric de-mand that would remain after the implementation ofother conservation strategies in this report. New re-newable generation was assumed to satisfy 2 percentof overall electric demand in 2005, with the percent-age increasing by 2 percent each year until 2010 and1 percent per year between 2010 and 2020. New re-newable generation resulting from the MassachusettsRPS was estimated separately and subtracted from thetotal under the assumption that it is already factoredinto EIA’s baseline energy projections.

Carbon savings from state “lead by example” effortsare based on measures similar to those in this report,in addition to having state government purchase 20percent of its electricity from renewable sources by2010 and 50 percent by 2020. State energy use re-duction estimates are based on baseline energy usefigures provided by the states, obtained from federalgovernment sources, or estimated based on data pro-vided by other New England states.

To determine the total amount of fossil power able tobe displaced by conservation savings and newrenewables, we summed EIA’s projected site electric-ity consumption for all fuels. The surplus renewablepower and conservation savings were applied first toeliminating new gas-fired generation that had beenadded to the EIA’s projection to account for the clo-sure of nuclear plants whose operating licenses hadexpired. In the high-reduction case, the remainingsavings were used to offset coal-fired generation; inthe low-reduction case, the savings were used to off-set gas-fired generation.


1. Working Group I, Intergovernmental Panel on ClimateChange, IPCC Third Assessment Report – Climate Change2001: Summary for Policy Makers, The Scientific Basis, 2001.

2. Ibid.

3. Ibid.

4. Ibid.

5. Ibid.

6. Based on 1990 figures from state Greenhouse Gas Emis-sions and Sinks Inventories downloaded from U.S. Envi-ronmental Protection Agency, State GHG Inventories, http://yosemite.epa.gov/OAR/globalwarming.nsf/content/EmissionsStateGHGInventories.html, 7 July 2003.

7. Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management(NESCAUM), Connecticut Department of Environmen-tal Protection, Connecticut Clean Energy Fund, Connecti-cut Greenhouse Gas Inventory, 1990-2000, August 2003.

8. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Climate Changeand Connecticut, September 1997.

9. New England Regional Assessment Group, U.S. GlobalChange Research Program, Preparing for a Changing Cli-mate: The Potential Consequences of Climate Variability andChange, September 2001.

10. See note 8.

11. See note 9.

12. See note 1.

13. Ibid.

14. Ibid.

15. Ibid.

16. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change con-cluded in 2001 that “most of the observed warming overthe past 50 years is likely due to the increase in greenhousegas concentrations.” Intergovernmental Panel on ClimateChange, IPCC Third Assessment Report – Climate Change2001: Summary for Policy Makers, 2001.

17 See note 1.

18 See note 8.

19 See note 9.

20 See note 8.

21 Impacts from U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,Climate Change and Connecticut, September 1997; NewEngland Regional Assessment Group, U.S. Global ChangeResearch Program, Preparing for a Changing Climate: ThePotential Consequences of Climate Variability and Change.Foundation Report, September 2001.

22 Christopher Flavin, “Update: Climate Change andStorm Damage: The Costs Keep Rising,” World Watch Maga-zine, January/February 1997.

23 See note 7. Note: NESCAUM’s estimate of 1990 netemissions differs from the estimate produced for the stake-holder dialogue of 42.4 MMTCO

2E. In order to maintain

a consistent baseline, the stakeholder estimate will be usedin evaluating the impact of the stakeholder recommenda-tions and other recommendations toward the regional goals.

Both the NESCAUM and stakeholder estimates include theimpact of terrestrial sinks, which reduce Connecticut’s netemissions; the state’s gross emissions are higher.

24. See note 7.

25. Ibid.

26. 2000 figures based on Northeast States for Coordi-nated Air Use Management (NESCAUM), Connecticut De-partment of Environmental Protection, Connecticut CleanEnergy Fund, Connecticut Greenhouse Gas Inventory, 1990-2000, August 2003. 2010 and 2020 projections based onCenter for Clean Air Policy, Connecticut Climate ChangeStakeholder Dialogue: Recommendations to the Governor’sSteering Committee, January 2004.

27. The dramatic decrease in electricity sector emissions inthe CCSD’s projections (from 10.9 MMTCO

2E in 2000

to 7.3 MMTCO2E in 2010 – a 33 percent decrease) ap-

pears to be the result of a discontinuity between the green-house gas inventory data for 2000, which are based on esti-mates of actual energy use, and the results of ICFConsulting’s electric sector modeling for the CCSD pro-cess, which was conducted for the years 2006 through 2025.ICF’s modeling results for its 2006 base year, for example,include virtually no oil-fired electricity generation in Con-necticut, despite the fact that, in 2001, there were 11 largesteam generating units in Connecticut with residual oil astheir primary fuel that generated a total of 6,000 GWh ofelectricity (based on EIA-767 data files for 2001). It is un-likely that all of these units will have been displaced or re-tired or will run on gas by 2006. Therefore, the electricsector carbon emission estimate in the CCSD report for2010 should be viewed with caution.

28. The level of electric-sector natural gas consumptionneeded to replace nuclear generation was estimated first bydetermining the percentage of nuclear generation in Con-necticut represented by the Millstone 2 plant. This was doneby dividing the capacity of Millstone 2 by Connecticut’stotal nuclear generating capacity, based on figures from theNuclear Regulatory Commission, Facility Info Finder, down-loaded from http://www.nrc.gov/info-finder/region-state/,26 January 2004. This percentage was then multiplied bythe projected nuclear energy consumption in Connecticutfor 2016 through 2020, arrived at in the same manner asother future energy consumption estimates as described inAppendix B. This figure – which represents nuclear genera-tion “lost” due to the closure of Millstone 2 – was thenmultiplied by the ratio of the calculated heat rate for natu-ral gas generation divided by the imputed heat rate fornuclear generation, based on data from Supplementary Table66 of U.S. Energy Information Administration, AnnualEnergy Outlook 2003, to arrive at the amount of additionalnatural gas consumption that would be needed to replacepower generated at Millstone 2. Heat rates were calculatedby dividing energy consumption at generating plants foreach fuel by net generation for each fuel. This method willtend to slightly overstate energy use – and therefore emis-sions – from natural gas, since it is likely that new naturalgas-fired generation will be more efficient than the averageefficiency of all natural gas plants in the region.

29. Union of Concerned Scientists, Nuclear Reactor Secu-rity, downloaded from http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/nuclear_safety/page.cfm?pageID=176. 24 July 2003.

NOTES


30. U.S. General Accounting Office, Nuclear RegulatoryCommission: Oversight of Security at Commercial NuclearPower Plants Needs to Be Strengthened, September 2003.

31. Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation,Chernobyl.info, downloaded 20 January 2004.

32. Union of Concerned Scientists, Davis-Besse: The Reac-tor With the Hole in its Head, downloaded from http://www.uc susa .o rg /c l e an_energy /nuc l ea r_ sa f e ty /page.cfm?pageID=790, 5 February 2004.

33. Robert Alvarez, Jan Beyea, et al, “Reducing the Haz-ards from Stored Spent Power-Reactor Fuel in the UnitedStates,” Science and Global Security, 2003, 11:1-51.

34. Cumulative subsidies for nuclear power over the pe-riod 1947-1999 have been estimated at $145.4 billion, basedon Marshall Goldberg, Renewable Energy Policy Project,Federal Energy Subsidies: Not All Technologies Are CreatedEqual, July 2000.

35. David Lochbaum, Union of Concerned Scientists, tes-timony before the Clean Air, Wetlands, Private Propertyand Nuclear Safety Subcommittee of the U.S. Senate Com-mittee on Environment and Public Works, 8 May 2001,downloaded from http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/nuclear_safety/page.cfm?pageID=191.

36. Conference of New England Governors/Eastern Ca-nadian Premiers, Climate Change Action Plan 2001, August2001.

37. New England Climate Coalition, Global Warming inNew England, September 2003.

38. Ibid. Note: Projected base case emissions in this chartmay differ with projected New England emissions used else-where in this report due to changes in methodology andassumptions. Emission savings from sector-by-sector com-mitments in the regional plan are based on an optimisticinterpretation of the plan’s potential results, compared tothe conservative assumptions for the various policy optionsanalyzed in this report. In most cases, policies to imple-ment the plan’s commitments have not yet been formed orimplemented. The gap between the governors’ and premiers’regional commitments and the action plan goal thus repre-sents the minimum amount of additional carbon dioxidereductions the region must achieve.

39. Center for Clean Air Policy, Connecticut Climate ChangeStakeholder Dialogue: Recommendations to the Governor’sSteering Committee, January 2004.

40. R. Neal Elliott, Anna Monis Shipley, Steven Nadel,Elizabeth Brown, American Council for an Energy-EfficientEconomy, ACEEE Estimates of Near-Term Electricity and GasSavings, 15 August 2003.

41. Based on Center for Clean Air Policy, Connecticut Cli-mate Change Stakeholder Dialogue: Recommendations to theGovernor’s Steering Committee, January 2004. Emission es-timates for 2020 are adjusted upward by 3.0 MMTCO

2E

from figures in the stakeholder report to account for theclosure of Millstone 2 in 2015, as described in note 28.

42. This estimate includes the adoption of stronger stan-dards for air conditioners along the lines of those proposedduring the Clinton administration. The Bushadministration’s attempt to relax the standard was recentlyrejected by a federal court. Should the court ruling standand be implemented, Connecticut would achieve these sav-ings without state action.

43. Ned Raynolds and Andrew Delaski, Northeast EnergyEfficiency Partnerships, Energy Efficiency Standards: A Low-Cost, High Leverage Policy for Northeast States, Summer 2002,3.

44. Percent of energy use in 2001 based on electricity salesin Connecticut from U.S. Energy Information Adminis-tration, Electric Power Annual 2001 spreadsheets, March2003.

45. See note 43.

46. Ibid.

47. Ibid.

48. Based on U.S. Energy Information Administration,State Electricity Profiles 2001, October 2003, 27.

49. Connecticut Energy Conservation Management Board,Energy Efficiency: Investing in Connecticut’s Future, Report ofthe Energy Conservation Management Board, Year 2002 Pro-grams and Operations, 31 January 2003, 1.

50. Ibid.

51. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Na-tional Energy Affordability and Accessibility Project, On-Line Journal, Fall 2003, downloaded from http://neaap.ncat.org/journal/index.htm, 2 December 2003.

52. Based on savings rate of 1.84 kWh per dollar spent,derived from the average reported annual savings of fiveNew England energy efficiency programs (2.7 kWh/dol-lar), reduced by one-third to ensure the conservatism of theestimate. Savings estimates obtained from (Connecticut)Energy Conservation Management Board, Energy Efficiency:Investing in Connecticut’s Future, 31 January 2003; (Massa-chusetts) Massachusetts Office of Consumer Affairs andBusiness Regulation, 2001 Energy Efficiency Activities: AReport by the Division of Energy Resources, Summer 2003;(New Hampshire) Connecticut Valley Electric Company,Granite State Electric Company, New Hampshire ElectricCooperative, Public Service Company of New Hampshire,Unitil Energy Systems, New Hampshire Core Efficiency Pro-grams: Quarterly Report, June 1-December 31, 2002, 13 Feb-ruary 2003 (savings estimate based on lifetime savings ofefficiency measures in second half of 2002 divided by 15);(Rhode Island) Narragansett Electric Company, ResidentialEnergy Efficiency Programs and Narragansett Electric Com-pany, Design 2000plus Energy Initiatives/Small Business Ser-vices; PowerPoint presentations before the Rhode IslandGreenhouse Gas Stakeholder Process, Buildings and Facili-ties Working Group, 29 November 2001, downloaded fromh t t p : / / r i g h g . r a a b a s s o c i a t e s . o r g /events.asp?type=grp&event=Buildings%20and%20Facilities;(Vermont) Efficiency Vermont, 2004 Annual Plan, 31 Oc-tober 2003 and Efficiency Vermont, The Power of Ideas:Efficiency Vermont 2002 Annual Report. Annual energy sav-ings and spending figures based on the most recent year ofdata available. The method of estimating carry-over of an-nual energy savings to future years is described in AppendixB.

53. Based on comparison of electricity savings estimatescompiled as described above with 2001 electricity sales fig-ures from U. S. Energy Information Administration, Elec-tric Power Annual 2001 spreadsheets, 1990 - 2001 Retail Salesof Electricity by State by Sector by Provider, March 2003.

54. Estimate of 2 percent charge for natural gas and oilconservation funds from Connecticut Climate Change


Stakeholder Dialogue, RCI Work Group Assumption Docu-ment, 30 October 2003. Estimate of 3 percent charge forelectric SBC based on dividing 3 mill SBC charge by aver-age projected 2005 New England residential electricity priceof 10.1 cents/kWh per EIA, Annual Energy Outlook 2003,Supplemental Table 66.

55 Estimate of 2 percent charge for natural gas and oilconservation funds from Connecticut Climate ChangeStakeholder Dialogue, RCI Work Group Assumption Docu-ment, 30 October 2003. Estimate of 3 percent charge forelectric SBC based on dividing 3 mill SBC charge by aver-age 2005 New England residential electricity price of 10.1cents/kWh per EIA, Annual Energy Outlook 2003, Supple-mental Table 66.

56. Average New England heat rate calculated by dividingtotal energy consumption for electric generators in 2005(based on application of EIA fuel use growth trends appliedto 2000 baseline fuel use as described in Appendix B) byprojected electricity generation in New England fromSupplemental Table 66 to Annual Energy Outlook 2003.

57. Cost per BTU for electricity consumption based onaverage heat rate for electricity generated in New Englandin 2005 derived from EIA, Annual Energy Outlook 2003,Supplemental Table 66. Cost per BTU of oil and gas calcu-lated by dividing proposed $20 million funding level foreach program by projected RCI-sector natural gas and dis-tillate/residual fuel use obtained using methods describedin Appendix B: Methodology and Technical Discussion.

58. See Victoria Transport Policy Institute, Online TDMEncyclopedia: Pay-As-You-Drive Vehicle Insurance, down-loaded from http://www.vtpi.org/tdm/tdm79.htm, 4 De-cember 2003.

59. Based on Insurance Information Institute, Facts andStatistics: The Rising Cost of Auto Insurance, downloaded fromhttp://www.iii.org/media/facts/statsbyissue/auto/content.print/, 29 October 2003

60. Victoria Transport Policy Institute, Online TDM Ency-clopedia: Pay-As-You-Drive Vehicle Insurance, downloadedfrom http://www.vtpi.org/tdm/tdm79.htm, 4 December2003.

61. Ibid.

62. Michelle J. White, The “Arms Race” on American Roads:The Effect of SUVs and Pickup Trucks on Traffic Safety, [un-published].

63. California Energy Commission, California State Fuel-Efficient Tire Report: Volume 2, January 2003.

64. Based on comparison of 2002 state government elec-tricity use (per Ray Wilson, State of Connecticut, EnergyManagement Services, personal communication, 7 Novem-ber 2003) with 2000 electricity consumption figures fromU.S. Energy Information Administration, Electric PowerAnnual 2001 spreadsheets, March 2003.

65. U.S. Energy Information Administration, Annual En-ergy Review 2002, October 2003, Table 10.5. Costs are basedon figures from 1991 and 2001 and are not adjusted forinflation.

66. Connecticut Clean Energy Fund, Request for Proposals:Photovoltaic Program for Solar PV Installations on Commer-cial, Industrial and Institutional Buildings, 29 December2003.

67. Database of State Incentives for Renewable Energy(DSIRE), Massachusetts Incentives for Renewable Energy:Clustered PV Installation Program, downloaded from http:// w w w . d s i r e u s a . o r g / l i b r a r y / i n c l u d e s /incentive2.cfm?Incentive_Code=MA07F&state=MA&CurrentPageID=1, 13 January 2004.

68. Christy Herig, Richard Perez, Susan Gouchoe, TomHoff, PV in Commercial Buildings – Mapping the BreakevenTurn-key Value of Commercial PV Systems in the U.S., 2003.

69. Based on Christy Herig, Susan Gouchoe, Rusty Haynes,Richard Perez, Tom Hoff, Customer-Sited Photovoltaics: StateMarket Analysis, 2002.

70. Based on comparison with 2001 electricity generationfigures from U.S. Energy Information Administration, Elec-tric Power Annual 2001 spreadsheets, March 2003.

71. Based on the installation of a 4kW, 484-square-footsolar PV system, per Renewable Resource Data Center,National Renewable Energy Lab, Changing System Param-eters, downloaded from rredc.nrel.gov/solar/calculators/pvwatts/version1/change.htm, 24 November 2003.

72. Michael Winka, New Jersey Board of Public Utilities,Renewable Energy for Reliability, Security and Affordability,presentation before the annual conference of the NationalAssociation of State Energy Officials, 14-17 September2003.

73. 301 Code of Massachusetts Regulations 7.00 Appen-dix B.

74. Coal-fired generation produces more carbon dioxideper unit of fuel burned than other forms of generation.However, the carbon-intensity of generation per unit of elec-tricity produced depends a great deal on the efficiency ofthe generating unit. A carbon cap that aimed to retire thehighest-carbon forms of generation in New England wouldlikely affect a mix of coal- and oil-fired generators. Unfor-tunately, the methodology of this report does not permitassessment of plant-by-plant emission levels. Thus, the as-sumption that a carbon cap would result in the displace-ment of coal-fired generation produces a conservative esti-mate of the maximum feasible emission reductions thatwould occur under a carbon cap.

75. The spikes in emissions on this chart represent tempo-rary additional fossil fuel generation used to compensatefor the retirement of nuclear reactors upon license expira-tion in 2012 and 2015.

76. For a detailed summary of transportation elasticity stud-ies, see Victoria Transport Policy Institute, Online TDMEncyclopedia, http://www.vtpi.org/tdm/tdm11.htm#_Toc59417070.

77. Based on U.S. Energy Information Administration,Annual Energy Review 2002, table 5.22.

78. Ibid. Prices for 1949 to 1977 are for leaded regulargasoline, prices for 1978 to 2002 are for all grades.

79. Victor R. Fuchs, Alan B. Krueger, James M. Poterba,Why Do Economists Disagree About Policy? The Roles of Be-liefs About Parameters and Values, Industrial Relations Sec-tion, Princeton University, August 1997.

80. Congressional Budget Office, The Economic Costs ofFuel Economy Standards Versus a Gasoline Tax, December2003.


81. Elizabeth Deakin and Greig Harvey, Transportation Pric-ing Strategies for California: An Assessment of Congestion,Emissions, Energy and Equity Impacts, prepared for Califor-nia Air Resources Board, November 1996, 7-13.

82. Connecticut Fund for the Environment, VMT PricingRecommendations, memorandum submitted to Transporta-tion Working Group of the Connecticut Climate ChangeStakeholder Dialogue, 27 October 2003.

83. “4.5 hours/day” from Frank Stodolsky, Linda Gaines,Anant Vyas, Technology Options to Reduce Truck Idling,Argonne National Laboratory, presentation to Truck Main-tenance Council, 15 March 2001. “43 weeks per year” fromArgonne National Laboratory, Truckers: Don’t Let Your ProfitsGo Up in Smoke, www.transportation.anl.gov/idling.html,6 November 2003.

84. Frank Stodolsky, Linda Gaines, Anant Vyas, Analysis ofTechnology Options to Reduce the Fuel Consumption of IdlingTrucks, Argonne National Laboratory, June 2000.

85. Ibid.

86. U.S. EPA, Voluntary Diesel Retrofit Program, IdlingReduction: Long-Duration Truck Engine Idling, 23 October2003.

87. Based on Federal Highway Administration, Report toCongress: Study of Adequacy of Parking Facilities, June 2002.

88. New York State Thruway Authority, Thruway AnnouncesExpansion of Groundbreaking Truck Stop Electrification (TSE)Program in Syracuse, (press release), 23 May 2003.

89. “1,200 parking spaces” from Connecticut Departmentof Transportation, Truck Stop and Rest Area Parking Study,April 2001. Per-hour emissions from idling trucks and trucksusing electrified facilities from Frank Stodolsky, LindaGaines, Anant Vyas, Analysis of Technology Options to Re-duce the Fuel Consumption of Idling Trucks, Argonne Na-tional Laboratory, June 2000.

90. Conn. Gen. Stat. Sec. 22a-174-18.

91. Terry Levinson, Argonne National Laboratory, Anti-Idling Laws and Regulations, presentation to the Mainte-nance Council Annual Meeting, 15 March 2001.

92. Connecticut Department of Transportation, 2003 Mas-ter Transportation Plan, January 2003.

93. Ibid.

94. Ibid.

95. U.S. Census Bureau data obtained from National Cen-ter for Transit Research, downloaded from http://www.nctr.usf.edu/clearinghouse/census/ct.htm, 13 January2004.

96. Connecticut Department of Transportation, CT Rides:Explore Your Options, http://www.ctrides.com/explore/ridesharing.htm.

97. Washington State Department of Transportation, TDMSuccess Story: Washington’s Commute Trip Reduction Law andStatewide CTR Program Deliver Results, July 2000.

98. See Washington State Department of Transportation,TDM Online Resource Center, http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/mobility/TDM/default.htm, downloaded 12 January 2004.

99. David B. Goldstein, Natural Resources Defense Coun-cil, Making Housing More Affordable: Correcting MisplacedIncentives in the Lending System, 27 May 1996.

100. Institute for Location Efficiency, Location EfficientMortgage Frequently Asked Questions, downloaded fromhttp://www.locationefficiency.com/faq, 12 January 2004.

101. See Paul A. Cillo and Harlan Lachmann, NationalAssociation of Regulatory Utility Commissioners, MoreDistributed Generation with Pay-As-You-Save, November2001.

102. (Connecticut) Energy Conservation ManagementBoard, Energy Efficiency: Investing in Connecticut’s Future,31 January 2003; (Massachusetts) Massachusetts Office ofConsumer Affairs and Business Regulation, 2001 EnergyEfficiency Activities: A Report by the Division of Energy Re-sources, Summer 2003; (New Hampshire) Connecticut Val-ley Electric Company, Granite State Electric Company, NewHampshire Electric Cooperative, Public Service Companyof New Hampshire, Unitil Energy Systems, New Hamp-shire Core Efficiency Programs: Quarterly Report, June 1-De-cember 31, 2002, 13 February 2003 (savings estimate basedon lifetime savings of efficiency measures in second half of2002 divided by 15); (Rhode Island) Narragansett ElectricCompany, Residential Energy Efficiency Programs andNarragansett Electric Company, Design 2000plus EnergyInitiatives/Small Business Services; PowerPoint presentationsbefore the Rhode Island Greenhouse Gas Stakeholder Pro-cess, Buildings and Facilities Working Group, 29 Novem-ber 2001, downloaded from http://righg.raabassociates.org/events.asp?type=grp&event=Buildings%20and%20Facilities;(Vermont) Efficiency Vermont, 2004 Annual Plan, 31 Oc-tober 2003 and Efficiency Vermont, The Power of Ideas:Efficiency Vermont 2002 Annual Report. Annual energy sav-ings and spending figures based on the most recent year ofdata available.

CONNECTICUT RESPONDS TO GLOBAL WARMING - Frontier Group · Implement a Public Sector Emission...

Documents

Transcript of CONNECTICUT RESPONDS TO GLOBAL WARMING - Frontier Group · Implement a Public Sector Emission...