First Name: | Peter |
---|---|
Last Name: | Weiner |
Email Address: | peterweiner@paulhastings.com |
Affiliation | Crockett Cogeneration LLC |
Subject | Cap-and-Trade Regulation Amendments |
Comment |
The following comments are not specific to the subject of the recent Workshop, but are pertinent to the proposed Amendments as a whole. For the reasons expressed below, we were not notified in the August 2 Public Notice of certain proposed Amendments, and only recently became aware of them. In any event, we ask that you accept these comments for the record. COMMENTS BY CROCKETT COGENERATION, LLC ON PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE CALIFORNIA CAP ON GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS AND MARKET-BASED COMPLIANCE MECHANISMS REGULATION Background: Legacy Contracts and the Proposed Amendments When the AB 32 Cap and Trade Program was first implemented, the Board provided allowances to IOUs and various other covered entities, subject to a declining cap. It became apparent that some “legacy contracts” (now defined in 17 CCR Section 95802 (203)) were not covered by the Board’s original allocation of allowances, and that there were inequities with regard to legacy contract treatment. Legacy contract holders appeared before the Board to plead their case, and the Board directed staff to consider and act upon these concerns. Accordingly, the staff proposed in 2013 and the Board in 2014 adopted provisions to assist these legacy contract holders. Legacy contract holders with IOU or industrial counterparties lent themselves to a solution in which allowances were transferred from one party to another. However, for legacy contracts without an industrial counterparty—with several diverse and unique examples—it became necessary to allocate allowances based on previous emissions. The Board chose 2012 as that reference year. The Board also conditioned allowances on proof that the legacy contract holders continue to try to get their counterparties to absorb the cost of allowances. In some cases this proved possible, in other cases it proved impossible. In 2014 the Board decided that for legacy contracts with an industrial counterparty, transition assistance would be provided for the life of the contract (17 CCR Section 95870(g)(2)). However, for those without an industrial counterparty, the Board limited transition assistance to the end of the second compliance period (Id., subdivision (g)(1)). At the time of its decision the Board understood that there was only one such legacy contract without an industrial counterparty that was covered by the regulation, Crockett Cogeneration, that extended beyond 2017 (Crockett extends until 2026). The Board urged Crockett to continue to negotiate with its counterparty, C&H Sugar, and to return to the Board later if it could not do so. No promises were made to extend the transition assistance period, but the door remained open for conversation. On August 2, 2016, the Board issued its NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING to consider proposed amendments to the California Cap on Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Market-Based Compliance Mechanisms Regulation (hereinafter “Public Notice”). The 27 page summary of proposed amendments mentions legacy contracts only once (page 10), and does not discuss the Board’s proposal to delete all provisions of the Regulation that pertain to legacy contracts without an industrial counterparty. Although we understand the Board’s position that its deletion of these provisions did not need to be noticed because the program in the current regulation sunsets after the second compliance period (2017), we believe that the Administrative Procedure Act calls for that type of notice when an entire program is being deleted from the regulation entirely. As an example, had the Public Notice set forth the planned deletion of the program, Crockett Cogeneration would have been on notice that if it wanted to argue for an extension of transition assistance into the third compliance period, it would need to ask also that these provisions be amended rather than deleted. (The referenced deletions occur in the definition section, 95802, section 95870, and section 95894, among others.) Crockett Cogeneration Crockett Cogeneration provides steam (heat) to C&H Sugar. C&H Sugar uses the steam provided by Crockett Cogeneration to first produce all the electrical energy required for operation of the refinery and secondly to supply all the thermal processes required to refine sugar and produce its products. The steam sales contract does not provide for any pass-through for the type of costs created by the Cap and Trade Regulation. C&H, were it to have emissions of its own, would readily qualify as an energy-intensive trade-exposed (EITE) industrial entity covered under the Cap & Trade program. It is the only cane sugar refiner west of the Mississippi, and competes nationally and internationally based on price. As a result, C&H has been unwilling to shoulder any of the load of GHG allowance costs, including the cost of joining the system and reporting. Crockett Cogeneration is equitably as entitled to transition assistance as any other legacy contract generator that is provided that assistance for the life of its contract. Given Crockett’s inability to re-negotiate its contract with its nonindustrial counter-party, we ask the Board’s consideration of the fairness of extending transition assistance for the life of Crockett’s contract (2026), subject to all of the same conditions that have been heretofore required for such assistance. Thank you for your consideration, Peter Weiner |
Attachment |
Original File Name:
Date and Time Comment Was Submitted: 2016-11-04 12:42:02 |
If you have any questions or comments please contact Office of the Ombudsman at (916) 327-1266.