Comment Log Display

April 23, 2013

Steve Cliff, Branch Chief
Climate Change Program Evaluation Branch

Rajinder Sahota, Manager
Climate Change Program Operating Section 

California Air Resources Board
1001 “I” Street, Sacramento, CA, 95812

Re: Comments on Proposed Addition of Coal Mine Methane and Rice
Cultivation Offset Protocols to the Cap-and-Trade Program.

Dear Mr. Cliff and Ms. Sahota:

On behalf of the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) and our
more than 80,000 members in California, we appreciate the
opportunity to comment on the proposed addition of coal mine
methane and rice cultivation offset protocols to the cap-and-trade
regulations.

Over the past six months, the ARB has made very substantial
progress on developing and adopting the regulatory infrastructure
necessary to incorporate compliance offsets into the cap and trade
program, including the approval of two offset registries, and
continued advances in verifier training and accreditation. The ARB
is to be commended for providing advance notice of consideration of
two new offset protocols, holding a public workshop, and convening
technical working groups. This clear and informative public process
will build confidence and credibility in the program. 

In general, we believe that the proposed rice cultivation protocol
offers a good opportunity to expand the array of offset project
types eligible for use for compliance in the cap-and-trade program.
In addition to offering emission reductions which can meet the
requirements of AB32, the rice protocol provides an opportunity to
explore issues associated with agricultural offsets.  Emission
reductions in the agricultural sector are often different from
other protocol project types, because of the high level of temporal
and spatial variability and complex chemistry associated with
nitrogen and soil carbon. While these issues present challenges,
the potential for co-benefits from the rice cultivation protocol is
significant and there is a substantial opportunity for in-state
projects. 

In contrast, we believe that the proposed coal mine methane
protocol raises a number of difficult issues and concerns relative
to its use in the cap-and-trade program.  First, by providing
additional revenue to active coal mining operations, the
availability of offset credits has the potential to make
coal-mining more profitable and thereby increase the amount of coal
mining and combustion. ARB staff recognizes this possibility and
has proposed to consider inclusion of a leakage discount factor to
account for increased production, but the effectiveness of the
factor – as yet undeveloped – in deterring potential leakage is by
no means assured..  Second, even if the emission reductions were
fully additional, coal mine methane offsets do not provide any 
co-benefits, unlike the rice cultivation protocol (and, if leakage
occurs, could in fact exacerbate co-pollutant emissions).  Third,
because there is no coal mining in California, the coal mine
methane protocol would not generate any  in-state projects or
associated in-state co-benefits. Finally, we appreciate ARB’s
exclusion of mountaintop removal mines from the list of eligible
projects, but the inclusion of any active mines – in particular
surface mines – presents serious environmental concerns. ARB must
consider the implications of proposing to allow offsets generated
from projects at out-of-state surface mines to be used for
compliance with its landmark climate change statute. These issues
are exacerbated due to the very large volume of potential offset
credits, estimated by staff at 50-100 million tons CO2e cumulative
by 2020. While we look forward to evaluating the proposal under
development by the technical working group, NRDC is skeptical that
the coal mine methane protocol is a good fit for California’s AB32
cap-and-trade program. 




Sincerely,


Peter Miller
Senior Scientist

Alex Jackson
Legal Director, California Climate Project