...just catching up, folks. Another installment coming soon.
Meetings / Seminars
- 5/14-16 – CCAR’s 6th Annual Meeting – all you could ever want to know about CCAR. Summaries and presentations here
---CCAR explains Climate Action Reserve. Screenshots and step-by-step how-to incl in ppt
---Nice ppt from PG&E about utility users’ vol C offset program (“by 12/2009, PG&E will contract for at least 1.5 million tons”). This is the program that had a recent RFP out (7/2) for CCAR-standard projects.
- 6/9-6/10 - 12th Global Katoomba Meeting – 6/9 and 6/10 summaries below
- 6/11-6/12 - Private Katoomba Meeting on the Chesapeake Bay – day summaries below
- 6/2008, Brazil - 12th Internat Congress on Env Law of IUCN – focused on trends in imple of PES in Americas (best practices, legal/instit frameworks). Contact: Rodrigo Martinez usdecons9(“at”)oas.org (Organiz of Amer States’ Dept of Sust Dev).
Projects
- Market-based CIG Grants (Ches Bay grants, national grants)
---Ches Nutrient Neutral Fund (Ches Bay Foundation)
---the Bay Bank (Pinchot Institute)
---Gopher Tortoise Habitat Credit Bank in GA and AL (Amer Forest Foundation)
---Mkt-based rangeland restor & crit w’life hab in Sagebrush (Sagebrush Foundation et al)
---PES in FL ranchlands, from pilot to program operation (WWF)
---C Credit mkt infra (Couer d’Alene Tribe)
---Mkt-based incen to reduce sedi from ag lands, etc. (Kansas St U)
---Develop/use a modified NTT tool for WQT (Tarleton St U, MD)
---Mkt infra for WQT/etc in Upper Miss (Minnesota River Basin, Joint Powers Board)
---Facilitating NIFP to C offset mkts (George McKinley)
- WQT Funding – EPA’s Targeted Watershed Grants app is due (w/ state governor approval) by Sept. 9. RFP is here
- Corp Sustain – World Bus Council on Sust Dev’s class of 2008 Future Leaders Team are focusing on ecosystem services & how bus depend on; how to ID opp’s and miti risks; to use WRI’s Ecosystem Services Review (ESR) methodology. Contact: Katherine Madden, WBCSD madden("at")wbcsd.org
News
- C and Institutions – May 2008 USDA Forest Service memo guides FS leaders re: reforestation/C projects. Says FS is not currently involved in any selling/trading of C offsets (C *credit* projects – distinction here is using for CCX or future regulations). FS only has 3 current C *offset* projects with National Forest Foundation, consider these as demo projects for using forest mngt in a CC miti strategy (new projects can only be approved on case-by-case basis). FS can partner with folks who advertise *general* C claims or benefits from donations for reforestation but these can’t be advertised like “offset your GHG” or ”go C neutral”.
- C – PG&E offsets Dem party nat convention w/offsets from Garcia River Forest (CF project)
- All things C - Ecosystem V-Carbon News (6/11)
---Lieberman-Warner cap & trade bill didn’t get enough votes
---1st project registered/verified under CA Forest Protocols, Pacific Forest Trust’s Van Eck forest in Humboldt Co. CA, offering VERs
---2 CA bills proposed to regulate OTC C
- CC – USDA Forest Service factsheet “Climate Change and Water: Perspectives from the Forest Service”
- Instit – Doug Lashley (CEO Greenvest) op-ed: support > efficient multi-cred mkt in Ches Bay
- Env Mkts –DoD-contracted(?) 2007 doc by Idaho Nat’l Lab – says DoD will likely be largest buyer/seller of wq credits; screenshots of hypothetical multi-cred mkt
- Env Mkt info – new blog related to env markets by EcoAsset Markets
- Tools – a little 411 on the company APX: did CCAR’s “web-based platform and account management tool for the registration, serialization, tracking, and retirement of GHG offsets for the Climate Action Reserve”. Did work in renew NRG mkts, Gold Standard VER registry. Based in Santa Clara, CA with brand-new office in DC (to get cozy with CC legislation). 2 key leaders from Marsh, Inc. (global risk mngt & insur). Goldman Sachs is a minority equity investor.
- Certif – SFI has web-based survey to collect/compile suggestions/rationale for changes to SFI standard
Showing posts with label water quality trading. Show all posts
Showing posts with label water quality trading. Show all posts
Tuesday, July 15, 2008
Friday, July 11, 2008
Summary of 2008 Private Katoomba Meeting on the Chesapeake Bay, June 11-12
Update (7/23): Environmental Marketplace posted presentations from this meeting here.
2008 Private Katoomba Meeting on the Chesapeake: How to Design and Implement Market Mechanisms to Improve Water Quality Throughout the Chesapeake Bay Watershed
(courtesy of Al Todd, USDA Forest Service, Northeastern Area State and Private Forestry)
Building from the market-oriented thremes from the public Katoomba sessions in DC, the goal of this meeting was to catalyze new thinking around a suite of market-based tools that could build additional funding streams to achieve and maintain pollution reduction goals across the Chesapeake Bay watershed.
Meeting Objectives:
1. To learn about and discuss lessons learned from both compliant and voluntary market approached to environmental quality;
2. To discuss obstacles and opportunities for applying these approaches to a robust voluntary market for water quality in the Bay watershed;
3. To draft a plan of action and next steps for implementing select market-based tools, including a Chesapeake Clean Water Fund to address water quality in the Bay watershed. The Fund will leverage private dollars to invest in high-impact projects, those in areas that have the highest pollution loads throughout the watershed.
Day One: Overview and Stage Setting
Michael Jenkins, Forest Trends gave the welcome and set the context for the Discussions.
William C. Baker, Chesapeake Bay Foundation. Gave a state of water quality in the Bay. A brief and fast reality check on the history of WQ improvement efforts including dollars invested, legal authority and the need for better coordination and integration of existing regulatory mechanisms, political will, the need for a coordinated communication/outreach strategy across the Bay watershed, WQ standards and the need for new and sustainable funding sources and the role of private investment. Why market-based approaches in the Bay and why now? Said we know what to do but need the funding to do it.
Ricardo Bayon, EKO Asset Management Partners . gave an overview of Payment for Ecosystem Services (PES) Markets and Market-like Instruments: Utilizing the market to affect positive outcomes. Defining and categorizing market-based activities in a water context and the components that make them work (supply and demand).
Dan Nees, World Resources Institute provided a sobering look at the State of Water-Quality Cap & Trade Programs in the Bay Watershed, WRI has completed a summary of Trading Programs highlighting the activities in the Bay region (MD, VA, PA). Dan is currently pessimistic that the demand drivers (regulatory) are not in place to drive the market. The 2010 TMDL may advance this. Key issue: How to mainstream the value and cost associated with establishing market mechanisms such as a voluntary water market in the Bay? How to link market-based approaches to existing regulatory programs?
Panel Discussion : Market Architecture and Design
Standards, certification, registries, exchanges, aggregators: Components of environmental/water markets in the Chesapeake Bay.
• Wetlands Banking Model, Steve Morgan, Wildlands, Inc.
• Credit Aggregators- Peter Hughes, Red Barn Trading
• Insurance Mechanisms, George Kelly-EBX
• The Green Exchange, Evolution Markets (to be confirmed)
• How Federal, State and Local Government can facilitate the design and implementation of these market components, Mindy Selman, WRI
Panel Discussion Building a Market for the Chesapeake Bay Watershed -- Generating Private Investment: New Ideas for Using Market-based Approaches to Improve Water Quality.
• Chesapeake Clean Water Fund (Ricardo Bayon)
• Supplier Certification Program (Tom Simpson)
• Eco Branding – the case of Organic Milk (Suzy Friedman)
• The Bay Bank initiative (Eric Sprague)
• Credit Insurance Programs (George Kelly)
This Panel set the stage for the second day’s discussions.
Day Two: Moving Forward in the Bay
Focus for Day 2 was on developing a road map and building consensus on specific pilots for the Bay. Focusing on the 5 initiatives outlined on the previous day, groups were to acknowledge how they would contribute to improved water quality in the Bay watershed and how they could relate to one another.
Small Group Activity: Participants were broken up into small groups for this task. Each was assigned one of the 5 initiatives and asked to discuss it and then propose a conceptual business plan for a functioning market-based scheme focused on improving water quality across the Bay. Each group should prepare a detailed 5 minute sales pitch, as if pitching the idea to venture capital (VC) investors. Each group selected a spokesperson to make the pitch to the entire group in the afternoon.
Menu of Initiatives:
The Chesapeake Clean Water Fund; Market-driven Supplier Certification Program; The Bay Bank Initiative; Credit Insurance Programs; Eco Branding
Small Group Report Out and Large Group Discussion of Proposals (Group presentation: 5 minutes followed by 10 questions/answers) An interesting aspect of this exercise was that the membership of the breakout groups was purposely designed such that none of the proponents or partners in a specific initiative were in that Breakout Group. All the groups had to go on was the presentation from Day 1 and a conceptual project brief.
Key outcomes:
1) Eco branding: A good concept but quite time and $ intensive to launch and maintain. Examples were provided that would work for eco-friendly lawn care and milk production.
2) Supplier Certification Program: This is a project that has been funded and will be progressing and deals with food supply chain certification of water quality practices. Has potential to reduce nutrient use and change behavior of ag producers through demand from processors and food producers. Agreements in place to begin with several major local food producers. Will proceed on a separate track.
3) Chesapeake Clean Water Fund: Seen as a good idea to catalyze a voluntary nutrient investment fund. Credits would be established and through increased credit valuation, funds could be reinvested in restoration projects and N reduction BMPs. Would focus on the demand side of the market and work to get several major corporate contributions (with a target of $5 million in 2 years) as seed for fund. Would eventually be able to sell high quality certified nutrient credits.
4) The Bay Bank: Seen as a great counterpoint to the Fund discussed above because it would focus primarily on the supply side of the market, educating landowners and facilitating their access to multiple markets including the “Fund”.
5) Credit Insurance: Seen as a valuable addition to both the bay bank and the Clean Water Fund. Several people in the meeting volunteered to work on this concept including reps from both the Bay bank and the Fund. It would serve as a bridging function to help reduce risk for other aggregators. WRI will take the lead.
Conclusion
Forest Trends will continue to track activities in the Bay Watershed on its web site and through the creation of an online Water Market Forum. Reps from the Bay Bank and the Clean Water Fund will convene to ensure that there is a high level of integration as these two go forward. These latter four projects are seen as the nucleus of a Chesapeake Bay water quality markets work plan.
2008 Private Katoomba Meeting on the Chesapeake: How to Design and Implement Market Mechanisms to Improve Water Quality Throughout the Chesapeake Bay Watershed
(courtesy of Al Todd, USDA Forest Service, Northeastern Area State and Private Forestry)
Building from the market-oriented thremes from the public Katoomba sessions in DC, the goal of this meeting was to catalyze new thinking around a suite of market-based tools that could build additional funding streams to achieve and maintain pollution reduction goals across the Chesapeake Bay watershed.
Meeting Objectives:
1. To learn about and discuss lessons learned from both compliant and voluntary market approached to environmental quality;
2. To discuss obstacles and opportunities for applying these approaches to a robust voluntary market for water quality in the Bay watershed;
3. To draft a plan of action and next steps for implementing select market-based tools, including a Chesapeake Clean Water Fund to address water quality in the Bay watershed. The Fund will leverage private dollars to invest in high-impact projects, those in areas that have the highest pollution loads throughout the watershed.
Day One: Overview and Stage Setting
Michael Jenkins, Forest Trends gave the welcome and set the context for the Discussions.
William C. Baker, Chesapeake Bay Foundation. Gave a state of water quality in the Bay. A brief and fast reality check on the history of WQ improvement efforts including dollars invested, legal authority and the need for better coordination and integration of existing regulatory mechanisms, political will, the need for a coordinated communication/outreach strategy across the Bay watershed, WQ standards and the need for new and sustainable funding sources and the role of private investment. Why market-based approaches in the Bay and why now? Said we know what to do but need the funding to do it.
Ricardo Bayon, EKO Asset Management Partners . gave an overview of Payment for Ecosystem Services (PES) Markets and Market-like Instruments: Utilizing the market to affect positive outcomes. Defining and categorizing market-based activities in a water context and the components that make them work (supply and demand).
Dan Nees, World Resources Institute provided a sobering look at the State of Water-Quality Cap & Trade Programs in the Bay Watershed, WRI has completed a summary of Trading Programs highlighting the activities in the Bay region (MD, VA, PA). Dan is currently pessimistic that the demand drivers (regulatory) are not in place to drive the market. The 2010 TMDL may advance this. Key issue: How to mainstream the value and cost associated with establishing market mechanisms such as a voluntary water market in the Bay? How to link market-based approaches to existing regulatory programs?
Panel Discussion : Market Architecture and Design
Standards, certification, registries, exchanges, aggregators: Components of environmental/water markets in the Chesapeake Bay.
• Wetlands Banking Model, Steve Morgan, Wildlands, Inc.
• Credit Aggregators- Peter Hughes, Red Barn Trading
• Insurance Mechanisms, George Kelly-EBX
• The Green Exchange, Evolution Markets (to be confirmed)
• How Federal, State and Local Government can facilitate the design and implementation of these market components, Mindy Selman, WRI
Panel Discussion Building a Market for the Chesapeake Bay Watershed -- Generating Private Investment: New Ideas for Using Market-based Approaches to Improve Water Quality.
• Chesapeake Clean Water Fund (Ricardo Bayon)
• Supplier Certification Program (Tom Simpson)
• Eco Branding – the case of Organic Milk (Suzy Friedman)
• The Bay Bank initiative (Eric Sprague)
• Credit Insurance Programs (George Kelly)
This Panel set the stage for the second day’s discussions.
Day Two: Moving Forward in the Bay
Focus for Day 2 was on developing a road map and building consensus on specific pilots for the Bay. Focusing on the 5 initiatives outlined on the previous day, groups were to acknowledge how they would contribute to improved water quality in the Bay watershed and how they could relate to one another.
Small Group Activity: Participants were broken up into small groups for this task. Each was assigned one of the 5 initiatives and asked to discuss it and then propose a conceptual business plan for a functioning market-based scheme focused on improving water quality across the Bay. Each group should prepare a detailed 5 minute sales pitch, as if pitching the idea to venture capital (VC) investors. Each group selected a spokesperson to make the pitch to the entire group in the afternoon.
Menu of Initiatives:
The Chesapeake Clean Water Fund; Market-driven Supplier Certification Program; The Bay Bank Initiative; Credit Insurance Programs; Eco Branding
Small Group Report Out and Large Group Discussion of Proposals (Group presentation: 5 minutes followed by 10 questions/answers) An interesting aspect of this exercise was that the membership of the breakout groups was purposely designed such that none of the proponents or partners in a specific initiative were in that Breakout Group. All the groups had to go on was the presentation from Day 1 and a conceptual project brief.
Key outcomes:
1) Eco branding: A good concept but quite time and $ intensive to launch and maintain. Examples were provided that would work for eco-friendly lawn care and milk production.
2) Supplier Certification Program: This is a project that has been funded and will be progressing and deals with food supply chain certification of water quality practices. Has potential to reduce nutrient use and change behavior of ag producers through demand from processors and food producers. Agreements in place to begin with several major local food producers. Will proceed on a separate track.
3) Chesapeake Clean Water Fund: Seen as a good idea to catalyze a voluntary nutrient investment fund. Credits would be established and through increased credit valuation, funds could be reinvested in restoration projects and N reduction BMPs. Would focus on the demand side of the market and work to get several major corporate contributions (with a target of $5 million in 2 years) as seed for fund. Would eventually be able to sell high quality certified nutrient credits.
4) The Bay Bank: Seen as a great counterpoint to the Fund discussed above because it would focus primarily on the supply side of the market, educating landowners and facilitating their access to multiple markets including the “Fund”.
5) Credit Insurance: Seen as a valuable addition to both the bay bank and the Clean Water Fund. Several people in the meeting volunteered to work on this concept including reps from both the Bay bank and the Fund. It would serve as a bridging function to help reduce risk for other aggregators. WRI will take the lead.
Conclusion
Forest Trends will continue to track activities in the Bay Watershed on its web site and through the creation of an online Water Market Forum. Reps from the Bay Bank and the Clean Water Fund will convene to ensure that there is a high level of integration as these two go forward. These latter four projects are seen as the nucleus of a Chesapeake Bay water quality markets work plan.
Friday, May 16, 2008
News Summary for 5/3-5/16
Meetings / Seminars
- 5/7-9 - 11th Annual National Mitigation & Ecosystem Banking Conference – day summaries for May 9th, May 8th, and May 7th
Projects
- Mapping – National Geographic/NatureServe’s LandScope, to be launched 2008, brings maps/data/photos/info about conserved/priority cons/planning areas, trends, etc. for US/states together to inform/target efforts on the part of land trusts/st & local gov/private landowners/etc.
- Mapping – Trust for Public Land launches Conservation Almanac--lists data (1998-2005) about conserved areas in each st, acres acquired, $s spent, LandVote ballot measures, profile of state policy/conserv programs. Helpful for st/regional cons stats.
- Markets – AgTrader, a Craig’s List for MD farmers launched
News
- CC – US FWS lists Polar Bear as threatened due to loss of habitat (sea ice), says won’t use listing to force regulatory action
- All things C – Ecosystem Marketplace’s V-Carbon Mail (5/2/08)
---CCAR launches Climate Action Reserve that provides standardized protocols for C projects, info on projects, and tracks credits.
---Bush - proposal of zero emissions growth by 2025
---Canada and Greece out of compliance w/Kyoto can’t trade in EU C market until they get their act together
---Sir Nicholas Stern (of Stern report fame in ’07) says he goofed and to minimize dangerous risks of CC, need to reduce emiss by 50% for world and 90% for US
- C - Ecosys M’place releases 2007 State of the Voluntary C Market. Interesting stats:
---65 mill tonnes of C credit transactions in vol mkt [42mill from OTC mkt, 23 from CCX transactions]
---ave pr of credit went from $4.10->$6.10/tonne from 06 to 07
---OTC mkt tripled to 42 mill tonnes C credit transactions (val of $258mill in 07)
---dominant projects in OTC: NRG efficiency, renew NRG, methane, forestry/land projects
- WQT – summary of MD’s newish (4/18/2008) PT-PT trading policy
- Leadership – TNC appoints Goldman Sachs’ green guru Mark Tercek as new president/CEO
- PES - Special Issue on PES in Developing and Developed Countries – May 2008 Ecological Economics, 65.4. Sven Wunder, Stefanie Engel and Stefano Pagiola (ed).
- Nonmarket val – UFORE analysis of Houston’s regional forests: store $721mill worth of C, gen $456mill of env bene/yr, save $131mill in res NRG costs.
- Nonmarket val – WSJ Natural Cap blog discusses bene-cost analysis for env policy; crux of debate – whether economists value future generations’ benefits enough (via disc rates)
- 5/7-9 - 11th Annual National Mitigation & Ecosystem Banking Conference – day summaries for May 9th, May 8th, and May 7th
Projects
- Mapping – National Geographic/NatureServe’s LandScope, to be launched 2008, brings maps/data/photos/info about conserved/priority cons/planning areas, trends, etc. for US/states together to inform/target efforts on the part of land trusts/st & local gov/private landowners/etc.
- Mapping – Trust for Public Land launches Conservation Almanac--lists data (1998-2005) about conserved areas in each st, acres acquired, $s spent, LandVote ballot measures, profile of state policy/conserv programs. Helpful for st/regional cons stats.
- Markets – AgTrader, a Craig’s List for MD farmers launched
News
- CC – US FWS lists Polar Bear as threatened due to loss of habitat (sea ice), says won’t use listing to force regulatory action
- All things C – Ecosystem Marketplace’s V-Carbon Mail (5/2/08)
---CCAR launches Climate Action Reserve that provides standardized protocols for C projects, info on projects, and tracks credits.
---Bush - proposal of zero emissions growth by 2025
---Canada and Greece out of compliance w/Kyoto can’t trade in EU C market until they get their act together
---Sir Nicholas Stern (of Stern report fame in ’07) says he goofed and to minimize dangerous risks of CC, need to reduce emiss by 50% for world and 90% for US
- C - Ecosys M’place releases 2007 State of the Voluntary C Market. Interesting stats:
---65 mill tonnes of C credit transactions in vol mkt [42mill from OTC mkt, 23 from CCX transactions]
---ave pr of credit went from $4.10->$6.10/tonne from 06 to 07
---OTC mkt tripled to 42 mill tonnes C credit transactions (val of $258mill in 07)
---dominant projects in OTC: NRG efficiency, renew NRG, methane, forestry/land projects
- WQT – summary of MD’s newish (4/18/2008) PT-PT trading policy
- Leadership – TNC appoints Goldman Sachs’ green guru Mark Tercek as new president/CEO
- PES - Special Issue on PES in Developing and Developed Countries – May 2008 Ecological Economics, 65.4. Sven Wunder, Stefanie Engel and Stefano Pagiola (ed).
- Nonmarket val – UFORE analysis of Houston’s regional forests: store $721mill worth of C, gen $456mill of env bene/yr, save $131mill in res NRG costs.
- Nonmarket val – WSJ Natural Cap blog discusses bene-cost analysis for env policy; crux of debate – whether economists value future generations’ benefits enough (via disc rates)
Monday, May 12, 2008
MD's Newish Point to Point Water Quality Trading Policy (dated 4/18/2008)
Maryland Policy for Nutrient Cap Management and Trading in Maryland’s Chesapeake Bay Watershed
• This is phase I of the policy (PT to PT). Phase II is PT-NPS.
• Caps are Tributary Strategies nutrient limits (a concentration of TN or TP x a point source's design capacity/flow) & are written into NPDES permits
• Only allowed to buy credits to maintain cap… or if a new or expanded plant, to get offsets (& have to prove that you can get offsets for next 20 years)
• 3 trading regions: Potomac, Patuxent, Eastern/Western Shore Tributary Basins (including Susquehanna)
• Ways to get reductions: find reductions in your own plant, buy credits from other sewage treatment plants that are below their caps, pay for a little guy to upgrade their treatment, pay for a little guy to reduce their discharge to 0 (retire) or to connect all their discharge to a big plant, pay for septic system folks to connect to a treatment plant (but this only gets TN credits), spray poo (“land application of wastewater w/ pre-treatment & nutrient management controls”)
• A credit is a lb of N or P/yr delivered to the Chesapeake Bay
• Credits are valid for one calendar year & can’t be banked
• Major PT has to do Enhanced N Removal technology before they can trade, but this technology is paid for by MD taxpayers via “flush tax”
• Allows interstate trading
• MDE will initially maintain a database of credits generated & traded
• Appendix A has a nice list of all major PT sources, their design capacity (in MGD), their 06 flow – shows how close WWTPs are to their max capacity (@ which point, caps become a reality)
• MDE estimates use 9.5 lbs/yr TN/person and 0.23 lbs/yr TN/person
• This is phase I of the policy (PT to PT). Phase II is PT-NPS.
• Caps are Tributary Strategies nutrient limits (a concentration of TN or TP x a point source's design capacity/flow) & are written into NPDES permits
• Only allowed to buy credits to maintain cap… or if a new or expanded plant, to get offsets (& have to prove that you can get offsets for next 20 years)
• 3 trading regions: Potomac, Patuxent, Eastern/Western Shore Tributary Basins (including Susquehanna)
• Ways to get reductions: find reductions in your own plant, buy credits from other sewage treatment plants that are below their caps, pay for a little guy to upgrade their treatment, pay for a little guy to reduce their discharge to 0 (retire) or to connect all their discharge to a big plant, pay for septic system folks to connect to a treatment plant (but this only gets TN credits), spray poo (“land application of wastewater w/ pre-treatment & nutrient management controls”)
• A credit is a lb of N or P/yr delivered to the Chesapeake Bay
• Credits are valid for one calendar year & can’t be banked
• Major PT has to do Enhanced N Removal technology before they can trade, but this technology is paid for by MD taxpayers via “flush tax”
• Allows interstate trading
• MDE will initially maintain a database of credits generated & traded
• Appendix A has a nice list of all major PT sources, their design capacity (in MGD), their 06 flow – shows how close WWTPs are to their max capacity (@ which point, caps become a reality)
• MDE estimates use 9.5 lbs/yr TN/person and 0.23 lbs/yr TN/person
Thursday, April 3, 2008
Nutrient trading in PA - why it's not gangbusters
Summary of a 2/21 PA Senate Republican Policy Committe public hearing on Chesapeake Bay Tributary Strategy
Interesting meeting with testimony from PA DEP, local gov wastewater treatment plant rep's, municipalities/builders/agricultural trade org's, env org, & EPA. Here's some of the speculation for why nutrient trading isn't gangbusters:
Interesting meeting with testimony from PA DEP, local gov wastewater treatment plant rep's, municipalities/builders/agricultural trade org's, env org, & EPA. Here's some of the speculation for why nutrient trading isn't gangbusters:
- it's new, it'll take time for folks to adopt (DEP)
- vauge It's not applicable to us/ we don't feel it's a viable option at this time (local gov's)
- no fair that sewer rate payers have to pay for nutr reductions, can we get state money for it (local gov's)
- uncertainty of having to buy nutr credits on annual basis (price fluctuations), uncertainty of tangible result of nutr credits (local gov)
- PT sources haven't felt the heat yet - reg's not in full force until 2010, some WWTP's haven't reached max capacity/nutrient cap yet
- there's not enough #s of P credits avail (municipalities org)
- nutr trading isn't financially competitive with WWTP upgrades (builders org, nutr trading co, env org)
Current price of nutr credits: $9/lb for N, $4/lb for P (Red Barn Trading Co.)
Audio of the meeting
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
