As California plots its carbon course to 2030, alternatives to its existing cap-and-trade program are getting some consideration. “The oil industry is in the funny position now of needing to work hard to get stronger authority for cap and trade to continue in its current form,” said Chris Busch, director of research at the consulting firm Energy Innovation. “That’s what the Brown administration would like, too.”

Hal Harvey has been a champion for low-carbon solutions, and a rare optimistic voice about our ability to tackle climate change. We asked Harvey where he gets his optimism, what the United States and China can learn from each other when it comes to reducing energy use and emissions, and what he’s learned from being a juror for the Paulson Prize since 2013.

Land-constrained Northeastern states looking for creative solutions to decarbonize their electricity system and maintain affordable, reliable electricity service have renewed interest in an old resource: imported Canadian hydroelectricity. Two recent policies from Massachusetts and New York have spurred this interest:

California fortified its role as a global leader in climate policy with the passage of Senate Bill (SB) 32 and Assembly Bill (AB) 197 on Sept. 8, establishing a new ceiling on emissions in 2030 under SB 32 – 40 percent below 1990 levels. While these new laws clearly demonstrate California’s unprecedented ambition to decarbonize its economy, they also raise questions about their implications for California’s cap-and-trade system.

Sonia Aggarwal, Director of Strategy at Energy Innovation who leads the firm’s work on transformation of the energy sector and energy policy solutions, recently shared some of her thoughts on performance-based utility regulation with Midwest Energy News.

It is highly likely that California’s cap-and-trade program post-2020 will be enabled under the state’s new SB-32 and AB-197 bills, as it is a necessary part of a policy package maximizing net social benefits. However, policymakers will have to make some adjustments to cap-and-trade program design regarding, for example, new limits on out-of-state offsets and how allowances are to be allocated post-2020.

California has fortified its role as a global leader in climate policy with passage of Senate Bill (SB) 32 and Assembly Bill (AB) 197. On Sept. 8, Governor Jerry Brown signed these bills into law, establishing a new ceiling on emissions in 2030 under SB 32 – 40% below 1990 levels – and new rules guiding regulators on how to accomplish emission reductions.

California will now be the nation’s example for reducing climate change after Governor Jerry Brown signed sweeping legislation yesterday. AirTalk spoke with Sacramento Bee reporter David Siders, environmental policy analyst Chris Busch, and local business advocate Louis Baglietto about what the California’s new climate change law means and what you need to know about it.

California will become a petri dish for international efforts to slow global warming under legislation signed by Gov. Jerry Brown on Thursday, forcing one of the world’s largest economies to squeeze into a dramatically smaller carbon footprint. The legislation, SB 32, requires the state to slash greenhouse gas emissions to 40% below 1990 levels by 2030.

British utility regulators are in the midst of a major change as they seek to spur £32 billion of upgrades to the country’s aging distribution networks by decade’s end. To achieve its goals, the government’s utility regulator, Ofgem, has put the responsibility squarely on the utilities, which need to develop robust business plans informed by engagement with their customers.

On Tuesday, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) released the latest quarterly allowance auction results for California’s cap-and-trade program. While demand rose compared to the previous auction in May, a majority of allowances still went unsold due to uncertainty over the program’s future past 2020 – suggesting policymakers should take action, not solace, from better August auction results.

Following more than a year of legislative toing and froing, California’s leaders agreed this week on how ambitious the state will be in the fight against climate change after 2020. The legislation will require Californian agencies take steps needed to reduce greenhouse gas pollution by 40 percent in 2030, compared with 1990 levels.

California lawmakers cast key votes Tuesday for ambitious climate pollution reduction goals after 2020 — shortly before learning that an auction held under a program designed to help achieve those goals had flopped, hinting at major challenges ahead.

In 2004, Colorado voters bet on the outcome of costs dropping for wind and solar energy as they were used more — and it looks like the initiative’s promise is coming to fruition. Today, around 6,000 gigawatt hours (GWh) of generation from Colorado coal plants could be replaced with 2 gigawatts of wind while reducing costs passed onto ratepayers — without threatening reliability.

Market failures, political barriers, and other challenges help illustrate why many policies affect only limited segments of the economy. A broad spectrum of policies designed to overcome these market flaws can better arm policy makers with the tools they need to tackle climate change.

The EPA and the U.S. Transportation Department on Tuesday issued regulations that require trucks become more efficient through 2027. The final rules achieve 10 percent more carbon emission and fuel-consumption reductions than last year’s proposed rules, likely raising the price tag price for such vehicles but cutting operating costs.

A carbon tax would be very useful to help solve climate change, but isn’t the only solution — and indeed, it actually works quite poorly in certain parts of the economy, for three reasons: Some sectors are essentially indifferent to pricing; some consumers (including most industries) are likewise largely indifferent; and the politically realistic ceilings of a carbon tax are below meaningful effects in many economy sectors.

Recent reports on California’s cap-and-trade program could mislead observers to conclude the system is “collapsing” and undergoing a “meltdown.” But hyperbole isn’t reality, and quite the contrary, the state’s climate policy is succeeding — California is just 3 percent above its 2020 goal of reducing emissions to 1990 levels as required by AB 32. Meeting California’s 2020 greenhouse gas emissions goal is turning out to be easier and cheaper than expected.

Recent reports on California’s cap-and-trade program could mislead observers to conclude the system is “collapsing” and undergoing a “meltdown.” But the most recent data show California is just three percent above its 2020 goal of reducing emissions to 1990 levels as required by AB 32. Meeting California’s 2020 greenhouse gas emissions goal is turning out to be easier and cheaper than expected.

California companies that refine gas, make cheese and build satellites may face bigger bills in the state’s underperforming cap-and-trade market very soon. But their counterparts that extract oil from the earth, turn wood into paper or produce fertilizer are in line for a longer cap-and-trade honeymoon.