Comment Log Display

The comments supersede the previous comments (which were made prior
to viewing the presentation).

1. If the Waxman-Markey Bill passes the Senate and is stronger
than California’s AB32, California [i.e. the Waxman-Markey Bill
that passed the US House of Representatives essentially targets
reductions to 4% below 1990 levels by 2020, while AB 32 proposes to
meet 1990 levels by 2020] will not be able to get approval to
operate a more stringent program;

2. If the Waxman-Markey Bill passes the Senate and is NOT stronger
the California’s AB32, California may get approval to operate a
more stringent program;

3. If California links to other Greenhouse Gas Trading programs
this could be with RGGI states or as part of WCI states and
provinces or internationally;
  
4. If with RGGI states or WCI provinces WCI developed provisions
would guide linking;

5. If international links, it would seem there would need to be
some “harmonization”, i.e. method for determining the specifics of
the linkage, what sectors, one-for-one trading of allowances
permitted, impacts on prices etc.;

6. If the public meeting is about “Linking California's
Cap-and-Trade Program to Other Greenhouse Gas Trading Programs” I
may have additional comments to submit via email during the
meeting.

Daniel M. Ihara, Ph.D.
Department of Economics
Humboldt State University
Arcata, CA 95521