IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/rff/report/rp-24-10.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Regulatory Options for an Enforceable Cap-and-Invest Program in Maryland

Author

Listed:
  • Burtraw, Dallas

    (Resources for the Future)

  • Hafstead, Marc

    (Resources for the Future)

  • Rennert, Kevin

    (Resources for the Future)

Abstract

Climate change is the defining environmental problem of our time. Recent assessment reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the US government have highlighted the urgency of reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to net zero (and beyond) in the next few decades to avoid the most catastrophic effects of climate change.Eliminating GHG emissions throughout the global economy will entail comprehensive actions to reshape society’s approach to producing and using energy. Shifting to complete reliance on low- and zero-emissions sources of energy will require substantial investments in technology and infrastructure. Such investments could simultaneously drive economic growth and deliver environmental benefits in disproportionately impacted communities. We use the term disproportionately impacted communities throughout this report to refer to both overburdened and underserved communities, as defined by Maryland’s Climate Solutions Now Act (CSNA). Accomplishing a rapid energy transition—and doing so in a way that seizes the economic opportunity of that transition—will require a supportive policy framework.The state of Maryland has already taken significant policy steps to guide its own transition. Reductions in emissions from the power sector are guided by Maryland’s membership in the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) and further supported by the state’s renewable portfolio standard (RPS). Efforts to address transportation emissions include the forthcoming Advanced Clean Cars II rule, under which the share of zero-emissions vehicles will reach 100 percent of new-vehicle sales by 2035, and the Advanced Clean Truck rule (effective in 2027). Building energy performance standards will require a 20 percent reduction in direct GHG emissions from existing large buildings by 2030, relative to 2025.Maryland’s efforts to reduce emissions also benefit from existing sector-specific federal mitigation policies: for the power sector, tax credits for solar, wind, and other low-carbon generation; for the transportation sector, electric vehicle and sustainable fuel credits, electric vehicle infrastructure investments, and GHG emissions standards for light-, medium-, and heavy-duty vehicles; for the residential sector, energy efficiency home tax credits and other consumer tax credits; and for the industrial sector, incentives for clean hydrogen and carbon capture and storage.As required by the Climate Solutions Now Act (CSNA), the Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE) released its Climate Pollution Reduction Plan in December 2023, outlining policy actions to reach the state’s ambitious climate goals: reducing GHG emissions by 60 percent from 2006 levels by 2031, achieving 100 percent clean energy by 2035, and reaching net-zero emissions by 2045. Highlights of the plan include the following:completing the transition away from coal-fired power plants;scaling up renewable infrastructure, including solar, wind, and battery power;providing more incentives for consumers to choose electric when they replace vehicles and expanding charging infrastructure;advancing energy-efficient retrofitting of 9,000 existing buildings and helping consumers electrify their homes by switching to heat pumps, electric water heaters, and electric appliances; andelectrifying school buses, transit buses, and government fleet vehicles.As part of the plan, MDE has committed to explore an economy-wide cap-and-invest program “to complement targeted investments and sectoral standards, while providing a sustainable revenue source for state-funded community investments.” The program would aim to drive investments in energy infrastructure that enable reductions in climate pollution, to place a declining cap on such pollution, and to auction emissions allowances to raise proceeds to support program-related goals. The program could prioritize investments in disproportionately impacted communities. Further, it could provide resources to make the transition affordable for businesses and households.This report outlines options for the design of such an economy-wide cap-and-invest program. We draw on both policy science literature and experience in existing emissions markets. Market-based mechanisms that place a price on emissions are an effective tool to incentivize cost-effective emissions reductions because they give private parties the flexibility to reduce emissions where it is least expensive to do so. An emissions cap boosts confidence that the climate plan goals, and the overall emissions reduction target, will be achieved. Adding the investment framework can provide incentives to leverage federal and private funds to achieve the goals and place equity for small businesses and low- and moderate-income households at the front of the energy transformation. However, in designing this emissions cap-and-invest program, policymakers face many decisions that will influence its fairness, effectiveness, and enforceability.

Suggested Citation

  • Burtraw, Dallas & Hafstead, Marc & Rennert, Kevin, 2024. "Regulatory Options for an Enforceable Cap-and-Invest Program in Maryland," RFF Reports 24-10, Resources for the Future.
  • Handle: RePEc:rff:report:rp-24-10
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.rff.org/documents/4562/Report_24-10_v3.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Burtraw, Dallas & Keyes, Amelia, 2018. "Recognizing Gravity as a Strong Force in Atmosphere Emissions Markets," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 47(2), pages 201-219, August.
    2. Hernandez-Cortes, Danae & Meng, Kyle C., 2023. "Do environmental markets cause environmental injustice? Evidence from California’s carbon market," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 217(C).
    3. Burtraw, Dallas & McCormack, Kristen, 2017. "Consignment auctions of free emissions allowances," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 107(C), pages 337-344.
    4. Dallas Burtraw & Charles Holt & Karen Palmer & William Shobe, 2022. "Price-Responsive Allowance Supply in Emissions Markets," Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, University of Chicago Press, vol. 9(5), pages 851-884.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Keppler, Jan Horst & Quemin, Simon & Saguan, Marcelo, 2022. "Why the sustainable provision of low-carbon electricity needs hybrid markets," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 171(C).
    2. Jae‐Do Song, 2023. "Excessive banking preference in emissions trading," Managerial and Decision Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 44(1), pages 448-458, January.
    3. Burtraw, Dallas & Holt, Charles & Palmer, Karen & Shobe, William M., 2020. "Quantities with Prices: Price-Responsive Allowance Supply in Environmental Markets," RFF Working Paper Series 20-17, Resources for the Future.
    4. Cleary, Kathryne & Palmer, Karen & Burtraw, Dallas, 2022. "Lessons from the Literature for State Carbon Pricing Policy Design," RFF Reports 22-01, Resources for the Future.
    5. Estelle Cantillon & Aurélie Slechten, 2024. "Market Design for the Environment," NBER Chapters, in: New Directions in Market Design, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    6. Yoon, Beomseok & Filipski, Mateusz & Landry, Craig E. & Yoo, Seung Jick, 2024. "Endowment effects, expectations, and trading behavior in carbon cap and trade," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 139(C).
    7. Hongpeng Guo & Zhihao Lv & Junyi Hua & Hongxu Yuan & Qingyu Yu, 2021. "Design of Combined Auction Model for Emission Rights of International Forestry Carbon Sequestration and Other Pollutants Based on SMRA," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(20), pages 1-18, October.
    8. Quemin, Simon & Trotignon, Raphaël, 2021. "Emissions trading with rolling horizons," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 125(C).
    9. Lebeau, Alexis & Petitet, Marie & Quemin, Simon & Saguan, Marcelo, 2024. "Long-term issues with the Energy-Only Market design in the context of deep decarbonization," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 132(C).
    10. Ivan Rudik & Derek Lemoine & Antonia Marcheva, 2025. "Equity and Efficiency in the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law’s Adaptation Investments," Environmental and Energy Policy and the Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 6(1), pages 65-100.
    11. Liu, Yun & Tan, Bowen, 2021. "Consignment auctions revisited," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 203(C).
    12. Keyang Zhan & Zhengning Pu, 2025. "Carbon market and emission reduction: evidence from evolutionary game and machine learning," Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 12(1), pages 1-18, December.
    13. Li, Zhi & Zhang, Da & Zhang, Xiliang, 2022. "Emissions Trading with Consignment Auctions: A Lab-in-the-Field Experiment," EfD Discussion Paper 22-10, Environment for Development, University of Gothenburg.
    14. Christian A. Vossler & Timothy N. Cason & James J. Murphy & Paul J. Ferraro & Todd L. Cherry & George Loewenstein & Peter Martinsson & Jason F. Shogren & Leaf van Boven & Daan van Soest, 2024. "The impact of experiments on environmental policy and natural resource management," Working Papers 2024-05, University of Tennessee, Department of Economics.
    15. Jae-Do Song & Young-Hwan Ahn, 2019. "Cognitive Bias in Emissions Trading," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(5), pages 1-13, March.
    16. Lessmann, Christian & Kramer, Niklas, 2024. "The effect of cap-and-trade on sectoral emissions: Evidence from California," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 188(C).
    17. Paul Picciano & Minghao Qiu & Sebastian D. Eastham & Mei Yuan & John Reilly & Noelle E. Selin, 2023. "Air quality related equity implications of U.S. decarbonization policy," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 14(1), pages 1-11, December.
    18. Doori Kim & Sang‐Ho Lee, 2024. "Environmental policies with the excess burden of public funds and privatisation," Australian Economic Papers, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 63(2), pages 329-349, June.
    19. Kramer, Niklas & Lessmann, Christian, 2023. "The Effects of Carbon Trading: Evidence from California’s ETS," MPRA Paper 116796, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    20. Barbara Annicchiarico & Stefano Carattini & Carolyn Fischer & Garth Heutel, 2022. "Business Cycles and Environmental Policy: A Primer," Environmental and Energy Policy and the Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 3(1), pages 221-253.

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:rff:report:rp-24-10. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Resources for the Future (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/rffffus.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.