Climate hawks thought they had scored a major victory in 2007 when six Midwestern states and the Canadian province of Manitoba agreed to an economy-wide carbon cap-and-trade program. He was seen by many as a forerunner of federal action.
More than a decade later, the Midwestern Greenhouse Gas Reduction Agreement represents just the opposite.
Cap and trade failed in Congress and was never implemented in the Midwest. One-time Republican supporters such as former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty have withdrawn their support. Instead of implementing a regional emissions reduction program, Republican lawmakers and governors elected in the 2010 GOP wave continued to fight the Clean Power Plan, former President Obama's initiative to curb carbon emissions from power plants.
Even former supporters admit that the idea of a Midwestern cap-and-trade program now seems far-fetched.
“I think we're probably a long way from going back to that point,” said former Wisconsin Gov. Jim Doyle, a Democrat who led efforts to implement the regional climate plan.
The Midwest's reversal on cap and trade demonstrates the broader challenges facing U.S. climate hawks. While states on the East and West coasts have sought to take up the mantle of climate action during the Trump administration, plans to curb emissions in the Midwest are particularly rare. Minnesota is the only Midwestern member of the US Climate Alliance, a coalition of 16 states and Puerto Rico seeking to meet the goals of the Paris climate agreement. (It's also the only state in the country that requires utilities to estimate the damage of carbon pollution.)
However, the Midwest represents a large slice of America's emissions pie. Coal and manufacturing, although in decline, remain critical cogs in the region's economy and major greenhouse gas emitters. Four of America's top 10 carbon-emitting states came from the region in 2015, according to the most recent federal data.
Politics explains much of the region's climate complacency.
“All the governors, except the Governor. [Mark] Dayton, Minnesota, they're all Republicans who seem to be caught up in the wave of denial of climate reality and climate action,” said Howard Learner, executive director of the Environmental Law & Policy Center in Chicago.
It wasn't always like that. Carbon reduction strategies like cap and trade once enjoyed broad bipartisan appeal. Two Republican governors, George Pataki of New York and Mitt Romney of Massachusetts, spearheaded the creation of the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, a cap-and-trade program covering the energy sector in 10 northeastern states. Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) endorsed the idea during his 2008 presidential campaign. When Doyle proposed the Midwest Greenhouse Gas Reduction Agreement, one of his main allies was Pawlenty.
The idea was an extension of efforts to curb acid rain decades earlier, when emissions trading programs for pollutants such as nitrogen dioxide and sulfur dioxide were incorporated into the Clean Air Act.
“Everybody acted like it was some big, new idea,” Doyle said. “It didn't look that different from sulfur dioxide or nitrous oxide.”
A combination of political and economic factors ultimately eroded Republican support for the idea. The Depression hit, decimating the Midwest's industrial base. Political leaders of both parties feared any measure could raise electricity costs and hinder the region's recovery. At the same time, fossil fuel interests poured money into Republican campaigns, promoting the idea that climate change was a hoax and fueling fears of government overreach.
“They definitely poisoned the well in the short term,” Doyle said.
Another driving factor also disappeared: the prospect of federal action. Much of the support for the Midwestern Greenhouse Gas Reduction Agreement was based on the idea that it was merely a precursor to federal action, said Doug Scott, who participated in the negotiations as director of the Illinois EPA.
“One of the goals was, if we think this is coming, we can try to come up with a state program,” said Scott, now vice president of strategic initiatives at the Great Plains Institute.
Instead, cap and trade died in Congress, and Democrats endured a disaster at the polls in 2010. In the Midwest, Doyle retired, then-Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm was term-limited, and former Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius went to Washington to serve in the Obama administration. Her successor, Mark Parkinson, was defeated in 2010, as was Iowa Gov. Chet Culver. Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich soon became embroiled in a corruption scandal, and Democrats lost control of the corner office in Springfield to Republican Bruce Rauner in 2014.
Pawlenty, for his part, repudiated his support for cap and trade as part of a failed presidential bid in 2012, calling the idea “pure” and “wrong.”
“I would argue that one of the other things that limited MGGRA and a lot of state climate policy is that the embrace was largely done by an individual governor,” said Barry Rabe, a professor of public policy at the University of Michigan. “There wasn't the resilience or resilience of a legislature really attractive.”
If the region has taken a step back on the political front, climate hawks are quick to point to a change in the attitude of Midwestern utilities. Power companies across the region have continued to shutter coal plants and embrace renewable energy even after President Trump took office.
Michigan's two largest utilities have pledged to cut carbon emissions by 80 percent by 2050, largely by closing coal plants. In November, We Energies announced plans to shut down its Pleasant Prairie coal-fired power plant outside Kenosha, Wis., and bring 350 megawatts of solar power online.
Wind power now accounts for 36 percent of Iowa's electricity generation and nearly 30 percent of Kansas' electricity generation, according to industry statistics. Xcel Energy Inc. Minnesota-based expects wind power to generate most of its electricity across the utility's eight-state service area by 2021.
These trends have led to a reduction in carbon emissions. Estimates from the Environmental Law and Policy Center show that Illinois is 81 percent of the way toward meeting its goals under the Clean Power Plan, even though the regulation was killed by the Trump administration. In Michigan, the group estimates that figure to be 91 percent.
It could also herald a political change. The argument for renewables is easier when the cost of wind and solar is falling, the Greens said.
“Market forces are pretty compelling now,” said Stanley “Skip” Pruss, who led the Michigan Department of Energy, Labor and Economic Development under Granholm. “In the absence of political leadership, we need to tap and leverage the business community to make them advocates for clean energy. That's our best vehicle moving forward.”
But political leadership matters, which is why Pruss and the other Greens are looking wistfully at a series of competitive governor's races in the Midwest this year.
But even these struggles illustrate the region's evolving climate position. Renewable energy has a broad base of political support because it provides local economic benefits in addition to reducing pollution, greens said. While opposition over the position remains, many said they expect the Democratic candidates to promote renewable energy as an opportunity to promote a domestic energy industry in a region where fossil fuel mining is scarce.
As for the cap and trade reports on the campaign trail? Don't bet on listening to many.
“Policy experts recognize that pricing carbon is one of the most effective ways to accelerate the transition to renewable energy,” said Kate Madigan, deputy policy director for the Michigan Environmental Council. “I don't know if it's something people follow who don't think about climate change all the time.”
