Carbon Market Analyst

North America
US Offset Markets in 2010:
RESEARCH The Road Not Yet Taken
March 1, 2010

TO THE POINT CONTENT

In 2009, the total US offset market was worth $74 million, with 2 Executive summary
19.4 million metric tons of CO2 equivalents (CO2e) in traded 3 Introduction
volumes. Transactions involving credits from the Climate
Action Reserve made up 65% of the total market value. 3 Setting the scene
6 US offset market size
Prices of various types of offsets in the US market fell,
particularly for those credits issued by the Chicago Climate 9 Carbon prices
Exchange, as buyers continued to wait for more policy 10 Supply of US offsets
certainty. However, forward contracts of the Climate
12 Demand for US offsets
Action Reserve-issued credits held steady for most of
the year. 13 2010 forecast
15 Conclusion
The supply of credits in 2009 reached 29 Mt CO2e, a 13% rise
from 2008 and a 63% rise from 2007. This supply is based on
information from Point Carbon’s Carbon Project Manager
North America database of projects.
Point Carbon forecasts growth of 263% in trading volumes in
UPCOMING REPORTS
2010 if cap-and-trade legislation passes, but a leveling off
of growth if the legislation fails to pass. • Carbon 2010: Revenge of the
States

• After Copenhagen: Outlook for

International Negotiations

• US Financial Regulatory Reform

and its Impact on Carbon Markets

Disclaimer

The data provided in this report were prepared by Point Carbon’s Trading Analytics and Research division. Publications of Point Carbon’s Trading
Analytics and Research division are provided for informational purposes only. Prices are indicative and Point Carbon does not offer to buy or
sell or solicit offers to buy or sell any financial instrument or offer recommendations to purchase, hold or sell any commodity or make any
other investment decision. Other than disclosures relating to Point Carbon, the information contained in this publication has been obtained
from sources that Point Carbon believes to be reliable, but no representation or warranty, express or implied, is made as to the accuracy or
completeness of this information. The opinions and views expressed in this publication are those of Point Carbon and are subject to change
without notice, and Point Carbon has no obligation to update either the opinions or the information contained in this publication.

Point Carbon’s Trading Analytics and Research division receives compensation for its reports. Point Carbon’s Trading Analytics and Research
division reports are published on a subscription basis and are not issued at the request of any client of Point Carbon.

POINT CARBON RESEARCH All rights reserved © 2010 Point Carbon

Carbon Market Analyst North America CMA March 1, 2010

Executive summary
While federal cap-and-trade legislation faces an unclear contracts for Climate Action Reserve 2009 vintage
future in the US, a growing number of American offset credits actually gained 13 percent during the year.
projects are moving ahead and generating carbon credits
from greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction projects. These Supplies of offset credits continued to grow unabated.
credits originate from a wide array of project types and In 2009, 29 Mt CO2e in reductions came from US
locations, with the help of verifiers and registries who offset projects, according to Carbon Project Manager
certify the credits to one of a handful of standards. North America, Point Carbon’s North American offset
product which features a database of offset projects
Transactions of credits from US offset projects reached in North America. This supply represents a growth of
19.4 million metric tons of CO2 equivalent (Mt CO2e) 13 percent from 2008, and a 63 percent growth from
in 2009, worth $74 million (see Table 1). To put this 2007. Methane-based reductions comprised the largest
number in perspective, the size of the total US carbon share of supply—49 percent of the total pipeline—with
market, including allowance volumes under the forestry taking up 6 percent. The four major offset
Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) and the standards together shared the bulk of the reductions,
Chicago Climate Exchange, was 841 Mt CO2e, valued with no single standard accounting for a majority of the
at $2.7 billion. Policy uncertainty at the federal level, and reductions in 2009.
consequently a lack of a compliance-driven appetite for
carbon credits, continued to hold the US offset market On the demand side, Point Carbon surveyed a small
back. but influential group of players who possess a good
view of both the sell side and the buy side. Based on
The delay in climate legislation at the federal level also the responses, “pre-compliance” purchases made up
had an effect on credit prices on the spot markets. The 65 percent of the total primary market. The remaining
Chicago Climate Exchange, Voluntary Carbon Standard, purchases were “voluntary,” where the buyers wished
and Climate Action Reserve saw spot prices drop 91 to simply reduce their carbon footprint. When these
percent, 44 percent, and 29 percent respectively findings are applied to the size of the US market, Point
over the course of 2009. On the other hand, forward Carbon finds that the US pre-compliance market traded
$48 million worth of credits in 2009, compared to $26
Table 1: Size of the US offset market in 2009 million for the voluntary market.
Volumes That same research also uncovered that carbon funds
Value ($M)
(Mt CO2e) and aggregators were the main buyers of primary
CCX CFIs 6.4 $5.8 offsets credits, with 39 percent of transactions. They
were followed closely by financial intermediaries at 30
Exchange Based CAR 0.8 $4.0
percent, and then emitters at 25 percent. Far behind
Subtotal 7.2 $9.8
them were individual and organizational retail buyers,
who provided only 6 percent of the primary demand.
CAR 7.2 $48.2
Looking forward to 2010, we break down our growth
VCS 2.1 $9.7
forecast into two different scenarios, one where cap-
OTC and Bilateral
ACR 1.8 $3.5 and-trade passes in June of 2010, and the other where
Markets
Other 1.1 $2.4 it does not. In the first scenario, Point Carbon forecasts
263 percent growth in volume and 321 percent growth
Subtotal 12.2 $63.8
in value year to year. In the other scenario, we see
trading volumes stay flat and market value starting to
Total 19.4 $73.6 level off at 31 percent growth.

2 All rights reserved © 2010 Point Carbon

Carbon Market Analyst North America CMA March 1, 2010

Introduction:
the path ahead
Proponents of a US Climate Bill
could be forgiven for being a little
discouraged. Though still convinced
that sweeping legislation will
eventually pass, many have already
battled through bitter debates, horse
trading, and political theater to come
to what is now a muddled midpoint.
Challenges have come from both the
political right—who fear higher energy
costs, government intrusion, and a
silencing of scientific dissent—as
well as the political left, who contend
that the leading bills are too weak and
bend too closely to Wall Street.
Across party lines, many players
are keenly fixed on one mechanism
within the leading cap-and-trade bills:
carbon offsets. Offsets represent
a reduction of GHG emissions that
would not have happened otherwise.
Offset credits are allowed in most
GHG cap-and-trade systems as
a substitute for an emissions
allowance.
Textbox 1: Cap-and-trade programs and the role of offsets
A cap-and-trade program is a market-based mechanism designed to
reduce the release of greenhouse gases (GHGs) by implementing an
emissions cap. The system administrator issues allowances that are
usually denominated in tons of carbon dioxide, which altogether add up
to the targeted emissions totals. Allowances can be allocated freely or
auctioned.
For each ton of CO2e that a company emits, it must turn in one allowance
(known as “true-up”). To meet their cap, regulated entities can choose
to reduce emissions internally or purchase additional allowances. If a
facility over-achieves its target, it can sell its excess allowances. In this
way, the system allows the entities with the lowest marginal cost of
GHG abatement to benefit, allowing others with higher costs to purchase
allowances on the market.
A third option allows covered entities in a cap-and-trade program to use
carbon offset credits to meet their commitments in place of allowances.
Offset credits originate from project-based activities in uncapped sectors,
and represent GHG emission reductions additional to what would happen
in a business as usual scenario. This is known as “additionality.” An
offset credit is a tradable carbon instrument equal to one metric ton of
CO2 equivalent emission reductions (CO2e). Retiring an offset effectively
reduces emissions, and therefore reduces the obligation to purchase one
incremental allowance.

Offsets have also become a flashpoint

for debate and criticism. Opponents
question whether the reductions are
“real”, or above and beyond business
as usual. Others also see offsets as
a modern day indulgence, and would
prefer emitters internally reduce their
own emissions.
In contrast, supporters point to the
benefits of offsets and argue that they
help achieve emission reductions at a
lower overall cost. They do so across
many countries and industries, many
of which are otherwise uncapped.
They help fund clean technology
development and address complex
emissions sources such as forestry
and agriculture.
Despite so much attention, offsets
are also one of the least understood
aspects of US carbon trading. Often
transacted in private over-the-counter
(OTC) bilateral or brokered contracts,
US-generated offset credits are
difficult to track and analyze. Carbon
allowances in emissions trading
schemes, on the other hand, usually
trade on open financial exchanges.
Publically available research into
offsets has generally taken an
international approach, focusing on
global voluntary offset markets or
the Clean Development Mechanism,
rather than on the US market
exclusively.
This report endeavors to fill that
information gap. Point Carbon has
combined the data from Carbon
Project Manager North America, our
database of North American offset
projects, with the market expertise
from leading players to provide
the most accurate, complete, and
concise overview of the offset
market for US projects available.
Setting the scene:
The landscape of US
offset projects
In the face of policy uncertainty,
organizations have begun to develop
and market offset credits in the US.
These credits originate from a wide
array of project types and locations,
with the help of verifiers and registries
that certify the credits to one of a
handful of standards. Buyers, who
range from utilities to financial traders
to individual retail buyers, purchase
credits either to reduce their carbon
footprint voluntarily, or to purchase
with the hopes that they can be used
in the future for compliance in a future
US cap-and-trade program (see Textbox
1). Generally, the former are called
“voluntary buyers” and the latter are
called “pre-compliance buyers.”

3 All rights reserved © 2010 Point Carbon

Carbon Market Analyst North America
A diversity of types and
standards
In the US, buyers making an offset
purchase decision have to sift through
a wide selection of credits. One of
the most important considerations
is the type of project. In the US,
methane capture projects originating
from landfills, agricultural livestock,
or coal mines are among the most
common. However, forests also play
a central role in the US offset market
by sequestering atmospheric carbon.
Other active categories include
destruction of industrial gases,
enhanced oil recovery (EOR), soil
sequestration, renewable energy,
and energy efficiency (see Textbox 2).
Buyers also navigate through
the many different standards
organizations which provide often
unique methodologies for calculating,
monitoring, and certifying offset
credits (see Table 2). Leading
standards organizations in the US
include the Climate Action Reserve
(CAR), Voluntary Carbon Standard
(VCS), Chicago Climate Exchange
(CCX), American Carbon Registry
(ACR), and The Gold Standard (GS).
The Regional Greenhouse Gas
Initiative (RGGI) standard at the time
of this report had not issued any tons.
Market players: A supporting
ecosystem emerges
There are a number of organizations
that play a role in bringing offsets into
the hands of final buyers. The most
crucial role is that of developer. A
project developer generally oversees
installation of the emission reduction
activity, and is the original owner
of the offset credits. The role of
developer can overlap with other roles,
such as the entity that owns the site
of the reductions (such as a landfill
owner), or an aggregator that buys
and packages offsets together from
many different projects, to then sell
the credits to buyers. A verifier acts as
4 All rights reserved © 2010
CMA March 1, 2010
Textbox 2: Offset project types
Carbon capture and storage: Projects that capture CO2 and inject it
underground in subsurface geologic formations for long-term storage. In
this stage of the market, enhanced oil recovery (EOR) is the only form of
CCS that has generated offsets. EOR involves the injection of CO2 into an
oil field to increase extraction of the crude, sequestering the CO2 under
the ground.
Coal mine methane: Projects that reduce the GHG emissions associated
with released methane during the coal mining process. The methane can
be flared, combusted for energy generation, or piped out as natural gas
after purification.
Energy efficiency: Projects that reduce the overall demand for energy,
typically achieved by using more efficient products or processes. Examples
include energy-efficient buildings and installation of compact fluorescent
light bulbs.
Forestry: Projects that enable sequestration and storage of atmospheric
carbon dioxide in the biomass of a growing forest stand and its soils.
Forestry projects include afforestation, reforestation, avoided deforestation,
and forest management. Afforestation is the process of converting land
that has not been forested for at least a generation to forested land.
Reforestation is the process of restoring forests on land that previously
was forested. Avoided deforestation (also known as conservation, or
REDD—reduced emissions from deforestation and degradation) is the
protection of existing forests. Forest management is more generally based
on harvesting techniques and restoration which increase the carbon stock
of a forest.
Industrial processes: Projects that capture and destroy industrial pollutants
such as hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and ozone
depleting substances (ODS), each of which have a global warming potential
hundreds or thousands of times greater than CO2.
Landfill methane: Projects that capture the methane emitted by the
decomposition of waste in landfills. The biogas, which contains large
amounts of methane, can be flared, combusted for energy generation, or
piped out as natural gas after purification.
Livestock methane: Projects that capture the methane from livestock
manure, typically from cattle or swine. The methane can be flared,
combusted for energy generation, or piped out as natural gas after
purification.
Renewable energy: Projects that displace fossil fuel-based electricity and
energy with generation from renewable sources. Examples include wind
power, solar power, hydroelectric power, and biofuels.
Soil sequestration: Projects that remove GHGs from the atmosphere by
capturing and storing those GHGs in soils. No-till agriculture is the primary
way this has been employed in the US.
Point Carbon
Carbon Market Analyst North America CMA March 1, 2010

Table 2: Prominent offset standards in the US

Chicago Climate,
Voluntary Carbon Climate Action American
Gold Standard Climate Community &
Standard Reserve Carbon Registry
Exchange Biodiversity
Accounting CDM CDM 10 CAR specific 10 CCX ACR, CDM, VCS, 17 Criteria
Methodology methodologies methodologies project protocols, specific project EPA Climate
1 forthcoming protocols Leaders protocols
Registry Administered Administered by APX, Administered by Not available to Administered by Administered
by APX Markit Environmental, APX public ACR by CCBA
Caisse des Dépôts
Credits issued for 0 0.7 1.4 5.3 7.9 Does not
2008 Reductions in issue credits
US (Mt) (as of 2/22/10)
Credits issued for 0 1.3 0.5 1.9 2.9 Does not
2009 Reductions in issue credits
US (Mt) (as of 2/22/10)
Sources: Carbon Project Manager North America, APX, Markit Environmental, Caisse des Dépôts, CCBA, Gold Standard, VCS, CCX, ACR

a third party auditor to ensure proper

reduction measurement is performed,
and that the project is eligible for offset
creation.
On the financial side, liquidity
providers like brokers and exchanges
bring buyers and sellers together,
while traders typically buy and sell on
an exchange.
Along the way, the process is
aided by lawyers, consultants, and
information providers that offer expert
analysis and advice. Registries also
bring transparency and legitimacy to
the offsets markets, by registering
projects and ensuring that double
counting does not occur. For more on
roles of market participants, see our
2008 report, Business Opportunities
in the Carbon Market.
The architecture of credit
trading
For the offset market, one can
either purchase credits through
an exchange such as the Chicago
Climate Futures Exchange (CCFE), or
purchase them “off exchange” on the
over-the-counter (OTC) market.
Textbox 3: Market structure definitions
Exchange traded markets: In these markets, credits are purchased
either by traders, or by brokers who act on behalf of buyers and sellers.
Exchanges typically publicly disclose volume and pricing information for
the standardized contracts. The exchange itself guarantees that orders will
be filled if the counterparty is unable to fulfill the order.
Over-the-counter (OTC) markets: OTC transactions are not performed on
an exchange, but rather can be executed bilaterally through two different
counterparties, or brought together by a third party such as a broker. These
transactions cater to small or non-uniform markets, which cannot easily
conform to a standardized exchange contract.
Spot contracts: These contracts can be sold on or off exchange, allowing
buyers to purchase issued credits with cash, and have it delivered
immediately.
Futures contracts: A standardized and fungible contract that is traded on
an exchange, which obligates the buyer to deliver the credits at a pre-
determined time in the future and at a pre-determined price.
Forward markets: A non-standardized contract negotiated OTC which
obligates the seller to deliver the credits at a pre-determined time in the
future at a pre-determined price to the buyer.
Option contracts: These contracts can be sold on and off exchange, and
allow the buyer the right—but not the obligation—to buy or sell a credit at
a pre-determined price, by a pre-determined time in the future. While the
buyer pays a premium for this right, the seller has the obligation to fulfill
the order at that price if the buyer exercises the option. An option to buy a
commodity is called a “call,” while an option to sell is called a “put.”

5 All rights reserved © 2010 Point Carbon

Carbon Market Analyst North America
The Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX)
is a hybrid organization that contains
a voluntary but legally binding cap-
and-trade system. As in a traditional
emissions trading scheme, emitters
can either reduce internally or
purchase allowances called Carbon
Financial Instruments (CFIs), which
are denominated in metric tons of
CO2. Offsets can also be issued by
the CCX, and they are also called
CFIs. However, the CFI is unique in
that it can represent either an offset
or an allowance. Only members can
trade CFIs on the CCX, and the CCX
only offers spot contracts for CFIs.
The Chicago Climate Futures
Exchange (CCFE) offers futures and
options contracts for CFIs, alongside
a number of other contracts on a
trading platform. Unlike CCX, it does
not feature a captive emissions
scheme. The Green Exchange/
CME Group offers a similar suite of
derivative contracts for environmental
commodities, though it does not
include any contracts for offsets or
CFIs.
Many buyers prefer to transact
in the OTC market, so that they
specify the exact characteristics of
the credits they are purchasing (for
instance, 2008 reductions for CAR-
certified California Forestry). On
the other hand, exchange contracts
tend to be standardized, without the
flexibility to target specific types of
credits. Brokers play a strong role in
these OTC markets, by structuring
transactions and bringing buyers and
sellers together, receiving in payment
a percentage of the transaction value.
Bilateral purchases, where the offset
owner sells privately and directly to
the buyer, are also prominent. In the
OTC market, purchases are typically
arranged through an emissions
reductions purchase agreement
(ERPA). These can take a variety
of forms, but usually stipulate the
price of the reductions, the volumes
expected, and delivery timeframe.
6 All rights reserved © 2010
CMA March 1, 2010
Textbox 4: The Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI)
The Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (commonly known as RGGI –
pronounced “Reggie”) is a regional cap-and-trade regime which formally
began January 1, 2009. The scheme includes 10 US states in the Northeast
United States which have collectively committed to stabilize emissions
from electricity generation by 2014, and thereafter to reduce emissions
10 percent below 2009 levels by 2018. Though managed on a state-by-
state level, an overarching organization (RGGI Inc.) administers much of
the infrastructure across the scheme.
Offsets are allowed in RGGI, with limits of 3.3 percent of total allowance
obligations on a per year basis, rising to 10 percent if allowances prices rise
to $10/short ton. The RGGI system allows five project types, with some
limitations on location of activity and start date. In practice, there are very
few offsets applying for RGGI certification, since RGGI allowance prices
are too low to incentivize demand for offsets.
It is also important to note that RGGI is denominated in short tons, not
metric tons.
Offsets: The sun also Plummeting CFI prices however kept
a lid on the value of those trades,
rises in America since CFI transactions were only
worth 8 percent of the total market.
With support from offset project
These numbers include privately
developers and other market players,
negotiated transactions in addition to
transactions for credits from US
trades where prices were determined
offset projects reached 19.4 million
on the exchange.
metric tons of CO2 equivalents (Mt
CO2e) in 2009, worth $74 million. US CAR and VCS featured prominently
offset volumes were roughly divided in the OTC market. CAR credits
between exchange transactions (known as Climate Reserve Tonnes,
(37 percent) and OTC transactions or CRTs) accounted for 37 percent
(63 percent). Table 3 displays US of total volumes, and 65 percent of
offset market volumes and values market value, reflecting the premium
by standard, exchange, and type of that CRT prices command in the
transaction. market. VCS, though small in terms
of volumes, made up 11 percent of
the value of US offsets.
CAR transactions
accounted for 65 Once allowances are added to the
offset numbers, the overall US
percent of the US offset carbon market expands to 841 Mt
market value in 2009 CO2e, worth $2.7 billion. Table 5
shows the breakdown of US volumes
Offsets certified to the CCX and and values, with allowance trades
CAR standards made up most from the CCX, CCFE, and the Green
of the volumes. CFIs (which are Exchange/CME Group.
issued against the CCX standards)
From a global perspective, the US-
cleared through either the CCX or
based offset market is a drop in the
CCFE exchanges, and made up 33
bucket. International carbon trading
percent of the total volumes in 2009.
Point Carbon
Carbon Market Analyst North America CMA March 1, 2010

totaled $136 billion (€94 billion) in

2009, with offset markets making Table 3: 2009 US offset market volumes and values
up $26 billion (€18 billion) of that
amount. US offsets were worth only Volumes (Mt CO2e) Value ($M)
0.2 percent of the global compliance CCX CFIs 6.4 $5.8
offset market. (For more on the global Exchange based CAR 0.8 $4.0
carbon market, please see our report
Subtotal 7.2 $9.8
Carbon 2010).

Obstacles to progress CAR 7.2 $48.2

VCS 2.1 $9.7

Trading volumes from US projects
have a long way to go before meeting OTC and bilateral markets ACR 1.8 $3.5

the market potential. A number of Other 1.1 $2.4

specific issues have held the market Subtotal 12.2 $63.8
back:

Policy uncertainty. Most problematic Total 19.4 $73.6

is the simple issue of policy Sources: Carbon Project Manager North America, CCX, CCFE
uncertainty, particularly for buyers
of compliance-quality offset credits. Table 4: 2009 volumes by type of contract (Mt CO2e)
Without a clear knowledge of the Spot markets Futures/Forwards/Options Total
rules and targets, most buyers—
CCX CFIs 4.6 1.8 6.4
particularly utilities and industrials—
are content to wait rather than risk Exchange based CAR -- 0.8 0.8
purchasing credits that may prove Subtotal 4.6 2.6 7.2
worthless down the road. Speculative
financial buyers that tolerate higher
CAR 1.8 5.3 7.2
risk have picked up some of the slack.
VCS 1.2 0.9 2.1
Lack of transparency. In the complex OTC and bilateral
ACR 1.6 0.2 1.8
US market where the value of an markets
Other 0.8 0.4 1.1
offset credit differs greatly from project
to project, over-the-counter (OTC) Subtotal 5.4 6.7 12.2
markets tend to dominate. One cannot
easily shoehorn a US offset credit Total 10.0 9.4 19.4
into a generic exchange contract, but
Sources: Carbon Project Manager North America, CCX, CCFE
OTC markets are hard to track. To find
pricing and volume information for US Table 5: 2009 total US carbon market
offsets, market participants have to rely
on information providers or brokers. Volumes (Mt CO2e) Market Value ($M)
Exchanges 627 $2,192
Lack of oversight. While offset Regional Greenhouse Gas Auctions 116 $349
registries such as the Climate Action
Initiative Options 22 $21
Reserve and the Voluntary Carbon
Standard have helped provide Subtotal 765 $2,563
guidance, lack of government
oversight has allowed concerns over CCX (CFI spot) 45 $42
offset quality to persist. In particular,
CCFE (CFI Futures, CAR, etc) 19 $21
buyers want to be sure the credits
that they buy are not being sold OTC offsets market 12 $64

twice, and that the credits represent Subtotal 76 $127

real reductions from projects that go
beyond business as usual.
Total 841 $2,690
Illiquidity. The factors listed have Sources: Carbon Project Manager North America, CCX, CCFE, Green Exchange/CME

7 All rights reserved © 2010 Point Carbon

Carbon Market Analyst North America CMA March 1, 2010

Textbox 5: Methodology and sources

There are many assumptions and calculations behind the volume and value figures presented in this report. Below
are the most significant.

Exchange-traded information: The Chicago Climate Exchange and the Green Exchange/CME Group provided raw
data. To calculate the portion of offsets traded in CFI contracts (since CFIs can either be allowances or offsets), we
assume that 15 percent of total spot, futures, and options trades were for offset transactions. This is based on the
statement that 15 percent of reductions by capped CCX members were achieved through the purchase of offsets
(as stated by Stockholm Environment Institute).

To further narrow the offsets volumes down to those only originating from US-based offsets, we multiply the total
CFI offset volume by 68 percent, proportion of US offsets in the total CCX offset pool in 2009.

Prices for spot and futures contracts were based on the average daily price for 2009. For futures, we averaged
the prices of all contracts with 2009 and 2010 settlement dates. Since option prices vary depending on strike
price, length of time, and whether a call or put, Point Carbon took the price (averaged over the year) of the most
commonly traded contract for each unique underlying carbon instrument (CFI, CRT, etc).

For CCX and CCFE options data, we multiplied the volumes by a “delta equivalent” factor to account for the
difference between current price and strike price, which determines how likely it is that the option will be exercised.

OTC information: Our OTC volume calculations combine “bottom-up” and “top-down” approaches. The bottom-up
approach is based on the pipeline of projects in the Carbon Project Manager North America (CPMNA) database,
broken down by standard (CAR, VCS, and others).

For the spot markets, we assume a certain percentage of issued tons traded, (For example, 50%-80% depending
on standard and year of issuance), and the turnover of each of those tons (1.2-1.5 times). We define turnover as the
number of times a specific credit has changed hands over the year. Statistics on American Carbon Registry credits
come from the group’s website.

For the forward market, we assume a percentage of 2009 reductions (based on the CPMNA pipeline) that were
purchased as part of a forward contract, then applied a weighted average number of years of the forward strip
(usually between 2 or 3 years). OTC prices are derived from CPMNA’s monthly price reports. For forward contracts,
we include all volumes for the contract. For example, a three-year strip of 10,000 tons delivered annually, signed
in 2009, was counted as 30,000 in volume for the year 2009.

In the top-down approach, Point Carbon surveyed leading participants to find information on the OTC market.
The participants responded to four questions, the first of which asked about the 2009 market size for US based
projects trading on the OTC market. Responses broke down trading volumes by standard. The survey also required
the participants to break those volumes down by spot vs. forward markets. Point Carbon targeted the handful of
participants that would be able to provide a “total view” of the marketplace. There were a total of 6 participants,
which includes among others, TerraPass, CantorCO2e, and Environmental Credit Corp. The remaining three
participants indicated to Point Carbon that they wished to remain anonymous. Like in the bottom-up approach,
OTC prices were taken from the monthly price reports from the CPMNA product.

The results from both processes were equally weighted with regards to the OTC market (outside of ACR and CCX,
which have publically listed volume data).

Key differences in approaches: The bottom-up and top-down approaches yielded similar results, except for the OTC
spot volumes for CAR and VCS. Point Carbon’s calculations found larger spot volumes than the survey showed.
This difference may arise from the fact that spot credits are more likely to transact in the bilateral market and not
through intermediaries, therefore not as easily in view of the respondents. Looking at the total issued credits
during 2009 and 2008, we assumed a percentage of that amount would be transacted in 2009.

8 All rights reserved © 2010 Point Carbon

Carbon Market Analyst North America CMA March 1, 2010

conspired to hold back demand. On

the other side of the transaction,
Table 6: Over-the-counter US offset prices throughout 2009
sellers have been hesitant to drop
their prices, betting that they can Prices are for US based projects. Price ranges are aggregated from transaction information
provided by buyers, sellers, brokers, and traders of offsets in the US, reported on a monthly basis.
fetch more value after cap-and-trade These prices reflect a primary market price, meaning that the offsets are sold directly from the
passes. Consequently, buyers and project. Point Carbon uses a mid-market price here.
sellers have had trouble meeting
in the middle and agreeing on a OTC spot
transaction price, and bid and ask market $/t OTC forward market $/t
spreads have been wide. (vintage 2008 (2009 vintage CAR credits)
and earlier)
Prices in the US offset CAR VCS Landfill Livestock California California

markets methane methane livestock forestry

methane
Bolstered by the emergence of 1Q09 $7.3 $5.0 $6.3 $6.7 $7.5 --
a variety of new protocols, offset Average
2Q09 $6.0 $4.6 $6.4 $6.7 $7.3 --
registries, and federal cap-and-trade mid-market
bills, US offset markets were set for 3Q09 $5.1 $3.9 $6.6 $7.1 $8.0 $8.3
price
a strong year in 2009. Unfortunately, 4Q09 $5.2 $2.8 $7.2 $7.4 $7.5 $7.8
the positive momentum stopped Source: Carbon Project Manager North America
short as the year progressed. A tough
economic climate and weakening Table 7: Four determinants of offset eligibility
chances for a federal cap-and-trade bill
diminished enthusiasm and demand. Standards Project type Location Vintage
year
Consequently, it was a mixed market.
Prices on the spot market fell for High CAR, RGGI Forestry, Livestock California 2009+
Methane, Coal Mine
US offset credits in 2009. As Table Methane, Landfill
6 illustrates, the mid-market price Methane
for the CAR credits fell 29 percent Eligibility into
Medium VCS, CCX, Soil Sequestration, Small Rest 2001-
over the 12 months. VCS credits fell a mandatory ACR, Gold scale Energy Efficiency, of the 2009
even more steeply, at 44 percent. cap-and-trade Standard, Fuel Switching, Industrial country
CDM Gases
CCX CFIs dropped a staggering 91 regime
percent in 2009 on the exchange Low Project- Renewable Energy, -- Pre-2001
Specific Large Scale Energy
(from $1.65/t to $0.15/t for Vintage Standards Efficiency, Carbon
2008 CFIs). Capture and Storage
Source: Carbon Project Manager North America
On the other hand, some forward
and future markets fared better. The
rose while vintage 2008 spot prices $0.20 to $1.00 beyond the exchange
forward prices for a 2009 vintage
declined. For more on policy, see price. Though prices were negotiated
credit from the Climate Action
Textbox 6. off-exchange, contracts cleared
Reserve—known as Climate Reserve
on-exchange and appeared in the
Tonnes (CRTs)—rose during the Along similar lines, CCX prices fell exchange volume numbers.
year, for both landfill and livestock further than other standards, as it
methane projects. On the CCFE, CRT
contracts for reductions taking place
was unclear whether CFIs would Price determinants
be eligible for early action credits
in 2009 (known as vintage 2009) also in a federal cap-and-trade scheme. Buyers took great care in valuing
rose in value to $7.70 in their initial Low CCX prices then gave way to projects in 2009. This is especially
introductory price of $6.50 in the a two-tiered market for CFIs in the true for those hoping to purchase
spring. For OTC prices, Table 6 shows second half of the year, allowing US credits that will be eligible for future
a breakdown by quarter in 2009. Two offset projects to sell their CFIs in a compliance. For pre-compliance
prominent bills gave 2009 vintage “privately negotiated” deal at a slight credits, there are four main factors
offsets preference in terms of premium to the official exchange that determine value: the project
eligibility versus earlier years, which price. The premium ranged from standard, project type, its location,
explains why 2009 vintage forwards

9 All rights reserved © 2010 Point Carbon

Carbon Market Analyst North America
and the year in which the reduction
took place (also known as vintage).
Table 7 explains eligibility of projects
as determined by policy.
Standards. Certain standards, based
on language in existing federal bills,
would be grandfathered into the
scheme. For instance, the Climate
Action Reserve (CAR) standard is
recognized as eligible in both the
Kerry-Boxer and Waxman-Markey
bills. Therefore, CAR tends to trade
at the highest prices.
Project types. The congressional bills
specifically mention eligible project
types, and with the momentum of
many projects getting off the ground
currently, projects such as forestry
and methane capture from landfills,
livestock waste, and coal mine are
at the top of the list. Table 6 shows
that forestry commands the highest
prices followed by livestock methane
and then landfill methane. Forestry
provides other environmental
services (biodiversity, etc) which
helps it sell at a higher value,
especially in the voluntary markets.
Landfill methane, on the other hand,
trades at a discount since it may be
regulated by the EPA in the future.
This would render it ineligible for
offset creation.
Location. During the year, price tiers
developed between California projects
and those from other states. Buyers
perceived California offsets as a
backstop, since the state government
would fall back on its state-level
climate legislation if federal level policy
failed. All else equal, this created a
$0.50-$1.00/t premium in the forward
market.
Vintage. The preferred vintages were
2009 and beyond, since both pieces
of federal legislation allow those
vintages to be grandfathered into the
scheme on a 1:1 basis. For CAR, this
partly explains why forward markets
gained while the spot markets (which
predominately traded pre-2009
10
CMA March 1, 2010
Textbox 6: Federal cap-and-trade policy and the treatment of offsets
The “Waxman-Markey” Bill: The American Clean Energy and Security Act
(H.R. 2454), also known as the Waxman-Markey Bill, passed out of the
House of Representatives on June 26, 2009, and contained a number of
provisions regarding offsets. For project types, it explicitly lists eligible
categories, but grants final decision-making power to the Environmental
Protection Agency and the US Department of Agriculture. The bill stipulates
that the EPA would regulate all significant sources of methane, which
includes most large landfill methane and coal mine methane projects,
taking away their eligibility as offset projects.
The bill also specifies that standards created through state government
action would be eligible, which included CAR and RGGI standards. There is
no explicit guarantee that the VCS, CCX, ACR, or the Gold Standard would
be eligible.
The text indicates that early action emission reductions which took place
after January 1, 2009 would be eligible for a 1:1 compliance under a federal
scheme in 2012. The projects would need to have started after January 1,
2001. Offsets created before 2009 but after 2001 could be exchanged for
monetary value, based on average value of credits from 2006 – 2009.
The Kerry-Boxer Bill: The Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act
(S. 1733), also known as the Kerry-Boxer bill, passed out of the Senate
Environment and Public Works Committee in November. Like H.R. 2454,
it lists eligible project types, but it also stipulates that many sources of
landfill and coal mine methane would not be directly regulated by law,
allowing those projects to continue to reduce emissions as offset projects.
The Kerry-Boxer bill keeps the same eligibility requirements for offset
standards and vintages. For pre-2009 credits, Kerry-Boxer specifically
sets aside allowances to compensate those that purchased those credits,
which Point Carbon estimates would be close to $525 million dollars.
vintages) fell. likely to be eligible for compliance
under the federal proposals, volume
Rising supplies for an of supply from projects amounted to
22 Mt CO2e.
American appetite
The project pipeline in the CPMNA
The Waxman-Markey and Kerry- database (see Chart 1) shows growth
Boxer bills allow up to 2 billion tons at approximately 3 million metric tons
of offsets to be used for compliance CO2e per year from 2009 to 2012.
each year, much of it coming from Funded by forward-thinking project
domestic sources. Though the developers and carbon funds, the
US supply is growing, it is still far largest year-to-year growth happened
below limits spelled out in federal between 2007 and 2008 as these
legislation. players began to enter the market.
Growth in supply Project types: Methane and
beyond
According to Point Carbon’s database,
carbon offset projects produced 29
Methane capture projects make up
Mt CO2e in 2009. For project types
roughly half of the CPMNA database
All rights reserved © 2010 Point Carbon
Carbon Market Analyst North America CMA March 1, 2010

pipeline in 2009. Landfill gas projects

in particular were most prolific, Chart 1: Supply of US-based offset reductions, Vintage years 2005 to 2010
reducing 9 Mt CO2e in 2009, or 34
percent of the total reductions that 35 Project types
year. In addition, projects which above the dotted
line are not likely
capture methane from livestock 30 to be eligible for
waste or coal mines both produced Federal Cap-and-
Trade
roughly 2 Mt CO2e respectively in 25 Other
2009.
Energy Efficiency

New protocols from CAR, VCS, and 20

Renewable Energy
ACR helped build supply for forestry Mt CO2e Enhanced Oil Recovery
projects as well. The 2009 supply of 15
Forestry
forestry provided less than 2 tons of
Industrial Gases
credits to market, 6 percent of the 10
total. Agricultural Methane

Soil Sequestration
5
A significant portion of supply Coal Mine Methane
volume in 2009 came from enhanced
Landfill Methane
oil recovery projects, though their 0
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
applicability for future cap-and-trade
Source: Carbon Project Manager North America
schemes is still in question. Industrial
gases and soil sequestration projects
have the ability to greatly expand the
Chart 2: 2009 reductions by project type
supply and bring it closer to the limits
set out by legislation, though they are
Renewable Energy Efficiency, Other, 0%
relatively small at the moment. Energy, 4% 3%

Standards: Headed for Forestry, 6%

consolidation?
In 2009, carbon offset standards in
the US exhibited a tendency for both
consolidation and expansion. For
compliance-ready offsets, buyers
displayed increased preference
for the Climate Action Reserve, as
reflected in its growth. However,
Voluntary Carbon Standard, Chicago
Climate Exchange, and American
Carbon Standard continued to play a
strong role in the market. In addition,
a number of standards gained a
foothold, including Green-e climate,
GHG Services, Canadian Standards
Association (ISO 14064) and Climate
Community ad Biodiversity Alliance
(CCBA).
For the four main standards in the
US, 2009 was a pivotal year:
Climate Action Reserve. CAR
accounted for roughly 7 Mt CO2e of
the 2009 reductions. As of Feb 22,
Industrial
Gases, 6%
Livestock
Methane, 7%
Coal Mine
Methane, 8%
Soil
Sequestration,
14%
Source: Carbon Project Manager North America
2010, 0.5 Mt of credits were issued
for vintage 2009 offsets, including
forest management, landfill gas
capture/combustion, and livestock
methane. There were 161 projects
listed on the CAR registry managed
by APX. Chart 3 displays the issued
vs. pipeline volume for CAR for
vintage years 2008 through 2010.
Chicago Climate Exchange. The
Landfill Methane,
34%
Enhanced Oil
Recovery, 17%
CCX had the largest volume and the
second largest number of projects,
with 8 Mt of CO2e of domestic
offset reductions in 2009. The largest
volume within CCX came from soil
sequestration projects. A number of
projects have moved from CCX to
CAR to take advantage of the higher
prices for CAR project credits.
Voluntary Carbon Standard. VCS has

11 All rights reserved © 2010 Point Carbon

Carbon Market Analyst North America CMA March 1, 2010

the fourth largest volume with 2 Mt

CO2e total reductions. The VCS works Chart 3: Issued versus pipeline reductions for CAR and VCS by vintage year
with three registries – APX, Markit
9.0
Environmental, and Caisse des
Dépôts - to list its US and international 8.0
projects. Chart 3 displays the issued
vs. pipeline volume for VCS for years 7.0
2008 through 2010.
6.0

American Carbon Standard. 5.0

Mt CO2e
The standard associated with
the American Carbon Registry 4.0 Pipeline
Issued
recently became a part of Winrock
3.0
International. The ACR pipeline
features enhanced oil recovery 2.0
projects generating most of the
credits, with reforestation projects 1.0

bringing in some additional supply of

0.0
late. VCS CAR VCS CAR VCS CAR

V2008 V2009 V2010

Location: Where does the
Sources: Issued credits are provided by CAR and VCS registries. Pipeline numbers are sourced
supply come from? from Carbon Project Manager North America. Numbers sourced as of 2/22/10.

Figure 1 shows that there are a

number of states that stand to benefit
from carbon offsets. For instance,
states with oil resources have Figure 1: Map of US with offset volumes in 2009
generated offsets from enhanced
oil recovery. Texas is home to nearly
0 - 0.5 Mt CO2 2.0 - 3.0 Mt CO2
4 Mt CO2e reductions in 2009,
most of the volume coming from 0.5 - 1.0 Mt CO2 3.0 - 4.0 Mt CO2
five enhanced oil recovery (EOR) 1.0 - 2.0 Mt CO2
projects. Over 3 Mt CO2e being
generated from Wyoming in 2009,
but similar to Texas, 97 percent of the
state’s reductions are attributable to
three EOR projects.

Another notable source of projects

is California, where expectations
of state-level cap-and-trade have
cultivated a sustainable appetite for
early action projects. Because landfills
will likely be regulated as a stationary
Source: Carbon Project Manager North America
source in California, only six projects
in the state derive reductions from
sway over pricing and transaction
landfill methane capture. California Demand for offsets: Funds volumes.
has the largest concentration of dairy
waste and forestry projects.
do the heavy lifting
However, the demand side is not well
Buyers, ranging from utilities to understood. Aside from registries
Mid-western states have a number
hedge funds to carbon neutral such as the American Carbon
of soil and grassland sequestration
travelers, are a crucial part of the US Registry, which list buyers and
projects, while the states of the
offset market. With many sellers and credits transferred, that side of the
Mississippi Alluvial Valley have many
fewer purchasers, they hold unusual transaction is often unknown. This
opportunities for forestry projects.
section of the report intends to shed

12 All rights reserved © 2010 Point Carbon

Carbon Market Analyst North America
more light on demand by providing
input from surveyed players who see
all sides of the transactions.
Who are the buyers?
Emitters. This category includes
utilities, industrials, refiners, and
manufacturers who are the largest
sources of greenhouse gases.
Financial intermediaries. Hedge
funds, commodity funds, traders,
and banks all fit into this category.
Carbon project developers and
aggregators. These companies
include project developers, carbon
aggregators, and carbon funds. This
group focuses specifically on the
carbon market.
Retail buyers. Included in this
category are organizations or
individuals that hope to reduce or
eliminate their relatively small carbon
footprints.
Our survey asked for the relative
proportion of purchases made in
the primary market by players from
each of these categories. Primary
transactions are defined as purchases
coming directly from the project itself,
when the ownership of the credits has
changed hands for the first time. This
is opposed to secondary transactions,
which occur after the initial purchase
has been made.
According to our survey respondents,
the leading buyers in the primary
market were carbon funds and
developers. They collectively made up
39 percent of transactions, followed
closely by financial intermediaries at
30 percent, and then emitters at 25.
Far behind them were retail buyers,
who provided only 6 percent of the
primary demand (see Chart 4).
The respondents indicated that
emitters have thus far played a
relatively minor role. Given that many
emitters are risk-averse by nature, and
may also not have in-house trading
13
Chart 4: Who were the primary market buyers in 2009?
Retail
Buyers,
6%
Emitters, 25%
Liquidity
Providers, 30%
Source: Survey
expertise, this is not too surprising.
Once policy is in place, their role is
expected to grow considerably.
Retail buyers accounted for only 6
percent of demand, a relatively small
piece of the pie. The primary markets
are not suited for buyers with relatively
small appetites. They may be better
served by purchasing through an
aggregator or website.
Why are they buying?
Our targeted survey asked participants
to provide a view of the buyers’
motivations, dividing purchases of US-
based offset credit into pre-compliance
versus voluntary transactions.
For greater granularity, the survey
separated the answers by standard.
Based on the responses, presented
in Chart 5, purchases of Climate
Action Reserve and the Chicago
Climate Exchange tons were
primarily driven by pre-compliance
buyers. Meanwhile, the VCS and
the American Carbon Registry saw
greater demand from voluntary
buyers for US-based projects.
All rights reserved © 2010
CMA March 1, 2010
Carbon
aggregators &
project
developers,
39%
One surprise was the high level of pre-
compliance buying for CCX projects.
This may be driven by bargain hunters
who see the relatively low prices as
an opportunity to buy an offset that
has a chance for compliance down
the road.
Table 8 shows that in 2009, pre-
compliance volumes were roughly 59
percent of the total volumes and 66
percent of the market in 2009.
2010: Two roads diverged
2010 is expected to be a watershed
year for North American offset
markets. As US federal cap-and-trade
policy approaches a make-or-break
showdown in the Senate, North
American offset markets will react
accordingly. Passage will lead to
growth in supply and trading, while
failure of such legislation will dampen
activity.
Any discussion of a forecast for
US-based offset markets in 2010
is inevitably a policy discussion.
There are four policy questions that
will determine the future of offset
Point Carbon
Carbon Market Analyst North America CMA March 1, 2010

markets:
Chart 5: Pre-compliance vs. voluntary purchases by offset standard
Will cap-and-trade pass? Though
most media outlets have written its Pre-compliance Voluntary
epitaph, cap-and-trade is not dead.
Lindsey Graham (R-SC), Joseph
Lieberman (I-CT), and John Kerry Climate Action Reserve 74% 26%
(D-MA) continue to work towards
a bipartisan climate bill, and have
shown no intention of stopping.
Voluntary Carbon Standard 42% 58%
However, legislative priorities—such
as financial reform, job creation, and
health care—will take up much of the
Senate calendar, meaning that time 40%
Chicago Climate Exchange 60%
is short. Point Carbon maintains a
forecast of 20 percent that a cap-and-
trade program will pass in Congress
in 2010. American Carbon Registry 25% 75%

If a bill passes, what will it look

like? A compromise that manages 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
to pass would likely set lower targets Source: Survey
than the Waxman-Markey bill. Offsets
would also have a strong role in Table 8: Pre-compliance versus voluntary in 2009
most scenarios, given their ability to
benefit agricultural interests. It may 2009 Pre-compliance 2009 Voluntary
possibly morph into a hybrid system Volumes Market Volumes Market
with components of a carbon tax, (Mt CO2e) value ($M) (Mt CO2e) value ($M)
incorporating ideas from “cap-and-
CCX: CFI 3.8 $3.5 2.6 $2.3
dividend” proposals. The most likely
outcome, though, is a simple cap- Contracts
and-trade program limited to the Exchange based CAR: CRT 0.6 $3.0 0.2 $1.0
power sector. Contracts
Subtotal 4.5 $6.4 2.8 $3.3
Will the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) regulate GHGs? The
EPA is under a legal mandate to CAR 5.3 $35.7 1.9 $12.5
proceed via the Clean Air Act with VCS 0.9 $4.1 1.2 $5.6
GHG regulation unless Congress OTC and bilateral
ACR 0.4 $0.9 1.3 $2.7
steps in. EPA regulation may be markets
stopped by Congress or delayed due Other 0.2 $0.5 0.9 $1.9
to legal challenges. Either way, we Subtotal 6.9 $41.2 5.3 $22.6
anticipate the EPA will continue to be
at the heart of the debate, but that
the actual regulation would still be far Total 11.3 $47.6 8.1 $26.0
off. Source: Carbon Project Manager North America, survey

Will the regional programs step

up? RGGI and the Western Climate
Initiative had originally positioned
themselves as a viable alternative
to federal action under the previous
administration. However, state
legislators are to a large extent
experiencing the same qualms
about cap-and-trade as their federal
counterparts, and might not support a
program that could potentially put their
state at a competitive disadvantage.
Nevertheless, if regional programs do
go ahead, we expect their borders will
be re-drawn and narrowed down to a
core group of states.
For more information, please see Point
Carbon’s North American research
reports, including Will the EPA Go All
the Way and Plan B - Going it Alone:
Regional Programs in North America,

14 All rights reserved © 2010 Point Carbon

Carbon Market Analyst North America CMA March 1, 2010

which can be found at http://www.

pointcarbon.com/research/cmana.
Table 9: 2010 for two different scenarios
Market volumes and value in
2010 2010 scenario 1 2010 scenario 2

Based on the input from the Volumes Market Volumes Market

targeted survey, Point Carbon has (t CO2e) value ($) (t CO2e) value ($)
two separate forecasts for 2010, CCX: CFI contracts 19 $17 3 $3
one based on a scenario where cap- Exchange CAR: CRT contracts 4 $20 1 $6
and-trade is passed in June of 2010,
based Subtotal 23 $37 4 $9
and the other assuming it does not
pass. This is further broken down YTY growth 223% 279% -40% -10%
by standard. Point Carbon assumed
2009 prices to remain the same in CAR 35 $237 11 $72
2010, adding only cost-of-carry.
VCS 4 $21 3 $12
OTC and
The two scenarios represent two ACR 3 $5 1 $2
divergent paths that the market could bilateral
Other 5 $10 1 $1
take. In scenario one, tremendous markets
Subtotal 47 $273 15 $88
growth will come with policy
certainty and demand from natural YTY growth 287% 328% 24% 38%
buyers, resulting in 263 percent
growth in volume and 321 percent Total 70 $310 19 $97
growth in value. In scenario two,
trading volume will stay flat with YTY growth 263% 321% -0% 31%

market value beginning to level off

at 31 percent growth. See Table 9 for Source: Carbon Project Manager North America, survey
detail on this forecast.

Conclusion: The road not legislative initiatives. as buyers and developers, and the
market will flourish with renewed
yet taken In the backdrop of tremendous policy vigor.
uncertainty, the next five months will
The year 2009 began with optimism.
define the future of cap-and-trade in Therefore, in the year ahead, anything
US Offset supplies were growing,
the US. If legislation falters, volumes from top to bottom is possible. With
RGGI allowances had begun trading
will slide and developers will look to so much still hidden behind the mist,
in earnest, and Congress was
consolidate in order to survive. If it US offset players could be compared
seriously taking up climate legislation.
succeeds, the offset market will more to pioneers who have “taken a road
Unfortunately, the optimism soon
than triple size in our estimation, less traveled.” It remains to be seen
gave way to uncertainty and a
with the early actors able to enjoy whether the country will follow in
measure of frustration, when
the spoils of their investments. their footsteps, for that will make all
Senators began to prioritize other
Emitters will move aggressively, both the difference.

15 All rights reserved © 2010 Point Carbon

Carbon Market Analyst North America CMA March 1, 2010

Acronym List
ACR American Carbon Registry
CAR Climate Action Reserve
CCBA Climate, Community and Biodiversity Alliance
CCFE Chicago Climate Futures Exchange
CCS Carbon Capture and Storage
CCX Chicago Climate Exchange
CDM Clean Development Mechanism
CFI Carbon Financial Instrument (credits from the Chicago Climate
Exchange)
CMM Coal Mine Methane
CO2e CO2 Equivalent
CPMNA Carbon Project Manager North America
CRT Climate Reserve Tonne (credits from the Climate Action Reserve)
EOR Enhanced Oil Recovery
ERPA Emissions Reductions Purchase Agreement
GHG Greenhouse Gas
GS The Gold Standard
HFC Hydrofluorocarbon
KB Kerry-Boxer bill; The Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act
ODS Ozone Destroying Substances
OTC Over-The-Counter
PFC Perfluorocarbon
RGGI Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative
VCS Voluntary Carbon Standard
WCI Western Climate Initiative

16 All rights reserved © 2010 Point Carbon

Contacts CMA March 1, 2010

Editorial inquiries Offices Representatives

Justin Felt United States Japan
jf@pointcarbon.com Point Carbon North America JPower
Tel +1 202 289 3930 ext. 234 1200 First St, NE Ms. Sumie Nakayama
Fax +1 202 289 3967 Suite 310 Sumie_Nakayama@jpower.co.jp
Washington, DC 20002 Tel +81 3 3546 9375
Phone: +1 202 289 3930 Mizuho Information and
Fax: +1 202 289 3967 Research Institute, Inc.
Sales inquiries washington@pointcarbon.com 2-3 Kandanishiki-cho
Point Carbon Sales Team Chiyoda-ku Tokyo
cmanorthamerica@pointcarbon.com UK 101-8443 Japan
Phone: +1 202 289 3930 Point Carbon, UK Tel +81 3 5281 5410
Fax: +1 202 289 3967 Second Floor Fax +81 3 5281 5466
102-108 Clerkenwell Road yasushi.setoguchi@
London, EC1M 5SA gene.mizuho-ir.co.jp (Office)
United Kingdom setoro@attglobal.net (Res.)
Other inquiries Phone: +44 (0)20 7253 7878
Point Carbon, Norway Fax: +44 (0)20 7253 7856
(Main Office) london@pointcarbon.com
contact@pointcarbon.com
P.O. Box 7120 St.Olav Ukraine
N-0130 Oslo
Point Carbon, Ukraine
Norway
3 Sportyvna Ploscha
Tel +47 22 40 53 40
Entrance IV, 4th floor
Fax +47 22 40 53 41
Olymp Business Center
01601 Kiev Ukraine
Phone + 38 044 499 0308
Website Fax: +38 044 499 0309
www.pointcarbon.com kyiv@pointcarbon.com

A Point Carbon publication

Copyright © 2010, by Point Carbon.

All rights reserved. No portion of this publication may be photocopied, reproduced, scanned into an electronic retrieval system, copied to a database, retransmitted,
forwarded or otherwise redistributed without prior written authorization from Point Carbon. See Point Carbon’s “Terms and Conditions” at www.pointcarbon.com
The data provided in this report were prepared by Point Carbon’s Trading Analytics and Research division. Publications of Point Carbon’s Trading Analytics and
Research division are provided for information purposes only. Prices are indicative and Point Carbon does not offer to buy or sell or solicit offers to buy or sell any
financial instrument or offer recommendations to purchase, hold or sell any commodity or make any other investment decision. Other than disclosures relating to
Point Carbon, the information contained in this publication has been obtained from sources that Point Carbon believes to be reliable, but no representation or war-
ranty, express or implied, is made as to the accuracy or completeness of this information. The opinions and views expressed in this publication are those of Point
Carbon and are subject to change without notice, and Point Carbon has no obligation to update either the opinions or the information contained in this publication.
Point Carbon’s Trading Analytics and Research division receives compensation for its reports. Point Carbon’s Trading Analytics and Research division reports are
published on a subscription basis and are not issued at the request of any client of Point Carbon.

17 All rights reserved © 2010 Point Carbon