University of San Diego

San Diego Journal of Climate & Energy Law


This Article uses the histories of the ARP and RECLAIM to show that even when monitoring and enforcement provisions for cap-and-trade programs are designed in a similar way, the resulting enforcement systems and enforcement outcomes may be very different. Part I of the Article tells the enforcement story of the ARP. It appears to be a story of regulatory efficiency and success. Part II tells the enforcement story of RECLAIM. While not a failure, RECLAIM enforcement seems to have been full of difficulties that necessitated large amounts of administrative time and resources. This part presents the results of an empirical analysis of RECLAIM enforcement actions from 1994 through 2006. The analysis shows that RECLAIM had many more enforcement actions than the ARP, despite the fact that the ARP was a much larger cap-and-trade program in terms of the volume of pollution regulated. Similarly, the amount of monetary penalties assessed in RECLAIM for non-compliance was much larger than the amount assessed in the ARP.