State building codes could help make a federal global warming program more efficient, but other state and local climate initiatives may be counterproductive, according to the chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee.

Rep. John Dingell, D-Mich., issued a “white paper” Monday on state and local roles in global warming policies as part of the runup to introducing emissions cap-and-trade legislation this year. Dingell is issuing a series of these papers with Rick Boucher , D-Va., who chairs the Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality.

As Congress weighs global warming legislation, one of the most contentious issues is whether federal legislation should pre-empt state and local governments from setting their own pollution-control standards. Dingell and other lawmakers have warned that permitting states to maintain tougher standards than the federal requirements could cause a waste of resources – particularly when it comes to tailpipe emissions.

Dingell, who represents a Detroit-area district packed with autoworkers, has long fought legislation opposed by the major U.S. auto manufacturers.

The white paper finds that certain state and local initiatives could make a federal program more efficient, if they are not explicitly addressed under a “cap and trade” regime that places a limit on greenhouse gas emissions. One example is building codes that improve energy efficiency.

The paper says states could also play a role in monitoring and keeping records of compliance with a cap-and-trade program, and this would be more efficient than only assigning federal inspectors to do so.

But the paper warns that broad state and regional climate initiatives “may interfere with the efficient functioning of the federal cap-and-trade program” by forcing industry to comply with multiple regulations. Under a nationwide cap on greenhouse gases, a state-level cap on greenhouse gases “might shift emissions from the more stringent state to other states” without reducing national emissions, the paper says.