By Katie Anderson

Editor's Note—We're proud to make two, new introductions this month: Katie Anderson joins our Supply Chain team as a Project Manager with a focus on deforestation, and "The Business of Food" is born as a new category dedicated to exploring how the growing, processing, distributing, purchasing, consuming and disposing of food impacts our communities, our economy and our planet.

A month out from the election, we know that the global community faces significant uncertainty about what President-elect Trump and his administration will mean for climate outcomes. But with the 24-hour news cycle making it clear just how “transitional” this presidential transition period is, I think it’s worth shining a light on three recent events that I’m going label has hopeful, tragic and confounding:

1. Hopeful: as part of its 2025 sustainability goals, Walmart announced a target reduction of 1 gigaton of greenhouse gases from its supply chain;
2. Tragic: Brazil’s National Institute for Space Research (INPE) announced a 29% increase in deforestation over the past year;
3. Confounding: thinking he was going to have a climate change chat with Ivanka Trump, Al Gore made a trip to Manhattan—and ended up sitting down with the President-elect as well.

Let’s take the second part first and talk about deforestation.  Tropical deforestation contributes about 15% of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions, making forests an incredibly valuable part of the climate conversation.

Katie Anderson
Project Manager, Supply Chain

Alongside the climate benefits, forests also provide habitat for 70% of the world’s species, allow for improved water quality and support livelihoods for indigenous communities. So INPE’s announcement is absolutely tragic—especially when you consider that the amount of tropical forest lost in just one year equals the size of the state of Delaware.

So let’s move on to the hopeful part: Walmart’s goal. Just how much, exactly, is 1 gigaton of greenhouse gas? Most often it’s held up as being equal to the annual emissions of Germany (the world’s 4th largest economy). But just so you can appreciate the scale of both Walmart’s audacious ambitions and the problem we’re facing in our rainforests, Walmart’s goal is equivalent to only ¼ the annual GHG emissions caused by global deforestation!

Which means we’ve got a long way to go.

On to the confounding part: kudos to Ivanka Trump for inviting Al Gore for a talk on climate change. Sadly, it seems her dream position of being the “Climate Czar” will be ceremonial at best, because whatever was discussed at their Manhattan meeting was likely rendered moot by her father’s nomination of Scott Pruitt to be head of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). I’m guessing we’ll never really know what was said, but if Donald and Ivanka are even half the business geniuses they claim to be, they should have listened to Gore, particularly if he brought up deforestation. Here’s why:

Creating deforestation-free supply chains provides value to corporate bottom lines. Effective work on reducing deforestation in supply chains reduces reputational risk, builds trust and transparency with consumers, and drives investor value. Just two examples include:

• Malaysia’s IOI Group saw a 10% decrease in stock values after the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm suspended the company’s engagement.
• The Carbon Disclosure Project found that investors managing $19 trillion in assets are asking companies to report on deforestation risk.

In other words, customers and shareholders around the world are waking up, and business leaders are responding accordingly. Given that agriculture drives 70% of global deforestation, corporate actors who source our everyday products now realize they have big role to play in finding a solution.

Walmart is a perfect example: the need to expand the sourcing of commodities produced with zero net deforestation was cited as an essential component of meeting the 1 gigaton goal. And Walmart is by no means alone: to date, 366 companies have made public commitments to reduce deforestation in their supply chains—for the simple reason that they’re becoming aware of the major risks of not engaging in deforestation-free sourcing.

Unfortunately, public information on if/how companies are achieving these goals is only available for one-third of these commitments, but it appears that, while they’re a good start, commitments alone not enough.

Given all that, what’s a forward-thinking CEO to do regarding deforestation?

An emerging opportunity is in engaging landscapes, or jurisdictions, in reducing deforestation across the entire area. Rather than going farm-by-farm to achieve certifications—which is likely to lead to islands of “green” in a sea of deforestation—a jurisdictional approach allows whole regions to be categorized as reducing deforestation.

This is valuable for many reasons:

1. the costs of monitoring compliance are shared among governments, corporate actors, and other stakeholders;
2. it avoids leakage—a problem where one farm may reduce deforestation but will push deforestation into a different farm;
3. it works across all commodities that drive deforestation rather than solely through certain supply chains;
4. it protects the rights of landholders and indigenous communities.

President-elect Trump often cites business as “the solution” to what’s ailing our country. In terms of climate change, this is one area where he and I agree.

In these uncertain (read: hopeful, tragic, confounding) times, it is incredibly important for corporations to publicly lead on how they work within their operations and their supply chains to reach climate balance. This means setting bigger goals, digging more deeply into the weeds to understand the impacts of their supply chains, and reaching beyond their walls to find the solutions that are most likely to bring the change we need.

By Ben Ratner

Money talks. That’s why one key element in the battle against climate change must be aligning the financial compensation of executives to tangible corporate efforts to decarbonize.

Better aligning incentives is particularly important in energy intensive industries, where the status quo can encourage decisions on strategy, investment, and operations that jeopardize the planet’s climate, while also generating risk to investors that can, ultimately, undercut a company’s  long-term viability.

In a promising sign, Royal Dutch Shell CEO recently announced that executive bonuses at the oil and gas giant will include greenhouse gas goals. “We have linked executive remuneration in the past to energy intensity and next year we are going to make it even more specific to the CO2 footprint metrics associated with these energy efficiencies” he said. Ten percent of bonus payments to executives, including the CEO and CFO at Shell, will reportedly be linked to “greenhouse gas management”.

Indeed, a broader trend toward heightened sustainability in governance is underway. Analysts at the nonprofit organization CERES report that as of 2014, 24% of examined companies linked executive compensation to sustainability performance, up from 15% two years earlier.

Do These Pay Policies Measure Up?

As companies like Shell translate aspiration into practice, the big questions now are how will executive pay linked to de-carbonization be operationalized, and will it be enough to make the difference demanded by the dire science of climate change. There are two key issues in particular that boards, shareholders, and others can ask as GHG bonus measures are developed and assessed:

1. Are bonus payments tied to explicit, ambitious and well-chosen metrics?

The mere act of including greenhouse gas management in compensation is not sufficient. CERES found that of companies linking executive pay to sustainability, few used sustainability performance targets that go beyond goals driven by compliance with laws and regulations. In the absence of comprehensive climate policy – for example market-based signals that put a price on carbon pollution – operators like Shell must go above and beyond compliance metrics for their bonuses to be meaningful. Mere compliance should be expected as a matter of course; winning a GHG bonus must require another level of executive leadership and results.

There are a host of metrics that oil and gas operators can consider as they link compensation to GHG management. Those metrics may differ for large vertically integrated oil and gas majors like Shell, versus smaller companies that operate in just one or two segments of the oil and gas value chain. One common element is incentivizing strong methane management.

Methane emissions are a widespread issue across the oil and gas supply chain. Leaks and other intentional releases waste valuable product, speed climate change, and cast serious doubt on the ability of natural gas to play a constructive role in the transition to a cleaner energy economy. However, as Environmental Defense Fund found in Rising Risk: Improving Methane Disclosure in the Oil and Gas Industry, as of early 2016, none of the leading 65 oil and gas operators disclosed a quantitative target to reduce methane emissions.

As Principles for Responsible Investment noted in its recent Investor's Guide to Methane developed with EDF, investors should expect operators to put governance to work to get the incentives right for enhanced methane management. After all, what gets measured, gets managed, and creating incentives to address invisible gas leaks can make a visible difference.

The ultimate methane metric would operationalize the same kind of “zero tolerance” approach to methane leaks that companies take to preventing fatalities. In the near term, we look for incentives tied to comprehensive, direct methane measurement; leading practices including minimizing venting and conducting regular leak detection and repair; and achievement of verifiable emission reductions.

Beyond methane, GHG metrics may encompass reducing CO2 intensity from fossil fuel operations, but also expanding into renewable energy, as Total, Statoil, and others have signaled. Taken together, an appropriate mix of GHG metrics will send an unmistakable signal to executives that a holistic approach to de-carbonization is the new order of the day.

2. Is the bonus a token or a change agent?

Even well-defined de-carbonization metrics can prove insufficient if the incentive is not strong enough, particularly compared with the full suite of executive motivators. In Shell’s case, while its commitment to tie 10% of executive pay to greenhouse gas management puts it 10% ahead of most of its peers, the question remains: is the incentive adequate enough to change decision making with the speed and seriousness required to achieve the energy transformation we need.

We expect institutional investors and others to look carefully not only at the specifics of the 10% bonus on GHG management, but the 90% on other factors. For energy operators taking the positive step to link pay to climate performance, it will be important to guard against also using contradictory factors that could send mixed messages, such as rewarding executives for expanding carbon reserves, a practice that 13 of 30 major U.S. fossil-fuel corporations practiced, according to a recent report by the Institute for Policy Studies.

We applaud Shell’s intent to link climate performance to pay and look forward to examining the details. In the meantime, as pressure mounts for more oil and gas operators to follow suit, varying operator reactions will tell investors a lot about which companies are poised to adapt best to a lower-carbon energy future.

By Ben Ratner

President-Elect Trump’s selection of Oklahoma attorney general Scott Pruitt as the next head of the Environmental Protection Agency has drawn swift criticism from environmental and health advocates. Passing the nation’s environmental agency to one of its staunchest opponents risks upending the clean air and clean water that Americans of both parties demand. And looking deeper, Pruitt’s track record suggests he will harm the American economy while increasing pollution.

Here are three ways the Pruitt choice isn’t just bad for the environment, it’s bad for business:

1. Blocking federal methane rules means more wasted American energy
Protecting common sense standards to reduce oil and gas methane emissions is a winning opportunity for American business, but that did not stop Pruitt from suing EPA on its proposed methane rules earlier this year.

Methane is a natural resource, and cutting methane emissions means cutting economic waste. A recent study from ICF International found that drilling on federal and tribal lands – mostly in the rural West -leaked, vented, and flared natural gas worth about $330 million in 2013. Across the U.S., the market value of wasted natural gas is estimated at $2 billion.

Furthermore, there are good jobs at stake keeping methane and other air pollutants in the pipes and out of the air communities breathe. A report by Datu Research identified over 75 firms with over 500 locations across the country putting people to work in the methane mitigation industry. These include well-paying jobs in manufacturing, plus leak detection service jobs that offer technical training and are inherently offshore-proof. With nearly 60% of methane mitigation firms being small businesses, including in states like Colorado, Ohio, and Pennsylvania, national efforts to support methane reductions are a job creator at just the right time.

And, many investors recognize that achieving methane reductions is vital if natural gas is to play a constructive role in the transition to a low carbon energy economy. In fact, investors representing over $3.6 trillion in assets under management praised the North American agreement to reduce oil and gas methane emissions 45%. Public pension fund CEO Jack Ehnes wrote that as a large investor with a financial stake in the long term performance of the natural gas industry, CalSTRS sees that “methane emissions — which literally leak away the potential climate benefits of natural gas over other fossil fuels — must be actively managed.”

Most recently, seven in ten Colorado oil and gas operators interviewed about that state’s experience implementing methane rules reported that the benefits of compliance outweighed the costs.

In spite of the jobs and other business benefits of regulating methane emissions, as attorney general of Oklahoma, Pruitt took a page – literally – from a large oil company and sued EPA on its proposed methane rule. This approach may have appeased a big oil backer, but is short-sighted for the industry’s own long-term good, and hurts the American workers whose paycheck comes from preventing and fixing natural gas leaks.

2. Undermining the Clean Power Plan will slow economic growth in clean energy
The Clean Power Plan helps continue the trend of generating even more jobs in fast-growing segments of the American economy, including wind and solar energy, and energy efficiency. Third party estimates suggest that the plan will create 74,000 to 273,000 new jobs in those and related industries, on top of the hundreds of thousands of already existing clean energy jobs. Unfortunately, Pruitt joined a lawsuit against the plan, parroting scare tactic claims that the rule would increase electricity prices.

In reality, the Clean Power plan capitalizes on economic progress many states are already making, such as the rise of solar energy in North Carolina and California. With costs plummeting in solar energy, renewable energy last year accounted for the majority of new installed power capacity.

And because wind and solar are generally more labor-intensive than older energy forms, we can expect a windfall of well-paying, sustainable American jobs in tomorrow’s clean energy economy if we stay the course.

These positive trends are part of why American businesses like Google have committed to sourcing 100% renewable energy. Google and other leading technology companies defended the Clean Power Plan in court because they see that market-oriented government support for clean energy will help their businesses gain access to cheap, clean, stably priced energy for years to come.

In attacking the Clean Power Plan, Pruitt raised the specter of shuttering coal fired plants. However, as a fossil-fuel backer, he should know what experts believe and even natural gas industry insiders privately admit: it is cheap natural gas, not environmental rules, that is mainly responsible for driving coal plants out of business. As CEO of Appalachian Power, a West Virginia, Virginia, and Tennessee utility said, “You just can’t go with new coal [plants] at this point in time. It is just not economically feasible to do so.”

3. Denying climate is denying a great threat – and opportunity – for business
The days of seeing global climate change as only an environmental issue are over. But while many business leaders acknowledge climate change as the fundamental threat that it is – to infrastructure, supply chains, and national security to name a few – Pruitt says the “debate” on climate change is “far from over”.

The doubt seeded by climate denialism may be fake, but it can inflict business consequences that are real.
In a globalized economy, American businesses benefit from our standing in the world and the goodwill we have achieved. With the world marching toward a cleaner energy future, propelled by the climate agreement of nearly 200 nations last year in Paris, American businesses have an interest in standing with the international community and competing on a level playing field.

We have an opportunity to win the next frontier of entrepreneurship and innovation in the clean energy products and ideas demanded the world over. Yet, Pruitt would likely become the only environmental chief in the world who doubts climate change. This anomaly would isolate and embarrass America. In short, the opposite of what businesses need to hear as America competes with China and others to seize the mantle of leadership on a global economic opportunity.

There are many capable environmental leaders from across the political and philosophical spectrum. America needs leaders to chart a path of environmental stewardship and economic prosperity. Mr. Pruitt’s record suggests he would do neither.

By Ben Ratner

The 2016 election was one of the most divisive in recent history. I cannot remember a more polarizing time. However, today, I believe, more strongly than ever, that many Americans across the political spectrum have a hunger for something better: for turning down the volume, having rational conversations and finding common ground that unites us.

In the energy sector and environmental communities, this common ground means achieving solutions that benefit the environment and help businesses thrive, not pitting one against the other.

Three years ago, Environmental Defense Fund launched the Methane Detectors Challenge, an unlikely partnership between oil and gas companies and U.S.-based technology developers. This partnership aims to reduce methane emissions by catalyzing technology solutions that continuously detect these emissions. This is our story.

 A Shared Problem, A Shared Solution

About 25 percent of today’s warming is driven by emissions of methane, a potent greenhouse gas. Methane emissions from the oil and gas industry speed global climate change, waste a valuable energy resource (methane is the key component of natural gas), and often slip into the atmosphere with other pollutants, harming air quality.

Methane Detectors Challenge, a partnership between EDF, oil & gas companies + tech developers,…
Click To Tweet

In other words, methane emissions are a problem and detecting leaks quickly is a needed solution.

However, in 2013, we learned that no oil and gas operators were conducting 24/7 monitoring of methane emissions. None. Some companies were not using technology to conduct leak detection and repair activities, while others conducted manual leak surveys with special cameras once or twice a year – far better than nothing, but a long way from continuous detection made possible in the digital age.

When EDF learned about this lack of continuous monitoring, we could have launched a negative ad blitz. Started a petition. Designated a villain.

We didn’t.

Instead, where some might see failure, we saw opportunity and a reason to partner. We decided to take a risk, try something bold. We decided to partner with leading companies in the oil and gas industry, technical experts, and others, to source innovative technology solutions from the marketplace and solve the methane leak problem.

We called it the Methane Detectors Challenge. Our aim was to catalyze the development and adoption of new, cost effective, continuous detection systems.

I remember sharing our vision with Mark Boling, President – V+ Development Solutions at Southwestern Energy, over breakfast. Before the food had even arrived, Mark committed to Southwestern’s participation. We had our first partner. And this was just the beginning.

A Partnership Blooms

In the months that followed, we recruited partner after partner: Apache, Anadarko, BG Group, Hess, Noble Energy, Shell, Southwestern and Statoil. We found experts willing to lend their knowledge, from places like the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Energy, and the University of Houston.

We launched a series of gatherings that brought stakeholders together in Houston to define the problem and develop a shared plan of action. We got to know one another and to develop a common empathy for the challenges we all shared.

At the end of our first Steering Committee meeting, one of our corporate partners came up to me and said, “Great meeting today, but one thing you should change. Don’t call it the EDF Methane Detectors Challenge. Just call it the Methane Detectors Challenge. We’re all in this together.”

In March 2014, our jointly developed request for technology proposals was out in the world, and we soon reviewed twenty proposals from four different continents. The surge of market interest was incredible, and the best of the proposals inspired excitement among all partners.

By the end of 2015, in partnership with the independent non-profit Southwest Research Institute, we had conducted rigorous indoor and outdoor controlled testing of nearly a half dozen technologies. Two technologies performed excellently, catching leaks of various sizes in various wind conditions. Next step? Industry pilots.

When Challenge Strikes

As the Methane Detectors Challenge shifted from third-party evaluation to piloting, there were increased expectations of our oil and gas partners. They had already helped inform the project’s direction and shared invaluable technical input about their technology needs. The next step was a higher bar – purchasing one or more units and committing organizational resources for pilot testing.

And then a challenge struck.

In 2015, the oil and gas commodity markets fell off a cliff. Oil nose-dived from over $100 a barrel to as low as $29 a barrel. Natural gas prices crashed. Before we knew it, our partners were making layoffs, in some cases as large as 40%, and cutting capital expenditure by as much as 80% for the year ahead.

As the markets sunk and companies down-sized, our effort became much more challenging, but the foundation of trust and the value of our common mission remained unchanged. And so we persevered.

Over the course of 2016, dialogues continued between the leading entrepreneurs and a number of our industry partners. The unglamorous, but necessary issues were resolved: contracts, prices, disclosure and data sharing agreements.

And then one day, I came into my office to find a note from my colleague. “We have a deal”, it said. A large energy producer and Methane Detectors Challenge partner, Statoil, agreed to purchase a methane detection system and host a pilot with Colorado based start-up Quanta3.

Weeks later, we got more good news. Following a successful pilot test, Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) (an enthusiastic recent addition to the Methane Detectors Challenge), agreed to send a device from Acutect, the other leading entrepreneur, to an operating facility in California for real-world testing.

In praise of an unexpected partnership

In the coming months, we will learn much more about how the technologies developed for the Methane Detectors Challenge perform in the trials with Statoil, PG&E, and likely others. It’s too soon to know whether these technologies will provide the needed breakthrough for continuous methane detection, whether they will require additional development, or whether other advances from the marketplace will propel methane management forward.

But it’s not too soon to appreciate this unexpected partnership.

We have demonstrated that there is a vibrant global marketplace of entrepreneurs eager for the chance to accelerate a clean energy future and willing to take risks along the way. And, we have shown that diverse groups can come together over a shared vision.

Most of all, I hope we have proven that even in this era of divisiveness, partnerships are not just possible, they are powerful. Our door is always open to new partners.

EDF is grateful to our partners and hope the Methane Detectors Challenge is the beginning of something even bigger.

Follow @RatnerBen on Twitter

By Tom Murray

The largest pork company in the world, Smithfield Foods, just committed to reduce absolute greenhouse gas emissions by 25% by 2025 across its upstream U.S. supply chain, from feed grain to packaged bacon. This goal is the first of its kind in the livestock sector; and is thus big news.

It is also a long time in the making. Over the past 20 years, EDF and Smithfield have not always seen eye to eye. Although we have opposed Smithfield on some critical issues, we have collaborated  on others. Most recently, EDF and Smithfield worked together to help farmers who grow grain for hog feed use fertilizer efficiently and improve soil health. The business and environmental benefits that Smithfield discovered through that effort led the company to want to do more, resulting in today’s industry-leading commitment.

As part of the commitment, one area where Smithfield will work to reduce its greenhouse gas footprint—and one that EDF applauds—is in manure management.

In the past, EDF has pressed Smithfield to improve its manure management, particularly the use of uncovered hog manure lagoons. Now, within the first five years of its commitment, Smithfield will install manure management practices, including covered lagoons, on at least 30 percent of company-owned farms. These changes will eliminate harmful methane emissions and reduce ammonia nitrogen, which contributes to human respiratory illness and impairs water quality. Furthermore, Smithfield will work with its contract growers to expand the use of those practices over the full term of its commitment.

It’s inspiring to see Smithfield’s overall climate commitment and willingness to change its position on an issue like manure management. It shows how NGO/corporate collaborations can work over the long term.

With its climate commitment, Smithfield has set the bar for other livestock companies. We encourage others to follow Smithfield’s lead and set their own public targets based in strong science to reduce the climate and environmental impacts of animal agriculture and food production.

Sustainability in food supply chains: a challenge worth tackling

The climate crisis can’t be solved without addressing emissions from livestock and agriculture:

• The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) estimates that 9% of total U.S. greenhouse gas emissions comes from agriculture (making it the 5th-largest source of domestic emissions;
• Globally, the U.N Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) estimates that livestock accounts for 14.5% of all global greenhouse gas emissions;
• An FAO address at COP 22 noted that, while global agriculture contributes to nearly 20% of greenhouse gas emissions, it is also a “fundamental part of the solution to boost resilience and combat climate change.”

Food and agriculture companies, however, face major barriers in setting and achieving supply chain sustainability commitments. As a general rule, the majority of their environmental impacts come from the many disparate farms that grow the grains, produce, and animals that end up in our food. For companies that often do not even know the locations of those farms, it is a major challenge to influence those farmers to become more sustainable.

At the same time, food and agriculture companies see that consumers are demanding increased transparency and responsibility for all of their impacts, particularly those on human health, the environment, and animal welfare. The challenge is to figure out how to make needed improvements without substantial price increases at the grocery checkout.

The business case for sustainability – and collaboration

Companies like Smithfield are watching consumer trends and placing a bet that sustainability will be good for their bottom line. They can’t reap these benefits, though, unless they focus on providing value to the farmers in their supply chains. This value can come in many forms – some companies are offering premiums for sustainably grown grain, while others are helping farmers access programs and technologies that reduce the costs of farming.

As a vertically integrated company that owns grain elevators, feed mills, hog farms, and pork processing plants, Smithfield has a unique view into its own supply chain. But many don’t know that Smithfield purchases half of its hogs on the open market, which means the company only has clear visibility through half of its supply chain for pork. In setting a goal for its entire upstream supply chain, Smithfield is committing to work with others in the agriculture industry to assist a broad range of hog and grain farmers adopt more sustainable practices.

Smithfield’s collaboration with EDF demonstrated that the company could improve sustainability in feed grain production, the most remote link of its supply chain, in a way that benefits its business.

This success created the opening to go further, developing Smithfield’s new greenhouse gas target and putting the company in a leadership position in its industry. While Smithfield is the first livestock company to set a major greenhouse gas reduction goal, a sustainable food supply depends on it not being the last.

Who’s next?

By Ben Ratner

At Energy Dialogues’ North American Gas Forum last month, I had the opportunity to participate on a panel moderated by Gregory Kallenberg of the Rational Middle. While the panel pre-dated the presidential election, the topic of constructive engagement through rational discourse is now more important than ever.

We explored how environmental groups, industry, and other stakeholders need to come together to rationally discuss and collaboratively act on the challenges of meeting rising energy demand while addressing real and growing environmental risks.

The still principally fossil-based energy system, which includes natural gas, is not the only cause of climate change, but it is the largest. And so a range of stakeholders, from protesters holding signs, to investors with a long term interest in the future of natural gas, to industry consumers, are looking with increasing criticism at fossil fuels. That was true before the election, and it’s true today. They’re asking: How can we reconcile the environment we want to protect for the future with the traditional energy and feedstock resources we are using now?

Unfortunately, industry, when pressed with concerns and asked to act, has often come up short. For example, with precious few exceptions, oil and natural gas companies have declined to set quantitative methane reduction targets – of their own choosing, and for their own product. And they have declined to join their counterparts’ support for a 2 degree limit on temperature rise. Too often, industry has failed to engage with the real concerns of their customers and communities.

But there’s a better way.

As Sarah Sandberg, from the Colorado Oil & Gas Association, said on the panel, “You’re either at the table or on the menu.” As panelist Michael Crothers from Shell observed, industry must engage directly and responsively with the legitimate climate concerns of the general public. And they’re right.

At Environmental Defense Fund, we work to create opportunities for diverse stakeholders to come to the table and have the conversations that feed the actions – whether establishing public policy, catalyzing technology innovation, or making best practice standard practice – to address environmental challenges and protect our future.

There have been bright spots of industry leadership, like energy companies joining the table in Colorado to help craft the first methane regulations, or Shell Canada supporting Alberta’s new climate strategy, including a methane goal backed by regulations. Unfortunately, such constructive engagements have been the exception to the rule. All too often, industry’s response to environmental concerns and opportunities has amounted to “Just Say No”.

A better response? “Just Say How.” For example:

• How will operators demonstrate that they hear and are addressing in practical terms, the air and groundwater pollution concerns of the 15 million Americans who live within a mile of a well?
• How will industry leaders acknowledge and finally engage on public policy to reduce their contribution to climate change?
• How will they make unnecessary methane emissions a thing of the past, by finding and fixing leaks?
• How will the companies that do step up and lead on these issues maximize the competitive advantage of being cleaner companies in a world that demands it?

Let’s hope industry can take the real issues head on and start showing how we can make positive changes by working together. Pressure on industry is not going away, and rational engagement can help cut a productive path through polarization.

By Jenny Ahlen

There’s been a lot of talk about “trust” in the media lately—and it wasn’t all coming from the Trump and Clinton camps. In case you missed it, Walmart announced its 2025 goals just a few days before the election, as part of what Walmart CEO Doug McMillon characterized as a “new era of trust and transparency for customers and communities”.

I’m going to do us all a favor and not re-visit the politicians’ pleas for trust. But Walmart’s desire to become “the most trusted retailer” makes me simultaneously wary and hopeful.

My wariness comes from the fact that we’ve heard plenty of companies talk about trust—especially as it relates to how much trust their customers have in them. And it’s no surprise why: trust is a key driver in customer loyalty and therefore repeat shopping trips and sales. So my cynical self keeps tip-toeing in and setting off the “empty sales pitch alert”, as in: if you have to say you’re trustworthy, you’re probably not.

But, having spent the last five years working side-by-side with Walmart to help them reach their 2015 sustainability goals, I’m hopeful. We all learned a lot in the process of using science to set goals, track progress and actually deliver measurable results… and I’m confident that Walmart can be even more successful this round.

Which is good: many of the 2025 goals—like making more packaging recyclable, reducing harmful ingredients in food and improving working conditions of their employees—matter, a lot. And achieving these goals should engender trust in Walmart: these issues touch consumers directly, and are quickly becoming part of mainstream thinking shared by other retailers and food companies (see the Wall Street Journal’s recent Global Food Forum).

But there's another dimension to the 2025 goals that gives me even greater hope.

What Walmart—and other companies—are starting to realize is that other, less tangible issues also matter. Real leadership means addressing all the major sustainability issues of our time—then helping their customers to come along with them.

Take climate change, for example: past shopper surveys asking mothers to rank areas of “concern” for their families have probably seen food safety scoring much higher on the list than the climate. But if the question were rephrased to ask “are the direct impacts of climate change (like more frequent severe weather) a concern for you and your family?”, I’m willing to bet the survey results would be a lot closer.

That’s why it’s so exciting to see Walmart’s other 2025 goals, where they will strive to achieve:

• 50% renewable energy to power their operations
• 18% absolute emissions reduction in their operations
• Zero waste to landfill
• Zero net deforestation in key commodities, such as palm oil and beef
• 100% recyclable packaging in private brands
• 1 Gigaton emissions reduction across their supply chain

While all of these goals are both laudable and ambitious, this last one—eliminating 1 Gigaton of greenhouse gas emissions—is an industry game-changer.  That’s the equivalent of removing 211 million cars from our roads… and is greater than the annual amount of GHGs emitted by the country of Germany.

And the even better news: Walmart’s not alone. Recent commitments by other companies like General Mills, Kellogg and Pepsi, shows that setting ambitious, science-based climate targets is now officially a trend. Achieving goals like these won’t be immediately seen, felt or touched by their customers—yet these companies are choosing to tackle them anyway.

That’s true leadership.

That’s saying to all of us, “we’ve got the power, scale and leverage to change the world, and we’re going to do it.”

That’s the way to engender real trust.

By Ben Ratner

President-elect Donald Trump made claims of his own business smarts a cornerstone of his campaign. Vote for him, the logic went, and send a first-rate businessman to the Oval Office to apply business acumen to make America great. Unfortunately, Trump’s actions to date on climate and energy – notably charging a climate change denier with leading the EPA transition and signaling desire to abandon the historic Paris climate accords – send a message of business obliviousness.

In contrast, a smart business approach would embrace tackling greenhouse gas emissions and supporting clean energy. Here are four reasons why:

1. Create American jobs – The opportunity to create new American jobs in the transition to clean energy is tremendous. There are now more jobs in solar energy than in coal mining, and the number of solar jobs has grown more than 20 percent in each of the last three years. States like Florida and Nevada are bountiful in sun and can contribute to American energy self-sufficiency.Moreover, just as smart action to nurture domestic clean energy can accelerate jobs in the renewable sector, there are jobs on the line helping the oil and gas industry reduce its air pollution in a cost effective way. Environmental Defense Fund found that there are over 70 American firms employing Americans to help keep potent methane emissions in natural gas pipelines and out of the atmosphere. These jobs, thriving in states like Texas and Pennsylvania, are mainly small business and above average wages – exactly what we all want to see more of. Of course, it’s a competitive global economy, and taking our foot off the pedal in creating green jobs could well cede the space to others like China, which already leads the United States in clean energy investment. Whatever a politician’s personal views on climate change, it is undeniable that global demand is growing for clean energy solutions. Growing demand means growing commercial opportunity for the United States in terms of innovation and exports. But only if we seize it.

1. Listen to leading American businesses – Savvy business people listen to each other. So Mr. Trump should be interested to learn that 154 American businesses supported the American Businesses Act on Climate Pledge in the run-up to the Paris climate accords. These businesses are a part of the backbone of the American economy, employing nearly 11 million people across all 50 states, with a then market capitalization of over $7 trillion. Participating companies of particular interest: 21st Century Fox, Dupont, Wal-Mart, even a name that will be familiar to any casino magnate – MGM Resorts.These companies not only voiced support for a strong Paris outcome, they committed to increase their low-carbon investments in line with the direction of America’s leadership. Pulling out the rug from American businesses investing in low-carbon would send a destabilizing signal to the market. More recently, 365 companies including Unilever, Intel, General Mills and others reinforced that “implementing the Paris Agreement will enable and encourage businesses and investors to turn the billions of dollars in existing low-carbon investments into the trillions of dollars the world needs to bring clean energy and prosperity to all”. In sum, the overwhelming voice of businesses who have weighed in on the Paris talks are supportive of climate action. This business groundswell cannot be ignored. Nor should Trump ignore his own prior signing of a 2009 letter that failure to act on climate and the environment would cause “catastrophic and irreversible consequences for humanity and our planet.”

1. It hits home – Continued American leadership on climate change can help mitigate physical risks to some of Mr. Trump’s most cherished investments, for example the Mar-a-Lago golf club in Palm Beach. NOAA found that “tidal flooding is increasing in frequency within the U.S. coastal communities due to sea level rise from climate change and local land subsidence.”Just a week before the election, the Palm Beach Daily News reported that the local Shore Protection Board unanimously recommended a six-figure “coastal vulnerability evaluation” as flooding has remained long after high tide in certain cases.

1. Voters want clean energy – One of many things that will change for Donald Trump is that going from CEO to President means having a boss – actually about 300 of million of them. A recent Gallup poll found that 64% of Americans worry “a fair amount” or “a great deal” about climate change, an increase from last year, and including 84% of Democrats, 64% of independents, and 40% of Republicans. Clean energy is also wildly popular, with over 80% of Americans saying they support increased wind and solar, according to a recent Pew Poll.

Early on the campaign trail, Donald Trump often used his association with his alma mater, the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania, as Exhibit A in establishing his business smarts. Political leaders including Mr. Trump must learn from experts like Wharton’s Professor Eric Orts, who noted that moving away from President Obama’s climate change polices would come with stiff costs.

From missing out on job creation to ignoring business leaders who have studied the issue and have a stake in its resolution, and from fueling risk to Trump’s own business interests to overlooking voter desires, the case is clear that the costs are stiff indeed. Climate action is good business, and the smart money says it’s time to stay the course.

By Victoria Mills

As world leaders gather in Marrakech for the 22nd annual Conference of the Parties (COP 22) it’s worth celebrating the remarkable progress made recently in the global fight against climate change, and the positive contribution of U.S. businesses in making it happen.

The Paris Agreement entered into force on November 4th, four years ahead of schedule. Its rapid ratification by over 100 countries representing more than half of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions demonstrates the commitment of participants to urgent action on climate change. Over 150 U.S. corporations publicly expressed support for the Paris agreement, representing more than $4.2 trillion in annual revenue and with a combined market capitalization of over $7 trillion.

Last month, the International Civil Aviation Organization agreed to cap greenhouse gas emissions from international flights at 2020 levels, using market-based mechanisms to offset climate pollution from this rapidly growing sector. U.S. airlines welcomed the agreement as an effective complement to their own efforts to cut emissions through improvements to equipment, fuels and infrastructure, and as a unified global approach to achieving carbon-neutral growth from 2020 on.

Also in October, negotiators from nearly 200 countries agreed to an amendment to the Montreal Protocol that will phase down hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), gases with 1,000 times the heat-trapping power of CO2. The agreement enjoyed the support of U.S. chemical companies that are developing environmentally preferable alternatives to HFCs, and is good news for companies everywhere that want to cut greenhouse gas emissions from their global supply chains.

Business support for smart climate policy is key to the success of #COP22
Click To Tweet

Business support was instrumental in reaching all three agreements, and will be critical to implementing them successfully. The good news is that leading companies are already taking action to help the U.S. meet its climate goals. To build on this great momentum, more companies need to take the next step in corporate climate leadership. Here are three ways business can step up:

1. Setting ambitious GHG reduction goals. PepsiCo recently announced a goal to reduce absolute GHG emissions at least 20% by 2025, joining Kellogg’s, General Mills and Walmart in setting big goals to cut climate pollution from their supply chains. Almost 200 companies have joined the Science-Based Targets initiative, committing to reduce their GHG emissions in line with climate science.
2. Scaling up renewable energy. Over 80 companies, including Apple, General Motors and Unilever have now joined RE100, an initiative to by committing to use 100% renewable energy sources. And the Renewable Energy Buyers Alliance brings together three different initiatives working with break down barriers to large-scale renewable energy deployment. Together, these companies are leading the transition to a clean, low-carbon energy system.
3. Shaping public policy. Leading businesses are looking beyond their fence lines and seeking to transform the systems in which they operate. By supporting climate and energy policies that impact entire sectors of the economy, they’re having the biggest impact of all. Earlier this year, eight companies including Apple, Google and Microsoft filed amicus briefs supporting the Clean Power Plan. And private fleet owners, engine manufacturers and technology providers joined together to advocate for the new Clean Truck standards announced in August by the U.S. EPA and DOT.

It will take the continued leadership of U.S. businesses to ensure that we stay on track to deliver on the promise of Paris, meeting our 2025 targets and bending the emissions curve even more steeply downward thereafter. Working together, businesses and policymakers can create a world in which a stable climate and thriving economy go hand in hand.

Follow EDF+Business on Twitter, @EDFBiz

By Elizabeth Sturcken

Amidst the noise in the run-up to the election, Walmart CEO Doug McMillon will map out the company’s sustainability goals for the year 2025 later today. As a keynote speaker at this year’s Net Impact Conference, he'll be delivering a fairly lengthy, aspirational list; here are a few highlights of what the world’s largest retailer has planned:

• 50% renewable Energy
• 18% absolute emissions reduction Scopes 1+2
• 1 Gigaton emissions reduction Scope 3
• Zero waste to landfill by 2025
• Zero net deforestation in key commodities
• 100% recyclable packaging in private brands

As a director of the NGO that has worked closely* with Walmart on their sustainability journey over the last ten years, here are my initial, big takeaways:

Getting to 50% renewables, reducing absolute emissions from their stores and trucks, and removing a gigaton of GHG emissions from their supply chain are exactly the kinds of leadership goals Walmart should be putting forth to help meet the challenge of climate change.

But actually delivering on these goals will be no joke. Luckily, our 25 years of working with companies have consistently revealed two, important guideposts:

• specific, ambitious goals are vital for driving innovation and progress;
• achieving real, science-based results truly takes a village of collaborators.

To give just one example, three years ago Walmart set a policy to eliminate eight of the most prevalent and concerning chemicals in their home and personal care products. With no clear path forward, Walmart engaged thousands of suppliers, requiring them to submit full product formulations to a 3rd-party database, then replace those eight ingredients with safer substitutes.

The result? A 95% reduction of chemicals of concern, adding up to 23 million pounds.  This affects 90,000 products that are sold everywhere, not just on the shelves at Walmart. At the same time, this work also helped to set the stage for this year’s passage of The Lautenberg Chemical Safety Act, the first piece of environmental legislation in a generation that is aimed at fixing our broken system of regulating toxic chemicals.

By aiming big and bringing on strategic partners, Walmart was able to go further, faster than they’d ever dreamed. The same holds true now.

Walmart’s announcement is just the latest in a string of other companies—PepsiCo, Kellogg, General Mills—who have also put forth ambitious sustainability goals. What this tells us is that companies are proving, over and over again, that this is not about “doing the right thing,” it’s about doing what creates business value and environmental progress.

As if to prove this point, last month Doug McMillon talked publicly about how sustainability is a core part of their business strategy during an investor call. In this first-time-event-for-a-Walmart-CEO, he emphasized to Wall Street that one of the four ways that Walmart will win in the 21st century is to lead on sustainability by being “the most trusted retailer” and called out progress on making products like shampoo and lotion safer, healthier and better for the planet**, increasing renewables and reducing waste.

Sustainability is finally being seen for what it is: a smart business strategy. In a world of decreasing resources and consumers that want better products there’s no other path forward in the long term.  And looking around at what’s happening, the long term is here!

This election has shown that people want change.  It’s been scary and unsettling but it’s a challenge we can’t shrink from. We have healing to do as a country, which can only begin if we engage with each other. Climate change and its effects are going to get worse before they get better.  Just look at this summer’s fires in California, the hurricane in Haiti, the floods in Louisiana and North Carolina…

I know there’s another path forward.

Having worked with companies over the last 25 years doing what many thought was impossible, I have hope.  These corporate leaders aren’t waiting for regulation to force them to act, but choosing to consciously, aggressively become more sustainable. And I’m inspired by companies doing the hard work to think beyond their corporate walls and take ownership for the impact of the products they make and sell in the world.

The scary truth is, the aspirational goals that we need for our planet and for long-term business viability mean that business won’t know exactly how to achieve them.  It will force an openness to innovation and requires bring suppliers and customers in as partners to achieve those goals.

So congratulations, Walmart, on setting aggressive yet achievable goals for 2025—and doing what the science tells us needs to get done for a stable and healthy planet. You have a proven track record of meeting and exceeding big sustainability goals. We expect the same here.

* EDF takes no money from our corporate partners—we are funded solely through grants, donations and membership.  We like to say we get paid in environmental results.

** I’d be remiss if I didn’t point out that while Walmart is committing to healthy products in their 2025 goals, we are disappointed to not see further goals on the path to becoming a “toxic free” store.

By Michelle Mauthe Harvey

Last June, fast-casual restaurant chain Panera Bread announced that it would do away with the remaining artificial preservatives, flavors, sweeteners and colors from artificial sources in its Panera at Home products. The company expects to make its entire portfolio of nearly 50 grocery items “clean,” meaning free of its “No No List” additives, by the end of 2016.

"Cleaning" up its Panera at Home product line comes in addition Panera’s 2014 commitment  to remove the “No No list” ingredients from all restaurant food offerings within the same time frame and adhere to other criteria of its “Food Policy”.

Panera has consistently run far ahead of their competitors, and they’ve done it in five key areas where companies can lead on chemicals: institutional commitment, supply chain transparency, informing consumers, public commitment, and product design. Panera set such a good example of leadership in making safer food available to their customers that we’ve developed a case study to showcase Panera’s approach and results to date.

EDF worked with Sara Burnett, Panera’s director of wellness and food policy, to develop the case study, who offered many insights into their process. For example, on Panera’s decision to expand its commitment to include retail food, Burnett shared that, “Much of the work that we’ve done to simplify recipes in our bakery-cafes has set a standard for Panera at Home products. However, the challenges in the consumer packaged goods space are unique, where artificial additives have long been used to preserve taste and appearance. For us, the answer was often simple. For instance, we decided early on to use refrigeration to help extend shelf life for products like our soups and salad dressings. Where necessary, we’ve relied on natural preservatives – such as rosemary extract – to do the job.”

Panera started that process by looking at every ingredient used in their food and deciding what was essential. Once that determination was made, Panera identified more than 150 food additives to be prohibited in their food after 2016. Of approximately 450 ingredients they manage, roughly one-third needed reformulation.

Out of several hundred suppliers, only one walked away as a result of the new guidelines. In addition, the deep dive into Panera’s sources and potential replacement options also surfaced opportunities for improvement. As a result, many of the suppliers found that they not only strengthened their relationship with Panera, but developed better business offerings for their other customers.

While a limited number of categories still require change – sweets and fountain sodas among them – Panera has overcome many of its toughest challenges. For example, broccoli cheddar soup took 60 revisions to meet customer expectations in taste tests. Many items, from candy pieces to mozzarella cheese, are now differently colored from their predecessors but meet Panera’s clean criteria and customer preferences. Two products – pepperoncini and white pastry cream – have been unable to meet both Panera’s and customers’ expectations, and will likely be removed from the menu come 2017.

Sales numbers would indicate that customers are also pleased. In July 2016, Panera Chairman and CEO Ron Shaich said “Our strong Q2 results reinforce the fact that our strategy is working and our initiatives are performing. Panera is becoming a better competitive alternative with expanded runways for growth. At a time when other restaurant companies are feeling the impact of a slowing consumer environment, we are maintaining our momentum.”

Or as Burnett puts it, “When we meet customer needs and expectations, sales follow.”

Panera is not alone in their efforts, but they are definitely among the leaders. Since Panera announced its comprehensive food policy in June of 2014, more than a dozen major food manufacturers and restaurants have also made public commitments to reduce or eliminate artificial flavors and colors from their brands.

Learn more about how food companies can lead on safer chemicals management with our blueprint for safer food additives, part of EDF’s Behind the Label initiative.

Follow Michelle Harvey at @MMHarvey

By Aileen Nowlan

David Hone, Chief Climate Change Advisor at Shell, recently stated that it takes 25 years for a new technology to reach one percent of the energy system. At the multinational companies I have worked with as clients and partners, I have seen how much time it can take to launch a new idea or product.  But, I believe we can and must accelerate the pace of technology development and adoption. This is especially crucial in the area of methane detection. Methane is the main component of natural gas and methane emissions are the cause of 25% of today’s global warming.

For the past three years, the Methane Detectors Challenge (MDC), a groundbreaking partnership between Environmental Defense Fund, oil and gas companies, technology developers, and other experts, has focused on designing and testing promising methane detection technologies. Two of the most promising technologies, both of which provide low-cost continuous methane emissions monitoring, will soon be pilot-tested by major oil and gas companies. Moving from concept to pilots in just a few years teaches us that it is possible to accelerate the adoption of new technology in the oil and gas sector.

Lesson One: Bring all stakeholders to the table around a realistic shared goal

During the initial phase of the Methane Detectors Challenge, we facilitated a series of meetings between environmentalists, scientists and oil and gas companies, including Shell, Noble Energy and Southwestern Energy.  This collaborative approach set MDC up for success.  We gained insights on how methane detectors would need to work in the field—simple, self-powered, able to send automated alarms—and this helped the technology entrepreneurs target key functionality.

Our environmental goal for MDC struck a balance of ambitious and pragmatic; detecting big emissions that account for the vast majority of total methane emissions.  By understanding which features would deliver the most impact, we focused on key—but not all—technology gaps.  This dramatically sped up the development and testing time.

Lesson Two: Cast the net widely

At the start of the Methane Detectors Challenge, we cast the net widely for initial applications. If existing providers aren’t already solving the problem, there is no reason to stick with the familiar.  MDC invited applications from all over the world and from different industries.  The result was technologies adapted from outer space, coal mine safety, and personal breathalyzers, to name a few: fresh ideas and new approaches brought together by entrepreneurs who are committed to slowing the tide of climate change.

Lesson Three: Small, flexible investments can pay off

Small investments in emerging technologies can yield great results, and while not all will pay off, those with promise will improve rapidly. This is a portfolio approach to innovation—much like successful Silicon Valley enterprises. This requires leadership commitment and clear communication of project goals to all stakeholders, then being flexible and creative.

Taking some early-stage risk is necessary to create opportunity for big payoffs. Oil and gas companies are familiar with this at the exploration stage; the same is true for technology innovation.  MDC focused on new hardware solutions. Many entrepreneurs (as with entrepreneurs in other sectors) were often advancing personal funds to contract manufacturers or suppliers. This is a dangerous stage that many startups do not survive.

Oil and gas companies should consider offering working capital, rapid payment terms, and in-kind support for early-stage ventures.  The payoff could be significant—a more efficient, more effective strategy that works with a company’s exact specifications. With the right assistance, hardware startups are still not going to turn a profit on the first units, but they might make it through their first year.

Catalyzing innovation requires flexibility and compromise on all sides.  Just as entrepreneurs aim to learn about the culture, quality and safety standards and business priorities of oil and gas customers, oil and gas companies will learn and improve faster if they ask themselves what they do and do not need from an early-stage entrepreneur as compared to their expectations of an established provider.  Their requirements for fast iteration of a developing technology may be different from adoption of a tested and proven technology. A lower risk, rapid improvement orientation can be reflected in product or service agreements, warranties, and the feedback offered to innovators.  Similarly, for oil and gas companies, the business case for adopting a new technology may not initially outweigh their current approach.  But with a portfolio of small bets, and the patience to help new ideas progress down the cost curve, these companies increase the odds that a new technology dramatically improves on the status quo.

During the Methane Developers Challenge, I have witnessed first-hand how environmentalists and oil and gas companies can learn from the portfolio approach and rapid iteration lessons of Silicon Valley innovation. In the next few months, MDC entrepreneurs will learn from deploying their technologies at major oil and gas companies. This is a powerful example of ambitious and pragmatic collaboration. This corporate leadership, with oil and gas companies taking a risk and putting their unique resources and insights to work catalyzing innovation, will enable business and the planet to thrive.

Follow Aileen Nowlan on Twitter, @aileennow

Additional information on EDF Methane Detectors Challenge

By Ben Ratner

Global attention on oil and gas methane emissions is taking off. The International Energy Agency has recognized that  “the potential for natural gas to play a credible role in the transition to a decarbonized energy system fundamentally depends on minimizing these [methane] emissions.” North American heads of state recently committed to reduce oil and gas methane emissions 45% by 2025. And the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has issued technology standards for methane from new sources, while setting the wheels in motion for a larger rulemaking that will target the existing U.S. infrastructure, whose methane emissions cause the near term climate damage equivalent to 240 coal fired power plants.

With a rising wave of public and policy maker scrutiny, it’s no surprise that methane has become a hot topic in investor circles. A group of 76 investors representing $3.6T assets under management publicly supported the North American methane announcement. And a much broader set of investors, from large institutional investors to private equity, and socially responsible investors to large banks, are turning their attention to reading up on the issue and engaging operator management in quiet but important conversations on managing this rising risk.

EDF has long recognized the power of stakeholders with an economic incentive to drive progress that helps people and nature prosper. That’s why we are devoting a growing effort to educate oil and gas investors on why methane risk matters and what they can do to address it through constructive engagement with operators across the world.

In a post-Paris, carbon constrained world where investors constantly demand more and better information on all manner of corporate responses to climate risk, it’s only a matter of time until investors have the data at their fingertips to use the quality of methane management as one additional input in decision making processes, even including which companies to buy or sell.

If that seems like a stretch, just consider: an operator managing methane aggressively is better poised for smooth regulatory compliance, while also reaping operational efficiencies through waste reduction, providing evidence they can be part of the transition to a lower carbon energy economy, showing neighbors they are helping to reduce air pollution, and even appealing to top talent in an environmentally conscious workforce.

In the meantime, EDF has released a new resource in partnership with the Principles for Responsible Investment: “An Investor’s Guide to Methane: Engaging with Oil and Gas Companies to Manage a Rising Risk”, which builds on our landmark report “Rising Risk: Improving Methane Disclosure in the Oil and Gas Industry”. While the primary audience is investors who represent growing demand for improved methane management (and indeed gave us the idea for creating a guide in the first place), the Guide is public for a reason – operators who want to get ahead of the curve can review it for themselves.

Our Guide is based on three simple ideas. 1) Methane poses a material risk, in the form of financial, reputational, and regulatory risk. 2) Managing the risk well requires directly measuring emissions, transparently reporting the plan of action and its results, and actively reducing emissions. 3) Continuous improvement is key: each company can advance along the spectrum from beginner, to intermediate, to advanced, on each dimension of measure, report, reduce.

As operators review the Guide, they can use it to benchmark where they are today, prepare for dialogue with investors, and develop an action plan for continuous improvement. Whether motivated by investor relations, operational enhancements, regulatory positioning, or simply doing the right thing, we hope operators will find the guide to be a useful tool. Competitive advantage is at stake, and there’s no time to waste.

Follow Ben Ratner on Twitter, @RatnerBen

By Jason Mathers

Our nation is making great progress in reducing the environmental impact of trucking.

This is tremendous news, of course, as trucking – the main method of transporting the goods and services we desire – is critical to the fabric of our society.

Jason Mathers, Senior Manager, Supply Chain Logistics

Consider these facts:

• New trucks have 95 percent fewer emissions of diesel particulate matter and nitrogen oxides (NOx), which are linked to increases in asthma attacks and respiratory illnesses, than 1988 trucks did.
• New truck engines are about 20 percent better in fuel economy than engines made in 2010, which drives down per-vehicle greenhouse gas emissions.

We’re making major progress because of a team effort from truck and equipment manufacturers, fleets, policymakers, and clean air and human health advocates. With protective, long-term emission standards in place, manufacturers are investing in developing cleaner solutions and bringing them to market. Truck fleets are embracing new trucks because of lower operating costs and improved performance.

(For a more detailed picture of the widespread support for cleaner trucks, see EDF’s list of quotes supporting recent national Clean Truck standards.)

We must continue this team effort to make further necessary improvements in the years ahead.

Despite our recent progress, diesel trucks continue to be a leading source of NOx emissions, which is why a number of leading air quality agencies across the nation, health and medical organizations, and more than  30 members of Congress are calling for more protective NOx emission standards.

Trucks are also a large and growing source of greenhouse gas emissions. Thankfully, the new fuel efficiency and greenhouse gas standards mentioned above – which were released this past August and just published in the Federal Register today – will cut more than a billion tons of emissions.

Trucking fleets are embracing cleaner trucks. UPS, for example, is expanding its fleet of hybrid delivery trucks. PepsiCo, Walmart, Kane and others have applauded strong fuel standards for trucks.

Manufacturers are developing solutions to further improve the environmental footprint of trucking. In the past few weeks alone:

• Cummins unveiled a 2017 engine that cuts NOx emissions 90 percent from the current emission standard.
• Volvo Trucks North American showcased its entry to the DOE SuperTruck program, which is  a concept truck capable of surpassing 2010 efficiency levels by 70 percent and exceeding 12 miles per gallon.
• Navistar also revealed its SuperTruck, the CatalIST, which hit a remarkable 13 mpg.

The progress we’ve made to date does more than just improve conditions within the U.S. Our strong standards push U.S. manufacturers to develop solutions that will resonate with international markets. For example, the European Union, Brazil, India, Mexico, and South Korea all are exploring new fuel efficiency and greenhouse standards for big trucks. U.S. manufacturers will be well positioned to compete in markets that put a premium on fuel efficiency.

In the coming years, we will need to continue to advance protective emission standards to protect the health of our communities and safeguard our climate. When the time comes, we will be building upon an impressive record of progress and cooperation.

By Liz Delaney

It’s no secret that companies use goals to push their businesses in a positive direction. Whether it’s about creating more value or reducing impacts, goals provide focus, direction and a sense of urgency. Recently, a wave of corporate, climate-related goals, such as renewable energy and emissions-reduction targets, have grabbed the public’s attention. Companies, cities and other large institutions are stepping up and committing to reduce their environmental impact. But behind the scenes, are these goals actually leading to corporate action? And if so, what kind?

As program director of EDF Climate Corps, every summer I get a glimpse inside the operations of 100 large organizations that are working to manage energy and carbon in progressively responsible ways. This past summer, 125 EDF Climate Corps fellows – talented graduate students armed with training and expert support – worked to advance clean energy projects in large organizations across the U.S. and in China. Their project work reveals that organizations are more strategic, focused and results-oriented than ever. More than 70 percent of EDF Climate Corps host organizations have energy or emissions-reductions goals, and to meet these targets, our class of 2016 fellows was strategically deployed to help achieve them. In fact, the majority (two-thirds) of our entire cohort of fellows worked on strategic plans and analyses that will help turn these goals into action. So what did we see this summer?

1. Ambitious goals are driving big impacts at the building level

A great example of goals driving smart and strategic action in buildings is our recent work in New York City. Over the summer, more than 25 fellows worked within companies, city agencies and even a local utility to design strategic plans to help meet Mayor de Blasio’s ambitious 80 x 50 goal that pledges to reduce city greenhouse gas emissions 80% by 2050.  Rather than approach this one boiler room at a time, our fellows worked on ambitious, portfolio-wide equipment replacement and onsite renewable energy plans, with the potential to impact thousands of buildings at once. It’s great to see a municipal goal drive strategy from both the public and the private sector. The mayor’s goals are clearly spurring action and large-scale strategy is the way to drive rapid improvements that would take much longer through an incremental approach.

1. Public goals allow leaders to shine, but also inspire others to follow

Many corporations maintain internal sustainability goals but shy away from publicizing them for a multitude of reasons – from fears of greenwashing to competitive advantage. But we’ve recently observed that this trend is changing, with more and more of our host companies realizing that smart, data-driven analysis can help them set public commitments with confidence. For example, EDF Climate Corps host Amalgamated Bank wanted to incorporate climate change mitigation in its mission, but first needed to dig deeper into its data to create smart goals and a strategy to achieve them. With the help of their EDF Climate Corps fellow, who conducted the first greenhouse gas emissions inventory and an assessment of its carbon footprint, Amalgamated Bank got the information it needed to set ambitious goals, culminating in a September announcement to become the second largest net-zero energy bank.

1. Supply chains are beginning to benefit from corporate goals

While many corporations have articulated impressive goals related to their corporate operations, setting targets in supply chains is an even more ambitious endeavor. Corporate supply chains are the source of significant carbon emissions and are notoriously hard to manage. Longtime EDF Climate Corps host Verizon – a corporation with a history of setting and achieving sustainability goals –knew that by working strategically it could tackle this daunting challenge. This past summer, Verizon asked its EDF Climate Corps fellow to help the company cross the finish line on its 2017 supplier target. By creating a holistic strategy that used a combination of risk-identification and supplier engagement, Verizon is now on track to accomplish its 2017 supplier goal and formally launch its next target to help manage supply chain carbon emissions.

The EDF Climate Corps community is a living laboratory. Through our fellowships and engagement with large energy users, we see companies and cities trying new things, and working smarter, not harder, to achieve ambitious goals. We’ve mirrored this journey as well, moving from a “one boiler room at a time” mentality to broader, more strategic engagement with companies to help drive progress. Through a focus on smart energy strategy, driven by goals, we know that companies can generate a virtuous cycle of positive returns for their organizations.

By Sean Wright

In a recent blog post, I discussed three ways investors can have a positive impact on the environment.  One of those levers is engagement, or using your influence with the companies you invest in to help ensure those companies are being managed both profitably and sustainably.

Principles for Responsible Investment (PRI) is a recognized global authority on how investors can engage with companies to manage environmental risks. Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) is partnering with PRI to release a new how-to guide for engaging with oil and gas companies globally on methane emissions.

As investor scrutiny ramps up on all forms of climate risk, investors globally are becoming more aware of and concerned about the material risks that methane poses to portfolios, detailed in EDF’s Rising Risk report.  That report found methane poses a series of reputational, regulatory and financial risks to operators and their investors.  Methane, 84 times more powerful than carbon dioxide, is a potent form of carbon risk, and left unmanaged it can literally leak away shareholder value.

Methane is a potent carbon risk, left unmanaged it can literally leak away shareholder value.
Click To Tweet

An Investor’s Guide to Methane responds to growing demand from investors globally for practical guidance on how to not only manage these risks through company engagement, but surface opportunities as well.  Investors want to understand how companies should measure their emissions, what they should be reporting, and what kinds of best management practices they should adopt to keep more product in the pipeline.  This guide provides details on what leading methane management looks like.

Just as investors use quarterly earnings to understand who the most profitable companies are, investors can use the performance benchmarking framework included in the guide to help differentiate relative methane performance.  Because methane management is such a powerful proxy for operational excellence, understanding relative performance on the issue can be a helpful insight for investment decision-making. As such, early-engagers will have a first-mover advantage. This framework is also designed to help identify concrete next steps companies can take to improve management, such as using additional emissions reductions technologies or adopting methane reporting metrics.

The guide also provides detailed questions to help support constructive dialogue.  For example, EDF’s Rising Risk report found that as of early 2016, zero of the leading 65 companies in the US had disclosed a methane reduction target. The guide includes questions such as “What form of a quantitative methane reduction target would work best for your company?” that can help an operator think through how to best set an ambitious but achievable target.

As part of their engagement, investors should expect all operators to measure, report and reduce their emissions:

Measure – We’ve all heard the phrase “what gets measured, gets managed.” Getting accurate information on a company’s methane emissions is the first step in understanding the extent of the problem, uncovering hidden risks, and identifying opportunities to bring more product to the bottom line.  The more accurate the information, the better positioned companies will be to effectively reduce emissions. Expert level methane management requires companies to utilize robust direct measurement, or the process of getting out into the field to measure emissions, as this is more accurate than desk-top estimates.

Report – Investors require actionable methane information in order to understand the relative performance of operators, and leading companies will demonstrate how they are managing methane risk.  Operators should set and disclose a methane reduction target, and report how they plan to meet that target. For example, expert level operators will report the frequency, scope and methodology for their leak detection and repair (LDAR) programs as one best practice to limit emissions.

Reduce – Minimizing methane emissions is highly cost effective, and can be done using proven, off the shelf technologies.  Because methane is both pollutant and product, many of these technologies have a positive payback. Investors should feel confident in encouraging companies to reduce emissions knowing they can do so in a shareholder-friendly manner.  Leading operators will show a declining trend in emissions, frequently inspect assets for leaks, join global voluntary initiatives like the Oil and Gas Methane Partnership, and support regulations to reduce emissions.

The key points from these three buckets, as well as related engagement discussion questions, are summarized in a 2-page cheat sheet summary investors can take to meetings with them.

Methane is the next frontier for investor engagement on climate and carbon risk. Unmanaged emissions of methane can directly undermine the natural gas’ ability to play a role in a lower-carbon energy economy, impair social license to operate and be a proxy for operational inefficiency.   Conversely, active methane management can inspire investor and stakeholder confidence, keep product in the pipeline and prepare companies to operate in an increasingly carbon-constrained, regulated world.

Investors should utilize their influence, and this guide, to ensure companies are proactively managing methane risks and leveraging opportunities.

Download An Investor's Guide to Methane

Follow Sean Wright on Twitter, @SeanWright23

Additional reading: Why energy investors need to manage methane as a Rising Risk

By Jason Mathers

PepsiCo, one of the world’s largest food and beverage companies, this week announced new sustainability goals. The goal that caught my attention is:

“we intend to reduce absolute greenhouse gas emissions across our value chain by at least 20%”

In setting this impressive goal, PepsiCo join Kellogg’s and General Mills in setting big, comprehensive greenhouse gas emission reduction goals for their supply chain.

So, this leadership action is officially a trend.

Jason Mathers, Senior Manager, Supply Chain Logisticsgreenhouse gas emission reduction goals for their supply chain. So, this leadership action is officially a trend.

It's also a really big deal.

Companies are increasingly focused on cleaning up supply chains because of Sutton’s Law as applied to corporate sustainability: that is where the impact is. Over 90% of natural capital impacts associated with food and beverage companies occur in supply chains. The statistics are similar for the retail and consumer goods industries too. This is far from an academic point.

Supply chain executives are increasingly attuned to the fact that driving sustainability improvements needs to be a focus in the years ahead. In a recent survey from SCM World, 77% of food and beverage supply chain professionals recognized that “their supply chain plays a substantial role in securing the future of the planet.”

PepsiCo and other leaders are moving from the realization that there is a challenge to taking meaningful action. The new and important aspect of their approach is that they are aiming to improve their entire value chain. In doing so they are stating the obvious: it is no longer sufficient to make improvements in a few areas only. They need to tackle the system.

Now certainly some will look askance at these goals and warn of “boiling the ocean”; nothing could be further from the truth. The fact is that these goals are necessary and achievable.

They are necessary because they establish a long-term corporate commitment to continuous improvement on supply chain sustainability. As the goals are performance based, supply chain managers will be able to objectively track their progress and do what they do best – reduce risks, increase efficiency, and cut costs. They will be freed from chasing big shiny objects in the name of sustainability. Instead, they will be empowered to drive improvements with the best return.

These goals are achievable because they deploy a Science-Strategic-Systems approach – a proven framework for corporate sustainability success:

• Science: These initiatives are built on a solid foundation of science that puts corporate sustainability goals in context of the overall challenge at hand. As a result of this, these corporate commitments are consistent with the scope and pace of greenhouse gas emissions targets necessary for climate stability. Framing the goals in terms of what our best science dictates ensures that the companies will be using the best metrics to assess progress.
• Strategy: Supply chain greenhouse gas reduction goals are strategic for food and beverage, consumer brands, retailers and others because it directly targets the largest areas of impact. By placing the focus on these areas, companies are able to put durable solutions in place that expand revenue and drive business growth. They strengthen relationships with key suppliers and develop a fuller understanding of market risk.
• Systems: The audacity in the scope of these goals is a power in itself. Far from the small-minded outlook that warns of boiling oceans, big goals such as these require companies to drive improvements to entire systems. The manifest challenge of tackling systems forces these companies to recognize they must collaborate with others – beyond the four walls of their company— to achieve their goals. With partners, they can drive deep changes in how products are made, designed, packaged and distributed; and collaborate with policymakers to align market incentives with sustainable business practices.

PepsiCo deserves our praise for setting its new goals. But, more importantly, it needs our help in achieving them.

Not just the help of EDF and other advocates, of course, but the help of its suppliers, retail customers and competitors too. We all have a role in driving down supply chain emissions.For EDF, we’re helping by partnering with PepsiCo and others to develop best practices to drive supply chain improvements, including reducing the environmental impacts of commodity row crop production, strengthening zero deforestation zones, and greening product distribution.

We are also calling on other companies to join PepsiCo, General Mills and Kellogg’s by setting transformational supply chain sustainability goals too. It is what the future of corporate sustainability looks like.

What’s your company going to do?

By Jenny Ahlen

Many of us spend a considerable amount of time thinking about food – whether it’s deciding what’s for dinner or how healthy something is for our family. Given that I work on food sustainability and am married to a chef, I spend an even more extreme amount of time thinking about food.

Last week, the Wall Street Journal hosted the first annual Global Food Forum in New York City – more proof that food and agricultural issues are increasingly on the radar screens of many executives, including those from Walmart, Campbell’s Soup, Panera, Perdue, Monsanto, and many more.

I was eager to attend the event and hear the discussions among some of the most powerful food companies out there. They covered many topics including food safety, “clean” labels, biotechnology, antibiotic use and the humane treatment of animals.

All important stuff—but given the prestige of the event, I’d like to bring up the elephant in the room (or more accurately the elephant not in the room): sustainability. The environmental impacts of agriculture were barely touched upon, and considering the corporate heavyweights who were in the room, this was a missed opportunity on a massive scale.

Why? Because across the entire food production supply chain, sustainability and profitability go hand-in-hand. Consider just a few of the advantages offered by sustainable growing methods:

Increased efficiency and cost savings: Crops take up on average only 40 percent of the nutrients applied to them each growing season. The rest is susceptible to running off the field, and contributing to water and air pollution.

But optimizing fertilizer use—using just the right amount and avoiding over applying—can mean higher yields and lower input costs for farmers, while simultaneously reducing that pollution-causing runoff.

Improved supply chain resiliency: One of the biggest risks that businesses face in the coming decades is supply chain disruptions caused by climate change. Unpredictable weather events like flooding and drought can mean grain shortages or inventory losses.

A couple of years ago, thousands of jobs were lost when Cargill closed meat processing plants in Wisconsin and Texas because drought had reduced its cattle count. And, according to a UC Davis study, last year saw about 542,000 acres of California farmland being left fallow for lack of water. That's about 7 percent of the state's irrigated farmland—meaning thousands fewer farm laborers had work.

But sustainable growing methods can help mitigate these risks. By helping farmers become more resilient, businesses are also protecting themselves by ensuring a consistent, dependable supply of goods. This improved resiliency is something shareholders are increasingly aware of.

Improved customer trust: The ability to share where and how ingredients are grown helps meet consumer demand for transparency. Consumers are clearly becoming more educated, and to remain competitive businesses need to respond to this demand.

Given all this, what advice do I have for the organizers of next year’s WSJ event?

First off, include deforestation, which is responsible for nearly 15 percent of the world’s greenhouse gases. In many tropical nations, it is more economical to cut down forests for farmland than to protect them.

In addition to taking on a massive carbon footprint, companies sourcing food from deforested land are likely exposing themselves to legal and ethical risks. Solutions exist, such as sourcing from large-scale zones that operate under an umbrella of sustainable practices, but companies need to be educated and informed about their options.

Second, shine a spotlight on corporate sustainability leaders helping make farmers more resilient and profitable, such as:

• The Midwest Row Crop Collaborative, a diverse coalition of food companies, retailers, and nonprofits working to expand on-the-ground solutions to protect air and water quality, enhance soil health, and maintain high yields throughout the Upper Mississippi River Basin.
• Land O’Lakes’ SUSTAIN® platform, co-developed by EDF, which trains agricultural retailers in best practices for fertilizer efficiency and soil health. The ag retailers then bring this knowledge to the customers they serve. Kellogg Company, Campbell’s, and Smithfield Foods are all using SUSTAIN as a way to connect directly with growers in their sourcing regions.

Lastly, talk about food waste. Up to 40 percent of food in the U.S. ends up in a landfill – the equivalent of $165 billion each year. The only way to truly address the environmental issues of our food system while feeding a growing global population is to reduce food waste, which translates into improved bottom lines for farmers, food companies, and customers.

So, yes: I spend a lot of time thinking about sustainable food. But sustainability is clearly where the food industry is going.

The WSJ Global Food Forum should be thinking about it too.

By Sean Wright

Investors can be powerful change agents when it comes to the environment. Investors have capital which they can allocate in ways that either help or hurt the environment. They also have significant influence with the companies they invest in and with policymakers globally, both critical stakeholders when it comes to improving the environment.

While some investors are already working at the nexus of the environment and finance, given the earth’s pressing environmental challenges like climate change, overfishing and deforestation, there has never been a greater need for all investors to engage on sustainability issues. For example, private capital will be essential in order to mitigate the worst impacts of climate change – a recent UN study estimated that it will require roughly $90 trillion dollars, much more than philanthropic or public (i.e., government) investments can fund.

Of course, investors should consider environmental issues not just to do good, but also because the returns often meet if not exceed the performance of more traditional investments. And because investors are interested in risk-adjusted returns, managing environmental risks like carbon and water is critical to any comprehensive investment process.

Below are three levers investors can use to when considering environmental impacts:

1. Capital allocation – The first decision any investor must make is where to invest their money. Considering sustainability issues can help drive capital towards investments that provide both an environmental and financial dividend.

One way to allocate capital toward more sustainable investments is to integrate environmental criteria into the investment process. Organizations like Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP) and Sustainability Accounting Standards Board (SASB) improve disclosure on issues like carbon emissions and water, enabling investors to gain insight into how efficiently a company operates and manages environmental risk. In this respect, as Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) disclosure improves, investors can move from screening out whole sectors to proactively allocating capital toward companies that better manage material environmental issues, an investment trend which is becoming more mainstream in the U.S.  For example, while Environmental Defense Fund’s (EDF) Rising Risk report found methane disclosure in the oil and gas industry to be poor, as methane data improves, investors will be able to shift capital to those operators who are actively managing risk from this powerful pollutant and wasted product.

Investors can also place their money into investments with an explicit environmental component, like green bonds. These bonds are a debt instrument specifically tied to achieving a beneficial environmental outcome like energy efficiency, climate resiliency, or water infrastructure. The market for these double bottom line investments has grown from less than $3b just a few years ago to over $40b in 2015.

Investors are gaining new opportunities to invest in innovative products that help to reduce carbon emissions from deforestation and agriculture and improve sustainable fishing practices around the globe. Sustainable investing is also no longer just for sophisticated institutional investors. As financial tech startups are enabling individual retail investors to invest in an environmentally-friendly manner – giving all an opportunity to do well by doing good.

1. Company engagement – Once their money is allocated, investors can then use their influence as equity or debt-holders to hold corporations accountable for environmental performance, risk management and disclosure. Organizations like Principles for Responsible Investment (PRI) and Interfaith Center on Corporate Responsibility (ICCR) act to help investors be effective engagers by coordinating efforts on topics from deforestation and palm oil to water risks, and encourage collaboration where possible.

Engagement can include the ability of asset owners like private equity to work with portfolio companies to become more sustainable. EDF worked with leading private equity companies to design the Green Returns tool, which enables private equity to approach value creation through an environmental lens, and spot opportunities such as energy efficiency and waste reduction initiatives that generate cost-savings. Using this tool, Kohlberg Kravis Roberts (KKR) was able to add $1.2 billion to the value of their portfolio while avoiding significant greenhouse gases, water use, and excess waste.

Shareholders in public companies also have the ability to file shareholder resolutions to publically encourage better environmental management. In 2016, shareholders filed a record number of climate-related resolutions, which a recent Harvard Business School study has shown to be effective in improving both financial and environmental performance when focused on material ESG issues.

Oil & Gas Investors need to engage on environmental issues now – 3 levers to balance portfolio…
Click To Tweet

1. Policy Support – Getting the rules right will be critical in both addressing environmental issues directly and in driving private capital towards environmentally-friendly assets. As Hank Paulson, the former Treasury Secretary and CEO of Goldman Sachs noted in a recent NY Times Op-Ed, we need policies that “include environmental regulations to stimulate clean, sustainable development; incentives and subsidies for clean energy investments; and the pricing of carbon emissions.”

Investors with expertise on business, markets, and finance have an important role to play in the policy process. The next generation of investor leadership on sustainability will require aligning external policy positions with internal sustainability practices and playing a proactive and public role to support legislation and regulations.

Organizations like CERES have been instrumental in activating investors on policy matters. Just this year, CERES played a leading role in getting 76 global investors with $3.6 trillion in assets under management (AUM) to support methane regulations in the U.S. and Canada while working with organizations like Institutional Investors Group on Climate Change (IIGCC) in Europe to recruit 130 investors with $13 trillion in AUM to support implementation of the Paris agreement. Such statements of support are meaningful in helping build the business case for environmental policy.  And direct engagement with law and policy makers is a next frontier for investors looking to maximize their impact on supporting sound policy development.

The need for investors to engage on environmental issues has never been greater, and the opportunities to do so profitably have never been more widespread. Investors of all kinds should incorporate the levers of allocation, engagement and policy in their investment process – a move with the potential to benefit both the planet and their portfolios.

Follow Sean Wright on Twitter, @SeanWright23

Why energy investors need to manage methane as a Rising Risk

By Aileen Nowlan

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has committed to regulate existing sources of methane from the oil and gas industry, and it is asking for information from the methane mitigation industry to make sure the rule’s approach and requirements account for recent innovation. The EPA’s announcement comprises the U.S. portion of the North American commitment to cut methane by up to 45% from the continent’s oil and gas industry by 2025. Existing sources in the oil and gas industry make up over 90% of the sector’s emissions, which contribute over 9 million tons of methane pollution annually.

Emission standards for existing sources of methane will not only reduce greenhouse gases but could also create new markets and customers for the growing mitigation industry. The regulation will likely start with one or more approved work practices to find and fix methane leaks, describing a technology or group of technologies that must be used in a certain manner. For example, EPA’s New Source Performance Standards for new and modified sources of methane required the use of optical gas imaging cameras or “Method 21” instruments. With far more existing sources of methane than new or modified sources, being part of an approved work practice for existing sources would open up a significant market opportunity.

In one of the first steps toward developing the existing source rule, the EPA has set up a voluntary Request for Information, asking anyone with “information about monitoring, detection of fugitive emissions, and alternative mitigation approaches” to submit details by commenting on the Request for Information docket online . The EPA states it is particularly interested in “advanced monitoring technologies” that could be “broadly applicable to existing sources.” The EPA cites as an example “monitoring systems that provide coverage across emission points or equipment in a way that was not previously possible, thus enabling a different approach to setting standards.” A good submission may include “published or unpublished papers, technical information, data, or any other information” that might be relevant.

The deadline to submit information via comment to the agency is November 15, 2016. But there is no need to wait–those who submit earlier will be part of the conversation sooner. And a number of important topics need to be discussed to shape the existing source regulation. The federal New Source Performance Standards and Colorado’s methane regulation contain a pathway for innovative technologies—a mechanism, supported by industry and  environmentalists alike, for the EPA to evaluate and approve better methane reduction approaches. A similar approach could help incentivize advanced technology deployment for existing sources.  This request for information is the first invitation of many to highlight innovation in the methane mitigation industry.

Follow Aileen Nowlan on Twitter, @Aileennow

Read more about the emerging Methane Mitigation industry

Why energy investors need to manage methane as a Rising Risk