At a recent EDF board meeting, Geoffrey Heal talked about the economic values that ecosystem services provide for our economic well-being. His presentation included a number of case studies, including the New York City Department of Environmental Protection's financial support for farmers in the Catskills to farm in ways that protect the city’s water quality. […]

By Frank Convery

At a recent EDF board meeting, Geoffrey Heal talked about the economic values that ecosystem services provide for our economic well-being. His presentation included a number of case studies, including the New York City Department of Environmental Protection's financial support for farmers in the Catskills to farm in ways that protect the city’s water quality. The key to the business model: farmers benefit by getting financial support from the City of New York, and the city avoids having to go through a costly filtration system to physically remove impurities or contaminants in a series of filters. The city water supply does undergo UV decontamination.

Last week, the staff of EDF’s Office of the Chief Economist decided to see for ourselves how this works in practice. We visited with Gibson Durnford, the East of the Hudson Agricultural Coordinator of the Watershed Agricultural Council, based in Yorktown Heights, New York. A non-profit organization led by local farmers, it started in 1993 to lead and administer the program.

Incentives for farmers and the City are aligned

Gibson explained that customers in New York City consume 1 billion gallons of water a day, which is supplied from the West and East Hudson systems. There is one and a half years of water in storage (550 billion gallons).

If farmers did not protect the Delaware and Catskill water sheds, the City would have to make a an estimated capital investment of $8-10 billion in water filtration plants and spend an additional $100 million annually to operate them. Phosphate is a particular problem, and the city would also have to deal with sediment running off the farms into the water supply system.

For farmers, payments for eco-services compensate and empower private landowners to be surface-water stewards of New York City’s drinking water. Whole farm management plans are agreed with farmers, incorporating best management practices that both support sustainable farming and protect water quality; concentrated manure sources like slurry pits or storage piles are a greater concern than waste in the fields. If fields are well-vegetated with grass, the plants will take up nutrients; the vegetation slows water flow and also makes the soil more porous and increases absorption.

Farmers are provided with investment funds for purposes which include drainage, roading, manure pads, and sward management; conservation easements are purchased (a percentage of market value) which simultaneously lets the farmer retain ownership of the land, releases capital for the owner while ensuring that the land remains available for farming and forestry; the forest program helps farmers with erosion control, sustainable harvesting, and planting on the banks of tributaries.

Conservation in action at an Alpaca farm
We visited Leda Bloomberg and Steve Cole’s Faraway Farm, where they raise Alpaca sheep for their wool. The Watershed Agricultural Council supported the installation of a manure pad, and of a rocky channel along the roadway had drains it to collect the water running off the field and divert it away for infiltration into the soil. Leda and Steve indicated that they had benefited greatly from the advice and support of the Watershed Council. The council is "on the side of the farmers" and is proactive in finding new and better ways to conserve and better their well-being.

The economist Ronald Coase won the Nobel Prize, in part for theorizing (without evidence) that those who pollute could negotiate a solution with those who would benefit from pollution reduction. We were honored and delighted to see his theory being acted upon to such great positive effect for both farmers upstate and the water consumers in New York City. As we left, we had only one question: Doesn’t such a great idea deserve to be replicated?

A new report from Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) highlights lessons learned and recommendations for the future of Cuba’s electric sector. These include the benefits of Cuba’s decentralized grid, the potential benefits of fueling the grid with more clean energy, and new financing opportunities. The full report is entitled The Cuban Electric Grid, and an abridged […]

A new report from Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) highlights lessons learned and recommendations for the future of Cuba’s electric sector. These include the benefits of Cuba’s decentralized grid, the potential benefits of fueling the grid with more clean energy, and new financing opportunities. The full report is entitled The Cuban Electric Grid, and an abridged […]

A new report from Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) highlights lessons learned and recommendations for the future of Cuba’s electric sector. These include the benefits of Cuba’s decentralized grid, the potential benefits of fueling the grid with more clean energy, and new financing opportunities. The full report is entitled The Cuban Electric Grid, and an abridged […]

By Michael Panfil

A new report from Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) highlights for the future of Cuba’s electric sector. These include the benefits of Cuba’s decentralized grid, the potential benefits of fueling the grid with more clean energy, and new financing opportunities. The full report is entitled The Cuban Electric Grid, and an abridged version appears in The Electricity Journal. The report builds upon more than a decade of EDF engagement in Cuba.

Here are five key takeaways from the report.

1. A Decentralized Grid

Most electric grids rely on large, centralized power plants to make electricity. In contrast, a decentralized grid uses distributed generation where electricity is made from more numerous, smaller power sources (such as rooftop solar or a city microgrid).

Distributed grids support resilience and are to quickly recover from power problems, helping ease crippling outages that contribute to $250 billion in economic losses globally ever year.

Denmark leads the world in installed distributed generation. The second country on that list? Cuba, with 42 percent of its generation capacity – the maximum amount of electricity the country can produce – coming from distributed sources.

Responding to widespread damage from hurricanes, Cuba in the 2000s installed large amounts of distributed generation. Not all distributed generation is equal, however. One critical difference between Denmark and Cuba is that the former’s distributed generation is more modern and made up of clean energy resources, whereas heavily-polluting fuel oil makes up the backbone of Cuba’s power mix.

Since Cuba already relies on a fairly , the country may have strong reason to investigate whether cleaner sources of distributed energy could be installed.

Cuba’s electric future: Lessons learned and pathways forward
Click To Tweet

1. Clean energy: A cost-effective way to reach Cuba’s climate goals

Cuba actively participates in international climate agreements, including signing the Paris Climate Agreement. As part of the agreement, the country intends by 2030 to use renewable resources to make 24 percent of its electricity. This is a laudable and praiseworthy goal, but very real issues must be addressed, particularly as Cuba’s renewable resources currently only make up 4 percent of all generation.

Cuba is at a proverbial “fork in the road” between continuing to rely on fuel oil and switching to renewable resources. In addition to being environmentally friendly, clean energy can also be the most cost effective way to make electricity, particularly in island nations. A low-carbon future could secure a low-cost future, as well.

1. Island economics invite innovative answers 

   Cuba mainly uses heavily-polluting fuel oil to drive its electric sector. This source of electricity comes at a significant price.

Again, Cuba mainly uses heavily-polluting fuel oil to drive its electric sector. This source of electricity comes at a significant price, both financial and in the form of serious public health and environmental risks.

Fuel oil is, simply put, an expensive option to power an electric grid. Costs are generally even higher in island nations like Cuba, which import the majority of their fuel (adding to the ultimate cost).

In previous years Cuba was able to import fuel oil through subsidized, non-commercial barter agreements. Going forward, the country may instead need to rely upon cheaper sources of electricity and commercial contracts, making renewable resources like solar and wind power attractive alternatives.

1. Opportunities to learn and lead

Countries are increasingly turning to cleaner, more affordable resources to power their electric grids. And although Cuba – and its grid – are unique, there are incredible opportunities to learn and build upon global successes.

Some island nations that traditionally relied on imported fuel have already begun replacing diesel generators with renewable resources. Likewise for Cuba, countries and localities with heavily decentralized grids can be important sources of technical knowledge and experience.

Cuba faced energy shortages in the mid-2000s, and the Cuban government swiftly enacted an energy efficiency program throughout the country.

Knowledge sharing should be a two-way street, and Cuba has already achieved several of its own successes that, if replicable, could be widely beneficial. For example, Cuba faced energy shortages in the mid-2000s, and the Cuban government swiftly enacted an energy efficiency program throughout the country. In only six months, the program succeeded in replacing millions of inefficient appliances with more efficient models. Energy consumption dropped an incredible 3 to 4 percent a year as a result.

1. Figuring out financing

Cuba has generally imported much of its fuel through non-commercial barter agreements. Moving forward, and potentially without the same support of these agreements, Cuba should consider the array of potential financing options available to spur clean energy resources.

Cuba should consider the array of potential financing options available to spur clean energy resources.

Financing could take a variety of forms, including understanding and resolving foreign investment restrictions, working with international development agencies, crafting guarantees to help mitigate credit risk, entering into public-private partnerships, and joining international entities that can provide access to otherwise unavailable forms of financing.

Cuba has already shown interest in stimulating investment, particularly around renewables. Allowing some renewable projects to be 100 percent foreign owned, for example, underscores the seriousness of the government’s interest in boosting clean energy.

Our report overviews next steps Cuba should consider moving forward. These five quick takeaways only touch the surface, and we invite you to take a closer look in the full report.

Photo by Eva Blue on Unsplash.

A new report from Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) highlights lessons learned and recommendations for the future of Cuba’s electric sector. These include the benefits of Cuba’s decentralized grid, the potential benefits of fueling the grid with more clean energy, and new financing opportunities. The full report is entitled The Cuban Electric Grid, and an abridged […]

A new report from Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) highlights lessons learned and recommendations for the future of Cuba’s electric sector. These include the benefits of Cuba’s decentralized grid, the potential benefits of fueling the grid with more clean energy, and new financing opportunities. The full report is entitled The Cuban Electric Grid, and an abridged […]

A new report from Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) highlights lessons learned and recommendations for the future of Cuba’s electric sector. These include the benefits of Cuba’s decentralized grid, the potential benefits of fueling the grid with more clean energy, and new financing opportunities. The full report is entitled The Cuban Electric Grid, and an abridged […]

The post Cuba’s electric future: Lessons learned and pathways forward appeared first on Energy Exchange.

Interior Department takes aim at key environmental mitigation policy. Here's what's at stake.

The next policy battle in the Trump administration's war on the environment is ramping up – and this time they're targeting a critical mitigation policy.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service just announced a plan to review and potentially revise net benefit goals in its compensatory mitigation policy. It came on the very anniversary of a presidential memorandum that created the standards two years ago.

The move follows a White House executive order to modify or rescind such policies throughout the U.S. Department of Interior to facilitate energy development in ecologically sensitive areas on private and public lands.

This potential policy change would translate into lost jobs, dollars, habitat and ecosystems. It would put the short-term interests of a few over the long-term interests of the American public.

Move jeopardizes $25-billion industry sector

Mitigation banking is a $25-billion sector supported by private capital that funds environmental restoration projects to offset impacts from nearby infrastructure and development.

The projects are paid for by companies in the energy, real estate and transportation industries that disturb ecosystems. The system has been in place since 1989, when President George H.W. Bush established a national "no net loss" goal for wetlands.

Today, the mitigation banking marketplace is a rapidly growing industry that effectively protects our natural resources while offering several important side benefits.

Resilience against extreme weather could be weakened

Mitigation policies make sure that new roads don't cut off streams, new housing developments don't fill wetlands, and new energy projects don't destroy habitat for endangered species without reparation. It maintains clean water supplies and access to recreational opportunities.

Importantly, projects supported by mitigation policies also help protect communities against hurricanes, floods and wildfires that destroy homes and lives. By investing in wetlands, prairies and other habitat, these projects help us become more resilient to extreme weather.

After nearly 30 years of successful wetland banking, there are countless examples of mitigation projects that bring multiple benefits.

In the Mississippi River Delta, for example, marsh and wetland restoration projects are offsetting impacts from the 2010 BP oil spill through rehabilitation and enhancement of degraded sites. These projects now help to protect coastal Gulf communities from hurricanes, floods and even oil spills – all key priorities today.

Wildlife loses big if "net benefit" is scrapped

In the wildfire-prone West, meanwhile, many states are working to restore the sagebrush ecosystem for the imperiled greater sage-grouse and other at-risk wildlife through advanced mitigation programs that include net benefit standards.

Nevada's state-led sage-grouse mitigation program, for example, facilitates restoration projects that give credit buyers more confidence that sufficient habitat will be available for the bird even in the event of wildfires – one of the largest threats to sage-grouse success.

Ultimately, net benefit goals help protect a species' last remaining stronghold habitat, which can keep wildlife off the Endangered Species List and on the path to recovery. Erasing these goals puts all of that at risk.

Thousands of jobs could be undermined

Importantly, the restoration industry also employs 126,000 Americans, including ecologists, conservation planners, equipment operators, engineers and financial experts. That's more than in coal mining, logging or steel production.

By undermining mitigation, many of those jobs could be jeopardized. Such losses come in addition to diminishing natural storm barriers and protection of imperiled species – all things Americans need and want.

And yet, the Trump administration continues to target policies that protect public health and the environment by replacing science and economics with politics.

Reversing net benefit goals for mitigation would be a short-sighted move that would ultimately weaken conservation outcomes for both people and wildlife.

A timeline of Zinke's crusade against methane rules   Anonymous November 7, 2017 - 10:49

See comments

Trump is not the best person to be making any climate decisions. After his statement in Japan about where their cars are made I see he really knows nothing about much. Seeing most companies want to continue to fight climate change I sure hope someone stands up to him and all his craziness. Good luck.

Marilyn Oliver November 7, 2017 at 5:22 pm

Looking forward to the end of compensatory mitigation. It has not been demonstrated to effectively "compensate" for the harm caused, except in certain limited cases. Apologists say that its the best we can get, but that pessimism reflects cognitive laziness more than anything. Certainly not worth keeping a policy that is still experimental after 25 years just to save mitigation banks.

Fraser Shilling November 7, 2017 at 6:59 pm

You’re right, Fraser: Compensatory mitigation has not worked as well as it could have or needs to. So EDF has been working to improve outcomes by creating Habitat Exchanges, which are designed to pull compensatory mitigation policy and practice into the 21st century. These systems ensure transparency and accountability, while guaranteeing net benefit for affected wildlife. In our view, it would be a mistake to abandon compensatory mitigation requirements at this time when deep-pocketed industries and their lobbyists are pushing against it.

Eric Holst November 8, 2017 at 4:42 pm

Please let your readers know how they can participate in the debate by offering comments on FR Doc. 2017-23965, at https://www.regulations.gov.

William Coleman November 9, 2017 at 1:08 pm

There’s been 4 billion years of climate change. Man is but an observer.

Charlie Daubitz December 8, 2017 at 1:55 pm

So the proposal is no mitigation for wetland fills and still no net loss?
So no wetland fill period.
.

Mark Andre January 27, 2018 at 3:32 pm

Interior Department takes aim at key environmental mitigation policy. Here's what's at stake.

The next policy battle in the Trump administration's war on the environment is ramping up – and this time they're targeting a critical mitigation policy.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service just announced a plan to review and potentially revise net benefit goals in its compensatory mitigation policy. It came on the very anniversary of a presidential memorandum that created the standards two years ago.

The move follows a White House executive order to modify or rescind such policies throughout the U.S. Department of Interior to facilitate energy development in ecologically sensitive areas on private and public lands.

This potential policy change would translate into lost jobs, dollars, habitat and ecosystems. It would put the short-term interests of a few over the long-term interests of the American public.

Move jeopardizes $25-billion industry sector

Mitigation banking is a $25-billion sector supported by private capital that funds environmental restoration projects to offset impacts from nearby infrastructure and development.

The projects are paid for by companies in the energy, real estate and transportation industries that disturb ecosystems. The system has been in place since 1989, when President George H.W. Bush established a national "no net loss" goal for wetlands.

Today, the mitigation banking marketplace is a rapidly growing industry that effectively protects our natural resources while offering several important side benefits.

Resilience against extreme weather could be weakened

Mitigation policies make sure that new roads don't cut off streams, new housing developments don't fill wetlands, and new energy projects don't destroy habitat for endangered species without reparation. It maintains clean water supplies and access to recreational opportunities.

Importantly, projects supported by mitigation policies also help protect communities against hurricanes, floods and wildfires that destroy homes and lives. By investing in wetlands, prairies and other habitat, these projects help us become more resilient to extreme weather.

After nearly 30 years of successful wetland banking, there are countless examples of mitigation projects that bring multiple benefits.

In the Mississippi River Delta, for example, marsh and wetland restoration projects are offsetting impacts from the 2010 BP oil spill through rehabilitation and enhancement of degraded sites. These projects now help to protect coastal Gulf communities from hurricanes, floods and even oil spills – all key priorities today.

Wildlife loses big if "net benefit" is scrapped

In the wildfire-prone West, meanwhile, many states are working to restore the sagebrush ecosystem for the imperiled greater sage-grouse and other at-risk wildlife through advanced mitigation programs that include net benefit standards.

Nevada's state-led sage-grouse mitigation program, for example, facilitates restoration projects that give credit buyers more confidence that sufficient habitat will be available for the bird even in the event of wildfires – one of the largest threats to sage-grouse success.

Ultimately, net benefit goals help protect a species' last remaining stronghold habitat, which can keep wildlife off the Endangered Species List and on the path to recovery. Erasing these goals puts all of that at risk.

Thousands of jobs could be undermined

Importantly, the restoration industry also employs 126,000 Americans, including ecologists, conservation planners, equipment operators, engineers and financial experts. That's more than in coal mining, logging or steel production.

By undermining mitigation, many of those jobs could be jeopardized. Such losses come in addition to diminishing natural storm barriers and protection of imperiled species – all things Americans need and want.

And yet, the Trump administration continues to target policies that protect public health and the environment by replacing science and economics with politics.

Reversing net benefit goals for mitigation would be a short-sighted move that would ultimately weaken conservation outcomes for both people and wildlife.

A timeline of Zinke's crusade against methane rules   Anonymous November 7, 2017 - 10:49

See comments

Trump is not the best person to be making any climate decisions. After his statement in Japan about where their cars are made I see he really knows nothing about much. Seeing most companies want to continue to fight climate change I sure hope someone stands up to him and all his craziness. Good luck.

Marilyn Oliver November 7, 2017 at 5:22 pm

Looking forward to the end of compensatory mitigation. It has not been demonstrated to effectively "compensate" for the harm caused, except in certain limited cases. Apologists say that its the best we can get, but that pessimism reflects cognitive laziness more than anything. Certainly not worth keeping a policy that is still experimental after 25 years just to save mitigation banks.

Fraser Shilling November 7, 2017 at 6:59 pm

You’re right, Fraser: Compensatory mitigation has not worked as well as it could have or needs to. So EDF has been working to improve outcomes by creating Habitat Exchanges, which are designed to pull compensatory mitigation policy and practice into the 21st century. These systems ensure transparency and accountability, while guaranteeing net benefit for affected wildlife. In our view, it would be a mistake to abandon compensatory mitigation requirements at this time when deep-pocketed industries and their lobbyists are pushing against it.

Eric Holst November 8, 2017 at 4:42 pm

Please let your readers know how they can participate in the debate by offering comments on FR Doc. 2017-23965, at https://www.regulations.gov.

William Coleman November 9, 2017 at 1:08 pm

There’s been 4 billion years of climate change. Man is but an observer.

Charlie Daubitz December 8, 2017 at 1:55 pm

So the proposal is no mitigation for wetland fills and still no net loss?
So no wetland fill period.
.

Mark Andre January 27, 2018 at 3:32 pm

This week, signatories to the United Nations’ Framework Convention on Climate Change (COP 23) meet in Bonn, Germany to discuss implementation of the Paris Agreement.

This week, signatories to the United Nations’ Framework Convention on Climate Change (COP 23) meet in Bonn, Germany to discuss implementation of the Paris Agreement.

This week, signatories to the United Nations’ Framework Convention on Climate Change (COP 23) meet in Bonn, Germany to discuss implementation of the Paris Agreement.

By Katelyn Roedner Sutter

This week, signatories to the United Nations’ Framework Convention on Climate Change (COP 23) meet in Bonn, Germany to discuss implementation of the Paris Agreement. While much of the domestic news will focus on the Trump Administration’s “break-up” with the Paris Agreement, there will also be significant focus at the COP on actions of sub-nationals: cities, states, and regions around the world who are stepping up to address climate change.

California is a leader in sub-national climate action, and Governor Jerry Brown has been designated Special Advisor for States and Regions to COP 23. He will be welcoming new partners in the Under2MOU: a coalition of 188 jurisdictions around the world acting to keep global warming below 2 degrees Celsius. Governor Brown was also instrumental in creating the U.S. Climate Alliance, a bi-partisan group of states committed to reducing greenhouse gas emissions consistent with the goals of the Paris Agreement, even if Washington, DC tries to walk away.

At the U.S. Climate Action Pavilion at COP 23, Governor Brown, together with Michael Bloomberg, will release a new report on November 11th highlighting the progress of U.S. states, cities, and businesses in addressing climate change. He will also be participating in other events with the “We Are Still In” effort to promote American climate action and leadership. These are important examples of sub-national action that increases the ambition of other regions in reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

To illustrate California’s state-level achievements, Environmental Defense Fund has two new publications for COP 23. “California’s Cap-and-Trade Program Step by Step” explains how California set up its cornerstone climate policy, cap and trade, in an easy-to-follow 10-step formula. Other sub-nationals as well as interested countries will be able to learn from the state’s experience in developing their own emissions trading system.

“Cutting Carbon and Growing the Economy” highlights the progress California has made since cap and trade began in reducing emissions, strengthening the economy, and ensuring all California residents benefit.

Reducing emissions and growing the economy go hand-in-hand. The state is on track to beat the target of reducing greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 and the state’s Gross State Product has increased more than 16% since 2006.

At the same time, California’s job growth has outpaced the nation, and the growth in “clean jobs” has dwarfed overall job growth. Revenues from cap and trade mean over $5 billion is being invested in communities across the state. This includes funds directed toward air quality and other environmental justice issues in the most polluted neighborhoods.

Together, these publications demonstrate the progress California has made in addressing climate change. In partnership with the California State Delegation to COP 23, EDF will illustrate to the world that the Trump Administration doesn’t have the last word on American climate action. States like California are leading the way and are encouraging other sub-nationals to join them in ambitious climate action.

For further questions please reach out to any of EDF California’s delegation heading to Bonn this week: Quentin Foster, Erica Morehouse, or Katelyn Roedner Sutter.

This week, signatories to the United Nations’ Framework Convention on Climate Change (COP 23) meet in Bonn, Germany to discuss implementation of the Paris Agreement.

RT @dickmunson: Former FirstEnergy lobbyist leads Trump plea for coal subsidies. eenews.net/stories/106006… via @EENewsUpdates

By Alex Hanafi, Senior Manager, Multilateral Climate Strategy and Senior Attorney, and Soren Dudley, Program Assistant, Global Climate The first UN climate talks since the United States announced its plans to withdraw from the Paris Agreement start this week in Bonn, Germany. Chaired by the island nation of Fiji, the meetings are the second-to-last Conference of the Parties […]