By Tom Murray

With all economic and environmental indicators pointing towards a clean energy future … the Trump administration continues to move the U.S. backwards by repealing the Clean Power Plan.

While disheartening at a personal level, at a professional level I see no signs of the private sector retreating from the clean energy economy. Leading companies are zeroing in on the strategic moves that strengthen long-term business resilience.

Right now there is a broad and diverse coalition supporting the Clean Power Plan, including 18 states, 60 municipalities in red and blue states, some of the nation’s leading power companies, consumer and ratepayer advocates, faith organizations, public health associations, small business associations, iconic corporate leaders like Apple, Google, and Mars, and many others.

We’re too far down the road to a clean energy economy to turn back now.

Resilience is the hard-earned ROI of both business and nature. And when the two work together they do more than survive; they thrive.  Long-term business competitiveness relies on the capacity to plan for the future, adapt to challenges and changing market conditions and thrive in a progressively connected and global marketplace. Increasingly, business competitiveness and long term resilience are being impacted by climate change, from scarcity of natural resources to disruptions to global supply chains.

And now, Washington is selling a misguided political show of support for outdated dirty energy; once again paving the way for China, India, the European Union and Canada to race ahead on the global stage. The business community isn’t buying it.

Here’s a quick recap of recent corporate leadership focused on long-term prosperity:

• More than 365 businesses have publicly voiced their support for the Clean Power Plan.
• More than 1,700 have declared their commitment to driving a low-carbon economy by signing the “We Are Still In” statement.
• Investors pumped $66.9 billion into clean energy around the world in Q3, up 40% from the same period a year earlier, according to Bloomberg New Energy Finance.
• Wind investment reached $34.3 billion, the highest since Q2 2016, and surpassed solar investment of $30.5 billion.
• Just last week, America’s two largest automakers announced major commitments to produce more electric vehicles. General Motors (GM) plans to roll out 20 new all-electric vehicles by 2023 and Ford will add 13 electric car models in the next five years.

Tom Murray, VP EDF+Business

The good news is that there are more examples than ever before of companies stepping up their climate commitments and leadership. And with every public commitment, more companies are pointing their business strategies toward “true north."

The economy and the environment can and must move forward hand-in-hand. Where is your company heading?

It’s your time to lead.

Follow Tom on Twitter, @tpmurray

Stay on top of the latest facts, information and resources aimed at the intersection of business and the environment. Sign up for the EDF+Business blog. [contact-form-7]

With all economic and environmental indicators pointing towards a clean energy future … the Trump administration continues to move the U.S. backwards by repealing the Clean Power Plan. While disheartening at a personal level, at a professional level I see no signs of the private sector retreating from the clean energy economy. Leading companies are […]

By Kristina Mohlin

This blog post was co-authored with Levi Marks, Charles Mason and Matthew Zaragoza-Watkins

New England natural gas and electricity prices have undergone dramatic spikes in recent years, spurring talk about the need for a costly new pipeline to meet the region’s needs as demand for gas seemed ready to overtake suppliers’ available capacity to deliver it. For example, during the polar vortex of 2013-14, the gas price at New England’s main gas trading hub regularly exceeded $20/MMBtu (million British Thermal Units, the measure commonly used in the gas industry) and reached a record high of $78/MMBtu on January 22, 2014, compared to the annual average of $5.50/MMBtu.

In an efficient market, we would indeed expect prices to be high during events like the polar vortex. We would also expect pipelines delivering gas to regions like the Boston area – in this case the Algonquin Gas Transmission (AGT) pipeline – to be fully utilized. But this is not what we observed when we analyzed the scheduling patterns on the AGT pipeline from 2013 to 2016.

What 8 million data points told us about artificial shortages

Our research group spent 18 months looking at eight million data points covering the three-year period from mid-2013 to mid-2016. We discovered that during this period, a handful of New England gas utilities owned by two large energy companies routinely scheduled large deliveries, then cancelled orders at the last minute. These scheduling practices created an artificial shortage when in fact there was far more pipeline capacity on the system than it appeared.

As a result, we estimate that New England electricity customers paid $3.6 billion more over this period than they would have if the unused pipeline capacity had been available to deliver gas for electricity generation (for more information on how we calculated this number, visit our methodology page). As for the need for a new pipeline, our analysis shows that energy prices over this period were inflated, which means they should not be used to assess how much, if any, additional pipeline capacity is needed. Both conclusions illustrate why it’s so important (and how valuable it could be) to fix the interface between the gas and electric markets.

Why unused pipeline capacity impacts electricity prices

Although it was natural gas that was supposedly in short supply over this period, electricity prices also experienced large price spikes. That’s due to the way electricity prices are set, and the fact that much of the electricity in New England, as in much of the country, is increasingly generated using natural gas.

About half of the electricity traded in New England’s wholesale electricity market, ISO New England (ISO-NE), comes from gas-fired generators. For any given hour, the wholesale electricity price for all generators in this market is determined by the last (highest) bid needed to meet customer demand (or “clear the market”). This market clearing price is typically (75 percent of the time) set by a natural gas plant, which means their cost for gas and pipeline transportation tends to drive the price of electricity. That cost is largely determined by the spot price of natural gas at Algonquin Citygate, New England’s main gas trading hub, served by the Algonquin Pipeline.

The figure below shows a stylized generation supply curve for ISO-NE. The lower cost resources to the left (typically solar, wind and hydro) are generally used before the higher cost plants to the right (coal, gas, petroleum). The plants situated where demand meets the supply curve set the overall market price in any given hour (bids are submitted a day ahead of time in the day ahead market). This is typically one of the natural gas plants represented by the red dots on the middle part of the curve. A higher spot price for natural gas increases the marginal cost of gas-fired generators, shifting the generation supply curve up as seen in the second panel. This translates into a higher marginal cost of meeting a given level of electricity demand and thus a higher wholesale electricity price P*.

Stylized generation supply curve for ISO-NE.

What price do electric generators pay for gas? The secondary market for natural gas

In New England, as in many other markets, gas-fired electricity generators generally procure gas from a secondary market, where sellers are usually natural gas utilities that purchase long-term contracts at regulated prices directly from the pipeline company. The secondary market exists because these long-term contracts allow contract holders to sell any unused capacity at unregulated prices to gas-fired generators or others.

Generators buying in the secondary market for gas do so because they have decided it is more cost-effective to procure natural gas transportation that way than to grapple with rigid, long-term contracts for pipeline capacity that don’t fit their highly variable needs.

While the amount of pipeline capacity available to deliver natural gas to New England is fixed, demand for gas fluctuates significantly with external factors such as temperature, as seen by the price spikes experienced during the polar vortex

On days like these, holders of long-term contracts can pocket the difference between the price that buyers in the secondary market are willing to pay for gas deliveries, as indicated by the Algonquin Citygate spot price, and the regulated price they themselves pay the pipeline for that same capacity. In the case of utilities, revenues from such sales are typically to a large extent refunded back to the ratepayers that paid for those long-term contracts in the first place.

How could pipeline capacity go unused during the polar vortex?

We see four local gas utilities (two owned by Eversource, two by Avangrid) that scheduled far more pipeline capacity the day before gas delivery than they ended up using the next day. Repeatedly, these companies downscheduled their orders only at the end of the gas delivery day–too late for that unused capacity to be made available to the secondary market.

The threshold at which last-minute down-scheduling of gas orders impacts gas and electric prices varies depending on daily demand. As a proxy, we looked at how far the scheduling patterns at delivery “nodes” on the pipeline operated by Eversource and Avangrid-owned utilities deviated from the overall system average.

• On 434 days during the study period, at least one Eversource node made downward scheduling changes more than two standard deviations larger than the average scheduling change made by all firms on the pipeline.
• On 351 days, at least one Eversource location had a schedule change more than three standard deviationslarger than the average.

The Eversource utilities primarily made large downscheduling changes on cold days, while Avangrid made large scheduling cuts far more often.

• On 1043 days, at least one Avangrid location made downward scheduling change more than two standard deviations larger than the average.
• On 1031 days, at least one Avangrid location made a downward change more than three standard deviations larger than the average.

Total unused capacity exceeded 100,000 MMBtu on 37 days in the three-year period we looked at, which is roughly 7% of the pipeline’s total daily capacity and 28% of the typical total daily supply to gas-fired generators. That these large amounts of downscheduled pipeline capacity were not made available to New England’s gas-fired generators raised both the gas price for generators as well as the price of electricity for New England’s electricity customers. We estimate that unused pipeline capacity increased average gas and electricity prices by 38% and 20%, respectively, over the three-year period we study.

While this behavior may have been within the companies’ contractual rights, the significant impacts in both the gas and electricity markets show the need to consider improvements to market design and regulation. The gas transportation market must become more transparent and flexible to better ensure that existing pipeline capacity is optimally utilized and that unbiased price signals in both the gas and electricity markets lead to cost-efficient investment in energy infrastructure.

This post originally appeared on EDF's Market Forces blog.

By Kristina Mohlin

This blog post was co-authored with Levi Marks, Charles Mason and Matthew Zaragoza-Watkins

New England natural gas and electricity prices have undergone dramatic spikes in recent years, spurring talk about the need for a costly new pipeline to meet the region’s needs as demand for gas seemed ready to overtake suppliers’ available capacity to deliver it. For example, during the polar vortex of 2013-14, the gas price at New England’s main gas trading hub regularly exceeded $20/MMBtu (million British Thermal Units, the measure commonly used in the gas industry) and reached a record high of $78/MMBtu on January 22, 2014, compared to the annual average of $5.50/MMBtu.

In an efficient market, we would indeed expect prices to be high during events like the polar vortex. We would also expect pipelines delivering gas to regions like the Boston area – in this case the Algonquin Gas Transmission (AGT) pipeline – to be fully utilized. But this is not what we observed when we analyzed the scheduling patterns on the AGT pipeline from 2013 to 2016.

What 8 million data points told us about artificial shortages

Our research group spent 18 months looking at eight million data points covering the three-year period from mid-2013 to mid-2016. We discovered that during this period, a handful of New England gas utilities owned by two large energy companies routinely scheduled large deliveries, then cancelled orders at the last minute. These scheduling practices created an artificial shortage when in fact there was far more pipeline capacity on the system than it appeared.

As a result, we estimate that New England electricity customers paid $3.6 billion more over this period than they would have if the unused pipeline capacity had been available to deliver gas for electricity generation (for more information on how we calculated this number, visit our methodology page). As for the need for a new pipeline, our analysis shows that energy prices over this period were inflated, which means they should not be used to assess how much, if any, additional pipeline capacity is needed. Both conclusions illustrate why it’s so important (and how valuable it could be) to fix the interface between the gas and electric markets.

Why unused pipeline capacity impacts electricity prices

Although it was natural gas that was supposedly in short supply over this period, electricity prices also experienced large price spikes. That’s due to the way electricity prices are set, and the fact that much of the electricity in New England, as in much of the country, is increasingly generated using natural gas.

About half of the electricity traded in New England’s wholesale electricity market, ISO New England (ISO-NE), comes from gas-fired generators. For any given hour, the wholesale electricity price for all generators in this market is determined by the last (highest) bid needed to meet customer demand (or “clear the market”). This market clearing price is typically (75 percent of the time) set by a natural gas plant, which means their cost for gas and pipeline transportation tends to drive the price of electricity. That cost is largely determined by the spot price of natural gas at Algonquin Citygate, New England’s main gas trading hub, served by the Algonquin Pipeline.

The figure below shows a stylized generation supply curve for ISO-NE. The lower cost resources to the left (typically solar, wind and hydro) are generally used before the higher cost plants to the right (coal, gas, petroleum). The plants situated where demand meets the supply curve set the overall market price in any given hour (bids are submitted a day ahead of time in the day ahead market). This is typically one of the natural gas plants represented by the red dots on the middle part of the curve. A higher spot price for natural gas increases the marginal cost of gas-fired generators, shifting the generation supply curve up as seen in the second panel. This translates into a higher marginal cost of meeting a given level of electricity demand and thus a higher wholesale electricity price P*.

Stylized generation supply curve for ISO-NE.

What price do electric generators pay for gas? The secondary market for natural gas

In New England, as in many other markets, gas-fired electricity generators generally procure gas from a secondary market, where sellers are usually natural gas utilities that purchase long-term contracts at regulated prices directly from the pipeline company. The secondary market exists because these long-term contracts allow contract holders to sell any unused capacity at unregulated prices to gas-fired generators or others.

Generators buying in the secondary market for gas do so because they have decided it is more cost-effective to procure natural gas transportation that way than to grapple with rigid, long-term contracts for pipeline capacity that don’t fit their highly variable needs.

While the amount of pipeline capacity available to deliver natural gas to New England is fixed, demand for gas fluctuates significantly with external factors such as temperature, as seen by the price spikes experienced during the polar vortex

On days like these, holders of long-term contracts can pocket the difference between the price that buyers in the secondary market are willing to pay for gas deliveries, as indicated by the Algonquin Citygate spot price, and the regulated price they themselves pay the pipeline for that same capacity. In the case of utilities, revenues from such sales are typically to a large extent refunded back to the ratepayers that paid for those long-term contracts in the first place.

How could pipeline capacity go unused during the polar vortex?

We see four local gas utilities (two owned by Eversource, two by Avangrid) that scheduled far more pipeline capacity the day before gas delivery than they ended up using the next day. Repeatedly, these companies downscheduled their orders only at the end of the gas delivery day–too late for that unused capacity to be made available to the secondary market.

The threshold at which last-minute down-scheduling of gas orders impacts gas and electric prices varies depending on daily demand. As a proxy, we looked at how far the scheduling patterns at delivery “nodes” on the pipeline operated by Eversource and Avangrid-owned utilities deviated from the overall system average.

• On 434 days during the study period, at least one Eversource node made downward scheduling changes more than two standard deviations larger than the average scheduling change made by all firms on the pipeline.
• On 351 days, at least one Eversource location had a schedule change more than three standard deviationslarger than the average.

The Eversource utilities primarily made large downscheduling changes on cold days, while Avangrid made large scheduling cuts far more often.

• On 1043 days, at least one Avangrid location made downward scheduling change more than two standard deviations larger than the average.
• On 1031 days, at least one Avangrid location made a downward change more than three standard deviations larger than the average.

Total unused capacity exceeded 100,000 MMBtu on 37 days in the three-year period we looked at, which is roughly 7% of the pipeline’s total daily capacity and 28% of the typical total daily supply to gas-fired generators. That these large amounts of downscheduled pipeline capacity were not made available to New England’s gas-fired generators raised both the gas price for generators as well as the price of electricity for New England’s electricity customers. We estimate that unused pipeline capacity increased average gas and electricity prices by 38% and 20%, respectively, over the three-year period we study.

While this behavior may have been within the companies’ contractual rights, the significant impacts in both the gas and electricity markets show the need to consider improvements to market design and regulation. The gas transportation market must become more transparent and flexible to better ensure that existing pipeline capacity is optimally utilized and that unbiased price signals in both the gas and electricity markets lead to cost-efficient investment in energy infrastructure.

This post originally appeared on EDF's Market Forces blog.

This blog post was co-authored with Levi Marks, Charles Mason and Matthew Zaragoza-Watkins New England natural gas and electricity prices have undergone dramatic spikes in recent years, spurring talk about the need for a costly new pipeline to meet the region’s needs as demand for gas seemed ready to overtake suppliers’ available capacity to deliver it. For example, during the polar vortex […]

By Lavannya Pulluveetil Barrera

A clean energy future is attainable only with a proper workforce to support it, a fact recognized by the Illinois Commerce Commission (ICC) and Illinois’ largest electric utility, ComEd. The ICC recently approved ComEd’s $30 million Workforce Development Implementation Plan – a first-of-its-kind plan that establishes three clean energy jobs training programs for the citizens of Illinois.

The bones of the plan were established by the Future Energy Jobs Act, a bipartisan clean energy development package passed by the state legislature in December 2016. The act directs ComEd to implement its job training programs with special attention given to the recruitment, training, and placement of economically-disadvantaged communities, foster care alumni, and returning citizens.  Since the bill went into effect, ComEd has worked with a variety of groups – including Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) and environmental justice stakeholders – to meet the legislation’s goals.

By crafting a comprehensive and inclusive workforce development plan, ComEd is setting an example that other utilities can follow as the U.S. transitions to a clean energy economy.

This utility is training workers for the clean energy future.
Click To Tweet

The three programs

ComEd’s job training programs are organized under three umbrellas:

The program will create 2,000 jobs for foster care alumni and returning citizens (people coming back from incarceration).

1. Solar Training Pipeline: Designed to establish a pool of trained solar installers, the program will create 2,000 jobs for foster care alumni and returning citizens (people coming back from incarceration). Training providers are selected through a competitive bidding process administered by a community foundation. In the bidding guidelines, the foundation notes that preference will be given to woman- and minority-led organizations. The pipeline will feed into projects approved under the Solar for All program, which was also established by the Future Energy Jobs Act and incentivizes the development of solar projects in economically-disadvantaged neighborhoods.
2. Multi-Cultural Jobs Program: This program funds six community-based, diversity-focused organizations in the Chicago area to provide participants “development, economic, or career-related opportunities.” It offers the widest array of training, including in the technology sector and solar sales and marketing, and even offers existing business owners training for expansion.
3. Solar Craft Apprenticeship Program: Administered by the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 134, the apprenticeship program aims to offer communities solar industry opportunities.
   • Solar training into existing apprenticeship programs at 18 sites throughout Illinois.
   • Solar training in six Illinois Green Economy Network partner community colleges, including a solar site assessment and sales program.
   • A high school solar curriculum in eight or nine underserved schools that will guide students towards future apprenticeships.

Ensuring a just transition

ComEd’s efforts fit into the Future Energy Jobs Act’s larger goals of applying an equity lens to the clean energy transition.

The Solar Training Pipeline also includes a goal of having at least 50 percent of trainees come from environmental justice communities. Focusing access to trainings with historically marginalized and underserved groups at the forefront ensures that the Future Energy Jobs Act’s benefits and investments are spread equitability.

The Solar Training Pipeline also includes a goal of having at least 50 percent of trainees come from environmental justice communities. 

Over a three month period, ComEd held a series of forums to engage non-profits and workforce training experts in developing individual programs. The resulting plan places a strong emphasis on partnerships so that training providers aren’t limiting outreach to single neighborhoods, but instead are forming community relationships to reach broad swaths of the state, including areas previously untouched by the transition to clean energy.

Elements of the plan will likely change over time. As an active member of the Clean Jobs Coalition, EDF is working with ComEd, training providers, and our partner community organizations to continuously provide feedback and support.

We want to see the plan succeed and provide well-paid jobs for communities. By including future workers from economically disadvantaged and environmental justice communities in the job-training design process, ComEd’s already taking a firm step in the right direction for Illinois.

Photo source: Grid Alternatives

By Lavannya Pulluveetil Barrera

A clean energy future is attainable only with a proper workforce to support it, a fact recognized by the Illinois Commerce Commission (ICC) and Illinois’ largest electric utility, ComEd. The ICC recently approved ComEd’s $30 million Workforce Development Implementation Plan – a first-of-its-kind plan that establishes three clean energy jobs training programs for the citizens of Illinois.

The bones of the plan were established by the Future Energy Jobs Act, a bipartisan clean energy development package passed by the state legislature in December 2016. The act directs ComEd to implement its job training programs with special attention given to the recruitment, training, and placement of economically-disadvantaged communities, foster care alumni, and returning citizens.  Since the bill went into effect, ComEd has worked with a variety of groups – including Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) and environmental justice stakeholders – to meet the legislation’s goals.

By crafting a comprehensive and inclusive workforce development plan, ComEd is setting an example that other utilities can follow as the U.S. transitions to a clean energy economy.

This utility is training workers for the clean energy future.
Click To Tweet

The three programs

ComEd’s job training programs are organized under three umbrellas:

The program will create 2,000 jobs for foster care alumni and returning citizens (people coming back from incarceration).

1. Solar Training Pipeline: Designed to establish a pool of trained solar installers, the program will create 2,000 jobs for foster care alumni and returning citizens (people coming back from incarceration). Training providers are selected through a competitive bidding process administered by a community foundation. In the bidding guidelines, the foundation notes that preference will be given to woman- and minority-led organizations. The pipeline will feed into projects approved under the Solar for All program, which was also established by the Future Energy Jobs Act and incentivizes the development of solar projects in economically-disadvantaged neighborhoods.
2. Multi-Cultural Jobs Program: This program funds six community-based, diversity-focused organizations in the Chicago area to provide participants “development, economic, or career-related opportunities.” It offers the widest array of training, including in the technology sector and solar sales and marketing, and even offers existing business owners training for expansion.
3. Solar Craft Apprenticeship Program: Administered by the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 134, the apprenticeship program aims to offer communities solar industry opportunities.
   • Solar training into existing apprenticeship programs at 18 sites throughout Illinois.
   • Solar training in six Illinois Green Economy Network partner community colleges, including a solar site assessment and sales program.
   • A high school solar curriculum in eight or nine underserved schools that will guide students towards future apprenticeships.

Ensuring a just transition

ComEd’s efforts fit into the Future Energy Jobs Act’s larger goals of applying an equity lens to the clean energy transition.

The Solar Training Pipeline also includes a goal of having at least 50 percent of trainees come from environmental justice communities. Focusing access to trainings with historically marginalized and underserved groups at the forefront ensures that the Future Energy Jobs Act’s benefits and investments are spread equitability.

The Solar Training Pipeline also includes a goal of having at least 50 percent of trainees come from environmental justice communities. 

Over a three month period, ComEd held a series of forums to engage non-profits and workforce training experts in developing individual programs. The resulting plan places a strong emphasis on partnerships so that training providers aren’t limiting outreach to single neighborhoods, but instead are forming community relationships to reach broad swaths of the state, including areas previously untouched by the transition to clean energy.

Elements of the plan will likely change over time. As an active member of the Clean Jobs Coalition, EDF is working with ComEd, training providers, and our partner community organizations to continuously provide feedback and support.

We want to see the plan succeed and provide well-paid jobs for communities. By including future workers from economically disadvantaged and environmental justice communities in the job-training design process, ComEd’s already taking a firm step in the right direction for Illinois.

Photo source: Grid Alternatives

A clean energy future is attainable only with a proper workforce to support it, a fact recognized by the Illinois Commerce Commission (ICC) and Illinois’ largest electric utility, ComEd. The ICC recently approved ComEd’s $30 million Workforce Development Implementation Plan – a first-of-its-kind plan that establishes three clean energy jobs training programs for the citizens […]

Written by Marcia G. Yerman

Some things don’t change. Government handouts to fossil fuel companies have been with us for over a century. Now, with an administration that is riddled with shills for those industries, the American public is at even greater risk.

Oil Change International has come out with a new report: “Dirty Energy Dominance: Dependent on Denial.” Within its forty pages, it takes on a range of topics from the massive donations given to elected officials to maintain the status quo, to the federal subsidies raked in by fossil fuels compared to the renewable energy sector (seven-to-one).

A section outlines the Trump cabinet officials who are driving an agenda that reflects their ideological and financial concerns. Ryan Zinke (Interior), Scott Pruitt (EPA), and Rick Perry (Energy) form a troika of disaster. The conflicts of interest are massive, leaving our public lands and health in the crosshairs.

The findings make clear that ending these subsidies is essential to putting the brakes on the Trump fossil fuel blueprint. As shown in the report, “The industry heavily relies on government giveaways to remain profitable.” Publicly disclosed stats showed that during the election cycle of 2015-2016, $354 million went to campaigns and “lobbying expenditures.” Republicans were the beneficiaries of 88 percent of these fiscal contributions.

During 2015-2016, the federal government awarded $29.4 billion in subsidies to the fossil fuel sector. The report states, “For every $1 that fossil fuel companies spent on lobbying and campaign finance contributions to Congress, it received more than $83 back in subsidies — an almost 8,200 percent return.”

There are monies available to bail out the coal industry, while those companies fail to take responsibility for the health of its workers. Oil corporations deduct “oil spill penalty costs,” while writing off legal settlements as the cost of doing business.

The graph that said it all was the Selected Program Cuts in the President’s Budget FY2018 vs. Annual Federal Fossil Fuel Subsidies. Comparing the Trump budget cuts for FY2018 with the funds allotted to subsidies is infuriating. Millions of dollars eliminated from social programs (including the demise of the EPA Environmental Justice department) to help sustain coal, oil, and gas is clearly unjustifiable.

Unfortunately, these subsidies occur at the state level as well. The study looked at sixteen states, breaking down their respective scenarios. I learned that California, despite being a frontrunner on environmental initiatives, is a “major oil and gas producing state with big industry giveaways.” I wasn’t surprised that in Oklahoma, home of Scott Pruitt and Sen. James Inhofe (where handouts to oil and gas are the order of business), “lawmakers slashed $109 million in public school funding, leading to shortened school weeks for students across the state.” The purpose was to ameliorate huge budget gaps.

Going beyond detailing the issues, proactive responses to the problem are presented:

• Repeal existing tax breaks for fossil fuel exploration and production through legislative action.
• Let tax credits for carbon capture and storage and enhanced oil recovery expire in 2018, while stopping actions to extend and expand this subsidy.
• Call for legislation that will terminate investment in fossil fuel expansion while creating renewable job sector opportunities for displaced workers.
• Protect public resources from fossil fuel companies and their allies, and demand that current public health protections remain in place.

It is possible to push back, and it needs to start at the hyperlocal level. In New York, State Senator Liz Kruger and Assemblymember Kevin Cahill have co-sponsored a bill they said would “tackle counterproductive state fossil fuel subsidies, shining a light on and potentially halting tax breaks, credits and refunds for the use of dirty fossil fuels.” The bill is groundbreaking; the first piece of legislation introduced at the state-level with the objective of going after fossil fuel tax subsidies while creating transparency with a “public review process.”

I reached out to Sen. Kruger for her feedback on the proposal. She wrote via e-mail, “Since climate change is a global problem, it can seem insurmountable, as if only international cooperation on a global scale can make a difference. However, though national and international action is vital, it is important for all of us to look at what is going on in our own backyards. In New York State, we have laudable goals for greenhouse gas emissions reductions, yet we are spending $1.5 billion each year to encourage dirty fossil fuel use. We need to take a very hard look at where that money is going.”

Janet Redman, U.S. Policy Director of Oil Change International and principal author of the report, reiterated that view when we spoke by telephone.

“The fact that the U.S. federal and state governments handout billions to oil, gas, and coal companies each year is a critical issue for all Americans. Every taxpayer dollar wasted subsidizing this industry takes us further from a stable climate and protecting our families from disasters made worse by climate change.

There is something we can do now. Moms, dads, grandparents, aunts and uncles – They can urge their elected officials not to take money from the fossil fuel industry. Then our lawmakers won’t be beholden to polluters when it’s time to make decisions about how to invest our public dollars wisely, responsibly, and sustainably.”

Editor’s note: Scott Pruitt just announced that he wants to eliminate tax credits for wind and solar power.

Graphs: Courtesy of Oil Change International

TELL CONGRESS: NOBODY VOTED TO MAKE AMERICA DIRTY AGAIN

SaveSave

SaveSave

SaveSave

Written by Lisa Bennett

When I dropped my son off at school this morning, the teachers directing traffic were wearing facemasks and our usual view of San Francisco was obscured by thick smoke.

The latest fires just north of us, in the famed Sonoma and Napa wine country all the way up to Mendocino, are burning fast—and sending a message:

Climate change does not discriminate. Rich and poor, coastal and inland dwellers, Republican and Democrat, we’re all living the reality of climate change now.

The smell of smoke in my nostrils as I write, the feel of it in my lungs as I breathe, I recognize I am so far one of the lucky ones.

I have had the privilege of thinking about climate change and what it means for families for more than a decade without having experienced one of the most direct hits of it. Drought, yes; extreme heat, yes; wild swings in winter conditions, yes.

But that is little compared to what so many others have recently experienced: the utter destruction and devastation of climate-fueled hurricanes and wildfires that have wiped out homes, lives, and livelihoods.

Today made me feel how bracingly real these sudden tragedies are. And there is little question of their link to climate change, as Amy Head, the fire captain spokeswoman for Cal Fire, confirmed.

“It has been hotter, it has been drier, our fire seasons have been longer, fires are burning more intensely, which is a direct correlation to the climate changing,” she said in an interview with The Guardian.

Today, to be frank, also made me sick to my stomach.

While California Burns, the Administration Rolls Back Protections

Under The New York Times headline that reports 17 fires, 11 dead, and 20,000 forced to evacuate in just the first 24 hours of these latest fires, is another that reads: “EPA Says it Will Repeal Key Obama-era Climate Plan”

“The war on coal is over,” Scott Pruitt, the head of the EPA, said. “Tomorrow [Oct. 10] in Washington, D.C., I will be signing a proposed rule to roll back the Clean Power Plan. No better place to make that announcement than Hazard, KY.”

It seems he missed the irony of the “Hazard” name.

But much more significantly, he may also have missed that the juxtaposition of this Administration’s rollback of climate protection measures—as California burns, and Texas, Florida, Puerto Rico try to recover from the hurricanes –being one for the history books.

It is as if this Administration looks upon the suffering caused by climate change and thinks the equivalent of Marie-Antoinette’s comment, “Let them eat cake,” during the uprising of the hungry during the French Revolution.

In the narrow-minded interest of supporting the fossil fuel industry, which has literally fueled the climate crisis, this Administration is collectively turning its back on the American people and the world’s people as a whole – on our children and all the future generations that deserve so very much better than this.

So what do we, as parents, do?

That is a bigger question than can be answer in one brief blog post. But here are three quick ideas that feel paramount now:

1. We get political—more political. We make climate action a litmus test for anyone who wants the privilege of holding political office. If they do not support strong climate action in 2018 or 2020 or beyond, we do not give them our vote.
2. We get inventive—throwing the question wide open now: How do we demand a return to the sanity of climate action not only by our mayors, businesses, and communities but the federal government? This is not time to throw up our hands, however frustrated and overwhelmed we may feel.
3. We teach our children radical hope. This means we need to balance out all the bad news they are exposed to with the good news: of people working hard to combat climate change, of people helping those in need, of people putting the well being of children over profits. In short, we teach our children that real hope arises from people like us.

And, we stay connected with each other. For that, as always, is the way we stay strong and make real change.

TELL CONGRESS: NOBODY VOTED TO MAKE AMERICA DIRTY AGAIN

SaveSave

In just a few days I, along with EDF+Business’ Xixi Chen, will be traveling across China to talk with companies and students about corporate energy management. The trip comes one week after China’s “Golden Week”—the country’s eight-day-long national celebration. Each year, the holiday marks the largest week for tourism, bringing in over 700 million tourists […]

By Scott Wood

In just a few days I, along with EDF+Business’ Xixi Chen, will be traveling across China to talk with companies and students about corporate energy management. The trip comes one week after China’s “Golden Week”—the country’s eight-day-long national celebration. Each year, the holiday marks the largest week for tourism, bringing in over 700 million tourists at home and abroad to the nation’s streets and roughly $87 billion in revenue.

But while the streets are bustling, China’s industrial and manufacturing powerhouse comes to a standstill. This is a mandatory national holiday for all citizens, which means, for the entire week, almost everyone is off of work, businesses and factories are shut down, shipping lines are put on pause, and companies with suppliers in China are busy preparing for a week of silence.

In these seven days, it’s made clear how much of a driving force China is to the global supply chain. Whether it’s a Chinese-owned company or a multinational firm, businesses supply the goods and services we demand. But all this production leaves its mark on our planet—and it’s a big one.

Manager, EDF Climate Corps

Making China’s supply chains greener and more resilient

Currently, the energy and manufacturing sectors in China account for more than 80 percent of the country’s energy use and, with many Chinese firms failing to measure and manage their greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, tracking and improving performance is a challenge. This means there’s a lot to tackle, but also plenty of opportunities to do so.

Heightened government restrictions on carbon emissions are making it ever more imperative for businesses to track and report their emissions footprint before new mandates come along. That’s why, although it’s been reported that only ten percent of Chinese firms carry out corporate social and environmental initiatives, large multinational companies like Walmart are looking beyond enterprise-wide GHG goals to address the emissions stemming from their supply chains, including many Chinese manufacturers.

Another mega-retailer, IKEA, has set an ambitious goal to phase out coal use throughout its supply chain as a way to reduce emissions and ensure long-term cooperation with suppliers. In addition to tracking coal use, four EDF Climate Corps fellows helped IKEA find cleaner alternative energy sources and encouraged the implementation of energy efficiency projects for its China-based suppliers. Many other multinational corporations are doing the same, because lowering the footprint of a supply chain helps manage uncertainty, reduce risk and enhance business value.

Big brands drive sustainability in China's manufacturing hub, reducing GHGs from their supply chain
Click To Tweet

We’re also beginning to see some Chinese-owned firms take a leadership position on carbon and energy management. AAC Technologies Holdings Inc., a leading micro-component solutions provider, is pioneering the so called “next-generation manufacturing” and is in the process of designing its new, enormous data center to be highly efficient. This summer, EDF Climate Corps fellow Qian Luo recommended that, by implementing a number of energy efficiency retrofits like upgrades to heat recovery, cooling systems and power distribution, the company will see huge energy and dollar savings, as well as increased reliability, the most essential requirement for a data center.

Corporate social responsibility meets policy

Fortunately for business, China’s climate targets are aligned at all policy levels, allowing for greater consistency and cooperation across the private and public sectors. With increased opportunities available through clean energy incentives, companies are increasingly setting and acting on ambitious GHG reduction goals of their own. The potential for scale here is vast: Businesses can leverage their size, not to mention capital, to drive meaningful change.

It’s an exciting time for sustainability leadership in China. The rise in clean energy investments are positioned to drive more job growth and economic opportunities, spurring a race for innovation that’s fueling competition and political action unlike anything we’re currently seeing in the U.S. But we have a long way to go, and corporate leadership is key.

To meet China’s GHG targets—and solve the climate crisis at large—more companies will have to set and act on ambitious sustainability commitments for both their own operations as well as their suppliers.

Follow Scott on Twitter, @scottwood_

Stay on top of the latest facts, information and resources aimed at the intersection of business and the environment. Sign up for the EDF+Business blog. [contact-form-7]

 

 

In just a few days I, along with EDF+Business’ Xixi Chen, will be traveling across China to talk with companies and students about corporate energy management. The trip comes one week after China’s “Golden Week”—the country’s eight-day-long national celebration. Each year, the holiday marks the largest week for tourism, bringing in over 700 million tourists […]

In just a few days I, along with EDF+Business’ Xixi Chen, will be traveling across China to talk with companies and students about corporate energy management. The trip comes one week after China’s “Golden Week”—the country’s eight-day-long national celebration. Each year, the holiday marks the largest week for tourism, bringing in over 700 million tourists […]

This blog post was co-authored with Levi Marks, Charles Mason and Matthew Zaragoza-Watkins New England natural gas and electricity prices have undergone dramatic spikes in recent years, spurring talk about the need for a costly new pipeline to meet the region’s needs as demand for gas seemed ready to overtake suppliers’ available capacity to deliver […]

On today’s show Shannon Cunniff, the Director of Coastal Resilience at the Environment Defense Fund joins the program to talk with Jacques & Simone about environmental impact bonds (EIBs), and how they can save Louisiana money and restore the wetlands sooner. On the second half the episode, Megan Terrell, the Legal Advisor for Coastal Activities at the Governor’s Office of Coastal Activities brings a new perspective to talk about EIBs and other coastal restoration financing opportunities. Below is a transcript of ...

Read The Full Story

The post Delta Dispatches: Innovative Funding for Coastal Restoration appeared first on Restore the Mississippi River Delta.

On today’s show Shannon Cunniff, the Director of Coastal Resilience at the Environment Defense Fund joins the program to talk with Jacques & Simone about environmental impact bonds (EIBs), and how they can save Louisiana money and restore the wetlands sooner. On the second half the episode, Megan Terrell, the Legal Advisor for Coastal Activities at the Governor’s Office of Coastal Activities brings a new perspective to talk about EIBs and other coastal restoration financing opportunities. Below is a transcript of ...

Read The Full Story

The post Delta Dispatches: Innovative Funding for Coastal Restoration appeared first on Restore the Mississippi River Delta.

On today’s show Shannon Cunniff, the Director of Coastal Resilience at the Environment Defense Fund joins the program to talk with Jacques & Simone about environmental impact bonds (EIBs), and how they can save Louisiana money and restore the wetlands sooner. On the second half the episode, Megan Terrell, the Legal Advisor for Coastal Activities at the Governor’s Office of Coastal Activities brings a new perspective to talk about EIBs and other coastal restoration financing opportunities. Below is a transcript of ...

Read The Full Story

The post Delta Dispatches: Innovative Funding for Coastal Restoration appeared first on Restore the Mississippi River Delta.