With your help, we've beaten their attacks before. We need to do it again.

With your help, we've beaten their attacks before. We need to do it again.

With your help, we've beaten their attacks before. We need to do it again.

By Liz Delaney

Our dramatic seasonal temperature fluctuations here in New England create a unique energy challenge. Most days of the year (i.e. spring, summer, and fall), we have enough pipeline capacity, or space, to meet electricity and heating demand. However, approximately 40 days out of the year natural gas pipeline capacity becomes scarce, and in certain hours, unavailable; and the system relies on storage to maintain sufficient gas supply and delivery to homes, businesses, and electric power plants.

Many people look at the region’s pipeline constraints and assume that the only solution is to build more pipelines. This is a logical reaction, but it overlooks an opportunity to explore multiple solutions in a more economical and holistic way.  Rather than only looking at pipeline solutions, why not broaden the solution conversation by calling forth market competition?

The grid needs to foster participation by all resources

All resources can help ensure reliability during those key hours when pipelines are constrained. By allowing resources, such as batteries, pumped storage, demand response, and LNG, to compete, market forces can be used to fill in gaps, reward resources that are flexible and available to meet peak demand, and ultimately signal to investors when and where right-sized investments are needed.

New England needs “Load Service Assurance” – not “Fuel Security”

Imagine an approach where grid operators first understand pipeline constraints down to an hourly level. Gas generators use gas in highly variable ways throughout the day, and many times, even on the most constrained days, there are hours where pipeline capacity is available.

Next, market participants like batteries, pumped storage, demand response, and LNG compete to fill in the gaps. The result? Efficient pipeline utilization, lower prices for consumers, and potentially a cleaner grid. But to get there, market participants first need to seek this type of approach, and certain market rules may need to change.

The first step is to broaden the conversation.

In the next few weeks, the New England grid operator will release a report that explores many different scenarios and articulates regional challenges with “fuel security.” Market participants will be invited to provide feedback on this study, as well as present potential solutions. Ultimately the only way to cost-effectively solve this problem will be to utilize all tools in our toolbox, on both the supply and the demand side, and we can do this by talking about these solutions together. By focusing on the desired outcome, Load Service Assurance, New England can holistically solve its seasonal energy challenges. EDF looks forward to engaging ISO-NE and others in this more expansive conversation. Read more

By Liz Delaney

Our dramatic seasonal temperature fluctuations here in New England create a unique energy challenge. Most days of the year (i.e. spring, summer, and fall), we have enough pipeline capacity, or space, to meet electricity and heating demand. However, approximately 40 days out of the year natural gas pipeline capacity becomes scarce, and in certain hours, unavailable; and the system relies on storage to maintain sufficient gas supply and delivery to homes, businesses, and electric power plants.

Many people look at the region’s pipeline constraints and assume that the only solution is to build more pipelines. This is a logical reaction, but it overlooks an opportunity to explore multiple solutions in a more economical and holistic way.  Rather than only looking at pipeline solutions, why not broaden the solution conversation by calling forth market competition?

The grid needs to foster participation by all resources

All resources can help ensure reliability during those key hours when pipelines are constrained. By allowing resources, such as batteries, pumped storage, demand response, and LNG, to compete, market forces can be used to fill in gaps, reward resources that are flexible and available to meet peak demand, and ultimately signal to investors when and where right-sized investments are needed.

New England needs “Load Service Assurance” – not “Fuel Security”

Imagine an approach where grid operators first understand pipeline constraints down to an hourly level. Gas generators use gas in highly variable ways throughout the day, and many times, even on the most constrained days, there are hours where pipeline capacity is available.

Next, market participants like batteries, pumped storage, demand response, and LNG compete to fill in the gaps. The result? Efficient pipeline utilization, lower prices for consumers, and potentially a cleaner grid. But to get there, market participants first need to seek this type of approach, and certain market rules may need to change.

The first step is to broaden the conversation.

In the next few weeks, the New England grid operator will release a report that explores many different scenarios and articulates regional challenges with “fuel security.” Market participants will be invited to provide feedback on this study, as well as present potential solutions. Ultimately the only way to cost-effectively solve this problem will be to utilize all tools in our toolbox, on both the supply and the demand side, and we can do this by talking about these solutions together. By focusing on the desired outcome, Load Service Assurance, New England can holistically solve its seasonal energy challenges. EDF looks forward to engaging ISO-NE and others in this more expansive conversation. Read more

By Liz Delaney

Our dramatic seasonal temperature fluctuations here in New England create a unique energy challenge. Most days of the year (i.e. spring, summer, and fall), we have enough pipeline capacity, or space, to meet electricity and heating demand. However, approximately 40 days out of the year natural gas pipeline capacity becomes scarce, and in certain hours, unavailable; and the system relies on storage to maintain sufficient gas supply and delivery to homes, businesses, and electric power plants.

Many people look at the region’s pipeline constraints and assume that the only solution is to build more pipelines. This is a logical reaction, but it overlooks an opportunity to explore multiple solutions in a more economical and holistic way.  Rather than only looking at pipeline solutions, why not broaden the solution conversation by calling forth market competition?

The grid needs to foster participation by all resources

All resources can help ensure reliability during those key hours when pipelines are constrained. By allowing resources, such as batteries, pumped storage, demand response, and LNG, to compete, market forces can be used to fill in gaps, reward resources that are flexible and available to meet peak demand, and ultimately signal to investors when and where right-sized investments are needed.

New England needs “Load Service Assurance” – not “Fuel Security”

Imagine an approach where grid operators first understand pipeline constraints down to an hourly level. Gas generators use gas in highly variable ways throughout the day, and many times, even on the most constrained days, there are hours where pipeline capacity is available.

Next, market participants like batteries, pumped storage, demand response, and LNG compete to fill in the gaps. The result? Efficient pipeline utilization, lower prices for consumers, and potentially a cleaner grid. But to get there, market participants first need to seek this type of approach, and certain market rules may need to change.

The first step is to broaden the conversation.

In the next few weeks, the New England grid operator will release a report that explores many different scenarios and articulates regional challenges with “fuel security.” Market participants will be invited to provide feedback on this study, as well as present potential solutions. Ultimately the only way to cost-effectively solve this problem will be to utilize all tools in our toolbox, on both the supply and the demand side, and we can do this by talking about these solutions together. By focusing on the desired outcome, Load Service Assurance, New England can holistically solve its seasonal energy challenges. EDF looks forward to engaging ISO-NE and others in this more expansive conversation. Read more

2017 is on track to be one of the worst years for wildfires in the U.S. on record. President Trump's proposed budget for the Environmental Protection Agency would make matters worse. Regional. C4.

By Natalie Karas

A recent report published by Oil Change International highlights the failure of regulators to protect ratepayers against utility affiliate-backed contracts for new pipeline capacity -in other words, when a regulated utility acts as both the developer and customer for a new pipeline.  It’s a widespread and growing issue. Case in point: Con Ed’s investment in the proposed Mountain Valley Pipeline in West Virginia and Virginia, hundreds of miles from Con Ed’s New York service territory.

Con Ed claims that signing up for transportation service on the pipeline will result in cost savings for customers. But the day Con Ed signed up as a pipeline customer, the company also formed a new “midstream” entity to invest in the pipeline. The new unregulated entity shares the same corporate parent as the regulated utility, but operates under significantly different rules and legal obligations. This transactional structure means that Con Ed’s ratepayers would be  on the hook for paying for the project, while Con Ed’s midstream arm will enjoy a return in excess of risk. From the company standpoint, it’s heads-I-win, tails-you-lose.

Extra scrutiny for self-dealing transactions

One recommendation from the Oil Change International report is that state regulators should “apply heightened scrutiny to determine whether rate hikes related to new pipeline transportation costs are just and reasonable, especially when affiliate self-dealing is involved.” At EDF, we recently took two key steps to lay the groundwork for this heightened review to occur in New York.

EDF also has been working to ensure that a forum will be available to challenge these costs, as opposed to simply passing them along to ratepayers without a blink. The laws in New York prevent utilities from charging “unjust and unreasonable” costs to customers.  We filed a petition with the Commission to confirm that gas transportation contracts—such as Con Ed’s—are subject to these legal requirements. The very same day, NRDC chimed in to support EDF on both fronts. This is a first, but important, step to ensure regulators apply heightened review to these types of affiliate agreements.

By Natalie Karas

A recent report published by Oil Change International highlights the failure of regulators to protect ratepayers against utility affiliate-backed contracts for new pipeline capacity -in other words, when a regulated utility acts as both the developer and customer for a new pipeline.  It’s a widespread and growing issue. Case in point: Con Ed’s investment in the proposed Mountain Valley Pipeline in West Virginia and Virginia, hundreds of miles from Con Ed’s New York service territory.

Con Ed claims that signing up for transportation service on the pipeline will result in cost savings for customers. But the day Con Ed signed up as a pipeline customer, the company also formed a new “midstream” entity to invest in the pipeline. The new unregulated entity shares the same corporate parent as the regulated utility, but operates under significantly different rules and legal obligations. This transactional structure means that Con Ed’s ratepayers would be  on the hook for paying for the project, while Con Ed’s midstream arm will enjoy a return in excess of risk. From the company standpoint, it’s heads-I-win, tails-you-lose.

Extra scrutiny for self-dealing transactions

One recommendation from the Oil Change International report is that state regulators should “apply heightened scrutiny to determine whether rate hikes related to new pipeline transportation costs are just and reasonable, especially when affiliate self-dealing is involved.” At EDF, we recently took two key steps to lay the groundwork for this heightened review to occur in New York.

EDF also has been working to ensure that a forum will be available to challenge these costs, as opposed to simply passing them along to ratepayers without a blink. The laws in New York prevent utilities from charging “unjust and unreasonable” costs to customers.  We filed a petition with the Commission to confirm that gas transportation contracts—such as Con Ed’s—are subject to these legal requirements. The very same day, NRDC chimed in to support EDF on both fronts. This is a first, but important, step to ensure regulators apply heightened review to these types of affiliate agreements.

By Natalie Karas

A recent report published by Oil Change International highlights the failure of regulators to protect ratepayers against utility affiliate-backed contracts for new pipeline capacity -in other words, when a regulated utility acts as both the developer and customer for a new pipeline.  It’s a widespread and growing issue. Case in point: Con Ed’s investment in the proposed Mountain Valley Pipeline in West Virginia and Virginia, hundreds of miles from Con Ed’s New York service territory.

Con Ed claims that signing up for transportation service on the pipeline will result in cost savings for customers. But the day Con Ed signed up as a pipeline customer, the company also formed a new “midstream” entity to invest in the pipeline. The new unregulated entity shares the same corporate parent as the regulated utility, but operates under significantly different rules and legal obligations. This transactional structure means that Con Ed’s ratepayers would be  on the hook for paying for the project, while Con Ed’s midstream arm will enjoy a return in excess of risk. From the company standpoint, it’s heads-I-win, tails-you-lose.

Extra scrutiny for self-dealing transactions

One recommendation from the Oil Change International report is that state regulators should “apply heightened scrutiny to determine whether rate hikes related to new pipeline transportation costs are just and reasonable, especially when affiliate self-dealing is involved.” At EDF, we recently took two key steps to lay the groundwork for this heightened review to occur in New York.

EDF also has been working to ensure that a forum will be available to challenge these costs, as opposed to simply passing them along to ratepayers without a blink. The laws in New York prevent utilities from charging “unjust and unreasonable” costs to customers.  We filed a petition with the Commission to confirm that gas transportation contracts—such as Con Ed’s—are subject to these legal requirements. The very same day, NRDC chimed in to support EDF on both fronts. This is a first, but important, step to ensure regulators apply heightened review to these types of affiliate agreements.

A recent report published by Oil Change International highlights the failure of regulators to protect ratepayers against utility affiliate-backed contracts for new pipeline capacity -in other words, when a regulated utility acts as both the developer and customer for a new pipeline.  It’s a widespread and growing issue. Case in point: Con Ed’s investment in […]

The post Stopping the self-deal: Preventing pipeline investors from offloading risk on ratepayers appeared first on Energy Exchange.

By EDF Blogs

Earlier this week, New York City became the first city to devise a plan for meeting the goals outlined in the Paris Accord —the world’s first comprehensive climate agreement from which President Trump pledged to pull the U.S. from. The 1.5°C Paris Agreement-compliant climate action plan comes in response to Executive Order 26 (EO26), signed by Mayor de Blasio that reaffirms the city’s commitment to upholding the goals of the Paris Agreement.

The plan identifies specific strategies for reducing GHG emissions necessary to limit global temperature increase to 1.5 degree Celsius above pre-industrial levels, as set forth in the Paris Agreement. Leading the charge is the Mayor’s Office of Sustainability (MOS), which has been moving the city’s decarbonization efforts forward by accelerating the implementation of existing projects launched under the 80 X 50 initiative—a goal of reducing GHG emissions 80 percent by 2050.

This landmark piece of climate leadership is a big deal. It’s evidence that cities aren’t just making bold commitments with no plan of how to achieve them; they’re taking action and setting the processes for how to get there.

But getting a city, especially NYC a city with roughly 100 agencies, to meet its goals is tricky. An enormous amount of coordination and engagement is required to ensure all the unique players are aligned on, accountable for and proactive about—especially private citizens and businesses– the sustainability actions they set under 80 x 50. It’s the middle miles (the “execution phase”) that gets complicated, and often requires assistance.

New York City delivers first-ever city plan to meet #ParisAgreement goals.
Click To Tweet

EDF Climate Corps fellow Ryan Moya assisted MOS in coordinating with agencies to identify actions the City must take by 2020 that will align NYC with the Paris Agreement—lending a hand to those middle miles. Priority actions were identified by drawing on previous 80 x 50 analysis and assessing which actions had the greatest potential for GHG reductions in the near and long terms.

The single largest action the City can take to reduce GHG emissions is through building energy performance mandates. Fossil fuels used for heat and hot water in buildings collectively make up 39% of GHG emissions—the city’s largest source of emissions. That’s why earlier this month Mayor de Blasio announced mandates requiring 14,500 buildings to meet fossil fuel standards by 2030.

NYC is a pilot, giving context for how a city can set, and achieve, science-based objectives. 

The mandate will bring NYC closer to reaching its 80 X 50 goals by reducing citywide GHG emissions seven percent by 2030 and providing cleaner, safer air to NYC residents. Not to mention adding 17,000 green jobs to the already growing industry. Under the mandate, the city’s least energy efficient buildings have to replace fossil fuel equipment and install efficiency upgrades to meet energy intensity targets or face penalties. But the mandate isn’t about forcing people to change systems; it’s about reducing the use of fossil fuels. That’s why how they do so is flexible: replace HVAC systems, fix boilers, etc.

What does this mean on a broader scale? NYC is a pilot, giving context for how a city can set, and achieve, science-based objectives. NYC is committing to lead in the development of a global protocol for cities to achieve carbon neutrality by mid-century and have a chance at a 1.5 degree outcome in partnership with C40 and other lead cities. By mirroring NYC’s tangible solutions and incorporating unique, case-specific steps, cities across the country can take charge and put forward short-term actions necessary to meeting their long-term climate goals.

This post originally appeared on our EDF+Business blog.

By Ellen Shenette  Earlier this week, New York City became the first city to devise a plan for meeting the goals outlined in the Paris Accord —the world’s first comprehensive climate agreement from which President Trump pledged to pull the U.S. from. The 1.5°C Paris Agreement-compliant climate action plan comes in response to Executive Order 26 (EO26), signed by Mayor […]

By EDF Blogs

Earlier this week, New York City became the first city to devise a plan for meeting the goals outlined in the Paris Accord —the world’s first comprehensive climate agreement from which President Trump pledged to pull the U.S. from. The 1.5°C Paris Agreement-compliant climate action plan comes in response to Executive Order 26 (EO26), signed by Mayor de Blasio that reaffirms the city’s commitment to upholding the goals of the Paris Agreement.

The plan identifies specific strategies for reducing GHG emissions necessary to limit global temperature increase to 1.5 degree Celsius above pre-industrial levels, as set forth in the Paris Agreement. Leading the charge is the Mayor’s Office of Sustainability (MOS), which has been moving the city’s decarbonization efforts forward by accelerating the implementation of existing projects launched under the 80 X 50 initiative—a goal of reducing GHG emissions 80 percent by 2050.

This landmark piece of climate leadership is a big deal. It’s evidence that cities aren’t just making bold commitments with no plan of how to achieve them; they’re taking action and setting the processes for how to get there.

But getting a city, especially NYC a city with roughly 100 agencies, to meet its goals is tricky. An enormous amount of coordination and engagement is required to ensure all the unique players are aligned on, accountable for and proactive about—especially private citizens and businesses– the sustainability actions they set under 80 x 50. It’s the middle miles (the “execution phase”) that gets complicated, and often requires assistance.

New York City delivers first-ever city plan to meet #ParisAgreement goals.
Click To Tweet

EDF Climate Corps fellow Ryan Moya assisted MOS in coordinating with agencies to identify actions the City must take by 2020 that will align NYC with the Paris Agreement—lending a hand to those middle miles. Priority actions were identified by drawing on previous 80 x 50 analysis and assessing which actions had the greatest potential for GHG reductions in the near and long terms.

The single largest action the City can take to reduce GHG emissions is through building energy performance mandates. Fossil fuels used for heat and hot water in buildings collectively make up 39% of GHG emissions—the city’s largest source of emissions. That’s why earlier this month Mayor de Blasio announced mandates requiring 14,500 buildings to meet fossil fuel standards by 2030.

NYC is a pilot, giving context for how a city can set, and achieve, science-based objectives. 

The mandate will bring NYC closer to reaching its 80 X 50 goals by reducing citywide GHG emissions seven percent by 2030 and providing cleaner, safer air to NYC residents. Not to mention adding 17,000 green jobs to the already growing industry. Under the mandate, the city’s least energy efficient buildings have to replace fossil fuel equipment and install efficiency upgrades to meet energy intensity targets or face penalties. But the mandate isn’t about forcing people to change systems; it’s about reducing the use of fossil fuels. That’s why how they do so is flexible: replace HVAC systems, fix boilers, etc.

What does this mean on a broader scale? NYC is a pilot, giving context for how a city can set, and achieve, science-based objectives. NYC is committing to lead in the development of a global protocol for cities to achieve carbon neutrality by mid-century and have a chance at a 1.5 degree outcome in partnership with C40 and other lead cities. By mirroring NYC’s tangible solutions and incorporating unique, case-specific steps, cities across the country can take charge and put forward short-term actions necessary to meeting their long-term climate goals.

This post originally appeared on our EDF+Business blog.

On a sunny morning, a crowd of 20 odd people gathered outside the Old U.S. Mint at the foot of Esplanade Avenue. Designed by William Strickland, the c. 1838 Mint exemplifies the Greek revival style popular among the Americans who flocked to New Orleans following the Louisiana Purchase. Today it houses the New Orleans Jazz Museum, host of the annual Downriver Festival celebrating the Mississippi River's contributions to Louisiana's cultural and culinary traditions. We descended into Crescent Park, where a ...

Read The Full Story

The post A Waterfront Stroll: New Orleans and the Mississippi River appeared first on Restore the Mississippi River Delta.

On a sunny morning, a crowd of 20 odd people gathered outside the Old U.S. Mint at the foot of Esplanade Avenue. Designed by William Strickland, the c. 1838 Mint exemplifies the Greek revival style popular among the Americans who flocked to New Orleans following the Louisiana Purchase. Today it houses the New Orleans Jazz Museum, host of the annual Downriver Festival celebrating the Mississippi River's contributions to Louisiana's cultural and culinary traditions. We descended into Crescent Park, where a ...

Read The Full Story

The post A Waterfront Stroll: New Orleans and the Mississippi River appeared first on Restore the Mississippi River Delta.

On a sunny morning, a crowd of 20 odd people gathered outside the Old U.S. Mint at the foot of Esplanade Avenue. Designed by William Strickland, the c. 1838 Mint exemplifies the Greek revival style popular among the Americans who flocked to New Orleans following the Louisiana Purchase. Today it houses the New Orleans Jazz Museum, host of the annual Downriver Festival celebrating the Mississippi River's contributions to Louisiana's cultural and culinary traditions. We descended into Crescent Park, where a ...

Read The Full Story

The post A Waterfront Stroll: New Orleans and the Mississippi River appeared first on Restore the Mississippi River Delta.

By Sean Wright

Environmental Defense Fund Q&A with Tim Goodman, Director of Engagement at Hermes Investment Management

Tim Goodman, Director of Engagement at Hermes Investment Management

Early oil and gas industry adopters of methane management strategies and technologies are starting to see these reductions as an opportunity to gain a competitive edge.

Just last week, ExxonMobil announced  a new methane reduction program for its XTO Energy subsidiary, underscoring that the industry is paying close attention to the issue.

Methane, the main ingredient in natural gas, is leaked and vented across the oil and gas supply chain every day as the world energy mix shifts towards greater natural gas usage, according to the International Energy Agency. The oil and gas industry wastes billions of dollars a year of methane that simultaneously acts as a climate change accelerator, harming the brand of natural gas as a cheap and clean fuel source. Methane is 84 times more powerful as a heat-trapper than carbon in its first 20 years in the atmosphere.

In the second part of Environmental Defense Fund’s recent interview with Tim Goodman, Director of Engagement at London-based Hermes Investment Management, Goodman shares his views on why oil and gas companies addressing methane emissions are gaining a competitive edge, and how investors are paving the path for more companies to follow suit.

Companies addressing methane emissions gain a competitive edge. Here's why.
Click To Tweet

Wright: As more companies start to manage methane emissions, do you see a potential competitive advantage for companies taking a leadership position in this area?

Goodman: I would like to tell a story from a couple of years ago about methane detecting cameras. One of the International Oil Companies (IOC) we were working with proudly announced it was trialing an infrared methane detector camera and they were about to put in an order for five more. This was an IOC with a global footprint with a huge balance sheet. We then spoke with a company with a much smaller footprint who already had five of these cameras covering a much smaller geographic footprint. If you compare their respective footprints and balance sheets, you can see that this major was potentially lagging in its methane commitments.

We absolutely see the benefits of a leadership position on methane, as did this smaller operator. The smaller operator saw methane as something that would make them a more attractive partner, and make it easier for them to maintain their social license to operate. And of course, if you’re efficient and if you’re not leaking methane, you’re inherently safer, so it plays very much to relations with a companies’ own workforce and the service contractors with which they work.

It is clear that companies are seeing advantages in managing methane – as well as cost savings and revenue increases. There are distinct benefits to being a responsible producer – or what is often referred to as having a social license to operate – such as greater credibility with stakeholders and reduced legal and reputational risks. It’s a virtuous commercial circle in managing methane properly. Companies are getting it more and more, but I do think sometimes the reality needs to match some of the rhetoric.

Sean Wright, Senior Manager at EDF+Business

Wright: So it is a competitive advantage, but it’s more so related to intangible benefits – such as reputational and partnership benefits, as opposed to the financial benefits?

Goodman: You can’t make an artificial division between what’s often called non-financial and financial. While it’s harder to measure, if you’re measuring your methane better, you’re less likely to have health and safety issues. A safer and more efficient operation attracts good labor and service contractors – people want to work for and stay with you. The community in which you operate is likely to be less concerned by your activity. All of these benefits are financial-related, but just more difficult to measure.

Wright: What types of levers do institutional investors have to reward companies that lead on methane? What actions do you take for those companies lagging on methane efforts?

Goodman: The number of institutional investors using Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) factors to make investment decisions is increasing. Certainly, our clients are hugely interested in our engagements when they’re looking at their own portfolios. How responsive companies are to our suggestions, is a really important indicator as to the quality of the company. Our engagements encourage the leaders but also the laggards. The reputational issue is a point we stress in our engagements – and that this may lead to legal risk. Sometimes companies haven’t considered these factors in sufficient detail because it’s hard to measure. But increasingly companies seem to be investing in best-of-class measures on methane – and we encourage this type of competition in the industry. For the laggards, we focus initially on investment decisions that carry clear financial benefits but also encourage them to think about the more hidden costs and risks they might be carrying and the benefits from managing methane better that companies might not fully appreciate.

Institutional investors increasingly use ESG indicators to make investment decisions. Methane…
Click To Tweet

Wright: What do you think about natural gas in Europe’s energy mix? How do methane emissions relate to the fate of natural gas?

Goodman: That’s a big question. Geopolitics is a big issue. Gas from the North Sea is in decline especially in the UK sector. Increasingly, there is reluctance due to cost, risk and stakeholder pressure to explore new resources in both deep water or the Arctic or both. Much of the gas being consumed in the EU is therefore now coming from the Middle East or Russia, which clearly have big geopolitical risks.

Methane is a big issue – if natural gas is being imported from the Middle East and Russia, what are the operational standards there? We do find it difficult – not to say we’re not trying – to engage on methane with companies in these areas. But the provenance of natural gas is a real issue. This leads me to another important issue, which is once the gas arrives in Europe, attention must be paid to how it’s being used, methane leaks in the downstream infrastructure, and so on. The rapid uptake of renewables leaves a space for gas for now, but we are seeing some move towards smaller, tactical gas power stations which are more able to respond to fluctuations in the availability renewable energy than the very large gas plants that originally replaced coal-powered plants. It will also take a while for renewables to replace gas for domestic heating particularly in countries in northern Europe with old housing stock like the UK.

Wright: Conversations and potential strategies on EU methane standards are now emerging in the EU Parliament. How do you think about the role of regulations as you engage with European companies? Given the EU is home to a number of global operators with extensive joint ventures, could EU rules achieve a global benefit?

Goodman: The passage of regulation through the EU Parliament can be long and tortuous. Our focus will be reducing methane emissions, predominantly through engaging with companies and supporting regulation where we can. We very much expect all companies to have the highest possible global standards while also adhering to legislation in the countries of operation. If the EU regulation goes above and beyond standards elsewhere, that’s a good thing. But we encourage all IOCs to have higher standards than what’s regulated by law. We think global standards are easier for companies to manage. For instance, it’s much easier to manage mobile employees or multi-national companies if you have a unifying set of global best practice standards that go above local law. Our focus is on encouraging the best possible global standards on methane and other issues, and we think EU regulation may help in that effort but it may take a while and it won’t be a panacea: self-help by companies will remain our focus.

For more information on EDF’s investor resources on methane mitigation, please see our recent report, An Investor’s Guide to Methane, or subscribe to our newsletter.

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.

Your Name

Your Email

Both fields are required.

Environmental Defense Fund Q&A with Tim Goodman, Director of Engagement at Hermes Investment Management Early oil and gas industry adopters of methane management strategies and technologies are starting to see these reductions as an opportunity to gain a competitive edge. Just last week, ExxonMobil announced  a new methane reduction program for its XTO Energy subsidiary, […]

By Ellen Shenette

Earlier this week, New York City became the first city to devise a plan for meeting the goals outlined in the Paris Accord —the world’s first comprehensive climate agreement from which President Trump pledged to pull the U.S. from. The 1.5°C Paris Agreement-compliant climate action plan comes in response to Executive Order 26 (EO26), signed by Mayor de Blasio that reaffirms the city’s commitment to upholding the goals of the Paris Agreement.

The plan identifies specific strategies for reducing GHG emissions necessary to limit global temperature increase to 1.5 degree Celsius above pre-industrial levels, as set forth in the Paris Agreement. Leading the charge is the Mayor’s Office of Sustainability (MOS), which has been moving the city’s decarbonization efforts forward by accelerating the implementation of existing projects launched under the 80 X 50 initiative—a goal of reducing GHG emissions 80 percent by 2050.

This landmark piece of climate leadership is a big deal. It’s evidence that cities aren’t just making bold commitments with no plan of how to achieve them; they’re taking action and setting the processes for how to get there.

Manager, EDF Climate Corps

But getting a city, especially NYC a city with roughly 100 agencies, to meet its goals is tricky. An enormous amount of coordination and engagement is required to ensure all the unique players are aligned on, accountable for and proactive about—especially private citizens and businesses– the sustainability actions they set under 80 x 50. It’s the middle miles (the “execution phase”) that gets complicated, and often requires assistance.

EDF Climate Corps fellow Ryan Moya assisted MOS in coordinating with agencies to identify actions the City must take by 2020 that will align NYC with the Paris Agreement—lending a hand to those middle miles. Priority actions were identified by drawing on previous 80 x 50 analysis and assessing which actions had the greatest potential for GHG reductions in the near and long terms.

NYC's climate plan: a blueprint for a better future & an example of local govts picking up the…
Click To Tweet

The single largest action the City can take to reduce GHG emissions is through building energy performance mandates. Fossil fuels used for heat and hot water in buildings collectively make up 39% of GHG emissions—the city’s largest source of emissions. That’s why earlier this month Mayor de Blasio announced mandates requiring 14,500 buildings to meet fossil fuel standards by 2030.

The mandate will bring NYC closer to reaching its 80 X 50 goals by reducing citywide GHG emissions seven percent by 2030 and providing cleaner, safer air to NYC residents. Not to mention adding 17,000 green jobs to the already growing industry. Under the mandate, the city’s least energy efficient buildings have to replace fossil fuel equipment and install efficiency upgrades to meet energy intensity targets or face penalties. But the mandate isn’t about forcing people to change systems; it’s about reducing the use of fossil fuels. That’s why how they do so is flexible: replace HVAC systems, fix boilers, etc.

What does this mean on a broader scale? NYC is a pilot, giving context for how a city can set, and achieve, science-based objectives. NYC is committing to lead in the development of a global protocol for cities to achieve carbon neutrality by mid-century and have a chance at a 1.5 degree outcome in partnership with C40 and other lead cities. By mirroring NYC’s tangible solutions and incorporating unique, case-specific steps, cities across the country can take charge and put forward short-term actions necessary to meeting their long-term climate goals.

Follow Ellen on Twitter, @ellenshenette

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]