By Sean Wright

Institutional investors worldwide are increasingly encouraging oil and gas companies to improve and disclose their management strategies to minimize methane risk.

Methane – an invisible, odorless gas and main ingredient in natural gas – is routinely emitted by the global oil and gas industry, posing a reputational and economic threat to portfolios.

Natural gas is widely marketed as a low-carbon fuel because it burns roughly 50 percent cleaner than coal. But this ignores a major problem: methane. Natural gas is almost pure methane, a powerful pollutant that speeds up Earth’s warming when it escapes into the atmosphere.

Last month marked a significant milestone in investor action on the methane issue. The Principles for Responsible Investment (PRI) launched a new initiative representing 35 investors and U.S. $3.8 trillion in assets that will engage with the oil and gas industry across five different continents to improve its methane management and disclosure practices. The PRI initiative complements existing methane engagement efforts focused on the U.S. led by the Interfaith Center on Corporate Responsibility and CERES.

EDF Senior Manager Sean Wright recently sat down with Sylvia van Waveren, a Senior Engagement Specialist with Robeco Institutional Asset Management, a Dutch-based investment firm managing over $160 billion, to discuss the matter and understand why some investors are keen to affect the status quo on methane.

Wright: Why is methane a focus of your engagements? What do you see as the risks of unmanaged methane emissions?

Sylvia van Waveren, Senior Engagement Specialist, Robeco Institutional Asset Management

van Waveren: Methane is one of the most important drivers of engagement with the oil and gas industry. We invest in oil and gas companies worldwide. A year ago, we started engaging them, specifically on climate change – and within that the methane issue is included.

In the past, methane was viewed as a U.S. shale gas issue, but more recently it has become important in Europe as we learned that methane is a powerful greenhouse gas. So in that sense, we learned a lot from the U.S. discussions and we still do.

I would like to stress that we see the methane issue more as a business opportunity than a risk. What we often say to companies is that methane is a potential revenue source. It would be a waste if companies do not use it. 

Wright: The scope of PRI’s initiative is global, with investors from 3 different continents as far away as Australia and New Zealand, and a plan to engage with companies from the Latin America, Europe, North America and Asia-Pac. What does this level of global collaboration convey about methane emissions? 

van Waveren: I am happy and it is good to see that others have taken up the seriousness of this issue, as well.  Methane is no longer a U.S. only problem. The issue is being raised and discussed in all kinds of geographies.

I’m a firm believer in collective engagements. They can be a powerful force when the issue is not contained within borders. That is the case with greenhouse gases. So yes, I’m happy to see the PRI initiative taking off and I am an active believer in getting this solved and bringing attention to this subject.  

Wright: In your conversations thus far with companies about methane, what resonates best when making the business case for improving methane management and disclosure?

van Waveren: When we talk about motivation at the company level, I have to be honest, it’s still early days. The European companies are talking in general terms and just now conceptualizing methane policies. If we’re lucky, they have calculated how much methane is part of their greenhouse gas emissions. And if we’re more fortunate, they are producing regional and segregated figures from carbon, but it’s really very meager how motivated the companies are and what triggers them most.

I really feel we should emphasize more with companies to get them motivated and to really look at the seriousness of methane. One issue that is particularly bothersome is that many companies do not know how to calculate, estimate and set targets to reduce methane. It is still a mystery to many of them. That’s why we come in with engagements. We need to keep them sharp on this issue and ask them for their actions, calculations and plans. 

Wright: Who are other important allies that have a role in solving this problem, and why?

van Waveren: We always would like to have an ally in the government. For example, carbon pricing or carbon fixations are all topics that we look for from the government. But in practice, that doesn’t work. Governments sometimes need more time. So we do not always wait for the government. When companies say they will wait for government, we say, “You should take a proactive approach.”

We rely very much on our knowledge that we get from within the sector. We review data analyses and make intermediate reports of scoring. We find best practice solutions and we hold companies accountable. There are also times when we name names. So in that sense, that is how engagement works. The data providers and other organizations with good knowledge and good content on methane – and EDF is certainly one of them – are very instrumental to get the knowledge that we need.

Wright: Can you give me an example of a widespread financial risk facing an industry in the past that was proactively improved by investors leading the charge – similar to this initiative?

van Waveren: More than 20 years ago, we had a greenhouse gas issue – acid rain. Investors helped solve that problem. Because of this, I’m hopeful that investors can also play a positive role in reducing methane.

I would also say the issue of Arctic drilling. Not so long ago, this was top of mind when we talked to our portfolio companies. A lot of companies have now withdrawn from Arctic drilling, especially from offshore Arctic drilling. I think investors were quite successful in sending a clear signal to the industry in a collective way that we didn’t see Arctic drilling as a good process. Maybe profitable – if at all – to the companies, but certainly not for the environment.

Wright: Thank you, Sylvia. We really appreciate your time and your thoughtful answers showing how investors can be part of the solution on methane.

By Sean Wright

Institutional investors worldwide are increasingly encouraging oil and gas companies to improve and disclose their management strategies to minimize methane risk.

Methane – an invisible, odorless gas and main ingredient in natural gas – is routinely emitted by the global oil and gas industry, posing a reputational and economic threat to portfolios.

Natural gas is widely marketed as a low-carbon fuel because it burns roughly 50 percent cleaner than coal. But this ignores a major problem: methane. Natural gas is almost pure methane, a powerful pollutant that speeds up Earth’s warming when it escapes into the atmosphere.

Last month marked a significant milestone in investor action on the methane issue. The Principles for Responsible Investment (PRI) launched a new initiative representing 35 investors and U.S. $3.8 trillion in assets that will engage with the oil and gas industry across five different continents to improve its methane management and disclosure practices. The PRI initiative complements existing methane engagement efforts focused on the U.S. led by the Interfaith Center on Corporate Responsibility and CERES.

EDF Senior Manager Sean Wright recently sat down with Sylvia van Waveren, a Senior Engagement Specialist with Robeco Institutional Asset Management, a Dutch-based investment firm managing over $160 billion, to discuss the matter and understand why some investors are keen to affect the status quo on methane.

Wright: Why is methane a focus of your engagements? What do you see as the risks of unmanaged methane emissions?

Sylvia van Waveren, Senior Engagement Specialist, Robeco Institutional Asset Management

van Waveren: Methane is one of the most important drivers of engagement with the oil and gas industry. We invest in oil and gas companies worldwide. A year ago, we started engaging them, specifically on climate change – and within that the methane issue is included.

In the past, methane was viewed as a U.S. shale gas issue, but more recently it has become important in Europe as we learned that methane is a powerful greenhouse gas. So in that sense, we learned a lot from the U.S. discussions and we still do.

I would like to stress that we see the methane issue more as a business opportunity than a risk. What we often say to companies is that methane is a potential revenue source. It would be a waste if companies do not use it. 

Wright: The scope of PRI’s initiative is global, with investors from 3 different continents as far away as Australia and New Zealand, and a plan to engage with companies from the Latin America, Europe, North America and Asia-Pac. What does this level of global collaboration convey about methane emissions? 

van Waveren: I am happy and it is good to see that others have taken up the seriousness of this issue, as well.  Methane is no longer a U.S. only problem. The issue is being raised and discussed in all kinds of geographies.

I’m a firm believer in collective engagements. They can be a powerful force when the issue is not contained within borders. That is the case with greenhouse gases. So yes, I’m happy to see the PRI initiative taking off and I am an active believer in getting this solved and bringing attention to this subject.  

Wright: In your conversations thus far with companies about methane, what resonates best when making the business case for improving methane management and disclosure?

van Waveren: When we talk about motivation at the company level, I have to be honest, it’s still early days. The European companies are talking in general terms and just now conceptualizing methane policies. If we’re lucky, they have calculated how much methane is part of their greenhouse gas emissions. And if we’re more fortunate, they are producing regional and segregated figures from carbon, but it’s really very meager how motivated the companies are and what triggers them most.

I really feel we should emphasize more with companies to get them motivated and to really look at the seriousness of methane. One issue that is particularly bothersome is that many companies do not know how to calculate, estimate and set targets to reduce methane. It is still a mystery to many of them. That’s why we come in with engagements. We need to keep them sharp on this issue and ask them for their actions, calculations and plans. 

Wright: Who are other important allies that have a role in solving this problem, and why?

van Waveren: We always would like to have an ally in the government. For example, carbon pricing or carbon fixations are all topics that we look for from the government. But in practice, that doesn’t work. Governments sometimes need more time. So we do not always wait for the government. When companies say they will wait for government, we say, “You should take a proactive approach.”

We rely very much on our knowledge that we get from within the sector. We review data analyses and make intermediate reports of scoring. We find best practice solutions and we hold companies accountable. There are also times when we name names. So in that sense, that is how engagement works. The data providers and other organizations with good knowledge and good content on methane – and EDF is certainly one of them – are very instrumental to get the knowledge that we need.

Wright: Can you give me an example of a widespread financial risk facing an industry in the past that was proactively improved by investors leading the charge – similar to this initiative?

van Waveren: More than 20 years ago, we had a greenhouse gas issue – acid rain. Investors helped solve that problem. Because of this, I’m hopeful that investors can also play a positive role in reducing methane.

I would also say the issue of Arctic drilling. Not so long ago, this was top of mind when we talked to our portfolio companies. A lot of companies have now withdrawn from Arctic drilling, especially from offshore Arctic drilling. I think investors were quite successful in sending a clear signal to the industry in a collective way that we didn’t see Arctic drilling as a good process. Maybe profitable – if at all – to the companies, but certainly not for the environment.

Wright: Thank you, Sylvia. We really appreciate your time and your thoughtful answers showing how investors can be part of the solution on methane.

By Sean Wright

Institutional investors worldwide are increasingly encouraging oil and gas companies to improve and disclose their management strategies to minimize methane risk.

Methane – an invisible, odorless gas and main ingredient in natural gas – is routinely emitted by the global oil and gas industry, posing a reputational and economic threat to portfolios.

Natural gas is widely marketed as a low-carbon fuel because it burns roughly 50 percent cleaner than coal. But this ignores a major problem: methane. Natural gas is almost pure methane, a powerful pollutant that speeds up Earth’s warming when it escapes into the atmosphere.

Last month marked a significant milestone in investor action on the methane issue. The Principles for Responsible Investment (PRI) launched a new initiative representing 35 investors and U.S. $3.8 trillion in assets that will engage with the oil and gas industry across five different continents to improve its methane management and disclosure practices. The PRI initiative complements existing methane engagement efforts focused on the U.S. led by the Interfaith Center on Corporate Responsibility and CERES.

EDF Senior Manager Sean Wright recently sat down with Sylvia van Waveren, a Senior Engagement Specialist with Robeco Institutional Asset Management, a Dutch-based investment firm managing over $160 billion, to discuss the matter and understand why some investors are keen to affect the status quo on methane.

Wright: Why is methane a focus of your engagements? What do you see as the risks of unmanaged methane emissions?

Sylvia van Waveren, Senior Engagement Specialist, Robeco Institutional Asset Management

van Waveren: Methane is one of the most important drivers of engagement with the oil and gas industry. We invest in oil and gas companies worldwide. A year ago, we started engaging them, specifically on climate change – and within that the methane issue is included.

In the past, methane was viewed as a U.S. shale gas issue, but more recently it has become important in Europe as we learned that methane is a powerful greenhouse gas. So in that sense, we learned a lot from the U.S. discussions and we still do.

I would like to stress that we see the methane issue more as a business opportunity than a risk. What we often say to companies is that methane is a potential revenue source. It would be a waste if companies do not use it. 

Wright: The scope of PRI’s initiative is global, with investors from 3 different continents as far away as Australia and New Zealand, and a plan to engage with companies from the Latin America, Europe, North America and Asia-Pac. What does this level of global collaboration convey about methane emissions? 

van Waveren: I am happy and it is good to see that others have taken up the seriousness of this issue, as well.  Methane is no longer a U.S. only problem. The issue is being raised and discussed in all kinds of geographies.

I’m a firm believer in collective engagements. They can be a powerful force when the issue is not contained within borders. That is the case with greenhouse gases. So yes, I’m happy to see the PRI initiative taking off and I am an active believer in getting this solved and bringing attention to this subject.  

Wright: In your conversations thus far with companies about methane, what resonates best when making the business case for improving methane management and disclosure?

van Waveren: When we talk about motivation at the company level, I have to be honest, it’s still early days. The European companies are talking in general terms and just now conceptualizing methane policies. If we’re lucky, they have calculated how much methane is part of their greenhouse gas emissions. And if we’re more fortunate, they are producing regional and segregated figures from carbon, but it’s really very meager how motivated the companies are and what triggers them most.

I really feel we should emphasize more with companies to get them motivated and to really look at the seriousness of methane. One issue that is particularly bothersome is that many companies do not know how to calculate, estimate and set targets to reduce methane. It is still a mystery to many of them. That’s why we come in with engagements. We need to keep them sharp on this issue and ask them for their actions, calculations and plans. 

Wright: Who are other important allies that have a role in solving this problem, and why?

van Waveren: We always would like to have an ally in the government. For example, carbon pricing or carbon fixations are all topics that we look for from the government. But in practice, that doesn’t work. Governments sometimes need more time. So we do not always wait for the government. When companies say they will wait for government, we say, “You should take a proactive approach.”

We rely very much on our knowledge that we get from within the sector. We review data analyses and make intermediate reports of scoring. We find best practice solutions and we hold companies accountable. There are also times when we name names. So in that sense, that is how engagement works. The data providers and other organizations with good knowledge and good content on methane – and EDF is certainly one of them – are very instrumental to get the knowledge that we need.

Wright: Can you give me an example of a widespread financial risk facing an industry in the past that was proactively improved by investors leading the charge – similar to this initiative?

van Waveren: More than 20 years ago, we had a greenhouse gas issue – acid rain. Investors helped solve that problem. Because of this, I’m hopeful that investors can also play a positive role in reducing methane.

I would also say the issue of Arctic drilling. Not so long ago, this was top of mind when we talked to our portfolio companies. A lot of companies have now withdrawn from Arctic drilling, especially from offshore Arctic drilling. I think investors were quite successful in sending a clear signal to the industry in a collective way that we didn’t see Arctic drilling as a good process. Maybe profitable – if at all – to the companies, but certainly not for the environment.

Wright: Thank you, Sylvia. We really appreciate your time and your thoughtful answers showing how investors can be part of the solution on methane.

On today’s show Nikki Cavalier, Community Outreach & Media Specialist from CWPPRA, joins the show to talk with Jacques & Simone about CWPPRA and Nutria & how they affect the Louisiana Coastline. On the second half the show, Andy Nyman Professor of Wetland Wildlife Ecology at LSU School of Renewable Natural Resources, returns to talk about Roseau Cane Mealy Bug.  Below is a transcript of this week's Delta Dispatches Podcast. Listen to the full recording here or subscribe to our feed in ...

Read The Full Story

The post Delta Dispatches: Invasive Species appeared first on Restore the Mississippi River Delta.

On today’s show Nikki Cavalier, Community Outreach & Media Specialist from CWPPRA, joins the show to talk with Jacques & Simone about CWPPRA and Nutria & how they affect the Louisiana Coastline. On the second half the show, Andy Nyman Professor of Wetland Wildlife Ecology at LSU School of Renewable Natural Resources, returns to talk about Roseau Cane Mealy Bug.  Below is a transcript of this week's Delta Dispatches Podcast. Listen to the full recording here or subscribe to our feed in ...

Read The Full Story

The post Delta Dispatches: Invasive Species appeared first on Restore the Mississippi River Delta.

On today’s show Nikki Cavalier, Community Outreach & Media Specialist from CWPPRA, joins the show to talk with Jacques & Simone about CWPPRA and Nutria & how they affect the Louisiana Coastline. On the second half the show, Andy Nyman Professor of Wetland Wildlife Ecology at LSU School of Renewable Natural Resources, returns to talk about Roseau Cane Mealy Bug.  Below is a transcript of this week's Delta Dispatches Podcast. Listen to the full recording here or subscribe to our feed in ...

Read The Full Story

The post Delta Dispatches: Invasive Species appeared first on Restore the Mississippi River Delta.

America needs a healthy, well-funded EPA. It keeps our air and water clean, and saves lives. C4. Regional.

America needs a healthy, well-funded EPA. It keeps our air and water clean, and saves lives. C4.

America needs a healthy, well-funded EPA. It keeps our air and water clean, and saves lives. C4.

By EDF Blogs

By Christie Hicks and Dick Munson

Just how valuable is energy efficiency? To the customers of ComEd, Illinois’ largest electric utility, efficiency’s value is in the billions – $2.5 billion, to be exact.

That’s how much ComEd customers have saved to date through the utility’s energy efficiency program, and thanks to a new plan under the Future Energy Jobs Act, more savings – and less pollution – are on the way.

ComEd agreed to invest $350 million each year for the next four years in energy efficiency programs, resulting in new initiatives that “will nearly double savings for customers and reduce electricity use in Illinois by 21 percent by 2030.”

Expanding on success

At the end of 2016, Illinois passed the Future Energy Jobs Act, the most significant climate and clean energy bill in state history. The legislation went into effect this month and doubles the state’s successful energy efficiency portfolio.

New plan could double $2.5 billion energy efficiency success in Illinois
Click To Tweet

To get there, ComEd has been working with diverse stakeholders including the Illinois Clean Jobs Coalition, which includes founding members Environmental Defense Fund (EDF), Sierra Club, Citizens Utility Board, and NRDC, as well as others representing a wide array of faith, environmental, business, and consumer interests. The agreed-upon efficiency plan includes these provisions:

• Grow existing programs like product rebates, energy assessments, weatherization, and comprehensive retrofitting offerings,
• Spend $48.2 million, nearly double the original allocation in the Future Energy Jobs Act, in economically-disadvantaged communities, and
• Ensure the benefits are not limited to single-family households by targeting multi-family residences.

Energy efficiency also will lower overall costs because less energy use lowers wear and tear on ComEd’s system.

Smarter data use

Illinois’ Energy Infrastructure Modernization Act propelled the state’s two largest electric utilities, ComEd and Ameren, to invest billions of dollars in making the grid smarter, including AMI (advanced metering infrastructure). This investment resulted in a statewide rollout of smart meters, which should be completely installed by 2019, and the utilities already have begun collecting significant amounts of energy-use data.

As part of the new energy efficiency plan, ComEd also will explore ways to use electricity data to better target customer needs and promote its efficiency programs, as well as to assist in evaluating programs and course-correcting, when possible. For example, data could be used to target buildings with the highest potential savings, which both increases energy savings and decreases program administrative costs such as customer acquisition.

In order to ensure all Illinoisans save on their electricity bills, EDF and others will work with the Illinois Commerce Commission to bring greater energy efficiency offerings to Ameren’s customers as well.

Efficiency isn’t just about saving money – lower energy use means less pollution, so Illinoisans can live longer and healthier lives. That’s the true value of energy efficiency.

Photo source: DodgertonSkillhause at Morguefile.com

By Christie Hicks and Dick Munson Just how valuable is energy efficiency? To the customers of ComEd, Illinois’ largest electric utility, efficiency’s value is in the billions – $2.5 billion, to be exact. That’s how much ComEd customers have saved to date through the utility’s energy efficiency program, and thanks to a new plan under […]

By EDF Blogs

By Christie Hicks and Dick Munson

Just how valuable is energy efficiency? To the customers of ComEd, Illinois’ largest electric utility, efficiency’s value is in the billions – $2.5 billion, to be exact.

That’s how much ComEd customers have saved to date through the utility’s energy efficiency program, and thanks to a new plan under the Future Energy Jobs Act, more savings – and less pollution – are on the way.

ComEd agreed to invest $350 million each year for the next four years in energy efficiency programs, resulting in new initiatives that “will nearly double savings for customers and reduce electricity use in Illinois by 21 percent by 2030.”

Expanding on success

At the end of 2016, Illinois passed the Future Energy Jobs Act, the most significant climate and clean energy bill in state history. The legislation went into effect this month and doubles the state’s successful energy efficiency portfolio.

New plan could double $2.5 billion energy efficiency success in Illinois
Click To Tweet

To get there, ComEd has been working with diverse stakeholders including the Illinois Clean Jobs Coalition, which includes founding members Environmental Defense Fund (EDF), Sierra Club, Citizens Utility Board, and NRDC, as well as others representing a wide array of faith, environmental, business, and consumer interests. The agreed-upon efficiency plan includes these provisions:

• Grow existing programs like product rebates, energy assessments, weatherization, and comprehensive retrofitting offerings,
• Spend $48.2 million, nearly double the original allocation in the Future Energy Jobs Act, in economically-disadvantaged communities, and
• Ensure the benefits are not limited to single-family households by targeting multi-family residences.

Energy efficiency also will lower overall costs because less energy use lowers wear and tear on ComEd’s system.

Smarter data use

Illinois’ Energy Infrastructure Modernization Act propelled the state’s two largest electric utilities, ComEd and Ameren, to invest billions of dollars in making the grid smarter, including AMI (advanced metering infrastructure). This investment resulted in a statewide rollout of smart meters, which should be completely installed by 2019, and the utilities already have begun collecting significant amounts of energy-use data.

As part of the new energy efficiency plan, ComEd also will explore ways to use electricity data to better target customer needs and promote its efficiency programs, as well as to assist in evaluating programs and course-correcting, when possible. For example, data could be used to target buildings with the highest potential savings, which both increases energy savings and decreases program administrative costs such as customer acquisition.

In order to ensure all Illinoisans save on their electricity bills, EDF and others will work with the Illinois Commerce Commission to bring greater energy efficiency offerings to Ameren’s customers as well.

Efficiency isn’t just about saving money – lower energy use means less pollution, so Illinoisans can live longer and healthier lives. That’s the true value of energy efficiency.

Photo source: DodgertonSkillhause at Morguefile.com

Canada has taken an incredible step forward, but special interests are trying to walk it back. C3. Regional.

President Trump has proposed deep cuts to the EPA's budget - ones that put the health and safety of people at great risk. C4. Regional.

President Trump has proposed deep cuts to the EPA's budget - ones that put the health and safety of people at great risk. C4. Regional.

President Trump has proposed deep cuts to the EPA's budget - ones that put the health and safety of people at great risk. C4. Regional.

President Trump has proposed deep cuts to the EPA's budget - ones that put the health and safety of people at great risk. C4. Regional.

President Trump has proposed deep cuts to the EPA's budget - ones that put the health and safety of people at great risk. C4. Regional.