We Need Data to Lower Lower Carbon Dioxide Footprints
Author
Nanette Lockwood - Trane Technologies
Trane Technologies
Current Issue
January-February 2021
Issue
1
Parent Article
Handprints v. Footprints

The information gap on real-time carbon emissions from electric power plants continues to be a barrier for home and other building owners who want to reduce their carbon footprints. Emissions from generation change throughout the day, and some sources, especially those commonly dispatched during peak loads, can be significantly more carbon intensive. Without knowing the hourly emissions profile of their electricity use, once owners have exhausted efficiency gains they can only rely on conservation, reducing the amount of electricity used, rather than creatively managing when it is used.

In 2019, Trane Technologies created the Gigaton Challenge, which pledges a reduction in its customers’ emissions by one gigaton of CO2-equivalent by 2030. The lack of transparency of electricity generation emissions on an hourly basis makes this more challenging, since home and building automation systems optimize energy consumption from some of the largest electricity consuming devices, like HVAC systems, based on the time of day.

Real-time emissions data is a crucially missing piece of information for optimizing energy use in homes and other buildings. While both electric costs and emissions levels are generally correlated — higher electricity prices typically mean higher levels of emissions — that is not always the case. Without this data, it is difficult to optimize building heating and cooling systems based on the emissions profile of the grid. While it is easier to find the real-time price of electricity for customers who live inside organized wholesale markets, it is far more difficult — if not impossible — to determine the relevant required emissions information elsewhere.

In addition to challenging achievement of Trane Technologies’ goals, this lack of transparency limits quantification of emissions reductions policies. As electrification begins for traditionally fossil-fueled technologies such as vehicles, furnaces, and boilers, the true emissions impact will be unclear. Implied in the promise of beneficial electrification is the idea that the grid will become increasingly carbon-neutral, as increasing amounts of solar and wind energy replace traditional technologies such as coal and natural gas generation. The key challenge, however, is that renewable energy production is often unpredictable, which makes it difficult to know exactly which hours of the day HVAC systems should be running if their goal is to reduce emissions from the grid.

Trane Technologies supports a standardized emissions regime that enables building owners and policymakers to track emissions on a more timely and accurate basis. As it stands, the only widely available emissions data in the United States is published by EPA through its Emissions & Generation Resource Integrated Database, known better as eGRID. While these values are instructive, they are not granular and dynamic enough to be of use to optimize energy consumption. Emissions rates published by eGRID are annual average values, calculated by dividing total emissions by total megawatt-hour production for U.S. regions. This is not useful for building operators, who make decisions to operate HVAC equipment on an hour-to-hour basis.

Electric operators turn on power plants in line with demand. As the demand increases, more expensive (and dirtier) plants come online. This move up the generation supply stack frequently means shifting from emissions-free nuclear and hydro-electric resources to natural gas and coal-fired power plants. Naturally, this means that the emissions rates for the grid increase in line with the sources. An average annual emissions rate as provided by eGRID is insufficient to account for these intraday movements. A back of the envelope analysis of eGRID values finds that the emissions can be 50 percent higher or more than average annual values.

The capability to adjust to dynamic energy prices exists for homeowners and building operators of all types. What continues to be missing is the data transparency to realize that potential.

Trying a Whole-of-Government Approach to Climate Change
Author
Joseph E. Aldy - Harvard Kennedy School
Harvard Kennedy School
Current Issue
January-February 2021
Issue
1
Joseph E. Aldy

It is hard to imagine any economic activity that does not influence the climate. Likewise, it is challenging to identify any community that will be immune to the threats posed by global warming. This necessitates policies that mitigate risks throughout the economy. In calling for a whole-of-government approach to climate change, the Climate 21 Project, of which I was a steering committee member, has developed recommendations for how to do that.

The Treasury Department provides an excellent illustration of how the Biden administration can pursue such a whole-of-government methodology. With its role in economic policy through oversight, regulations, legislation, foreign aid, diplomacy, and more, Treasury can promote the economy’s decarbonization while enabling more resilience to new conditions.

The treasury secretary will play a critical role in the post-COVID economic recovery. This creates an opportunity for advancing policies and supporting legislation that simultaneously create new jobs and promote investment in climate-friendly infrastructure. Directing some of the economic recovery program toward climate change priorities can stimulate near-term activity and make longer-term growth more resilient to new conditions. With greater renewable electricity a key component of any long-term decarbonization scenario, the secretary can accelerate the build out of wind and solar power.

The secretary also serves as the nation’s leading economic diplomat. As the new administration attempts to rebuild bridges with partners around the world, Treasury can champion greater support for international climate finance. Securing increased appropriations for the World Bank, the Global Environment Facility, and the Green Climate Fund can demonstrate renewed climate leadership by the United States, provide critical resources for least-developed countries, and enable Washington to promote reforms to improve the effectiveness of these institutions. For example, such multilateral funds could subsidize the early retirement of coal-fired power plants in developing countries in order to grow the market for zero-carbon alternatives.

As the chair of the Financial Stability Oversight Council, the secretary of the treasury facilitates action and coordination among all federal regulators in identifying and addressing systemic risks to the U.S. financial system. Given the prospect that climate change could impose significant, correlated threats across the U.S. economy and financial system, the secretary could highlight climate change within the council and spur regulatory action by other financial regulators. This could take the form of climate risk disclosures mandated by the Securities and Exchange Commission, climate-risk stress tests of financial institutions by the Federal Reserve, and climate finance and regulatory sandboxes that permit experimentation with innovative climate-oriented financial instruments.

The Treasury Department provides oversight over many broad functions of government. As the chair of the boards of trustees of the Social Security and Medicare trust funds, the secretary of the treasury could direct explicit consideration of climate change risks over the long-term finances of both programs. For example, climate change could influence worker productivity and labor force participation, which have implications for both the revenues and the benefits paid out through Social Security as well as the revenues for Medicare. Moreover, expenditures to mitigate climate-related morbidity and mortality could influence the Medicare balance sheet over time. Through the Federal Insurance Office, the Treasury Department monitors the insurance sector and can use this position to increase consideration of climate change risks in the design and issuance of insurance policies.

Federal tax policy runs through the Treasury and the Internal Revenue Service. Interpreting and implementing current tax law (such as tax credits for renewable power and electric vehicles) as well as working on new tax policy with Congress (perhaps extending tax credits for clean energy investment or a carbon tax) involve Treasury leadership in the future of decarbonization policy.

Finally, the secretary of the treasury serves as the leading economic spokesperson for the administration. This provides the bully pulpit through which the secretary can draw attention to those opportunities where good climate policy and good economic policy are aligned. In doing so, the secretary can engage and empower business leaders — CEOs of major corporations and major investors — so that they make decisions that advance the nation’s efforts in combatting climate change. In doing so, the department — in tandem with actions throughout the federal government — can ensure that a whole-of-government approach to climate change mobilizes a whole-of-economy response to the challenge.

Trying a Whole-of-Government Approach to Climate Change.

Voters Support Green Measures in Reduced Popular Referendum Field
Author
Linda K. Breggin - Environmental Law Institute
Environmental Law Institute
Current Issue
January-February 2021
Issue
1
Linda K. Breggin

Little noted amid the focus on an unprecedented presidential race were the myriad state environmental and energy ballot measures — which were overwhelmingly approved by voters this time around. Although some measures are placed on the ballot by legislatures, others are the result of citizen initiatives that require a certain number of signatures, hard to gather while also social distancing. According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, only 30 citizen initiatives appeared on the 2020 ballot, compared to 72 in the last presidential election.

Despite the small number of total ballot measures — and an even smaller pool of environmental and energy referenda — some notable wins emerged. Nevada voters approved a renewable portfolio standard that essentially doubles the amount of renewable energy utilities must provide — 50 percent by 2030. In New Mexico, voters supported a constitutional amendment that will allow the governor to appoint all three members of the Public Regulation Commission, replacing five elected members. The amendment establishes a nominating committee to vet and recommend commissioners. Environmental groups advocated for the measure in an effort to reduce the influence of political contributions to pro-industry candidates and foster the selection of commissioners who will advance clean energy, according to Ballotpedia. The green group engagement apparently indicates concerns that direct democracy does not always reflect public preferences for clean energy.

Nebraska voters strongly endorsed a constitutional amendment to foster economic redevelopment by increasing the repayment period for tax increment financing from 15 to 20 years — but only in areas with high poverty and unemployment rates, and where more than half the property is “extremely blighted.”

Voters also embraced the vast majority of natural resources ballot measures. Colorado voters narrowly approved a measure to re-introduce the gray wolf — a species recently de-listed under the federal Endangered Species Act — and charge the Colorado Parks and Wildlife Commission with developing a management plan. The referendum passed despite state Farm Bureau opposition and provides for compensation to landowners for livestock lost to wolves.

In addition, Utah voters unequivocally approved a constitutional amendment that “forever preserves” an “individual right to hunt and to fish.” The amendment specifies that the right is subject to certain regulations, including those that “promote wildlife conservation and management” and “preserve the future” of hunting and fishing, which the amendment designates as the “preferred means of managing” wildlife. According to Ballotpedia, prior to the election, 22 states provided a constitutional right to hunt and fish — including the early-mover Vermont, which adopted the constitutional right in 1777!

Voters also approved an array of funding measures. Michigan strongly endorsed a constitutional amendment promoted by a range of conservation groups. It will remove the cap on the state’s Natural Resources Trust Fund, which is backed by revenue from oil, gas, and mining leases on state-owned land. The amendment also makes renovations to recreational facilities eligible for grants from the fund and requires a minimum percentage of the state’s Parks Endowment Fund to be used for capital improvements. In addition, Montana voters approved a statewide measure that legalizes and imposes a sales tax on recreational marijuana, with about half of the anticipated proceeds dedicated to conservation programs.

In contrast, Alaskans rejected a measure to increase taxes on high-production North Slope oil and gas fields. Five oil and gas companies contributed over $20 million to defeat the measure — in contrast to $1.5 million raised in support. Furthermore, Wyoming voters declined to approve a constitutional amendment that would have removed the limit on the amount of debt municipalities can incur for sewer projects.

Local energy and environmental referenda around the country also won substantial support from voters. Stand-out measures include an electric aggregation program aimed at advancing local renewable energy generation (Columbus); a range of ballot measures that support carbon-reducing transit initiatives (Austin, Santa Clara, Seattle); and tax revenue allocations to climate-related programs (Denver, Long Beach).

Voters also supported local conservation funding measures — in both red and blue states. As the Trust for Public Lands observes, “Parks and public lands continue to be an essential component of coping and recovery during the
COVID-19 pandemic.” Perhaps this is why it reports that voters approved nearly $3.7 billion for land conservation and parks. Hopefully, this robust electoral support for conservation measures will survive the coronavirus.

Voters Support Green Measures in Reduced Popular Referendum Field.

Biden's Clean Energy Revolution Will Need Existing Law, FERC
Author
David P. Clarke - Clarke Communications Consulting
Clarke Communications Consulting
Current Issue
January-February 2021
Issue
1
David P. Clarke

As Joe Biden takes office as president, expectations are running high for him to deliver on his pledge to achieve social equity gains and progress toward net-zero emissions by 2050. If Democrats win the Georgia runoff elections, that would boost Biden’s opportunities legislatively, but even if Republicans retain Senate control, the new administration can make a lot of difference through the Clean Air Act and other means.

For starters, the Biden administration will be “a 180 degree turn from the climate rollback and denial” that President Trump has pushed for four years, says David Doniger, senior strategic director for climate and clean energy at the Natural Resources Defense Council. Having campaigned on an ambitious climate and racial justice platform, Biden can accomplish a lot using existing law, Doniger says, citing tighter CAA Section 111 standards for both new and existing power plants as offering “a very viable route” for the United States to set on the path toward net zero emissions for the power sector by 2035.

In his campaign, Biden called for a “Clean Energy Revolution” and declared that on day one he’ll sign new executive orders that will “go well beyond” President Obama’s executive actions. Central to those efforts was EPA’s 2015 Clean Power Plan that the Trump EPA repealed. But now, state climate policies and market forces disfavoring coal and accelerating clean energy have overtaken that plan. An NRDC analysis showed that strengthening instead of scrapping the CPP could cut carbon emissions 60 percent below 2005 levels by 2030, almost double the CPP’s 32 percent reductions, and do so more cheaply, Doniger says.

CAA regulation, however, “is probably not the device you’d use to get all the way there” to net zero, Doniger adds. Clean energy tax incentives, research and development, and other measures to deploy such technologies will be important components of Biden’s environmental and related equity goals, and lawmaking will be needed to get all the way there. However, must-pass legislation directed at pandemic recovery and infrastructure can contribute to Biden’s environmental agenda. And although broad, strong statutes aimed at today’s environmental problems would be more effective and make progress easier, Doniger says that “a lot can be done even without dedicated climate legislation.”

Many observers point to the potential for the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to play a significant decarbonizing role. That point was highlighted by a proposed policy FERC floated October 15 asserting that the commission has jurisdiction over wholesale electricity market rules incorporating state-determined carbon prices, a policy that likely prompted the Trump White House to replace FERC Chair Neal Chatterjee.

Devashree Saha, a senior associate at the World Resources Institute, comments that Biden is likely to push for reforms at FERC to further integrate distributed energy resources like rooftop solar and storage. But legislation might be necessary, Saha says, as called for in the House Climate Crisis Committee’s June report. The report calls on Congress to direct FERC to implement rules necessary to achieve 100 percent net-zero electricity generation by no later than 2040, among other FERC-related conclusions.

Likewise, NRDC’s John Moore, director of the Sustainable FERC Project, says that under Obama’s CPP the commission played a really significant implementation and compliance role, with FERC serving as a regulator of regional markets that would have helped ensure efficient compliance with the rule. Presumably FERC would do the same with an updated CPP. More broadly, if Congress enacts new clean energy legislation, “I can easily imagine FERC and regional markets playing a role to help implement a carbon-based standard more efficiently,” Moore says.

Both Republicans and Democrats support a clean energy standard that includes any non-emitting sources, such as nuclear and carbon capture technologies, Saha and others note, so legislation might be possible even with a GOP-led Senate. Congress could push FERC toward adopting more assertive transmission policies, Moore says, because it is clear that transmission developed over the last decade has not been of the type needed to decarbonize the grid or the transportation and building sectors.

But, while FERC in the last few years has embraced more forward-looking policies, issuing orders that have for example enabled greater access for wind and solar, the commission “hasn’t caught up with the times” in its overall market design, Moore says. FERC’s market design framework hasn’t evolved enough to meet state clean energy policies “with teeth in them,” he says.

As Biden takes office and promises to put teeth in his climate policies, it remains to be seen how much he can accomplish. But at least he’ll be moving forward, not backwards.

Biden’s Clean Energy Revolution Will Need Existing Law, FERC.

In Puerto Rico, Transform the Electric System
Author
Ruth Santiago - Comité Diálogo Ambiental, Inc.
Comité Diálogo Ambiental, Inc.
Current Issue
November-December 2020
Issue
6
Parent Article
The Debate: Racial Justice Means Environmental Justice
Ruth Santiago - Comité Diálogo Ambiental, Inc.

In Puerto Rico, anti-Black racism is structured differently but is no less real than in the continental United States. Predominantly Afro-descendent and low-income communities in Puerto Rico are disproportionately impacted by polluting operations, such as electric power plants, waste dumps, chemical installations, genetic engineering agro-industries, and military bases. Because the archipelago’s population is almost entirely Hispanic/people of color and nearly half of the residents are poor, it could be argued that most of Puerto Rico is impacted by environmental injustice. But it is worse in the largely Afro-descendent municipalities of Guayama and Salinas, where the most contaminating electric power plants are located, more than 50 percent of the population lives in poverty, with older residents becoming an ever-larger proportion of these marginalized communities. This is where change is needed.

The fossil fuel electricity plants in southeastern Puerto Rico generate energy that is mostly transmitted to the north, primarily to the San Juan metropolitan area. Ironically, the residents of Guayama and Salinas who live in the shadows of the most polluting plants do not receive electric service from these installations, but they do receive most of the toxic impacts. In Guayama, the AES coal burning power plant emits pollution into the air, land, and water. The plant’s coal ash waste has contaminated the South Coast Aquifer, the sole source of potable water for tens of thousands of people. Scientific studies show that exposure to small increases in PM2.5 emitted by power plants leads to higher COVID-19 death rates. In other words, the people whose lives are most at risk from COVID-19 are the same frontline communities disproportionately burdened by the pollution generated by fossil-fueled plants.

The archipelago faces an urgent need to phase out fossil-fuel generation, totally avoid the construction of new plants that burn methane revaporized from liquefied natural gas, coal, or oil, decentralize the grid, and achieve the enforcement of land, water, and air quality laws and regulations. In the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic, ongoing seismic activity, and unaddressed socioeconomic disfunction unveiled by Hurricanes Irma and Maria, Puerto Rico must develop a 21st century electric system that empowers communities and provides the resilient and clean energy that the residents of the archipelago need.

The Puerto Rico Electric Power Authority must undertake a swift transformation of the electric system to integrate communities and businesses by foregrounding local concerns that align with environmental justice. The high poverty rates in Puerto Rico require the transformation of PREPA to incorporate energy conservation, efficiency, and demand-response programs and renewable energy technologies, primarily roof-top or on-site solar and battery energy storage systems. These alternatives stand in stark contrast to the proposed use of billions of dollars in federal taxpayer funds to rebuild and “harden” the grid, which calls for more central-station fossil generation, especially so-called “natural” methane gas infrastructure that the fossil-fuel industry and the recently signed PREPA-LUMA Energy contract would facilitate.

Instead, the federal government should work with PREPA to initiate a transparent process for procurement of solar equipment and battery storage to be installed and maintained by the dozens of PREPA employees who have been trained in renewable energy technology in conjunction with communities and local contractors to provide for a just transition to a clean energy system.

Federal funding should be earmarked for these types of programs. Hurricanes Irma and Maria and the ongoing seismic events this year demonstrated the importance of decentralizing the power grid. A distributed-generation system centered on on-site solar will be more resilient and will allow for prompt restoration of energy services, thereby saving lives. The We Want Sun (queremossolpr.com) civil society proposal highlights the importance of the PREPA governance and technical transformation that is needed. The implementation of rooftop solar projects can empower communities, add value to homes and other structures, and promote local wealth.

Distributed renewable generation on rooftops creates greater reinvestment in the local economy than utility-scale projects. This approach enables ratepayers to become producers or prosumers of energy, not mere consumers, and allows for control by residents and local communities and businesses, which is particularly important during outages of the main grid. On-site solar enjoys broad support from civil society, contrary to land-based installations that have been the subject of considerable opposition because of competing land-use visions.

Federal funds should not be used for the business-as-usual rebuild of the fossil-based, centralized system or to further top-down decisionmaking that deepens Puerto Rico’s dependence on imported methane LNG and other fossil fuels. This scheme would only exacerbate Puerto Rico’s colonial dependence via increased reliance on methane, spearheaded by New Fortress Energy, whose current and proposed projects include fracking and LNG operations. The more frequent and intense storms brought on by the climate crisis make the transformation of Puerto Rico’s electric system a matter of life and death.

Ruth Santiago is a community lawyer and activist based in Salinas, Puerto Rico. She is a lawyer for Comité Diálogo Ambiental, Inc.

Cities Compete for Businesses by Decarbonizing Their Grids
Author
Linda K. Breggin - Environmental Law Institute
Environmental Law Institute
Current Issue
November-December 2020
Issue
6
Linda K. Breggin

A report by David Gardiner and Associates assesses whether the relative availability of renewables and carbon intensity of several midwestern and southeastern cities’ electric grids is a factor in their competition for new businesses. Commissioned by a group of community leaders (including the author of this column), the report compares Nashville’s grid to those of six other cities and concludes that Nashville is “likely at a competitive disadvantage for attracting new businesses with [greenhouse gas] targets.”

The study starts by addressing a threshold question: “Are Fortune 500 companies increasingly prioritizing climate and clean energy factors into their economic development decisions?” The answer, according to the report, is yes: “Corporations are not only increasingly looking to procure renewable and low- or zero-carbon electricity, but they are also stepping up their efforts to focus investment and new facilities in areas that offer those electricity resources.”

The report recognizes a sea change in corporate climate change efforts. Close to half of Fortune 500 companies have set carbon reduction targets. Over 200 companies have joined the RE100 initiative and committed to procuring 100 percent renewable energy. And almost 80 percent of the largest manufacturing companies with U.S. operations have set carbon goals.

The report also highlights that these commitments increasingly extend to supply chains, and corporations may “deselect suppliers based on environmental performance.” As a result, “Utility carbon reduction goals are rapidly becoming very important for small to medium-sized businesses due to the growth in Fortune 500 supply chain decarbonization commitments.”

Furthermore, the authors point out that corporations are not only focused on their own carbon reductions but are “increasingly working with their local utilities” to help communities “accelerate carbon reductions,” thereby forwarding clean energy access for “historically disadvantaged minority and women-owned businesses.”

The report underscores that cities in service territories with higher-carbon grids “will be at a disadvantage for attracting companies” that have set emissions targets. The report finds that this trend “has not gone unnoticed,” and that cities — as well as states and utilities — are moving to decarbonize. According to the report, over 160 cities have set 100 percent renewable energy goals and 24 investor-owned utilities have committed to reducing emissions by 80 percent or more by 2050.

In comparing Nashville with its peer cities, the researchers concluded that it lags behind. The city’s power generator, the Tennessee Valley Authority, has set an intensity-based target, which represents a commitment to reduce its rate of emissions, as opposed to total emissions.

This means that total emissions could increase by the target date depending on electricity usage. Furthermore, TVA’s commitments do not reach beyond 2030, whereas many other utilities have set 2050 targets. The report concludes that Nashville is “weaker than its competitor cities on the percentage of total reductions by 2050, the length of its commitment, and the overall structure of its commitment.” Further, companies that have established targets “can be expected to consider these factors when making long-term economic development and investment decisions.”

To catch up with its competitors, the report recommends that the Nashville area should set at least an 80 percent reduction target for 2050; substantially increase the grid’s planned renewable generation capacity; set ambitious renewable energy goals; and provide more renewable energy options to small and medium-sized businesses in order to “make them more attractive partners” for corporations that have set targets and made supply chain commitments.

In commenting on the report, Gary Garfield, former Bridgestone Americas, Inc., CEO, emphasizes that the number of companies setting carbon reduction targets will continue to grow at a rapid pace. He cites several factors, including the high-profile decision by BlackRock, the world’s largest asset manager, to make companies’ sustainability strategies a key component of its investment decisions. Garfield also points out that many corporations already have internal carbon taxes that “significantly affect” their investment decisions. In addition, he maintains “there is no question” that the United States will ultimately enact a national carbon tax, as will other major economies — the only question is when and how much — and “any executives worth their salt” should take this into account in making major, long-term investment decisions.

The decades-long debate over whether and to what extent states and localities compete in a “race to the bottom” to attract businesses by lowering environmental standards will undoubtedly continue. But, in the case of renewable energy, it looks as if the race is a sprint to the top.

Cities Compete for Businesses by Decarbonizing Their Grids.

Siting Wind Energy Facilities - What Do Local Elected Officials Need to Know?
Author
James M. McElfish Jr. and Judith M. Amsalem
Date Released
February 2013
Siting Wind Energy Facilities - What Do Local Elected Officials Need to Know?

Siting Wind Energy Facilities – What Do Local Elected Officials Need to Know? is a brief guide to aid local officials in understanding commercial-scale wind siting. Local government officials presented with potential wind energy projects in their municipalities often find that clear and concise answers to their citizens ’ concerns can be difficult to locate.

Subscribe to Alternative Energy