Blog Posts

More than 10 years ago, Ben & Jerry’s did something we had never done: We expanded production of our iconic ice cream pints outside of the state of Vermont. There were a number of benefits to shifting some of our production to Henderson, Nevada. It was closer to our West Coast markets and consumers and also allowed us to reduce the environmental footprint associated with shipping our products across the country. That’s a bit of good news for the climate and for our Nevada fans looking for some cool treats. Expanding our production to Henderson was a small part of our larger commitment to reduce emissions associated with the manufacturing of our products while continuing to support a growing business. Since then, we have been pleased to see NV Energy take important and necessary steps to embrace clean energy, as evidenced most recently in their 2018 Integrated Resource Plan (IRP). NV Energy’s IRP, submitted every three years, is the utility’s a road map for cost-effectively meeting future electric needs. This year, the plan includes unprecedented investments in renewable energy, with more than 1,000 megawatts of new solar power across six projects and 100 megawatts of battery storage capacity. While there has been a lot of emphasis — for good reason — placed on this commitment to renewable energy, their plan also includes another critically important and often overlooked clean energy resource: energy efficiency. Ben & Jerry’s has seen firsthand how well-designed utility efficiency programs can help companies like ours meet both our economic and corporate sustainability goals. We have invested early and often in energy efficiency at both our manufacturing facilities and our company-owned scoop shops. These investments have reduced our energy use while shrinking our exposure to variable in fossil fuel costs. For example, efficiency upgrades to the lighting, refrigeration and production equipment at one of our production facilities saved us $89,000 a year on our energy bills. Investing in energy efficiency does not just benefit our business. Utility efficiency programs deliver significant value to all ratepayers, whether or not they directly participate. The benefits of systemwide energy efficiency are numerous: It helps keep electric rates low, reduces the need for new expensive power plants, increases the reliability of the electricity grid, improves public health by cutting pollution and lowers reliance on imported energy. Over time, increasing investments in energy efficiency will also help Nevada to strengthen its economy and create more jobs. Energy efficiency already supports over 10,000 jobs in communities throughout the state and there is room to grow. Unfortunately, previous cuts to NV Energy’s efficiency budget have led Nevada to rank 34th in the nation for investments and energy savings, lagging behind many neighboring states like Arizona, Colorado and Utah. However, Nevada may be poised for a change in the rankings. In November, the Public Utilities Commission approved NV Energy’s recent IRP. As a result, over the next three years, NV Energy will expand and restart residential and commercial commercial efficiency programs that capture this missed potential and bring the systemwide benefits of efficiency to all of its customers. At Ben & Jerry’s, we know the value of energy efficiency. We are working hard and investing real resources to lessen the environmental impact of our business, and energy efficiency is an essential tool in making that happen. More than that, reducing our energy use also has a direct impact on our bottom line. It goes without saying, the less we spend on energy, the more we can invest back into our business. Companies that participate in utility efficiency programs can do the same, cut energy and operating expenses, freeing up significant capital that can then be reinvested into their businesses, their employees, and our communities. Energy efficiency is the fastest, most reliable and cheapest way to meet Nevada’s energy needs. With NV Energy’s 2018 IRP, Nevada is making progress on energy efficiency so that businesses and residents of the Silver State can realize the full economic and environmental benefits that efficiency programs provide. As we think about Nevada’s energy future, investing in and expanding energy efficiency is an easy choice — certainly easier than choosing between Cherry Garcia and Chubby Hubby in the supermarket aisle. This post originally appeared on The Reno Gazette Journal's website.  Chris Miller is the activism manager at Ben & Jerry’s, a member of the Ceres BICEP Network.

As AEP takes much-needed steps toward decarbonization, pressure increases on state lawmakers to embrace, not hinder, growth.  Electric utility companies in states across the country are undergoing a transformation, decarbonizing their operations and embracing cleaner energy resources — and Ohio is no exception. American Electric Power (AEP) — one of the largest greenhouse gas emitters in the U.S. electric power sector — recently made two major announcements that highlight progress in their transition to a low-carbon future, including plans to fully retire the Conesville, Ohio, coal plant in 2020. This news follows their newly-filed long-term forecast report, which calls for at least 900 megawatts of new renewable energy projects in Ohio. These steps would more than double the renewable energy capacity in a state that is dominated by coal and natural gas electricity production — a major step in the right direction toward a low-carbon future. AEP is making these investments because they make business sense and will help the utility be more prepared for the future — including meeting the utility’s recent commitment to reduce greenhouse gas emissions company-wide 80 percent below 2000 levels by 2050. These announcements also reflect a growing national trend among utilities toward cost-effective, low-carbon energy resources —a trend that is driven in part by demand from their investors. Investors are calling on utilities to disclose the risks and opportunities related to clean energy transition. Ceres has provided guidance for utilities to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions and increase renewable energy in order to align their business plans with the goals of the Paris Climate Agreement, which commits countries to keeping global temperature rise well below 2-degrees Celsius in relation to pre-industrial levels and, aspirationally, no more than 1.5 degrees. As such, AEP is part of a wave of electric power companies making significant commitments, including several in the Midwest, such as DTE Energy and CMS Energy in Michigan. AEP’s renewable energy expansion will include at least 500 MW of wind and 400 MW of solar energy projects. If approved, the proposal will significantly expand Ohio’s clean energy economy and bring $173 million in net benefits to the state’s electricity customers. AEP’s commitment, combined with consistent and strong clean energy policies, will ensure Ohio gets the full value of potential benefits, from a stronger economy to new jobs in counties throughout the state. It is not just investors that utilities are responding to when it comes to clean energy. Major corporate customers are making their own clean energy commitments, and small businesses and residential customers are also demanding clean energy. These changes are shown in a recent survey that found the majority of AEP Ohio’s residential and small commercial customers believe it is important for AEP Ohio to make greater use of renewable energy and would even support paying more for renewables. AEP’s announcement, as well as strong investor, business, and customer support for clean energy investments, stands in stark contrast to Ohio’s legislative politics and highlights the importance of Ohio’s renewable portfolio and energy efficiency resource standards in driving investment in clean energy. In recent years, Ohio’s renewable portfolio and energy efficiency standards have been key to attracting investments and bringing jobs to the state. Unfortunately, despite broad business support, Ohio lawmakers have wavered in their support for the renewable portfolio and energy efficiency standards that helped create the state’s growing clean energy economy. Lawmakers have introduced numerous bills aimed at weakening or dismantling the standards, along with a burdensome wind turbine setback rule that has practically halted the development of cost-effective wind energy. This back and forth throughout the past four years has created significant uncertainty and undermined the state’s ability to capture the economic development and environmental benefits of these investments. This fall, in a lame duck session, Ohio lawmakers are expected to once again revisit the state’s clean energy standards. Following AEP’s announcement and the consistent, growing investor, business, and customer support for strong clean energy standards in Ohio, lawmakers should look to encourage — not obstruct — increased investment in this growing sector of the economy. This post originally appeared on Energy News Network.

Despite water's central role in all aspects of life, including virtually all economic activity, it has long been an issue neglected by businesses and, until recently, by investors. But momentum is shifting, as the twin risks of rising global water demand and rising climate-driven water stresses are finally hitting home. In just the past few weeks, record hurricanes and typhoons have left millions without water. The global investment community is beginning to recognize that water is a precious — and not an endless — resource. And investors are seeing that far stronger responses are needed from governments and the corporations they invest in to avoid potentially catastrophic shortages and degradation in the years ahead. The challenges are already visible today, including record heat waves and droughts in Europe and Asia this summer, dire water shortages in South Africa and, according to at least one study, the fact that the majority of the world's groundwater sources are now potentially depleted beyond recovery. A 2017 MSCI analysis of food companies in its All Country World index noted that $459 billion in revenue may be at risk from lack of water available for irrigation or animal consumption and $198 billion is at risk from changing precipitation patterns affecting current crop production areas. Population growth, deepening climate change impacts and large-scale pollution compound these challenges. While agriculture accounts for 70% of global human demand, water is a vital input for companies across the economy, including apparel, beverage, electric power, mining and high-tech. All face wide-ranging water risks — physical, regulatory and reputation, among them. In fact, more than half of the more than 600 global companies recently surveyed on this topic expect water risks to materialize within the next six years. Investors are increasingly mindful of these risks, which also threaten their returns. Dozens are working together to develop resources such as Ceres' Investor Water Toolkit, which outlines steps for evaluating and acting on water risks across investment portfolios. Investors are also engaging directly with high-impact companies, especially in food and agriculture. Earlier this year, investors filed a shareholder resolution with Tyson Foods, one of the world's largest meat producers, requesting that it adopt a water stewardship policy to reduce pollution impacts from its suppliers. After the resolution was supported by 63% of independent shareholders, the company committed to improve water, soil and fertilizer practices on 2 million acres of its supplier land. As investors move up the learning curve on water's multiple economic and political dimensions, companies can expect ever clearer expectations from shareholders. Increasingly, these expectations extend beyond mere disclosure of water data, to challenging the highest-impact industries to protect and preserve fragile water ecosystems, achieve zero liquid discharge from factories, and support governments and local stakeholders to restore degraded watersheds. Such expectations are both timely and critical to reaching the United Nations' Sustainable Development Goal 6, which seeks to ensure sustainable management of water globally by 2030. A growing number of investors, including Impax Asset Management, KBI Global Investors and Walden Asset Management, are in fact beginning to assess if their investments are helping achieve SDG6. Dutch pension fund PGGM recently took this type of analysis a step further and recently teamed up with scientists to assess quantitatively its water performance on a subset of holdings. Some fund managers are setting ambitious quantitative targets. Witness $56 billion asset manager ACTIAM, which has set out to achieve a water-neutral investment portfolio by 2030, which it defines as investing in companies that "consume no more water than nature can replenish, and cause no more pollution than is acceptable for the health of humans and natural ecosystems." Water represents tremendous risks — and opportunities — for major companies and investors. Yet, as a recent analysis by CDP shows, the vast majority of water-exposed companies are still lagging, with water targets — if they have them at all — that lack in ambition. That needs to change — quickly and across the board.  This content originally appeared on Pensions&Investments.

This post originally appeared on NACD Board Talk, the official blog of NACD.  If Hurricanes Harvey, Irma, Florence, and Willa—and their collective millions of dollars in damages and losses—haven’t convinced you that climate change poses real risks to business, perhaps the recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report will. In no uncertain terms, the report lays out a vision, grounded in science, of the stark future that awaits us all if we fail to keep the planet from warming more than 1.5 degrees celsius. Increased sea-level rise and flooding, warming oceans, more and ever-intensifying coastal storms, and widespread drought—and all the destruction they bring to human lives and business operations—will become the norm unless we act in the next 12 years or so to significantly reduce global greenhouse gas emissions. Investors are taking these risks extremely seriously and raising pressure on companies and their boards to do the same. From taking action during proxy season via shareholder statements and other measures to staying engaged with management in the off-season, investors are signaling they expect serious corporate commitments and action on climate change, starting with rigorous analysis of climate risk to their investments. Smart, proactive, and effective disclosure is critical to helping investors do their job well—and assess which companies are well positioned in the face of climate change risks. Fortunately, tools that can help companies provide such disclosures are emerging. Last year, a body convened by the Financial Stability Board released a framework that companies can use to disclose the kind of information investors need to accurately price climate risks. Called the Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures (TCFD), the group’s recommendations quickly garnered widespread support. Heavy hitters in the financial community, including BlackRock, JPMorgan Chase, and TIAA, helped develop the recommendations, and more than 160 investors representing $86.2 trillion in assets have issued statements supporting them. Over 500 major companies, including PepsiCo, Unilever, and eBay, have publicly supported the TCFD. Why should boards pay attention? The TCFD recommendations are a great example of the growing integration that investors are looking for between corporate governance structures and disclosure on environmental and social issues such as climate change. Investors don’t just want companies to disclose data on how climate change is affecting them: they want to know how companies are addressing these risks in the long term, including how they factor into corporate strategy and decision-making. As part of this, they are paying close attention to the effectiveness of companies’ governance systems allowing for this integrated decision‑making—systems like board oversight of climate change. Yet, in its 2018 report on the status of TCFD-based disclosures, the TCFD Secretariat notes that companies are still in the early stages of demonstrating their climate-related financial impacts. Disclose What Matters, a recent Ceres report, echoes this finding. In analyzing the sustainability disclosure practices of nearly 500 of the world’s largest companies, we found that while most large global companies disclose their sustainability performance, and indeed provide a wealth of information, these disclosures are still not presented in a financially relevant way. Specifically, companies still don’t demonstrate how their approach to climate and other environmental, social, and corporate governance (ESG) issues impacts their business strategy and performance. To meet investor expectations, companies need to step up the maturity of their disclosures, evolving from “disclosing more” to “disclosing what matters.” Boards can do a lot to help their companies make this transition—and by doing so, get credit from the investor community for their work on climate change and other ESG issues. Disclose What Matters outlines specific steps boards can take: Keep track of ESG issues that your investors care about. Boards should encourage a company’s sustainability and investor relations teams to work together to understand ESG issues their top investors are focusing on—and then drive the assessment of whether these issues are indeed material to the company. They can take this a step further: a number of investors are seeking to engage directly with corporate boards on ESG issues such as climate change. Encourage disclosure in a way that your investors are looking to see. For many companies, the plethora of ESG disclosure standards can lead to confusion. Instead, boards can encourage their companies to approach each standard as an opportunity to hone or focus ESG disclosures for specific audiences. For instance, most investors are very interested in disclosures based on the Sustainability Accounting Standards Board (SASB) standards. Indeed, Glass Lewis recently integrated SASB’s materiality guidance across its research and vote management products. In a step that will ease the standards burden, a number of disclosure standards are updating their frameworks to incorporate the TCFD. Demonstrate decision-making. Most large global companies disclose that they have the relevant governance systems to prioritize and address ESG issues. But they do not disclose how these systems drive decision-making on business performance. Boards can work with management and leadership to provide disclosure that bridges this gap. Markets run on good disclosure. Boards have a key role to play in helping their companies begin to provide the kind of climate risk disclosure that investors demand. Adopting comparable, financially relevant, and reliable ESG disclosures will help boards demonstrate their companies are resilient and prepared for whatever risks the future brings. This post originally appeared on NACD Board Talk, the official blog of NACD. 

Authored by: Kit Crawford and Gary Erickson, CEOs of Clif Bar & Company Mindy Lubber, CEO of Ceres The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s recent report makes it clear that the only way to prevent the worst effects of climate change is to dramatically reduce greenhouse gas emissions at the pace and scale necessary to hold global warming to 1.5° C. That makes California’s climate leadership more important than ever. In September, the legislature passed a first-in-the-nation bill committing the state to emissions-free electricity by 2045, and other states and nations will be watching our progress. We applauded Gov. Jerry Brown for signing the bill into law on the same day he issued an executive order setting a goal for a carbon-neutral economy, also by 2045. Now California must ensure that these visionary plans are followed by bold action. This issue is especially timely as the state prepares to elect a new governor. Business leaders understand that a warming world is bad not only for the planet and the people who live on it, but also for the economy. California’s recent past serves as a preview of climate change’s coming attractions, including record heat, unprecedented wildfires, severe drought, rising sea levels, the spread of disease, and air that’s harder to breathe. As global average temperatures continue to rise, scientists tell us, these trends will only get worse. That’s why we and other business leaders believe that California’s next governor must be fully committed to meeting the state’s clean energy and climate commitments — and building on them. A more stable climate poses fewer risks to people and the planet, enabling both a stronger economy and healthier environment. California’s business community also sees the state’s pioneering clean energy and climate policies as vital economic and employment drivers that have attracted more than $49 billion in public and private clean energy investment. More than 542,000 Californians already work in clean energy and energy efficiency across the state, and the sector expects job growth of 10 percent in 2018. This year, California overtook the United Kingdom to become the fifth-largest economy in the world. The state also announced it had hit its goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions below 1990 levels four years ahead of schedule. Proof that a stronger economy and a healthier environment go hand in hand. At a time when many federal environmental protections are being rolled back, California’s strong and consistent climate and energy policies matter. Clean energy, emission-free transportation, and energy efficient buildings are all important elements in forging a strong and growing clean economy. Business leaders understand that they must be a part of the solution. When the sustainability nonprofit organization Ceres looked at what more than 600 of the largest publicly traded companies were doing to address climate change, it found 64 percent have commitments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Clif Bar does its part by using 100 percent renewable energy, prioritizing sustainably sourced, organic ingredients, diverting more than 80 percent of our waste away from landfills and committing to transition all of our transportation fleet to electric vehicles. While businesses have a crucial role to play, leadership in the halls of our state government remains essential. When Sacramento sets firm targets for emissions, clean energy, and efficiency standards, it gives businesses the market certainty they need to invest confidently in climate solutions. California’s next governor must make sure the state continues to blaze a trail toward a growing economy powered by clean energy that doesn’t overheat the planet — and a more sustainable and more profitable future for all. Kit Crawford and Gary Erickson are co-CEOs of Clif Bar & Company, a family- and employee-owned food company, maker of organic energy bars and snacks. Clif Bar is a longtime member of Ceres Business for Innovative Climate and Energy Policy (BICEP) Network. Ceres is a member of the #CleanEconomyGovernor campaign coalition. 

With the 2018 elections right around the corner, states and business continue to lead the move toward clean energy and clean transportation solutions to accelerate a low-carbon economy. Recent legislative sessions yielded critical progress across the country in reducing emissions, furthering clean energy investment, and tackling transportation emissions. However, as we welcome newly elected state leaders and head into 2019 legislative sessions, there is more work to be done. These leaders are well positioned to lead the charge toward a cleaner future. Major companies are increasingly making bold emissions reduction commitments as they look to meet their sustainability goals. This year Levi Strauss and Co. and Lyft, two members of the Ceres BICEP Network, raised the bar with new targets aligned with the ambition needed to tackle climate change. Lyft is the first rideshare company to commit to carbon neutrality and 100 percent renewable energy, and Levis launched a bold new strategy aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions in owned-and-operated facilities by 90 percent and emissions across their supply chain by 40 percent. With the declining costs of wind and solar, local economies benefit from clean, reliable resources. Utilizing a variety of policy mechanisms, state leaders are competing to capture these investments in their states. More renewable energy for the grid In 2018, multiple states took bold moves to increase their renewable portfolio standards (RPS), policies that require utilities to get a certain percentage of their energy from renewable resources. Most notably, California passed SB100, which set a target of achieving 60 percent renewable energy by 2030 as well as an aspirational target to source 100 percent of its electricity from zero-carbon sources by 2045. Massachusetts, Connecticut, and New Jersey all increased their RPS targets with a look toward the growing offshore wind industry that many coastal states hope to attract. Businesses were and are engaged in many of these debates, advocating for more renewable energy resources and promoting the benefits they provide for all ratepayers. Some states, such as Arizona and Nevada, also have ballot initiatives on the table in November offering voters a chance to consider increased energy standards. Following the threat of a ballot initiative in Michigan, the local utilities voluntarily committed to a 35 percent renewable energy goal by 2030—recognizing the feasibility, low cost, and reliability benefits. As companies look to achieve their ambitious clean energy goals, many are making investment decisions based on where they can gain access to cost-effective renewable energy resources and advocating for policies to help make that possible. For example, during the 2018 New Hampshire legislative session, a bipartisan group of legislators passed a bill lifting the net metering cap from one megawatt to five megawatts for businesses and towns wanting to invest in onsite renewable energy. This same bipartisan group of legislators was just 14 votes shy of overriding Gov. Chris Sununu’s veto of the legislation during a special session this fall. Companies including Dartmouth-Hitchcock, Timberland, Worthen Industries, and others were strong advocates for the proposal, stating that raising the cap “would make our electric grid more stable, reduce our reliance on imported fossil fuels, and would save New Hampshire businesses money.” Market-based solutions to reduce emissions Market-based solutions to curb carbon emissions also gained traction in 2018 with proposals under consideration in multiple states across the country. For example, the Massachusetts Senate unanimously voted to require the state to create a market-based mechanism to curb emissions from both the transportation and building sectors. In Washington state, voters will have a chance to vote on I-1631 in November, a proposal that would establish a fee on carbon emissions aimed at curbing pollution. More than 100 businesses, including Expedia, Microsoft, REI, Virginia Mason, and others support the initiative as a way to lower emissions while strengthening the state economy, reducing health impacts, and protecting Washington’s thriving outdoor and tourism industries. Taking steps to decarbonize transportation The transportation sector is now the largest contributor to U.S. greenhouse gas emissions, and the urgency for low-carbon transportation solutions is significant. States across the country are stepping up to the challenge. At the Global Climate Action Summit in September, Virginia announced plans to join the Transportation and Climate Initiative (TCI), a collaborative effort among Northeast and Mid-Atlantic states to reduce carbon emissions from the transportation sector. Companies including Adobe, Mars, Nestle, Salesforce, and Unilever have called on the Commonwealth to set a strong vision for the electrification of the transportation sector and prioritize strategies that maximize emission reductions. In June, Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper directed the Air Quality Control Commission to initiate a rulemaking on the Low-Emission Vehicle (LEV) standard. In response to significant public comment, the commissioners voted to consider the Zero-Emission Vehicle (ZEV) standard as well. Together, these two standards will help put cleaner and more energy-efficient cars on the road. Aspen Skiing Company, Burton Snowboards, Clif Bar, New Belgium Brewing, Smartwool, and Colorado Ski Country USA were among the companies that shared a letter with the governor expressing support for both standards. They wrote, “By increasing the availability of clean vehicles in Colorado, these standards will provide Coloradans with a broad set of positive outcomes and generate significant benefits for our bottom line.” On the legislative side, New Jersey and Pennsylvania are just two of the many states considering legislation to increase electric vehicle charging infrastructure and deployment. Last week, New Jersey’s Senate Energy and Environment Committee voted out a bill that would create statewide electric vehicle targets, investments in public charging infrastructure, and state rebate program. As we look to 2019, more states are likely to continue to this trend. When it comes to forward momentum on emissions reductions, states are showcasing how policy can help tackle these challenges, while growing their economies. As clean energy and clean transportation become the norm for the business community, states have made it clear that they are ready to welcome those investments and spur the transition to a low-carbon future. This piece was originally posted on skoll.org. 

The latest report released by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change told us that 50 percent more of the global population will be living under conditions of water stress in a world with a 2°C  increase as opposed to a 1.5°C increase.  And while the private sector must double down on its ambitions to achieve rapid decarbonization of the global economy, it must, at the same time, do everything in its power to protect the freshwater resources that are essential to all human and economic activity. Indeed, there are hopeful signs of growing ambition from large companies to better steward the freshwater they so rely on. Take for example, Mars, whose water stewardship goal is to ensure sustainable water use in its supply chain, with an interim target to halve unsustainable water use by 2025, through an aggressive program of working with farmers in its rice and mint supply chains to drive down wasteful irrigation. At Ceres, our goal is to ratchet up this sort of corporate water ambition -- that's why with our partners at World Wildlife Fund, we have focused on the food and agriculture sector as mission critical.  In 2016, we launched the AgWater Challenge, with the specific intent of raising corporate ambition among the world’s most influential food and beverage companies in the most water intensive industry -- agriculture. With the global food sector using 70 percent of the world’s freshwater supply, food and beverage companies play an important role in protecting water quality and quantity. Most recently, Target and ADM joined the seven other companies participating in the Challenge who have made commitments to better protect freshwater resources in their agricultural supply chains.  Unfortunately, when it comes to water stewardship, most large companies are still swimming in cramped fish bowls of relative ambition. They benchmark their water stewardship efforts against those of their peers -- and not against the size and scale of the problem. This keeps collective water ambition low, and increases the long-term risks for companies as well as for communities. ​ The flip side, or perhaps the evil twin, of low ambition is what I call the Tardigrade Syndrome.    A tardigrade (also known as a “water bear”) is a microscopic invertebrate that can survive in a dehydrated state for years at a time. Water bears are among the hardiest of multi-celled animals. Dry them out and they will happily go into an indefinite state of suspended animation. ​ The Tardigrade Syndrome is when corporations take a hunker-down, go-it-alone approach to managing water risk. It’s when they falsely believe they can insulate themselves from the risks posed by our shared interdependence on water through a narrow reliance on water efficiency, geographic diversification, shifting suppliers, or hedging commodity prices. And while these approaches can minimize short-term risk, they ignore the fact that we live in an interconnected world and operate in an interconnected economy. Unlike tardigrades, human beings cannot live longer than 3 or 4 days in a dehydrated state. And in a 2 degree-world, or even 1.5 degree-world, companies likely won’t do much better.  Being more ambitious means shedding the go-it-alone mentality. Ratcheting up water ambition means embracing the fact that both science and policy are arenas in which businesses must fully engage. It means looking science in the eye and embracing the goal of zero harm to freshwater -- even when we know we cannot achieve this ambition alone. And there are a million reasons why these things are hard, if not seemingly impossible for many companies. And certainly, a lack of understanding and interest from shareholders has been a critical barrier.    To address this barrier, over the past three years, Ceres has built a global alliance of investors, the Ceres Investor Water Hub, made up of over 100 institutional investors with $20 trillion in assets under management. These investors are working with Ceres and their peers to address water risks in their own investment decision-making and to increasingly engage corporations on the issue.  As a result of this collaboration, we have seen the investor community gradually ratcheting up their own commitment and levels of ambition on water. Over the past two years, our members have volunteered hundreds of hours to develop a joint, open source learning resource – the Investor Water Toolkit – designed to showcase best practices and point the way forward.  As part of this work, investors developed a view on the industries and sub-industries most at water risk. Their analysis shows the degree to which water risk is potentially systemic across markets. ​ Within individual investment firms, we have also seen ambition grow. Last year, the Florida State Board of Administration, one of the largest pension funds in the U.S., undertook a water footprinting of its equity portfolio, among other things, to help inform their corporate engagement strategy.    Other investors have begun to align their investment approaches with Sustainable Development Goal 6 on water. Most notable is Dutch pension fund PGGM, whose work to quantitatively assess their funds’ contributions to SDG 6 has taken on board the input of the scientific community.     And just last year, asset manager ACTIAM set an ambitious target to achieve water neutrality for its US$64 billion portfolio by 2030, which it defines as investing in companies that “consume no more water than nature can replenish, and cause no more pollution than is acceptable for the health of humans and natural ecosystems.”  The IPCC report told us is that it is within our power and ability to prevent the worst impacts of climate and water-induced catastrophes.  There is immense risk if investors and companies don’t act, but there is also boundless opportunity if they do. With trillions of dollars in assets under management, the global investment community must play a role in investing in solutions to our water and climate challenges, as well as demanding higher ambition from corporations to do the same. ​ We know there is a long road ahead to achieve a 1.5 degree world and investors and companies have a critical role to play.  To all of them, I say we must work together to ratchet up our water ambition -- and the time is now. ---- This column is based on remarks Brooke Barton delivered at the Financial Time’s 2018 Water Summit.  

A policy associate and energy consultant praise Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam’s plan to transition the state’s economy to clean energy. Authored by Brianna Esteves and Ellen Zuckerman In early October, Gov. Ralph Northam released the 2018 Virginia Energy Plan, which lays out a strategic vision for Virginia’s energy policy over the next 10 years. The administration’s plan underscores what major energy users across the Commonwealth have already recognized: that Virginia can seize an energy future that is efficient and clean, while growing the local economy. In developing the 2018 Virginia Energy Plan, the Northam Administration welcomed comments from Virginia businesses and residents. In response, major companies, universities, business associations and healthcare institutions—representing some of the Commonwealth’s largest energy users—submitted comments with recommendations for Virginia’s energy future. The governor’s plan wisely follows much of their guidance, emphasizing the need to plan for the future and set specific goals for energy efficiency, renewable energy, electric vehicles and other technologies—all of which will help bring about a swift transition to a clean energy economy. The 2018 Virginia Energy Plan sets a strong vision for clean energy investment and incorporates significant input from key stakeholders across the Commonwealth. We encourage legislators and regulators to heed the recommendations of the report. Among the plan’s strengths are the energy efficiency recommendations it highlights, which are crucial for lowering electricity bills, reducing emissions and achieving the ambitious requirements established by the 2018 Grid Transformation and Security Act. Specifically, the plan proposes that Dominion Energy invest at minimum $100 million per year in cost-effective energy efficiency programs and that utility energy efficiency initiatives be established through a robust stakeholder process. Establishing a required baseline for utility energy efficiency spending would send an important market signal to the business community that Virginia is serious about energy savings. A group of major manufacturers and service providers that includes Schneider Electric, Cree and Ameresco submitted comments stating that, “A strong and clear expectation that Virginia utilities must invest a base amount in utility energy efficiency programs and services would provide [the] certainty that businesses need.” The plan also includes recommendations to improve renewable energy purchasing options for large energy users. In comments on the energy plan’s development, a group of twelve large energy users—including Mars Inc., Salesforce, Nestlé USA, Bon Secours Richmond Health System, and Virginia Wesleyan University—encouraged Virginia lawmakers to promote cost-effective green-purchasing programs for utilities, allow energy consumers to aggregate their energy load, and legalize all third-party power purchase agreements. The Northam Administration heard the needs of large energy users loud and clear as their final plan includes important recommendations for expanding options and access for companies looking to procure renewable energy in Virginia. Furthermore, the Administration used the plan as an opportunity to underscore the importance of leadership on electric vehicles and other clean transportation options. Businesses recognize that clean transportation is the next frontier in sustainability, and Virginia would benefit from being an early leader in this inevitable transition. In fact, Virginia companies encouraged lawmakers to “set a strong vision for the electrification of the transportation sector,” and to adopt the Advanced Clean Cars program to set important targets for low-emission and zero-emission vehicle sales. The governor’s energy plan puts forward these recommendations and acknowledges the importance of goal-setting for increasing clean vehicle adoption. Finally, the energy plan prioritizes the importance of government “lead-by-example” initiatives. By recommending commitments to double the Commonwealth’s own renewable energy procurement target to 16 percent by 2022 and to increase the energy savings target for state buildings from 15 to 20 percent, the Commonwealth will gain the incredible economic benefits of clean energy investments, further stretching taxpayer dollars. While we applaud the recommendations included in the plan, there is more that lawmakers can and should do to improve the ability of large energy users to procure renewable energy and invest in energy efficiency solutions. With the 2018 Virginia Energy Plan, the Northam Administration has laid out a clear vision for expanding clean energy in a way that will benefit all Virginians. Many of these recommendations require further action by lawmakers, regulators, and the Northam Administration. Now we should work to make this vision a reality during the 2019 legislative session. Brianna Esteves is senior associate, state policy, at Ceres, covering policy work in Virginia. Ellen Zuckerman is a senior consultant with Schlegel & Associates. This post originally appeared on Energy News Network. 

In a recent Associated Press interview, President Trump claimed to be “an environmentalist” and offered that he has “a natural instinct for science.” The goals of his administration suggest otherwise. In fact, this week we are in the middle of the public comment period on the Trump-directed rollback of four climate-related rules administered by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) — rules which make up the centerpiece of U.S. efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs) and fight climate change. The Trump Administration has been building up to this regulatory purge from the moment the President was elected, so it is no surprise that he is attempting to fulfill campaign promises on these issues. Still, it is remarkable that these major rules are all under consideration at the same time. It reflects the breadth and depth of this administration’s efforts to effectively erase the previous eight years of progress on addressing climate change — progress that was still only a stepping stone towards meeting the U.S. goals under the Paris Agreement. The scale of these rollbacks — measured in GHG emissions, in economic costs to be paid and benefits to be lost, and in human lives — is breathtaking. These rollbacks not only reveal a bad “instinct” for science, they also show a bad sense for business. All four rollbacks represent a seismic shift in regulations across huge sectors of the economy: oil and gas, electric power, transportation, and industry. In all cases these rollbacks will weaken our ability to transition to a low-carbon economy. They could split the U.S. auto market, put the nation out of step (and make us less competitive) with global markets, improperly subsidize old, non-competitive technologies, and put the U.S. in opposition to binding global treaties. They also all-but-guarantee massive and lengthy lawsuits and other legal pushback — much of which is uncertain to come out in the EPA’s favor. These ongoing contests will lead to increased regulatory uncertainty and economic inefficiencies across major sectors of the economy, increasing prices for consumers and companies alike and making the U.S. a less attractive destination for global financial flows. And, as shown in a recent signal from French President Emmanuel Macron, they will weaken our ability to reach beneficial international trade agreements. Here’s a brief overview of the four proposed rollbacks and their predicted negative environmental and public health impacts by subject area: Clean Vehicles Finalized in 2012, the national vehicle standards for fuel economy and emissions were intended to be implemented over two phases: the first phase ran from 2012 through 2016 and the second phase will run from 2017 through 2026, following a midterm review. In the proposed “Safer Affordable Fuel Efficient (SAFE) Vehicles Proposed Rule for Model Years 2021-2026,” the EPA and Department of Transportation (DOT) would freeze the standards at 2020 levels and also revoke California’s ability to set its own standards, which are followed by more than a dozen states and represent more than a third of the U.S. market for cars and trucks. The proposal would lead to increased GHG emissions in the range of 321-931 million metric tons (MMt) (depending on oil prices) by 2035 — more than the total annual emissions today of 82 percent of countries. The proposed rollback would have significant economic consequences for the auto industry, undermining its global competitiveness and potentially costing auto suppliers (the largest U.S.manufacturing sector) $20 billion between 2021 and 2025 — in addition to increasing fuel costs for businesses and consumers, and undermining the broader economy as well.  Clean Power The existing Clean Power Plan was designed to reduce GHG emissions from power plants. Trump’s proposed replacement, called the “Affordable Clean Energy (ACE)” plan, could actually result in higher emissions than under no rule at all. Rather than letting states choose the most efficient method of emissions reductions, the ACE rule would require only small efficiency upgrades to existing coal plants. This weakening of the Clean Power Plan and its replacement with the ACE plan is expected to increase emissions between 20 million tons carbon dioxide and 37 million tons carbon dioxide per year by 2025, and could result in 1,400 premature deaths a year as a result of air pollution by 2030.  Methane Emissions The 2016 New Source Performance Standards were designed to help curb emissions of methane and other volatile organic compounds from the oil and gas industry, which emits about 13 million metric tons of methane (equivalent to 325 million tons of carbon dioxide) annually as a result of leaks that happen during the production, processing and transportation of oil and gas. Methane is about 30 times more potent than carbon dioxide, and emissions from leaks are equivalent to putting nearly 70 million cars on the road each year. Now, the EPA is proposing changes that would significantly reduce the frequency of required monitoring of leaks, extend the amount of time companies have to fully repair leaks from 30 days to 60 days, and create additional exemptions to the rule for certain oil and gas producers. The rollback is expected to result in the cumulative emission of 380,000 tons of methane (equivalent to 9.5 million tons of carbon dioxide) and 100,000 tons of other volatile organic compounds between 2019 and 2025. HFC Leak Repair and Maintenance In 2016, the EPA extended regulations that prohibit the intentional venting of refrigerant and air conditioning chemicals to include substitute refrigerants such as hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), an extremely potent GHG. Under the Trump Administration, the EPA has proposed revisions to this rule that would rescind the extension of the rule to HFCs and other substitute refrigerants — a move that would lead to an expected 3.6 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent per year. Bad for Business Underpinning the justifications for many of these rollbacks are new ways of calculating costs and benefits of regulations that seek to minimize benefits and make the regulations seem more costly. However, these rollbacks will be a disaster for public health and the environment, and will ultimately be a drag on the U.S. economy. A new study finds that the U.S. economy has more to lose from the effects of climate change than all other countries in the world except India, while another report shows that the Trump administration’s reckless deregulatory rollbacks would deprive workers, consumers and the economy of more than $2.1 trillion in benefits over the next two decades. The potential losses from the 13 rules examined in the report would amount to nearly $17,000 per household, far exceeding any savings for businesses. Wrong Proposals at Exactly the Wrong Time Rollbacks like those proposed will return us to the approach that has put us in this moment of crisis in the first place, and will worsen the already significant negative impacts from climate change for generations to come. As the recent report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) made clear, we are at a critical juncture when it comes to reducing GHG emissions and combating the worst effects of climate change, with about 12 years left to reduce emissions so as to achieve a no-more than 1.5 degrees Celsius increase in average global temperature. As Ceres’ President and CEO Mindy Lubber puts it, this is our “all hands on deck moment” to secure a better future for our children and grandchildren. Yet President Trump seems determined to pursue 19th Century solutions and a 19th Century economy for this 21st Century problem.  Fortunately, the public can make its voice heard during the current comment period. We can also take heart from initiatives such as Ceres' Commit to Climate, which builds private sector leadership to address climate change, bringing investors and companies together to support clean energy and transportation policies in order to achieve the goals of the Paris Agreement and get us to a just and sustainable future.  

With more than 500 companies, investors, and other stakeholders supporting its recommendations, the Financial Stability Board’s Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures (TCFD) just reached a milestone. Now that companies have had a year to begin implementing the TCFD’s important recommendations on how to best identify, manage, mitigate, and disclose climate risk, it’s a good time to take a step back and evaluate progress. The TCFD Secretariat has just done this exercise , putting out a comprehensive evaluation of what companies have done and have yet to do. Building on this analysis, I’d like to share some of our insights based on Ceres’ extensive work with companies and investors to enhance decision-useful environmental, social, and governance (ESG) disclosures. Something we’ve heard again and again from companies and investors, as well as from the TCFD Secretariat, is that fully implementing the TCFD recommendations will be a journey and no one will get it right from the starting line. But, everyone should get in the race. An instructive parallel is how companies continue to evolve their approach to reporting on the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), which were adopted by world leaders in 2015. Initially, companies linked the SDGs to their existing accomplishments (and sometimes challenges). This approach provides useful information about how current priorities and activities align with relevant SDGs, but it doesn’t demonstrate how companies are truly integrating the SDGs into business strategy. Companies that go a step further not only do this mapping, but also demonstrate how they’re using SDGs to enhance their understanding of risks and opportunities, and evolve their strategy accordingly. UBS’s and Enel’s approaches illustrate such leading practices. UBS, for example, didn’t stop at identifying priority SDGs. It made the connection to where private investment could have the greatest impact on those priorities and then developed metrics to measure how assets in its investment portfolios could help achieve these specific impacts. We’re now seeing a similar trend with early TCFD-related reporting. For the most part, companies are starting out by addressing how their current strategies and actions are responsive to specific TCFD recommendations. Citi, for example, provides an index that maps where to find TCFD-related information. This is a necessary but not sufficient step, which Citi explicitly acknowledges by adding that in “future reports, Citi plans to expand our reporting on TCFD recommendations,” based on the results of a pioneering United Nations Environment Programme Finance Initiative TCFD implementation pilot project underway in collaboration with other financial institutions. Like most things new, the hardest part can be starting. But once this process is underway and something has been shared publicly, however preliminary it may be, companies find it much easier to make the case internally not just for the importance of the exercise but also for greater ambition in subsequent disclosures. And companies must go further because this is an imperative to satisfy investors’ needs—and to stabilize our rapidly changing climate. For evidence of the investor focus, look no further than two separate but related initiatives that Ceres, along with our international investor partners, has launched:, Climate Action 100+ and The Investor Agenda. Each initiative has the support of more than 300 investors, collectively representing more than $30 trillion in assets under management, and both feature engaging with companies on their approach to the TCFD recommendations. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) recently-released Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5°C starkly demonstrates why investors are concerned: the window is ever narrowing to curb the devastating financial and existential impacts of climate change. Critical to mitigating these impacts is fully understanding and disclosing the risks (and opportunities) companies face, and modifying business strategies accordingly – which, not coincidentally, are the pillars of the TCFD recommendations. I’ll be speaking about these issues and more at the upcoming Sustainable Brands New Metrics 2018 conference, along with experts from CDP, NRG, Dana Investment Advisers and South Pole. To learn more about how companies are responding to the TCFD recommendations, and what investors are expecting companies to disclose, join our panel discussion, “A Practical Guide to the Task Force for Climate Related Financial Disclosures and its Implications for Companies” in Philadelphia on October 29-31. The Task Force for Climate Related Financial Disclosures will be covered in depth at New Metrics ’18, taking place October 29th-31st in Philadelphia, PA. Register with the code “JoinMe” for 20% off the ticket price! This blog originally appeared on Sustainable Brands New Metrics 2018.