Blog Posts

For most of California’s history, water supply problems were solved simply by building new dams or ditches to move water from one place to another. Over time, the limitations of that approach have become increasingly clear. Now, after a five-year drought of historic proportions, our rivers and groundwater are overtapped, and a warmer climate demands that we fundamentally rethink our relationship to this resource. Fortunately, we can meet our water needs if we use it wisely. Californians know how to craft policies and practices to work within nature’s limits, and understand that sustainable communities are more livable and prosperous. For example, the important steps that state legislators have taken to curb climate change have helped clean up our air and have spurred innovation and job growth and saved money. This integrated approach to climate action is precisely what’s required to protect our water supply. In California, we have changed our energy use to mitigate the harms associated with climate change by ramping up production of clean and renewable electricity sources while pursuing smart efficiency upgrades. In other words, we are working on both supply and demand: creating alternatives to fossil fuels with solar and wind projects, putting a price on carbon and incentivizing efficiency from home appliances all the way up to the massive systems that heat and cool hotels, universities and warehouses. We need the same integrated approach to water. California should lead the nation on responsible and resilient water use, just as it is leading on climate and clean energy. After all, water and climate are just two sides of the same coin. As the planet heats up, we can expect more extreme weather that includes longer and hotter droughts, and more precipitation falling as rain rather than snow. To avoid future shortages, we have to stretch our supplies further. The legislature is currently considering a package of bills that would reduce water waste, increase efficiency and improve drought planning for vulnerable communities. These bills, which include Assembly Bill 1668 and Senate Bill 606, would help us prepare for the future we know is on the horizon. Having just emerged from a record drought, we know how devastating a few dry years can be in a state that is unprepared to make the best use of limited water supplies. During the drought, residents across the state doubled down on conservation, slashing their water use by a quarter. But we don’t want a repeat of the emergency drought mandate. What California needs is to adopt the same two-pronged approach to water it has taken on energy: reduce demand and develop more sustainable supplies. That means embracing smart local solutions like stormwater capture and recycled water, while making sure all water, regardless of the source, is used efficiently. Water efficiency is the fastest and most cost-effective way to ensure a reliable and affordable supply into the future. That is good news for businesses, since it creates more certainty and a level playing field. That is why Ceres is joining so many water advocates in urging the state legislature to adopt policies that will make conservation and efficiency a way of life in California. Thumbnail photo credit: Justin Sullivan/Getty Images/AFP Read the original blog on Water Deeply

As Hurricane Harvey floodwaters recede, and Houston begins the long, expensive road to recovery, its civil engineers and city planners can learn from other cities that are embracing a sustainable water movement. Engineers, planners and financiers are coming together in many cities across the U.S. under a sustainable water movement, working across disciplines to design resilient infrastructure services as cities face growing threats to water supplies, whether from aging infrastructure, pollution or extreme weather. Harvey’s torrential rains were truly unprecedented, but it was decades of paving over wetlands and natural flood plains that led to Houston’s epic flooding. Green design and thinking will be required to rebuild Houston’s sewer system to absorb flood water in the era of climate change. Sustainability stewardship in the public water sector is gaining importance as infrastructure needs such as Houston’s escalate. While one might expect to hear success stories from cities like San Francisco and Washington, D.C., newly emerging utility leaders are shoring up sustainability efforts on water. Take St. Louis. The city has been grappling with legal action from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and one of the most expensive combined sewer overflow problems in the country at a price tag of $4.7 billion. When too much water enters the city’s sewer systems during a storm event, the system is overwhelmed and dumps untreated water directly into the Mississippi River—the same river that provides drinking water to the residents of the city. This untreated sewage can impair water quality and impact human health. ​ Credit: KOMUnews via Flickr St. Louis is responding to the EPA mandate to upgrade and build new infrastructure to manage its storm water, with sustainability in sight. Rather than build expensive gray infrastructure projects alone, the St. Louis Metropolitan Sewer District has chosen to invest $100 million in green infrastructure projects that use more affordable natural design and infiltration systems to soak up water before it enters the sewer system. These green projects are being implemented at different scales across the city, with the help of various city departments, developers and community organizations. Similarly, by 2025, the City of Seattle, Washington plans to manage 700 million gallons of polluted runoff annually by building green stormwater infrastructure. The city is tracking its progress toward this goal through an online project map that depicts which types of green infrastructure solutions have been built so far and where they can be found. Fort Collins, one of the fastest growing cities in the State of Colorado, introduced a triple bottom line sustainability program in 2012 backed by a team of 15 staff members. Specific actions on water include conservation and efficiency initiatives, implementing green infrastructure and low-impact stormwater design, planning for supply needs under climate change and collaborating across city departments to analyze the impact of their projects on water resources. The city’s 2014 sustainability report describes progress on these actions, both in terms of water reductions and financial savings. In the bigger context, the city’s urban water commitments are critical to plugging the state’s water supply deficit. The Colorado Water Plan calls for 400,000 acre-feet of water savings by 2050, a majority of which could come from urban water conservation efforts at the city or utility level. Finally, Cleveland aims to become a “green city on a blue lake” by 2019. Led by the Mayor’s Office of Sustainability, the city has hosted annual Sustainability Summits for the past eight years and has a sustainability working group on water among other topic areas. The city’s municipal action plan lays out some areas of action to reduce water use and capture impervious area runoff, which include water efficiency and conservation, reuse and recycling, loss minimization, and on-site green and grey stormwater management strategies. Credit: NE Oh Regional Sewer via Twitter Interestingly, city departments and agencies are partnering to implement and measure progress on these projects. The city has also outlined some water-specific goals in its climate action plan. A major achievement therein highlights the Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District’s implementation of a Green Infrastructure Policy and $2 million investment in green infrastructure projects across the Greater Cleveland area to reduce sewage overflows into Lake Erie. The District is scaling up local partnerships with community organizations and developers to install these stormwater interventions, similar to what St. Louis is doing. While cities are paving the path for achieving sustainable water stewardship through local ambition, inter-disciplinary planning processes and performance measurement on sustainability practices, it is just a start. Water utilities are at the center of this sustainability play, with the ability to deliver on practices that can change the way we manage our precious resources for generations to come. As the race to the top has begun, cities and their utilities are in the spotlight with an unprecedented opportunity to implement the sustainability agenda.

California is home to some of the most agriculturally productive regions in the nation. Yet in many small communities scattered throughout those regions, residents lack the most basic commodity of all: clean, safe drinking water. Instead, what comes out of the taps in upward of 300 rural public water systems is water contaminated with arsenic, nitrates and other toxins, according to the State Water Resources Control Board. Each year, around 1 million Californians are exposed to unsafe water to meet their basic human needs. These small water systems are out of compliance with federal drinking water standards, largely because they haven’t the funds to cover ongoing costs of water treatment. Located mostly in disadvantaged farmworker communities, the residents can’t afford higher water rates; yet without more revenue, the water systems can’t pay for water-treatment operations. It seems contradictory that the families who help grow and produce the food that nourishes others are without safe drinking water to meet their needs. That is why we at Ceres and many of our business partners support the legislation now before the state’s Assembly, Senate Bill 623, the Safe and Affordable Drinking Water Fund, which would help small, rural water systems fund water treatment. Our company partners have employees and customers in these rural outposts without clean water and thus have engaged in being proactive to find a solution through SB-623. Among those relying on contaminated water from taps are 12,000 schoolchildren attending 30 rural schools supplied by stand-alone wells. Agricultural entities recognize that some of the contaminants in well water are nitrates, which seep into groundwater when too much fertilizer is applied to fields. Accordingly, agricultural organizations joined with environmental justice groups in forging this legislative answer to the safe drinking water problem – a historic collaboration that should be recognized. This week, major companies and investors will converge in Sacramento to urge the swift passage of SB-623, which would create a fund to pay for operating treatment facilities at small water systems in rural, disadvantaged communities. The fund would come from a fertilizer fee and small water user fees – ranging from less than $1 a month on households to $10 a month at most on large industrial customers. That would add up to $140 million annually, the amount that a formal needs assessment determined was required to help small, rural water systems afford the costs of filtering for nitrates, arsenic and other contaminants. In the era of implementation of the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals, many companies feel compelled to help assure safe drinking water is accessible to all, one of the goals to which companies and nations are committed. California is blessed with a healthy economy and some of the most productive farmland in the nation. But it’s untenable that so many people don’t have safe drinking water – a seemingly ‘Third World’ problem right here in a state with the sixth-largest economy in the world. And the problem has only gotten worse since the drought; the depletion of groundwater during the drought concentrated the toxins in well water. A portal developed by the State Water Resources Control Board shows where these communities are. The majority of them are in Kern, Tulare and Stanislaus counties – the counties most reliant on well water for public drinking water. These counties are also among the most agriculturally bountiful in the nation, producing lettuces, broccoli, carrots, almonds, rice, cotton and grapes as well as alfalfa for cattle. Tulare County’s agricultural sector “routinely ranks as the second-highest growing crop value in the nation,” states a California economic summary from its Department of Transportation. Yet 19 percent of Tulare’s households live in poverty and the median household income is $41,000 a year. Kern County is similar. In addition to these communities, the state estimates that as many as 2 million Californians rely on private wells or wells with fewer than 15 connections and might also be exposed to contamination. Some of these users, such as schools connected to stand-alone wells, would also be eligible for the water-treatment operating funds. SB-623 provides a good solution to the unsafe drinking water problem. At relatively little cost, it offers a way to prevent dire health problems such as birth defects and susceptibility to cancer that drinking contaminated water can cause. Five years ago, the state passed a law declaring that access to safe, clean drinking water is a human right. Now the state legislature should take steps to guarantee that right through the passage of SB-623. Read the original blog on Water Deeply

Imagine—it’s 2050, and downtown Detroit is humming with electric vehicles. Once novel, electric vehicles now make up the majority of new car sales worldwide, and more than a third of all cars on the road. Transportation emissions have fallen, and health outcomes have improved. Our businesses are better off too, pocketing billions of dollars in savings through reduced electricity rates. This picture is not as far-fetched than many might think. Michigan’s automakers, regulators and electric utilities are beginning to take steps in the right direction, but much more must be done to unlock the immense potential of the electric vehicle market today. This was the clear message at the Michigan Technical Conference on Alternative Fuel Vehicles, hosted by the Michigan Public Service Commission and Agency for Energy. Throughout the conference, State officials, automakers, charging companies, utilities and environmental experts showed their support for expanding electric vehicle adoption in Michigan. With robust regulatory framework and adequate charging infrastructure, electric vehicles can be an economic boon for the state, improve air quality and continue to reduce carbon emissions. Unfortunately, Michigan is just not there yet. We heard representatives from Ford and General Motors express their frustration with the pace at which Michigan is electrifying the transportation sector. Steve Henderson, manager of electrification infrastructure, programs and policy at Ford said it plainly, “We simply don’t have enough chargers to support what we need in the future.” Britta Gross, director of advanced vehicle commercialization policy at General Motors echoed this sentiment and added, “There is a lot of belief that this market will come. This is going to happen. We should get ready, and get it done.” And she’s right. Detroit automakers have increasingly embraced electrified transportation, and more than 600,000 electric vehicles have been sold across the country to date. In fact, Michigan is among the top 10 states in electric vehicle sales, and top 20 by share of the total vehicle market. But to get the market to scale, and meet our climate goals, the United States needs to be significantly more ambitious. To do this, automakers must continue to develop new product lines and invest in customer education and awareness. Major utilities and independent power producers also stand to reap the rewards of a projected surge in electricity demand and should be clamoring to invest in electric vehicle charging infrastructure. While the MPSC can provide a clear regulatory pathway for utilities, and lawmakers can provide guiding policy and incentives, a cross-sector effort is needed to spur electric vehicle adoption in Michigan. Many businesses see this potential and support policies that help accelerate the transition to a clean, low-carbon economy. Now that emissions from the transportation sector have surpassed emissions from the electric power sector in the United States, businesses are increasingly looking to state governments to support the electric vehicle market so that they too can adopt electric vehicle fleets and supply charging stations for employees and customers. Not only do electric vehicles reduce emissions, but they reduce fuel and operating costs relative to internal combustion engine vehicles. Off-peak electric vehicle charging, in particular, can also take pressure off the grid—helping all ratepayers save money on their electricity bills. To put these benefits into perspective, a recent report from M.J. Bradley & Associates found significant potential for electric vehicle growth and subsequent savings for ratepayers, regardless of whether or not they own an electric vehicle. According to the report, Michigan ratepayers can expect to save up to $2.6 billion on their electricity bills by 2050, and reap $5.7 billion from reduced greenhouse gas emissions. Electric vehicle owners can also expect to save an incredible $23.1 billion in fuel and maintenance costs. But if Michigan is to achieve this transformative change, regulators, lawmakers, automakers and utilities must continue to work together to create a robust framework for the electric vehicles market. This fall, the MPSC will release a briefing paper that examines major trends and regulatory options on the role of utilities, rate design and incentives. Ceres has offered a few recommendations to the MPSC: Allocate the maximum amount (15 percent) of VW Environmental Mitigation Trust funds on charging infrastructure for electric vehicles. Locate infrastructure investments at sites that are best situated to accelerate and maximize clean vehicle adoption, including workplaces, highway corridors and multi-unit dwellings. Foster a competitive marketplace by supporting investments that add to existing and planned infrastructure. Implement well-designed time-of-use charging rates that will maximize fuel costs savings and improve the utilization of the grid, thereby reducing electricity costs for all ratepayers. Prioritize investment in communities disproportionately affected by higher levels of pollution, nonattainment or maintenance areas, or designated Federal Class 1 areas. With the right structure, programs and policies in place, Michigan can deliver widespread benefits to all ratepayers, including reduced electricity rates, lower vehicle operating costs, cleaner air, and an alternative to volatile oil markets. Read the original blog on Midwest Energy News

Authored by Alan Baum Recently, in an announcement that appeared to signal its intent to weaken vehicle emission standards, the Environmental Protection Agency restarted its review of the standards. As independent automotive analysts, we wanted to cut through the noise to ask a simple question: Are strong gas mileage requirements good or bad for Detroit? Our new analysis finds that fuel economy standards have not hurt the legacy automakers’ financial performance. And weakening fuel economy standards would only damage U.S. automakers and suppliers as they try to compete in a fast-evolving market. It’s no secret that American consumers want to go farther on every gallon of gas. The Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers’ own polling shows support for strong fuel economy targets, with two-thirds of respondents saying the government should set high standards. And under strong standards, economies of scale will reduce the costs of fuel savings technology. Despite consumers’ preferences, some automakers point to their weak stock prices and need to cut costs as evidence that the U.S. should shift into reverse on fuel economy standards. However, we conclude the opposite: that the standards will enhance the U.S. auto industry’s global competitiveness, and incentivize new employment and products from independent suppliers. Overall demand for passenger cars and trucks is declining modestly. But that’s because the pent-up demand from the 2007-09 Great Recession, which resulted in record 2015 and 2016 sales, has been largely satisfied. Even so, current auto sales and profits remain strong. Of greater import is what could be an existential crisis for legacy automakers (including the Detroit Three): game-changing innovations in technology and new business models. The rise of autonomous vehicles, clean vehicles, and the shift to ride and car sharing models are forcing the industry to change their business models. The auto industry faces competition from upstarts such as Tesla and Uber, as well as from potential new, deep-pocketed competitors such as Google and Apple who are eyeing the automotive market. Given the importance of operating costs and the synergy between autonomous vehicles and electrification, fuel efficiency and electrification are key to succeeding in this new world. Our analysis suggests that investors remain skeptical of legacy automakers’ ability to adapt to a new era of personal mobility. The smart money sees the dawn of autonomous, electrified vehicles and ride sharing services as poised to shake up the automotive market. It observes that the U.K. and France plan to ban gas and diesel engines by 2040, while China sets a target of 40 percent “new energy” vehicles by 2030 and India announces a goal of 100 percent sales of zero-emission vehicles by 2030. But instead of innovation, investors see some automakers seeking to weaken the standards and trying to hold back the tide of change by clinging to a vision of the future that doesn’t embrace these new trends. Nobody likes being told what to do. But fuel economy standards establish a level playing field for all competitors, and encourage the innovation needed to succeed. Fuel economy standards provide automakers and suppliers the regulatory certainty necessary to stimulate investment in advanced technologies, such as electric vehicles and fuel saving technologies, that are necessary for automakers’ long-term financial health. That’s especially true given the volatility of the oil market. Regulatory certainty is important for automakers, which employ about 200,000 Americans. But it’s even more important for automotive suppliers, which employ 500,000 Americans, provide over 80 percent of fuel savings technology, and have made the bulk of investments in research and development. The future is global, and it prizes efficiency and clean vehicles. By 2025, we project that only one-third of Detroit Three vehicles will be sold in North America, while two-thirds of sales will be overseas. Our automotive future includes strong growth overseas in an increasingly competitive market, growth in electric vehicles, ride sharing, and autonomous vehicles. Automakers can thrive in this coming new era of personal mobility. But for that to happen, automakers and their friends in Washington must stop looking in the rear-view mirror, and keep their eyes on the road ahead. Alan Baum of the research firm Baum and Associates is an independent automotive analyst. Read the original blog from The Detroit News

Food can be a great unifier, presenting opportunities for people with differing views to reach across the table, both literally and figuratively. And when the diverse stakeholders of the food industry break bread together, they too can achieve greater understanding of the unique challenges they each face, and with that awareness move toward creating a more sustainable food supply.  Take the issue of water. From irrigated fields to investment portfolios, each player in the food industry is impacted, and no wonder with food production consuming 70 percent of the world’s rapidly dwindling freshwater resources.   To advance the dialogue on how best to conserve ever-scarcer water resources, even as global demand for food production soars, Ceres invited farmers, investors and food companies to the table to talk water challenges at 2017 annual conference.  We weren’t surprised that the three groups didn’t always agree—but often enough their ideas overlapped.  Here are some highlights from the lively discussion: What Drives Water-Smart Practices in the Food Industry? For Peter van der Werf, a senior engagement specialist at the international asset management firm Robeco, the economic business case at each stage of the supply chain drives sustainable agriculture. This sentiment was echoed by Dan Sonke, director of sustainable agriculture at Campbell Soup Company, who shared an anecdote in which he brought an agronomist on a field visit with a wheat grower to talk about sustainable fertilizer practices. “He spoke economic language to the grower without ever mentioning sustainability,” said Sonke. “He was telling the grower to do exactly what I, as a sustainability person, wanted them to do. What that farmer needed to hear that day, though, was the business case.” On the other hand, Craig MacNamara, a California farmer and owner of Sierra Orchards, and Wood Turner, vice president of Agricultural Capital, a sustainability-driven agriculture and food investment firm, said they viewed consumer demand as the overall driver for increased sustainable practices. How do you measure farm sustainability? Sustainability metrics are a hot topic for several reasons. First, in order to measure progress in a hotter, drier future, it’s critical for farms and companies to identify the right key performance indicators (KPIs) to benchmark their water stewardship efforts.  Second, while more and more companies are setting sustainable sourcing goals for their major agricultural inputs, performance measurement details are often not clearly defined. That makes it hard to evaluate progress. When asked to identify the best indicator for measuring farm sustainability, some panelists identified irrigation and fertilizer efficiency. The majority, however, agreed that soil health was the most vital. As Craig MacNamara put it, “Farmers that practice good soil health tend to also practice other strong management systems because they’re thinking ahead.” While panelists expressed interest in accounting for these KPIs through surveys, survey fatigue was identified as a concern. Not only are farmers coming under greater pressure to decrease costs and increase yields in a complex global market, but they are also being asked to share data with their many buyers through individual buyer surveys. To address survey fatigue, panelists suggested simplifying the assessments to include only the most important metrics, harmonizing surveys across key industries, and ensuring that the data collected has value for growers by allowing them to benchmark their performance against their neighbors.  Which performance indicators should be prioritized, and whether the right approach is to create a unified industry-wide survey, remain open questions among the panelists. Incentivizing Action at the Field Level What will incentivize farmers to actually integrate more sustainable agricultural practices? The panelists offered varied responses, ranging from financial incentives to business case imperatives. “I think to really scale it to where it needs to be for the future, the majority of these farmers are going to need financial incentives and support to make those changes,” said Josh Prigge, director of regenerative development at Fetzer Vineyards. Wood Turner offered another perspective, “I think an incentive to a grower might be witnessing the neighbor who was able to put practices into place and obtained real returns and benefits to their operations.” Turner added, “If there’s a clear indication that consumers are actively seeking out not just inexpensive food, but sustainably sourced food, then I think you’ll see a different mindset among growers who realize there are financial benefits to be gained.” Table Talk One undeniable step towards a sustainable global agricultural supply chain is bringing companies, investors and farmers together.  In convening stakeholder discussions, we can learn more about commonalities and differences in perspective and work to ensure that the information investors seek aligns with the goals companies are setting and the data farmers are providing. Ceres’ Feeding Ourselves Thirsty report, which benchmarks the largest food and beverage companies on their water management practices, aims to help the food sector grapple with these issues. Our newest edition launches in early September with updated company scores and water risk management recommendations. Summing it up, Josh Prigge said, “We really need to have a more collaborative effort and have everyone at the table – the consumers, the investors, the companies, the growers – to start making some big changes.”

  In a state where options have been limited for businesses looking to procure or install renewable energy to power their operations, North Carolina’s lawmakers have an opportunity to drive new investment in the state. Since September 2016, various energy stakeholders have worked together to further advance clean energy in North Carolina. The resulting energy stakeholder proposal (House Bill 589) originally put forward and passed by the House in early June represented a step forward for solar, placing North Carolina on a path to achieve at least 6,800 MW of installed solar by 2022. However, the last-minute addition of an unnecessary 18-month moratorium for new wind energy project permits by the North Carolina Senate casts a shadow over a bipartisan effort to continue North Carolina’s history of leadership in clean energy investment and innovation. House Bill 589, “Competitive Energy Solutions for North Carolina,” is currently awaiting action by Governor Roy Cooper, who has until July 30 to sign, veto or allow the legislation to become law without his signature. As lawmakers reflect on this year’s legislative session, there are significant opportunities to continue North Carolina’s clean energy investment momentum. Thanks in large part to forward-thinking legislation passed in 2007, North Carolina ranks second in the nation in installed utility-scale solar. However, when it comes to commercial and industrial customers’ ability to procure renewable energy, the Tar Heel State falls behind. A recent analysis from the national Retail Industry Leaders Association and the Information Technology Council ranks North Carolina 30thnationally in the overall ease for businesses to procure renewable energy, including access to programs like third-party leasing, power purchase agreements, community solar, and utility green tariffs. Companies are increasingly seeking access to renewable energy because it makes business sense. Clean energy can help companies obtain an advantage over their competitors—allowing them to save money, lock in fixed energy costs and hedge against volatile fossil fuel prices. That’s why nine major companies—including Google, VF Corporation, Unilever and New Belgium Brewing—recently sent a letter to lawmakers supporting efforts to expand renewable energy access for North Carolina businesses and outlining opportunities for policy innovation moving forward. Major business leaders and employers have been advocating for more renewable energy choices in North Carolina for quite some time. In March 2015, businesses including Walmart, Target, VF Corporation, Unilever, Lowe’s and Volvo wrote to lawmakers asking for more choice and competition in the energy marketplace by allowing businesses to enter into third-party Power Purchase Agreements for clean energy. In response, Rep. John Szoka (R-Cumberland) crafted the 2015 Energy Freedom Act—legislation that would have opened the state’s electricity markets to third-party sales of electricity. While the Energy Freedom Act did not move forward, it demonstrated that lawmakers were interested in crafting solutions for the business community. As energy stakeholder legislation began to take shape, businesses again contacted lawmakers in early 2017 to encourage the passage of meaningful clean energy policies during the 2017 legislative session. House Bill 589’s provision to legalize third-party leasing of renewable energy systems represents a step in the right direction for energy choice and could be a viable option for retailers or corporate purchasers looking to procure renewable energy. Energy access through third-party suppliers provides an option for companies that do not own their roof or do not want to take on the financing and risks of owning and operating their own renewable energy system. The capital saved up-front can then be used to hire more employees or invest in the local economy. “Enabling leasing and power purchase agreements for solar equipment is a common sense, market-based fix to allow companies to procure renewable energy,” nine businesses wrote in response to the House’s original version of the energy stakeholder bill. Third-party leasing is only one mechanism among a broad spectrum of options that vary in feasibility among the diverse business community. Many companies access renewable energy through third-party sales—an option still prohibited in North Carolina and eight other states. Other companies prefer alternative options for procuring renewable energy, such as community solar or utility-offered green tariff programs. House Bill 589 also authorizes a new Green Source Rider program for Duke Energy. A properly implemented Green Source Rider allows participating customers to work directly with their utility to purchase as much renewable energy as they want or need at a competitive rate and without shifting costs to other ratepayers. Duke Energy previously offered a three-year Green Source Rider pilot program, but the program expired in 2016 and was only utilized by three companies. While the new GSR program in HB 589 contains some improvements over the pilot program, it imposes additional limitations that make it unlikely to be a viable option for many large customers. Businesses are eager to continue working with the North Carolina Utilities Commission and lawmakers on potential implementation and in future years to improve the program moving forward. Unfortunately, the final bill also attacks wind energy—limiting free-market competition, suspending new investments and stalling opportunities for businesses, universities, the military and communities to reap the economic benefits of new wind projects. Significant progress remains in order to attract and satisfy the growing number of businesses looking to procure renewable energy and drive additional clean energy investment. No matter the ultimate fate of House Bill 589, businesses will continue to work with lawmakers to build North Carolina’s burgeoning clean energy economy. Read the original blog on Southeast Energy News

Authored by William Sprouse Corporate secretaries and boards need to work together to ensure companies address climate change and other risks effectively As gatekeepers, corporate secretaries play a critical role in filtering sustainability issues and helping determine which should be elevated to the attention of the board of directors. In doing so, professionals say, those secretaries need to answer questions about how to approach those issues and what kind of filter to apply. Susan Mac Cormac, partner with Morrison & Foerster and co-chair of the company’s energy and clean technology groups, tells Corporate Secretary she thinks of sustainability issues in three ways. The first is as an extension of CSR – a kind of philanthropy involving activities that are not part of a company’s core business but that can be of benefit to the environment or the community. Such activities seldom have board involvement, unless they entail significant expenditures. The second strand involves the law that has developed over the last five years requiring compliance around supply chains, conflict minerals and – increasingly – ‘integrated reporting’, Mac Cormac observes. This strand of sustainability involves issues on which a company is required to report because they are material to operations and therefore are within the purview of the corporate secretary. The third area involves how the company’s operations are impacted by ESG issues. ‘And that is core to how the company operates, not the extension of philanthropy and not compliance,’ Mac Cormac points out. In this area – which she calls ‘the meat of the matter’ – the role of the corporate secretary is to determine whether management is focused on the issue, because some aspects of it are operational. The corporate secretary should help the board decide whether it has only an oversight role, or if it needs to take a more active role, Mac Cormac points out: ‘And then you reach the question: if the board has oversight, or active involvement, what does that look like?’ At some firms, management is very active, so the board has an oversight role. But at ‘most companies, management doesn’t fully understand the impacts, and one of the biggest is obviously climate risk,’ Mac Cormac notes. Carbon emissions are only one part of assessing that risk. For example, some boards need to look at where the company is sourcing materials, and what the odds are that its suppliers will be literally under water or subject to civil unrest in the next 10 years due to climate change. Perhaps counterintuitively, companies that are heavily involved in extraction industries, such as oil, gas and mining firms, are often the most forward thinking in this third area, because sustainability issues are most material to their performance. ‘They see the future,’ Mac Cormac says. ‘And for a lot of them the environmental risks – and also the social risks – associated with their business are real economic risks. So they are some of the most forward thinking in terms of evaluating and making decisions on these risks.’ Board engagement Given these issues, what does good governance look like around sustainability? Veena Ramani, program director of capital market systems at Ceres, writes in a paper for the organization that there are a number of steps boards can take to engage seriously. They can create committees with formal oversight of climate change issues to ensure these are properly integrated into decision-making. They can also recruit directors who have expertise and offer training to the members of relevant committees – if not to all board members – and conduct shareholder outreach that focuses on investors. Directors are, after all, fiduciaries to investors, Ramani notes. By creating climate committees, companies can ‘ensure boards oversee how climate risks are integrated into operations and decision-making on an ongoing basis,’ Ramani writes, noting that Citigroup, Ford Motor Company and PG&E have all made climate change a focus in their public affairs or sustainability committee charters. Likewise, in the guidance they offer to companies, both Calpers and Calstrs have encouraged the recruitment of sustainability experts. ‘Companies have to do a better job of disclosing how climate trends are affecting corporate strategies and risks that are relevant to investors,’ Ramani writes. ‘We need to know whether boards are prioritizing climate change as a material issue. She tells Corporate Secretary that the attitude toward climate change and sustainability is comparable with the attitude companies had toward cyber-security a few years ago. Some were proactive in dealing with it, some less so, but there was a dawning realization that industries faced serious disruption to 
their business from cyber-threats. Similarly, companies are now recognizing that climate and other sustainability issues can materially impact their performance in both the short and the long term, and this is ‘foreshadowed in a clear and present way’ to shareholders, Ramani says. ‘Disclosure on environmental and social performance is increasingly the expectation rather than the exception.’ Director expertise Mac Cormac, who has worked with Ramani, says board committees can be valuable, but should not give the board a sense of complacency. Climate and sustainability issues are so intertwined with the basic operations of some companies that they should be part of board-wide decision-making, she adds. Both Mac Cormac and Ramani say it is crucial for firms to recruit board members who have significant climate expertise, pointing to ExxonMobil’s election to its board this year of Susan Avery, a former president and director of the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution. But companies also need to create a structure so the right people and expertise can be heard, Ramani notes. Mac Cormac says she is starting to see board recruitment aimed at directors who can not only see problems in the sustainability context but also conduct economic analyses to see how these might affect the company, identify factors material to operations and include them in a Form 10K or Form 10Q. The major accounting firms are geared up for this kind of analysis, and companies are hiring them so they can figure out how to measure, benchmark and report on these questions, she adds. Investor pressure is mounting over sustainability issues. State Street and BlackRock have told corporations in which they have investments that sustainability is a priority. In addition, Ramani says more than 400 shareholder resolutions on climate change were filed during the 2016 proxy season. But investor pressure depends to 
an extent on transparency. Board engagement In December 2015 the Financial Stability Board created the Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures (TCFD), which a year later published a consultation paper outlining recommendations for such reporting. Writing in the Guardian last December, Bank of England governor Mark Carney and former New York mayor and TCFD chair Michael Bloomberg said of climate change: ‘The challenge is that investors currently don’t have the information they need to respond to these developments… Without the necessary information, market adjustments to climate change will be incomplete, late and potentially destabilizing.’ In its paper, the TCFD says companies should identify and disclose the information investors need to price the climate risks. Existing standards focus on climate information, but they frequently fail to give adequate information on how that information impacts business, it said. President Donald Trump has pulled the US out of the landmark Paris environmental agreement. Tellingly, however, more than 600 firms and investors in January signed a letter urging him to fight climate change. Mac Cormac and Ramani say a rollback of environmental regulation under the Trump administration will only put the onus on boards to act as responsible fiduciaries. ‘The fact that there’s a new administration in town doesn’t mean the risks have gone away,’ Ramani says. ‘In many ways, it means the risks are worse because you don’t have regulation to help manage some of them, and in a situation like this I would actually say the role of the board is more important than ever.’  Read the original blog on Corporate Secretary 

by Susan Tierney, Heather Zichal and Mindy S. Lubber California’s cap-and-trade program is working. Since it was launched in 2013, the system has helped drive down greenhouse gas emissions, while the state’s economy has flourished. The billions of dollars the program generates have funded “climate credit” payments to electric utility customers, low-carbon transit projects, and home weatherization improvements in low-income communities. But the future of the program is in jeopardy. Its authorization will expire in 2020. Without action by the Legislature to extend cap-and-trade, California’s powerful engine for combatting climate change will grind to a halt. Extending – not ending – California’s cap-and-trade program beyond 2020 is the right next step. That would be a decidedly bad outcome, both here and worldwide. Such a high-profile development risks disrupting and frustrating so many positive clean energy and climate initiatives that are good for the state’s economy and everyone’s environment. Right now, the state is on track to meet its target of cutting greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. Just last year, California committed to the further goal of reducing statewide emissions 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030. Extending – not ending – California’s cap-and-trade program beyond 2020 is the right next step. It will offer needed certainty for the state’s long-term GHG emission targets and for the private sector to continue investing in low-GHG solutions. Doing so will help to create jobs in California as it continues to lead in clean-energy innovations. “Cap and trade” uses market forces to limit and reduce GHG emissions. The program requires companies across the economy to “cap” their emissions at a certain level, or buy permits to exceed that limit. The California Legislative Analyst’s Office issued a report recommending that the Legislature authorize cap-and-trade beyond 2020 “because it is likely the most cost-effective approach to achieving the state’s 2030 GHG emissions target.” With the Trump Administration walking back from global climate commitments, the importance of California’s leadership has only become all the more crucial. Over time, lowering the allowable amount of GHG ‘permits’ pushes total emissions down, while sales of permits generate funds the state can direct to keep program costs affordable and promote carbon pollution cuts elsewhere in the economy. That cap-and-trade program revenue is used, among other things, to manage program costs, drive innovation and the deployment of clean energy technologies, and improve air quality for the state’s most vulnerable populations. According to the California Climate Investments Annual report, in 2016, proceeds from the sale of GHG permits supported 27,000 energy efficiency projects and 47,000 rebates for buyers of zero-emission and plug-in hybrid vehicles. They also preserved 1,100 acres of land and built 1,100 affordable housing units. As the Legislature considers extending California’s successful cap-and-trade program, policy makers can – and should – maintain many of its key features, including provisions that ensure GHG allowances are distributed in ways that seek to minimize costs for energy consumers and assist low-income communities, along with investing in cost-effective emissions reductions through GHG offsets from sources outside the cap-and-trade program. Doing so will enable the Legislature to provide valuable planning and investment certainty. At the same time establishing an upper limit on the price of purchasing GHG permits in the future, coupled with measures to ensure the environmental integrity of the program, can provide pragmatic ways to balance the need for real progress on climate objectives with important cost protections. Taking this approach will maintain California’s pragmatic leadership on a policy that is good for the state’s economy – and help bring others along on the journey. With the Trump Administration walking back from global climate commitments, the importance of California’s leadership has only become all the more crucial. Policymakers, companies and responsible members of civil society here and abroad are all watching what happens in the Golden State. By preserving its history-making cap-and-trade program, California can once again show the world how progress is made possible. — Ed’s Note: Susan Tierney, a former assistant secretary for policy at the U.S. Department of Energy, is a senior adviser at the Analysis Group. Heather Zichal, a former climate adviser to President Obama, is president of Zichal, Inc. Mindy S. Lubber is the CEO and president of Ceres. This op-ed originally ran in Capitol Weekly. 

“WHAT GETS MEASURED, gets managed,” is an old business adage about the importance of transparency that’s relevant to California’s groundwater situation today. Simply put, it’s about making sure you have the information you need to achieve what you set out do. Currently, in some of the most at-risk basins in the state, those who rely on the groundwater for their sustenance and livelihood are not privy to the information that’s needed to responsibly manage the resource – such as when new wells go in, what they’re being used for or how much water they will be pumping out of the basin. The recently formed local groundwater sustainability agencies don’t have this information, either. So all they can do is cross their fingers and hope that the well – literally – does not run dry. A key aspect of California’s Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA), adopted in 2014, is greater transparency around the use of this shared resource. But until the local groundwater sustainability agencies finalize and fully implement their plans, which may not occur until 2040, gaps in data-sharing will remain a problem. We need to “prime the pump” now around greater transparency on water inputs and outputs to ensure successful SGMA implementation. Just look at the staggering number of new wells that were drilled after SGMA passed, many at the height of the drought. In 2015 alone, a record 2,500 wells were dug in the San Joaquin valley, five times the annual average for the previous 30 years. In critically overdrafted basins – including Tulare, Fresno and Kings – approximately 1,000 wells have been drilled since SGMA was adopted. A bill, S.B. 252, now moving through the state Assembly, is designed to serve as prelude to SGMA to show us how transparency can lead to more sustainable supplies and at the same time “stop the bleeding” in this interim period. Ultimately this will be crucial to the effective implementation of SGMA. S.B. 252 would require local governments in critically overdrafted basins to make public vital information about proposed new wells, such as the location, depth, capacity and estimated extraction volume. It also requires new well permit applicants in critically overdrafted basins to notify all adjacent landowners of the application for the well permit, where the permit can be found for review and when there will be a public meeting. The latter provision is designed to protect individual well owners, as well as sustain an overall groundwater basin. Under our current system, your neighbor could be planning to drill a bigger, deeper well that could impact your own well, but you might not know about it. S.B. 252 sets up a more productive planning process whereby neighbors in critically overdrafted basins will need to talk with each other about proposed new wells, and come up with solutions that work for everyone putting straws into the same glass. The bill does not call for a moratorium on new wells in critically overdrafted basins, nor give local groundwater agencies or neighbors the power to stop new wells. It simply calls for increased transparency and better planning and aims to prevent conflict by involving more people in management at an earlier stage. Beyond better transparency, the state is going to need to come up with innovative solutions to sustain its dwindling groundwater supply. Winter rains and snow cannot replenish the unprecedented withdrawal the state made from its groundwater bank account during the epic, five-year drought. Sixty percent or more of the state’s water supplies came from groundwater during that period, when typically the number is around 40 percent. California farmers in the Central Valley, in fact, pumped 9.5 cubic miles (39.6 cubic kilometers) of groundwater, around seven times the amount of water in Lake Shasta, the state’s largest reservoir, during the drought, according to recent research. All that groundwater pumping has worsened California’s long-standing problem with land subsidence. The San Joaquin Valley is especially hard-hit and is experiencing significant damage to its infrastructure – including its canals, pipelines, dams, levees, roads, railways, bridges, building foundations, sewer lines, laser-leveled fields and even its wells. Repairing that infrastructure will hit taxpayers in the pocket book. To replenish the state’s groundwater resources, some interesting projects that are now in the experimental phase deserve to be scaled up. For example, growers are successfully experimenting with groundwater recharge by redirecting floodwater on to farm fields, rather than allowing it to wash into the ocean. Don Cameron, general manager of Terranova Ranch and a pioneer of groundwater recharge, recently told me that the groundwater sustainability agency that he’s chairing is working toward a groundwater sustainability plan that will “probably include cutbacks in the amount of water a grower can pump for his land unless we can do some type of augmentation to where we can bring additional water into the system,” adding that “really, right now the only extra water we can see is floodwater that’s coming during periods of heavy rainfall and heavy snowfall.” Ultimately, these novel approaches to groundwater replenishment can only succeed if a full accounting of all the withdrawals and inputs into a basin is at hand. That’s why the California legislature must pass S.B. 252. It would bring badly needed transparency that would benefit all stakeholders who rely on and must make business and financial decisions around the shared groundwater resource of critically overdrafted basins. Photo credit: Kelly M. Grow/California Department of Water Resources Read the original blog on Water Deeply