Blog Posts

UPDATE ON MAY 12, 2017 BREAKING NEWS: Marking an historic first, a majority of investors today voted in support of a shareholder resolution calling on a major U.S. oil and gas company to assess and disclose its exposure to climate risks and global low-carbon trends. This extraordinary vote calls for the board of directors of Occidental Petroleum to oversee scenario analysis by the company to analyze its business plans and practices against a range of scenarios including one where global temperature rise is limited to 2 degrees Celsius.  The resolution was led by Ceres Investor Network member Wespath Investment Management and co-filed by Ceres Investor Network members Nathan Cummings Foundation, Connecticut Retirement Plans and Trust Fund, CalPERS, and New York City Pension Funds, with crucial support coming from investment giant and Ceres Investor Network member BlackRock.  The successful vote is a clear endorsement of key draft recommendations of the G20 Financial Stability Board’s Task Force on Climate Related Financial Disclosures regarding scenario analysis, including two degree scenario analysis as a key tool for assessing the risks and opportunities presented by global transition to a clean energy economy consistent with the objectives of the Paris Climate Agreement. Coming only a day after oil and gas industry-funded analysis by IHS Markit sought to question the Task Force’s recommendations, it indicates that investors see central elements of the recommendations as credible and necessary. Today’s vote sends a strong positive signal in support of similar shareholder resolutions that await votes at the annual general meetings of other fossil fuel companies in the weeks ahead. Original Blog Post: Investors are sending a powerful signal again this year on shareholder resolutions aimed at energy companies and their strategies for competing in a low-carbon global future. No doubt, climate change is a material risk that companies – especially energy firms – must address. Many feared that shifting political winds could reverse global momentum to accelerate the low carbon future, but early votes on U.S. shareholder proposals calling on companies to conduct two-degree scenario analysis make clear that investors see market forces still favoring clean energy. And these market forces are driving mainstream financial market actors such as asset managers, asset owners, credit ratings agencies and insurers to demand better disclosure of the results. (The two-degree scenario resolutions stem directly from the Paris Climate Agreement’s goal to curb carbon pollution at levels that would limit average global temperature rise to less than 2 degrees Celsius.) Investors recognize the transition towards a clean, low carbon economy is not slowing down. Instead, rapidly falling costs for renewable energy technologies (wind, solar and storage batteries) and growing demand for cleaner air in emerging economies like China and India, are all shifting the balance to cleaner, more modern resources and systems for delivering energy. As a result, investors increasingly want to know how companies are planning to mitigate risks and seize opportunities in this new global paradigm. Electric utility AES Corporation presented a particularly interesting case this year because the company did provide some new disclosures in its November 2016 report, Strategy for Environmental Performance, and it recently announced plans to acquire a leading storage battery company and wind projects in Brazil. Nonetheless, the company continues to invest heavily in natural gas and liquefied natural gas without assuring investors that it has adequately assessed the potential impacts of lower demand scenarios consistent with market trends and the Paris Agreement’s goals. “Investors understand that the energy transition is inevitable from an economic and environmental perspective. We need to know how companies are planning to succeed and create opportunities to provide clean energy in this new environment,” said Mary Minette, director of shareholder advocacy at Mercy Investment Services. "We need to know that the company has a comprehensive strategy rather than a piecemeal approach, and we look forward to working with AES to make progress.” Mercy Investment Services filed the resolution, which garnered 40 percent support, despite the company’s full court press to sway investors to vote no. Investors are achieving strong votes on similar resolutions at other energy companies, including 41 percent at Marathon Petroleum (a major U.S. refining company), 48 percent at Ameren, 48 percent at Dominion Resources, 46 percent at Duke Energy and 45 percent at DTE Energy. Given that significant voting blocs are controlled by company insiders and investors who reflexively vote with management, these levels of support are nearly unprecedented. The ongoing work of the G-20 Financial Stability Board’s Task Force on Climate-Related Financial Disclosures has reinforced the broad consensus that two-degree scenario analysis is a critical tool for managing climate risks. In addition, Moody’s Investor Services recently released a report detailing the credit risks that the low-carbon transition presents for the oil and gas industry. Furthermore, Moody’s concluded that companies with higher levels of disclosure—including disclosures regarding scenario planning—will be viewed as having a lower transition risk profile, while those who fail to disclose in line with TCFD recommendations will be viewed as higher risk. As companies move to meet this demand for better disclosures, those who fail to respond risk falling behind. Companies like ExxonMobil claim that they don’t want to disclose the results of two-degrees scenario analysis because they don’t believe that the world is likely to achieve the two-degree target, but that fails to fully acknowledge the purpose of scenario analysis. As global consulting firm McKinsey & Company recently explained, “[A]t times like the present, it is extreme risks, not the everyday ones, that should most concern energy companies. Likewise, it is the prospect of chaotic overnight change, not gradual shifts, that should keep energy executives awake at night.” Two-degree scenario analysis, and scenario analysis more generally, is an exercise in ensuring that the company’s portfolio is resilient to a variety of potentially divergent futures. As the energy transition continues – driven not only by climate policies but also by rapidly advancing technological and geopolitical disruptions – this type of exercise is at the heart of prudent risk management and good governance. All eyes are on remaining annual corporate meetings in the next few weeks, where investors have the opportunity to weigh in on the two-degrees scenario resolutions at at ExxonMobil, Devon Energy, First Energy, PPL Corporation, Southern Company and Hess. Stay tuned. Investors who wish to publicly declare their support for these resolutions can do so here.

Michigan Republican Gov. Rick Snyder sent a positive signal that a brighter, low-carbon future is on the horizon in his state when he signed clean energy legislation into law last December. Lawmakers from both sides of the aisle worked together to strengthen Michigan’s renewable energy and energy efficiency standards. Now all eyes are on regulators and utilities to make these clean energy standards – which came into effect on April 20 – a reality. Michigan stands at the cusp of driving new investment in the low-carbon economy and helping individuals and businesses save money on their electricity bills. The new legislation builds on Michigan’s 2008 clean energy law, Act 295, which set renewable energy and energy efficiency targets for Michigan utilities. This law generated significant returns for ratepayers, including $3 billion in renewable energy investment – translating to $1 billion in savings for ratepayers for future energy costs. An analysis by the Michigan Public Service Commission also found that for every dollar invested in energy efficiency, ratepayers save more than $4. Clean, renewable energy sources like wind and solar, are now the cheapest form of new energy in Michigan. And with the choice of cheap renewable energy, Michigan ratepayers can insulate themselves from the volatility of fossil fuel prices. The increase in clean energy will also spur more jobs in Michigan, and build on the 87,000 strong workforce currently employed in the clean energy sector. With its trademark ingenuity and manufacturing history, Michigan has potential to be a leader in producing wind turbines, solar equipment, and energy-efficiency solutions. States with access to renewable energy can also attract large corporate energy buyers. During the debate over strengthening Michigan’s clean energy standards, major businesses including General Mills, Nestle, JLL and Staples and others wrote to lawmakers, stating the new standards would “provide policy certainty for companies and investors seeking access to clean energy and will better prepare the state to compete in today’s global economy.” As regulators implement the new clean energy law in the coming months, there will be continued opportunities for the business community to lend their voice of support. Ceres will continue to encourage and promote engagement opportunities with Michigan lawmakers, For more information on the state’s implementation plans, you can visit the Michigan Public Service Commission website. Michigan’s clean energy standards will promote cleaner air and water and will protect the health of citizens. For all of these reasons, and more, we are glad to see Michigan embrace a clean energy economy. With the support of the Michigan Public Service Commission, we look forward to seeing the state’s clean energy thrive.

On President Trump’s hundredth day in office, hundreds of thousands of Americans gathered in D.C. and all over the country to show their support for a low-carbon economy and strong U.S. leadership on climate change. And while President Trump continues to reverse campaign promises and falters on delivering others, the one area where he is moving at lightning speed is his efforts to repeal, review and undermine President Obama’s Climate Action Plan and other environmental protections. The past week has shown the scope and depth of the Trump administration’s plans to roll back common sense climate and environmental protections. In a symbolic move, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency began removing virtually all mentions of climate change on its website, including this page and its contents. President Trump also signed executive orders to reopen major swaths of the outer continental shelf and the Arctic to drilling, ordered a sweeping review of public lands designations and national monuments, and put on hold and canceled the U.S. Department of Energy and Department of Interior grants for clean energy research and land conservation. And that’s following on a span of months where seemingly every week brought a new executive order aimed at repealing or weakening well-reasoned, balanced and achievable standards aimed at curbing climate pollution, including standards that have drawn significant private sector support, such as the Clean Power Plan, rules to curb methane emissions, appliance efficiency standards, and CAFE and heavy duty truck standards. We also can’t forget President Trump’s federal budget proposal, even as Congress is serving as an important bulwark against many of the most damaging of the Trump administration’s budget aspirations. President Trump and his budget director Mick Mulvaney have gone much farther than previous Republican administrations with plans to decimate funding for the EPA, critical research and financing dollars for clean energy, small but crucial programs within the State Department, and even basic climate science programs at NOAA and NASA. These budget proposals are fortunately so extreme that they have spurred bipartisan pushback supported not only by environmental groups but also by investors and companies who rely on key federal programs to help meet their own ambitious climate and clean energy goals. Perhaps the only moderate position that President Trump is considering on climate is whether to keep the U.S. in the Paris Climate Agreement backed by virtually every country in the world. Just yesterday, key members of President Trump’s staff and cabinet reportedly met for a second time to hash out internal disagreements over whether the U.S. should stay in the Paris Agreement that was reached in 2015 – something President Trump indicated he would seek to “cancel” during the campaign. These internal divisions at the White House are striking, especially since businesses of all shapes and sizes – including a number of oil, gas, and coal companies – have come out on both sides of the issue. Overall, however, the vast majority of business and investor voices that have weighed in have been unequivocally supportive of staying in the agreement. They’re also boosting efforts to power their facilities on renewable energy – in some cases, 100 percent of their operations – as shown by our recent Power Forward 3.0 report released last week. Regardless of the outcome of the Paris deliberations, what matters in terms of actual emissions reductions are the regulatory and spending policies discussed above, as well as the actions and investments of investors, companies, cities and states. So while remaining a party to the Paris Agreement is hugely important in many respects, it is critical for individuals, companies managing their operations and supply chains, and investors who see systemic risks to their portfolios from climate impacts, to continue the rapid transition to clean energy while making the business and economic case in support of strong low-carbon policies. Protecting and strengthening state-level clean energy policies, whether in California, Ohio, Virginia or North Carolina, is also especially important right now. We have seen numerous indications that this administration listens to investors, companies and capital market leaders.  If anyone can make the case for a low-carbon economy – if anyone has the duty and obligation to use their unique position of influence – it’s the private sector. Every 100 days brings more risk of slowing the pace of the clean energy transition – and the hundreds of thousands of new jobs that come with it  – already underway in the United States.  The time for all of us to act is now.

As the CEO of Louis Dreyfus Commodities, one of the world’s largest commodity traders, Gonzalo Ramirez has a unique vantage point to survey the world of food. It was notable, then, when Ramirez recently opined to the Financial Times, that the only way to meet growing demand for protein consumption in emerging markets, while also reducing agriculture’s large carbon and water footprints, is to rely on artificial, lab-grown meat and plant-based protein. Ramirez knows what he’s talking about. A roadmap for rapid decarbonization was recently published in Science, which lays out the carbon emission cuts needed by 2050 to keep global warming below 2 degrees Celsius. In response, the World Resources Institute (WRI) noted that global food consumption patterns would have to change dramatically from 2020 to 2030 for this decarbonization to occur. In particular, WRI suggests that Western consumers cut their meat and dairy consumption in half, and thereby halve their dietary carbon footprint. Beef is particularly resource-intensive, requiring more land and generating more emissions per unit of protein than any other food. Producing one kilogram of beef emits an estimated 26 kilograms of carbon dioxide, which is why beef accounted for approximately 34 percent of Americans’ diet-related greenhouse gas emissions in 2014. But if shifting to plant-based protein sources was simply a question of protecting the environment, Ramirez and his colleagues in the food world might be less interested. The fact is, consumer demand for protein is already shifting. The USDA reported that the planting of chickpeas in the U.S. is expected to climb 53 percent from the prior season, driven by a trend toward “more healthful and varied snacking.” The legumes are quickly gaining popularity as an ingredient in hummus and falafel or as a flavored snack. Investors are starting to take notice as well. Lab-grown meat, produced by companies like Memphis Meats, is still some way from maturity. But plant-based protein companies like Impossible Foods and Beyond Meat have attracted funding from savvy venture capitalists like Bill Gates, Khosla Ventures and Kleiner Perkins in their quest to produce meats and cheeses from plant ingredients. Animal protein companies don’t want to be left out of the trend either: Beyond Meat announced in 2016 that meat producer Tyson Foods had taken a five percent ownership stake. Some critics shrug at the plant-based protein trend, arguing that it’s only a niche, and one that will always be too expensive for mainstream consumers. This criticism doesn’t give due credit to the strategy in place. The founders of Impossible Foods and Beyond Meat both insist that they want their products to taste even better than traditional meat. They also argue that their products will ultimately be cheaper than meat because plant-based protein requires fewer resources. Securing a base of enthusiastic customers will allow the plant-based producers to scale up production, and lower costs. This last argument is more than conjecture. Impossible Burger is currently only served at 10 select restaurants across the country, where hordes of curious patrons wait in line. But a new facility, near Oakland Airport, will be able to produce at least 12 million pounds of Impossible Burger meat a year, 250 times more than today. By the end of the year, Impossible Foods expects to supply 1,000 restaurants at lower cost. If the outline of this strategy sounds familiar, look no further than electric vehicle manufacturer Tesla. Like the plant-based protein companies, Tesla started with a high-end product that owed its appeal to sleek styling and eye-catching performance rather than its environmental benefits. Now it can’t keep up with demand. Investors have endorsed the strategy, affording the company a $50 billion stock market valuation. With Tesla overtaking storied companies like GM and Ford to become the largest U.S. automaker by market capitalization, copying its playbook doesn’t seem like a terrible strategy for plant-based protein.

Summary JBS SA, the largest meat processing company in the world, is reeling from a series of missteps (tainted meat, illegal deforestation) in recent weeks that reflect overall poor corporate governance. Brazil stands to lose between 5 and 10 percent of its share in global meat exports, or US$1.5 billion, as a result of tainted meat scandal involving JBS. JBS's stock shed 42 percent over the past two years even as demand for beef and veal have grown 8% in one of its main export markets, China. Continued inattention to environmental and social (ESG) issues will negatively impact revenue, profitability and ROI and remain a drag on stock return in the long term. As stewards of their clients' and constituents' financial assets, investors have a responsibility to ensure that their portfolio companies improve ESG business practices. From tons of tainted frozen meat stranded on container ships offshore from Hong Kong, to illegal deforestation, and a corruption scandal causing 33 of 36 Brazilian meatpacking plants to temporarily close, the past weeks have wreaked havoc at JBS SA (OTCQX:JBSAY), the largest meat processing company in the world. Yet earlier this year, the two Batista brothers, sons of the founder of the Sao Paolo-headquartered company, were poised to enter the US capital markets with an IPO on the NYSE, a great step forward for this family, which started its business in 1953 with a few herd of cattle. So what went wrong? Is this a short-term misstep in an overall well-framed vision to become a dominant global meat player, a champion of the renaissance of Brazil's agriculture? Is JBS primed to access prosperous consumer markets in the US and Europe and the dynamic growth markets of Asia and the Middle East? Reality shows a different picture. Despite dominating the Brazilian market in Brazil, and steady growth of 8% in beef and veal demand in one of its leading export markets, China, over the past two years, JBS's stock shredded 42 percent over the same time period. Brazil, in fact, stands to lose between 5 and 10 percent of its share in global meat exports, or US $1.5 billion, according to a preliminary estimate from Agriculture Minister Blairo Maggi, as a result of the bribery scheme involving JBS and federal sanitary inspectors. Rather, the tainted meat fiasco and the continued illegal deforestation of the Amazon epitomize a management with little understanding of markets, or of shifting dynamics and the role of corporate stewardship to sustain competitive leadership. For a business to become a champion in its industry, it needs to drive on a vision of innovative, sustainable best business practices, reinforced by a backbone of strong corporate governance. To do this, a company must consciously manage both its stakeholders - its investors, its employees and the community in which it operates - and the natural capital that it relies on and is accountable for. In JBS's case, this includes forested land. Failing to implement such stewardship leads to missed market opportunities and ultimately a loss of competitive advantage. Yet JBS's overall inability to capitalize on a unique opportunity to establish sound environmental, social and governance (ESG) practices to lead to a sustainable competitive advantage is not an isolated case. IOI Corp. (OTC:IOIOF), for example, failed to align its business practices with its commitment to source sustainable palm oil through the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO), which lead to a loss of contracts with major consumer companies. Business as usual, ignoring ESG issues, is not an option anymore. This is especially true for the consumer facing companies - that is, the big food brands - that source from companies like JBS and IOI, as well as the banks that fund them. HSBC, after much negative press coverage, driven by environmental campaign groups, agreed early this year to strengthen its lending and investment policy to include 'No Deforestation, No Peat and No Exploitation' (NDPE) to all players along the supply chain of agricultural commodities, specifically in Palm Oil. Clearly, investors and capital markets can play a role in preserving and revitalizing high conservation value forested areas, and preventing harmful child labor, forced labor, and violation of rights of local communities in regions where an increasing share of the world's food supply is grown. As stewards of their clients' and constituents' financial assets, investors have a responsibility to ensure that their portfolio companies improve ESG business practices in order to enhance their expected financial return. The reason is simple: inattention to environmental and social impacts leads to loss of competitive advantage and market opportunities, as well as increased operational costs and costs of capital. These present material financial risks embedded in portfolio companies. In contrast, companies with best-in-class ESG business practices keep on compounding economic and financial returns. Meanwhile, the Batista brothers contemplate their future with less certainty. Their company's entry into the US capital markets is in jeopardy and they have an operational imbroglio to disentangle to regain the confidence of both their customers and their investors. The Chinese market growth prospects remain very attractive and the US and European markets will remain prizes for companies that implement smart and sound best in class sustainable business practices. If JBS does not address corporate governance, its illegal and environmentally destructive cattle supply chain practices, and the increasing demand from consumers looking for safe and deforestation-free beef, the company will continue to face a challenging competitive environment. This is especially true with Australian meatpackers taking advantage of the tainted meat crisis to gain market share in the Asian markets. The negative impact of JBS's missteps on revenues, profitability and return on investments will dampen valuation, and remain a drag on stock returns in the long term. It is up to JBS to show the way and implement the right sustainable business practices to command a large share in the plates of global consumers. Read the original blog on Seeking Alpha

Walking beneath the iconic columns of the New York Stock Exchange in Lower Manhattan, one only has to glance up Wall Street to spot the spire of Trinity Church. Despite being within one block of each other, these two spheres of influence can seem miles apart. Yet on this year’s World Water Day, these divergent institutions were aligned on the importance of tackling one of our society’s greatest challenges – the water crisis. A renewed sense of urgency for better understanding water risks and doubling down on solutions flowed amongst both the NYSE crowd and the pews of Trinity Church. If water consumption continues without reform or regulation, the stark reality is that by 2030, forty percent of global demand for water will not be met. Closing the gap requires the awareness and innovation of investors, companies and communities. ​ Speaking on different panels at these institutions, what struck me was just how interconnected the opportunities are for solving water challenges.  What investors and companies choose to implement ripples throughout society – from business bottom lines and investment portfolios, to communities affected first-hand on the ground. NYSE forum panelist Emilio Tenuta, Vice President of Corporate Sustainability at Ecolab said “We know that water is an increasingly real risk to communities and a material risk to businesses. Therefore, businesses need to play a critical role in transforming the way we work to help solve this global challenge.” Momentum is indeed building among companies and investors for applying innovative solutions to curb this thirst.  At the NYSE forum, Ecolab, along with partners Trucost and Microsoft, launched the Water Risk Monetizer. This newly refreshed corporate tool provides site-specific data intelligence on water availability and quality designed to help companies conserve water and predict water expenses. The Water Risk Monetizer is just one of the many tools – including WRI’s Aqueduct, Ceres’ Aqua Gauge and WWF’s Water Risk Filter – that both businesses and shareholders can use to map their water related risks, set appropriate goals and put water stewardship actions into place. And investors are increasingly taking notice at which companies are addressing freshwater risks and making smart water management a business imperative. As Reid Steadman, Managing Director of Equity Indices at S&P Dow Jones who also spoke at the NYSE forum put it, “Every company needs to have a water strategy. We would find it odd if major companies aren’t engaged in these types of activities. I would expect in five years’ time you will see billions of dollars tracked to strategies that somehow take water into account.” The thirst for solutions, evident at Ecolab’s World Water Day panel, is echoing across mainstream investors. ACTIAM just announced a goal to achieve a water-neutral investment portfolio by 2030, and here at Ceres, membership in our Investor Network water-focused working group is climbing. Nearly ninety global funds have joined this working group to combat this modern crisis – with members ranging from the largest pension funds, to large asset managers, to foundations and savoy faith-based institutions. ​ It’s heartening that investors and companies are stepping up to address water risks because the impact of water, whether through pollution or scarcity, can be felt tenfold on the ground, according to the speakers at Trinity Institute’s Water Justice conference. Powerful stories were heard from community members in Flint, Michigan and Standing Rock, North Dakota – two cities right here in The States who are grappling with water pollution and contamination issues. And Winston Halapua, Archbishop and Primate of the Diocese of Polynesia and Aotearoa New Zealand, took us across the globe to Fiji, where the effects of climate change have left locals facing sea level rise flooding vital farmlands, impacting local livelihoods and erasing their sense of “home.” Maude Barlow, a former United Nations senior advisor on water, reaffirmed the urgency for a shared search for solutions, “What we do right now matters. We need a new water ethic that puts water protection and justice at the heart of policy and practice. Every policy we create must ask, ‘What is the impact on water?’” Each story underlined the human right to water and the urgent need for action through the convergence of locals and higher institutions. The tools and opportunities presented at Ecolab could prove to have direct, positive effects on the communities currently facing strife and prevent further disruption. So what’s next? One offer is Ceres Investor Network members can begin to navigate the tides by joining the Investor Water Hub working group - where investors meet monthly to share best practices and other innovations for elevating water issues in their decision-making. Collectively, the working group will be launching an Investor Water Toolkit this fall, an online portal filled with resources, best practices and ideas to help investors make sound water analysis part of their portfolios. What we choose to do – or not do – trickles down and has an impact everywhere. But last week in Lower Manhattan, the NYSE’s Closing Bell and the tolling of Trinity Church’s bells resounded in harmony, like flowing waters.

What a difference a year makes, I’m thinking as I head to Sacramento for meetings with legislators and company members of Ceres Connect the Drops, a campaign my organization spearheaded to drive smart water use in California. Last year, more than 90 percent of the state was experiencing some level of drought – today, just 8 percent is. This winter, our state was inundated by rain and snow, with precipitation beating records going back to before 1895, when they started keeping track. And the Oroville Dam has been the big story of late, replacing last year’s headlines about fallow fields. It would be nice to think that our water worries are over. Unfortunately, it’s not that simple. This cycle of extremes is our new normal. The whiplash from drought to inundation is one more result of climate change, and we need our legislators to remain committed to solving the state’s water issues for the long term. The business leaders joining me in Sacramento understand that tackling water issues is a long-term play. No company or industry can thrive without a stable, reliable supply of good quality water. Legislators have to help prepare California so the state is resilient under both extremes – water scarcity and excess. And in fact, there are some very promising concepts aimed at keeping us on the right track, and bill proposals to turn those concepts into reality. Front and center is the work around conserving and maximizing our local water supplies. Increasing water efficiency is one of the best ways to address California’s water challenges, and it saves companies money. For instance, conserving water and recycling water are typically much more cost-effective than importing water or developing desalinization facilities. ​ California lawmakers gather for Gov. Jerry Brown’s annual State of the State address on January 24, 2017, in Sacramento, California. New bills proposed by state legislators tackle the state’s issues with water sustainability.(Rich Pedroncelli, AP) Two bills under consideration right now – one in the California State Assembly, the other in the California Senate – could make real strides in conserving local water. The first is AB 1667– introduced by assembly member Laura Friedman – which would require the installation of dedicated landscape meters on existing commercial, industrial and institutional properties over a specified size threshold by January 1, 2020. The logic behind this bill is straightforward: You can’t manage what you don’t measure. Dedicated landscape meters would help companies better manage water use by helping to find irrigation system leaks and inform landscaping decisions, for example. Its two companion bills, AB 1668 and AB 1669, will work in tandem to make conservation a way of life in California. The second bill is SB 740 – introduced by state Sen. Scott Wiener – which takes a different tack. It directs the State Water Resources Control Board to offer local governments a framework for regulating the treatment of alternate water sources, such as gray water and stormwater, to be consistent with public health standards. Many companies are trying to do the right thing and implement these systems at their facilities but are facing regulatory barriers. These systems can be managed in a safe way, and we need our state to pave that path. Investing in smart water infrastructure is another key building block to a robust water future. California needs an infrastructure system that is effective in times of drought and in times of excess. Too much precipitation has washed into the sea because the state does not have the right infrastructure to capture the deluges we’ve experienced this winter. Several legislative proposals, including the California Drought, Water, Parks, Climate, Coastal Protection and Outdoor Access for All Act of 2018 (SB 5 and AB 18), outline funding for drought preparedness, flood protection, clean drinking water and climate adaption, among other projects. But legislators have to ensure that bond dollars are spent on projects that truly improve California’s water security and consider sufficient funding in the long term. We all know budget resources are tight and that the state regularly underfunds water infrastructure projects. To make the most of limited dollars, we must be laser-focused on investing public money on cost-effective local water projects, such as stormwater capture and recharge and water recycling. On-farm recharge of floodwater, for example, can be very cost-effective, with costs running between $63 and $168 per acre-foot of water compared to surface storage projects that can cost $1,900 or more per acre-foot. Finally, we must recognize that our groundwater basins are still severely overdrafted despite the recent rains. We have to take a step back and plan out thoughtful, long-term sustainable groundwater management. Our legislators must ensure that the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act of 2014 is implemented and that appropriate fiscal and administrative support is provided to enable local agencies in high-risk, fast-depleting groundwater basins to develop their sustainability plans. But legislators also need to take immediate steps to protect water sources that are vulnerable right now. Some 21 groundwater basins throughout California are deemed “critically overdrafted,” even with all the torrential rains and snow. That’s causing wells to dry up, land to subside and saltwater to intrude from the sea. Because the groundwater law won’t be fully implemented for several years, groundwater from these overdrafted basins is in jeopardy. That’s where SB 252, introduced by state Sen. Bill Dodd, comes in. The bill calls for greater transparency in providing existing pumpers and landowners in critically overdrafted basins with important information about the use of shared groundwater resources, specifically regarding applications for new well permits. Connect the Drops’ partners are doing their part on water stewardship, but no single sector in society can help prepare us for the impact of climate change. We all are in this together. Today, we’ll be calling upon our state leaders to help get the state on a sustainable path – in times of excess and in times of drought. Join more than 500 investors, companies and sustainability leaders to talk about business solutions to key sustainability issues including water scarcity, climate change and clean energy at the Ceres Conference 2017 in San Francisco on April 26 and 27. Learn more and register at www.ceresconference.org. Read the post at Water Deeply

More than half a billion people today lack access to clean water, and with climate change, water pollution and booming population growth, pressures on limited water supplies are ratcheting up. ​ Tackling the water crisis can feel like an uphill battle in the United States, with one environmental roll back after another proposed by the Trump administration. But all is not doom and gloom. Companies and investors are moving forward, taking steps to value water for its true worth and working with suppliers, farmers and local communities to preserve water supplies. Innovation is also happening at the municipal level. On World Water Day 2017, here are six positive trends that give me hope: 1) Global Companies are Embracing Sustainable Development Goals Launched by the United Nations in 2015, the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) include a target to ensure everyone has access to safe water by 2030. Big companies that use a lot of water around the world, such as BASF, Coca-Cola, Diageo, Novozymes and Unilever are integrating these water goals into their sustainability plans. Diageo, the company that brings you Guinness, for example, released an ambitious plan that includes a 50 percent improvement in water use efficiency and 100 percent recycling of wastewater. It’s also developing community projects in water stressed areas where its production sites are located and has thus far provided 600,000 more people with access to safe drinking water. These companies are recognizing that to ensure long-term water supplies for their business, they must give water back to the communities where they operate. 2) The World’s Biggest Water User is Making Strides That’s agriculture, of course. From farm to factory, producing food is the most water intensive business on earth. More than 70 percent of the world’s freshwater is in fact used to irrigate crops and raise livestock. Through their massive purchasing power, the companies that buy, process and sell the food we eat have the power to raise the bar for sustainable water use in farming. And more of the largest food companies – from PepsiCo to Campbell’s Soup to Driscoll’s are starting to do just that, by evaluating their growing regions most at risk for water scarcity, and developing plans and targets for working with farmers to conserve water resources. ​ Last fall, in fact, a number of food companies – including Hain Celestial, Hormel Foods, PepsiCo and WhiteWave Foods – worked with Ceres and the World Wildlife Fund to set new commitments to address water risks as part of the AgWater Challenge. Among the commitments, PepsiCo is working with its agricultural suppliers to improve the water efficiency of its direct agricultural supply chain by 15 percent by 2025 (compared to 2015) in high water risk sourcing areas, including India and Mexico. And Hormel Foods is developing a the first comprehensive water stewardship policy for a meat company, setting water management expectations that go beyond regulatory compliance for its major suppliers, contract animal growers and feed suppliers. 3) Companies in the West are ‘Walking their Talk’ on Water Conservation Increasingly, companies operating in water-stressed regions are proactively taking action to conserve and protect water sources. Kellogg’s, Gap, and Genentech are among a growing cadre of companies engaging with California policymakers on the urgency for stronger water management policies in this drought-prone state. Even in the era of Trump, companies are seeing it in their collective interest to help get water policy right. Many of these same companies are also using innovation to reduce their water consumption, such as by adopting large-scale water reuse practices. Or some, like General Mills and Sierra Nevada, are collaborating with stakeholders at the local, watershed level on the development of groundwater management plans, helping to implement California’s new groundwater law. These companies understand that staying in business over the long-term will require a fundamental shift in how they use water. 4) Cities are Driving Innovation The tragedy in Flint, Michigan and widespread concerns about lead contamination in drinking water are grabbing news headlines, and rightfully so. Aging infrastructure leaves many around the U. S. vulnerable to tap water with high lead levels. It is an urgent problem that needs to be addressed by government leaders. Yet at the same time, many cities are deploying innovative solutions to protect and preserve water resources. The San Francisco Public Utilities Commission, one of the first public agencies to remove lead pipes from its water infrastructure decades ago, remains on the cutting edge, implementing numerous water reuse and reclamation projects as well as innovative wastewater and storm water management projects. In Philadelphia and Syracuse, New York, local water officials are implementing storm water management programs that use green infrastructure to help capture runoff and protect their water supply. Big Spring and Wichita Falls in Texas have developed potable reuse -- “toilet to tap” -- facilities that clean wastewater to drinking water quality. In Washington, D.C., local officials are producing renewable power from its wastewater by "pressure cooking" the solids left over at the end of the wastewater treatment process. 5) Wall Street is Becoming Water Aware Devastating droughts in California, Brazil, South Africa and elsewhere, coupled with global trends of groundwater depletion and water quality degradation are motivating investors to become more water aware. Many are increasingly recognizing that the global water crisis is not only a social, but an economic, concern, and they’re moving their money to help tackle the crisis. ​ In little more than one year, for example, Ceres’ network of institutional investors focused on water has grown eight-fold, from a group of 10 investors managing $1 trillion in assets, to 80 investors with some $19 trillion in assets. Today’s announcement by Ceres partner ACTIAM, a European asset manager with approximately $56 billion in assets, is an example of what investors are doing to lift all boats on water issues. ACTIAM has pledged to achieve a water neutral portfolio by 2030, meaning that it expects the companies in its investment portfolio to develop plans to consume no more water than nature can replenish and cause no more pollution than is acceptable for the health of humans and ecosystems. 6) Science-Based Water Reduction Targets are Picking Up Steam If you’re curious whether companies’ water neutrality goals can actually result in meaningful water conservation, a consortium of NGOs, including the World Resources Institute (WRI), CDP and WWF have been working with companies on that score. They’re taking companies’ water neutrality, or balance goals, and helping them set science-based water reduction targets that reduce business risks while serving communities’ water needs. It’s the next wave of science-based targets for companies, following the campaign for science-based GHG emissions targets. The World Resources Institute, for example, has been working with Mars Inc. to develop an approach for setting water targets informed by science, and measuring impacts and tracking performance over time. These targets take into account the latest science on the global carbon budget, water stress and other ecological limits.   Read the post at National Geographic

With dozens of Fortune 500 companies looking to run their facilities on renewable energy, Virginia has a golden opportunity to ensure that these investments — and the jobs that come with them — are being made in the Old Dominion State. In late February, a Nestlé USA executive met with Governor McAuliffe’s ‘Executive Order 57 Workgroup’ to call for greater access to renewable energy and energy efficiency for large energy users. Nestlé has long-running manufacturing facilities in Danville and King William and recently announced it is relocating its headquarters from California to Arlington, Virginia. The ‘EO 57 Workgroup’ is exploring ways the Commonwealth can reduce carbon pollution and utilize clean energy in the electricity sector. Unfortunately, businesses are currently unable to access cost-competitive clean energy in Virginia. In November 2016, eighteen major businesses—including Nestlé, Microsoft, Walmart, Equinix, and IKEA—asked state lawmakers for more cost-effective options for sourcing renewable energy. Companies wishing to procure clean energy through third-party financing, cost-competitive renewable energy tariffs, direct arrangements, or community solar have a difficult time doing so because of wide-ranging barriers. The General Assembly, State Corporation Commission and Governor’s office all have key roles to play in removing these barriers so that forward-looking companies like Nestlé can procure as much renewable energy they’d like. Nestlé has set ambitious clean energy goals because of the cost savings and stability these low-carbon energy resources provide; fossil fuels, by contrast, are prone to volatile price swings. Nestlé has committed to sourcing 100 percent of its global electricity use from renewable energy. For a company with operations in 85 countries grossing over $92 billion in sales, this will be no easy feat. However, the company is already achieving 100 percent renewable energy use in the U.K. and Ireland, while Nestlé Mexico is meeting 80 percent of its electricity need with wind power. We would expect that the company plans to move in the same direction with its U.S. operations, which includes 87 factories spanning 47 U.S. states. Utilities like Dominion Resources should be taking notice, too. Virginia is a key data center hub in the U.S., and many of the companies building those data centers—LinkedIn, Akamai, and Salesforce among them—want to use green energy to power them. Virginia also has a major opportunity to reap cost-savings benefits from greater investments in energy efficiency. According to Ceres’ Benchmarking Utility Clean Energy Deployment: 2016 report, Virginia’s largest electric utility, Dominion Resources, ranks dead last among 30 of the largest U.S. electric utilities in annual incremental energy efficiency investments. Energy efficiency is low-hanging fruit, and utilities in other states are investing in solutions that provide major cost savings to consumers and businesses. Governor McAuliffe has demonstrated strong leadership by setting an eight percent renewable energy target for state agencies and by issuing Executive Order 57, which directs a workgroup to issue carbon reduction recommendations to the Governor by May 31st. The key question is what will come out of the E0 57 workgroup. Environmental advocates have proposed to cap and reduce carbon emissions by a rate of 2 percent annually. This proposal appears to be well within the bounds of existing executive authority and would provide policy certainty for businesses and investors who are looking to increase clean energy. It is encouraging that the General Assembly appears to be open to broadening access to renewable energy—the formation of the ‘Rubin Workgroup’ being one such positive sign. The Assembly recently passed a bill (SB 1393) that would launch a utility-administered community solar-like program for smaller-scale electricity customers. While this program wouldn’t be viable for large corporate energy purchasers, it shows that lawmakers are willing to come to the table to try to identify solutions. Virginia is moving in the right direction, but the Commonwealth can still make far greater progress to spur clean energy. Doing so will benefit both the Commonwealth’s business community and its economy.