The New Carbon Cycle

Forbes Article Concludes 93% of Public Companies Facing Climate Risk, Only 12% Disclosing Risk

A new Forbes article concludes that 93 percent of public companies face risk from climate change, but only 12 percent are actually disclosing that risk to the public and their shareholders.  The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) issued guidance on climate risk disclosure several years ago. Thus, there is at least a basis for arguing that all affected companies are on notice of the need to disclose climate risk in their public filings such as 10-Ks.  Having advised clients on climate risk disclosure in SEC documents, this is an important aspect of financial disclosure that should review and determine the nature of disclosure that may be advisable.  As the Paris Agreement has been negotiated, with many countries including China developing greenhouse gas regulations and cap and trade programs, the writing is on the wall that international, national, and in some instances sub-national state and provincial limits on greenhouse gas emissions are a reality that appears to only be growing.  Reviewing the supply chain and potential impact of climate change on the business may be an issue that investors may find material, or a court may judge as material. 

Companies should also consider developing approaches that reduce their carbon footprint, such as considering new energy efficiency investment, the installation of renewable generation on-site and purchase of renewable electricity from the grid.  Supply chain review and de-carbonizing it  are steps that should be considered as well.  in other words, having a good story to tell in any disclosure may provide an edge on competitors.  Key is finding carbon reducing steps that save money for the company.  Energy efficiency is the low hanging fruit typically, but renewable energy in some locations can provide cost savings as well. 

McKinsey Article Concludes Good News for Emissions: US and EU Emissions Down, Economies UP

McKinsey and Company director Scott Nyquist authored on article entitled Great News on Emissions. Really.  He concludes that the US and EU have cut emissions while growing their economies. 

His article provides an upbeat view.

So it’s very important that in both 2014 and 2015 the global economy grew—and energy-related emissions didn’t.  In the 40 years that the International Energy Agency has been tracking emissions, this is the first two times that year-on-year energy-related emissions have been flat or less, without an economic downturn.  And in 2013, emissions grew less than the global economy.  For perspective, energy accounts for more than two-thirds (68 percent) of global GHG emissions, and energy use increased more than 150 percent from 1971 to 2013.

So all that sounds pretty wonky.  Why does it matter?  Because it means that it is not only possible, but a reality that the link between emissions and growth can, in fact, be cut.  Indeed, in a number of developed countries, that is already happening.  In 2014, for example, the EU grew modestly—and cut emissions by more than 5 percent.  The United States saw power-related carbon emissions decline 10 percent from 2005 to 2014, due to greater efficiency—in effect, like Europe, it is creating more wealth using less energy—and  the displacement of coal with cleaner natural gas.

China and India have room to approve as most of us know.

But here, too, there are encouraging trends.  The rate of growth of emissions in China is slowing, as its economy becomes less energy intensive—services now account for more than half of GDP, the highest ever.  China has also begun to get serious about growing less filthily. In part because of pressure from a public literally sick of living in smog-choked cities, the country is investing in more efficient and cleaner energy use.  In 2014, Chinese emissions increased less than 1 percent compared to the previous year, even as it grew 7.3 percent.  In the previous decade, China’s emissions had grown an average of 6.7 percent a year.  So that’s a big change.  The big reason: China is depending less on coal, which accounts for more than 80 percent of its energy-related emissions.

 

The author concludes, and I agree, that technological innovation is the key to solving greenhouse gas emissions issues. While the emissions issues are far from solved, great steps have been made.  The investment in new technology, renewables, innovations in business models and financing approaches present one of the great business opportunities the world has ever seen.  Trillions of dollars will be invested over the next 10 years and beyond to address these issues as more energy is demanded, but more efficient use and alternative ways of generation energy and controlling emissions from traditional sources opens up an economic boom.

Related articles

California, the clean energy leader

How Disruptive Technology Can Provide Money-Making Emissions Reductions

I recently published an article entitled How Disruptive Technology Can Provide Money-Making Emissions Reductions.  This article explores the disruptive technologies that are changing the way companies purchase power, or reduce their power consumption or both.  With renewable energy, LED lighting, Cloud-based, Internet of Things energy management, and now batteries, the technologies are getting cheaper and the money that can be saved is signifiant. 

These new technologies also reduce emissions as they reduce the amount of fossil fuel that needs to be burned to produce electricity.   With new business and financing models, the customer may not have to put up any capital, but through a shared savings model, start making money the first or second month.

Thus, emissions go down, and the customer makes money from lower electricity prices or reduced electricity use.  The company providing the power, LED lights, and energy management make money. 

It is a win all the way around.  The new technologies and financial models are bringing clean, cheap energy to corporate America.

Client Receives Greenhouse Gas Permit for $1.2 Billion Natural Gas Power Plant in West Texas

EPA Region 6 just issued the following press release for a permit granted to our client governing green house gas emissions.

 

Permit allows construction of $1.2 billion natural-gas fired plant; will add hundreds of construction jobs and over 30 permanent jobs                                     

DALLAS – (April 29, 2014) This week, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued a final greenhouse gas (GHG) Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) construction permit to FGE Power for the FGE Texas project near Westbrook, Texas. The permit allows the company to build a new natural-gas fired combined-cycle electric generation plant.   

“This facility will bring clean-burning electricity to the people of Texas,” said EPA Regional Administrator Ron Curry. “The FGE plant is an example of how electricity providers can meet customer demand while reducing harmful greenhouse gas emissions.”

“We look forward to putting people to work and helping to power Texas’ economic future,” said FGE Power’s CEO, Emerson G. Farrell. “EPA’s thorough review and thoughtful findings demonstrate that new technology, combined with a fresh approach to developing clean energy and sustainable infrastructure, can make a positive difference on our economy and the environment.”

The facility, in West Texas between Midland and Abilene, will generate 1,620 megawatts of gross electric power. The facility will operate almost entirely on clean-burning natural gas, with some emergency equipment using diesel fuel.

In June 2010, EPA finalized national GHG regulations, which specify that beginning on January 2, 2011, projects that increase GHG emissions substantially will require an air permit.

EPA believes states are best equipped to run GHG air permitting programs. Texas is working to replace a federal implementation plan with its own state program, which will eliminate the need for businesses to seek air permits from EPA. This action will increase efficiency and allow for industry to continue to grow in Texas.

This permit is the 36^th GHG permit EPA has issued in Texas. The agency has proposed an additional five permits and has 19 more in development.

RGGI Proposes Major Cut in Carbon and a Major Increase in the Price of Allowances

The Regional Greenhouse Gas Inititiave (RGGI) has proposed a new model rule for the nine northestern states that participate in the program to substantially reduce the greenhouse gas emissions in these states.  The proposed rule includes the following:

• A reduction of the 2014 regional CO2 budget, “RGGI cap”, from 165 million to 91 million tons – a reduction of 45 percent. The cap would decline 2.5 percent each year from 2015 to 2020.
• Additional adjustments to the RGGI cap from 2014-2020. This will account for the private bank of allowances held by market participants before the new cap is implemented in 2014. From 2014-2020 compliance with the applicable cap will be achieved by use of “new” auctioned allowances and “old” allowances from the private bank.
• Cost containment reserve (CCR) of allowances that creates a fixed additional supply of allowances that are only available for sale if CO2 allowance prices exceed certain price levels ($4 in 2014, $6 in 2015, $8 in 2016, and $10 in 2017, rising by 2.5 percent, to account for inflation, each year thereafter.)
• Updates to the RGGI offsets program, including a new forestry protocol.
• Not reoffering unsold 2012 and 2013 CO2 allowances.
• Requiring regulated entities to acquire and hold allowances equal to at least 50 percent of their emissions in each of the first 2 years of the 3 year compliance period, in addition to demonstrating full compliance at the end of each 3 year compliance period.
• Commitment to identifying and evaluating potential tracking tools for emissions associated with electricity imported into the RGGI region, leading to a workable, practicable, and legal mechanism to address such emissions.

This new approach if adopted by the RGGI states would increase the price of allowances dramatically.  The prices for RGGI allowances has been around $1 to $2 per short ton of CO2.

 

Senate Environment and Public Works Committe Releases Climate Bill

The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee released its version of a climate change bill despite the fact that Republican senators on the committee were boycotting the mark up hearings.  The Senate apparently has an informal rule that two senators of the opposing party need to be present to make a quorum.  Senator Barbara Boxer decided to move forward based on the apparent actual rules that allows the committee to vote out a bill if there is a quorum of any party members.  The Democrats on the Committee voted unanimously to move the bill out of the Committee.

The bill will know be considered by other committees in the Senate.  If a bill is presented to the full Senate, it will probably be in 2010.

New Book on "The Impact of Global Warming on Texas"

A new, or perhaps second edition, of a book is being published by the University of Texas Press entitled "The Impact of Global Warming on Texas."  I have not read the book, but will be reading it over the next few weeks.  An electronic version can be found at the website of the Texas Climate Initiative.   The book contains chapters written by various scientists, including several from Texas A&M University. 

US Energy Information Administration Estimates Climate Bill Impact on Consumers

The US Energy Information Administration issued a report on August 4, 2009 evaluating the economic impact on the individual US citizen of the passage of the Waxman-Markey climate change bill.  This bill is known as the American Clean Energy and Security Act, H.R. 2454.  Under the climate legislation passed by the House of Representatives in June, electricity, heating oil and other bills for average families will increase $114 in 2020 and increase $288 in 2030.  The impacts, if accurate, certainly would not create a significant burden on the average citizen.  Of course the devil is always in the details in all of these economic predictions.  The report can be reviewed on the EIA website.

Should Trees Be Industry's Best Friends in a New Climate Change Regime?

The suggestion that trees should be industry's best friends under a new climate change or cap and trade program being considered by Congress, seems absurd at first.  Forests do not initially appear to most people to be a source of the problem when it comes to anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions.  We generally think of planting trees as a local, individualized step to attempt to remove emissions from the atmosphere.  Often we think of tree planting as a symbolic rather than a substantive or significant action to reduce climate change.  Forests, however, are in fact a significant storing house for carbon and when burned, release a large amount of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. 

Forests provide the low-cost approach for the first tranche in anthropogenic greenhouse gas reductions as we seek the "low hanging fruit" of these reductions.  Forest preservation and regrowth provide the potential for the larger-volume and lower-cost source of greenhouse gas reductions and offsets for greenhouse gas emissions.  As carbon capture and storage by which CO2 from coal-fired power plants and other sources is injected underground for long-term storage takes several years to bring on line, Reduced Emission from Deforestation and Degradation (REDD) can serve to make a significant step toward emissions to be achieved by 2020 being discussed in Congress for a US climate change and cap and trade program, and in terms of international negotiations for a tray to follow the Kyoto Protocol.

The size of the emissions from forest destruction usually is startling.  It is in gross and relative terms rather astounding.  The destruction of forests actually accounts for somewhere between 17 and 22 percent of human greenhouse gas emissions.    Thus, controlling the greenhouse gas emissions from deforestation is critical to any global plan to reduce climate change, particularly in the first few years as costlier reductions can be developed over the next decade, and perhaps ways to reduce those costs.

A second aspect of deforestation relates to the areas that have already been lost or significantly degraded.  For example, farmland that was previously what we call “primary forest” or forest that existed in its natural state prior to being deforested or degraded.   In these areas, opportunities exist for reforesting the land through tree planting.  Two types of reforestation are possible.  First, the forest can be replanted with native species that would have been present prior to the destruction of the forests.  The second involves the planting of non-native species or otherwise planting for the purpose of harvesting some or all of the trees.  The second approach has the goal of using trees to absorb or sequester CO2 , and then using the harvested wood in ways that maintain the carbon in building or other products for a long time.

In understanding the challenges of private development of forest carbon projects, it is important to comprehend the issues of these projects.  First let us consider avoided deforestation projects.  One of the first issues is simply measuring the amount of carbon in the forests that would be released if destroyed.  There are certain protocols that can be used now developed by the Voluntary Carbon Standard (VCS), which has become the main standard setting organization for forest-related offset projects. 

Another issue is the question of permanence.  For growing forests a significant risk is permanence, that is, to what extent will the forest will be preserved over a very long period, as opposed to short term preservation with destruction to follow.  If the forest is logged or it burns or dies from disease, then the carbon sequestered in the trees, plant life, and soil, will be largely emitted to the atmosphere and future sequestration of carbon dioxide will not occur.  The carbon credits that are generated would be without substance if after five years the forest is destroyed.  Forestry projects are largely long-term projects, lasting 20 to 100 years in most cases.  Parties must show the registration entity and the verifiers that review the Project Design Document that the forest will not be cut down, burned, or harvested within the relevant project period.  One approach used by the VCS to address permanence concerns is to hold back a percentage of the verified credits and to release them back over time, say the 30-year life of the project, to the project developer.

One of the other major concern for forest projects is leakage.  For forest projects, leakage involves the question of whether the reduction in deforestation or degradation in one are simply moves that activity to a nearby property or a significant distance away.  As an illustration, burning forests for soy bean farming, which is such a significant problem in Brazil, moves from one part of a state in a country where actions have been taken to stop such burning to another area in that state or to an altogether different state.  Measuring and addressing these issues is required by the VCS.

Though the real game right now for REDD and reforestation projects lies with the VCS and voluntary carbon credits, it appears fairly clear that forest carbon projects will play a role and be large part of future US federal legislation and already has been accepted as an offset mechanisms in the California climate change regulatory system and will likely be part of the three multi-state climate change regulatory programs that are evolving and will go into effect even if Congress does not act to pass climate change legislation.  The discussions at the international level appear to be moving toward accepting forest-based offset credits.

The greenhouse gas emissions from forest destruction are so massive, that we cannot avoid taking on the need to reduce this destruction dramatically.  More and more major greenhouse gas emitters in the United States are beginning to review this opportunity and to look at investing in project-based REDD opportunities.  The thinking is that investment in a project or entering into emission reduction purchase agreements that allow a company to have a right to purchase REDD credits once approved and verified, provides a good hedging mechanism for future offset prices.  More and more of our clients are looking at both domestic and international forest carbon projects either as project developers or as investors to ensure that they take advantage of the opportunities that forest carbon projects provide.  Ironically, utilities and oil and gas companies may find that trees are truly their best friends when it comes to addressing the first few years of a cap and trade system in the United States.

EPA Issues Finding That Lays Foundation for Regulating Greenhouse Gas Emissions under the Federal Clean Air Act

In a long expected finding, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued a regulatory decision that lays the foundation for EPA to regulate greenhouse gas emissions under the federal Clean Air Act (CAA).  The decision announced on Friday, April 17, 2009 is entitled Proposed Endangerment Finding and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases  and was published in the Federal Register.  This is a major step by the Obama Administration to attempt to force Congress to pass a climate change bill regulating greenhouse gases.  Time magazine may have said it best in an article entitle EPA's CO2 Finding: Putting a Gun to Congress's Head.  Whilee it was known that EPA was working on and would announce the finding, the actual announcement has gained enormous coverage in the media and serves as the Administration's opening salvo in its ultimate work to try to convince enough senators to vote for a bill to get beyond the 60 votes need to bypass a filibuster.

The EPA regulatory decision follows a U.S. Supreme Court decision two years ago that concluded the EPA under the Bush Administration had failed to articulate why greenhouse gases should not be regulated as emissions from automobiles.  In so doing, the Court indicated that greenhouse gases were pollutants under the Clean Air Act.  Now that EPA is going to issue a final regulatory decision after 60 days of public comment and several public hearings, it is clear that EPA can, and will, take action absent Congressional action.

Regulation under the Clean Air Act is messy and may not include a cap and trade program, but simple command and control in the form of emission reductions without the ability to trade for other facility allowances or domestic or international offsets.  This would not be good for industry.

Certain industry groups have already begun to work to promote their version of a cap and trade program.  The group USCAP, which stands for United States Climate Action Partnership, has issued a document entitled A Blueprint for Legislative Action, providing a general outline of a climate change program based on cap and trade.

The one question that will likely play out is how the world will look if Congress does not pass a bill or passes late next year or even later.  Permits for coal=fired power plants and other greenhouse gas-emitting facilities are already being challenged, and environmental groups and other plaintiffs are challenging the permits in court as not meeting CAA requirements to address all pollutants including greenhouse gases.  If EPA issues a final decision that greenhouse gases are an air pollutant, do these cases then have a much greater change of success?  Will EPA and the states be required to address greenhouse gas emissions in federal Title V permits?  These are the types of questions that will come to the fore relatively quickly.

What about cement kilns, lime plants, refineries, natural gas processing plants, manufacturing plants, will they be challenged as well?  Coal-fired power plants may not be the only plants whose permits are challenged.

One need not look beyond the administrative case of In re Deseret Power Cooperative.  This was a case in which the permit for a power plant in Utah that was challenged because the plant permit did not address CO2 emissions under the Prevention of Significant Deterioration program under the CAA. the challengers argued the plant should implement the Best Available Control Technology or "BACT" to achieve greenhouse gas, largely CO2 emissions. 

The EPA Appeals Board remanded the issue back to the EPA, then under the Bush Administration, not to require such technology or reductions as the Appeals Board concluded that the decision was not supported by the administrative record.  The Appeals Board called on EPA to address the issue of CO2 and other greenhouse gases being pollutants governed by the CAA.

Other cases have been brought against various sources and several petitions have been filed with the EPA to regulate mobile sources and stationary sources.

With the finding by EPA, all such permits, petitions, and proceedings could be affected.  Could this be a snowball effect with EPA and states finding themselves forced to regulate greenhouse gas emissions before Congress makes any final decisions whether to regulate greenhouse gas emissions?  The next year promises to be a challenging time for industry as they face a great deal of uncertainty as to how greenhouse gases will be regulated and how individual facilities and companies will be affected.  It appears more likely that some form of greenhouse gas regulation will be required.  For those companies that may be affected, it is time to develop a corporate strategy to address the risks and any opportunities that greenhouse gas regulation may bring.