Business

Business Environmental Leadership Council members on the decision to leave the Paris Agreement

Business Environmental Leadership Council members on the decision to leave the Paris Agreement

 

BHP Billiton

"We note, with disappointment, the decision to withdraw the U.S. from the Paris Climate Accord."

–Company statement on Business Insider, June 2, 2017

 

BP

“BP has long supported the Paris agreement, and we hope the Trump administration follows through with its intention to find a way for the U.S. to re-enter the accord -- or another mechanism for addressing the global climate challenge -- rather than to walk away from it entirely. BP continues to believe that it’s possible to provide the world the energy it needs and achieve economic growth while also helping to transition the world to lower-carbon forms of energy”

–BP Website, June 1, 2017

 

Dow Chemical Company

“While we are disappointed in the decision to withdraw the United States from its commitments in the Paris Climate Agreement, we understand there are always many potential solutions to challenges and are eager to work toward alternative solutions. We will continue to collaborate with President Trump as well as other businesses, NGOs and academics to continue to advocate for smart policies that enable the reduction of global greenhouse gas emissions and ensure that global markets stay open to American exports and innovation.”

–Dow Website, June 1, 2017

 

Duke Energy

“We will continue to work constructively with the administration, Congress and our stakeholders to try and advance energy policies that are in the best interest of our customers and our investors and that balance affordability and reliability with the protection of the environment that everybody seeks”

Spokeswoman Dawn Santoianni in the Triangle Business Journal, June 2, 2017

 

General Electric

“Disappointed with today’s decision on the Paris Agreement. Climate change is real. Industry must now lead and not depend on government,"

–Chairman and CEO Jeff Immelt on Twitter, June 1, 2017

 

General Motors

“GM will not waver from our commitment to the environment and our position on climate change has not changed. International agreements aside, we remain committed to creating a better environment.”

–Company statement on CNBC, June 1, 2017

 

HP

Climate change is one of the most significant and urgent issues facing business and society today. The science is clear, the impacts are serious and the need to act is essential.

At HP, we see this not only as our responsibility, but vital to the longevity of our business. We support the Paris Climate Agreement and the global efforts to address climate change. HP is working to ensure our business is resilient, innovating to mitigate the effects of climate change and adapting to an evolving global business and regulatory environment that supports our customers, partners and employees.

–HP Website, June 1, 2017

 

IBM

“IBM supports U.S. participation in the Paris Agreement, and plans to continue its decades-long work to reduce its own greenhouse gas emissions and will continue to help our clients do so as well.”

–IBM statement on company website, June 1, 2017

 

Intel

“Intel believes that climate change is a serious [...] challenge that warrants a serious societal response, and this belief is reflected in our own stewardship actions.

–CEO Brian Krzanich in the New York Times, June 2, 2017

 

JP Morgan Chase & Co.

"I absolutely disagree with the Administration…  but we have a responsibility to engage our elected officials to work constructively and advocate for policies that improve people's lives and protect our environment."

–CEO Jamie Dimon, Fortune, June 2, 2017

 

Microsoft

“In the past few months, Microsoft has actively engaged the Trump Administration on the business case for remaining in the Paris Agreement. We’ve sent letters to and held meetings on this topic with senior officials in the State Department and the White House. And in the past month, we’ve joined with other American business leaders to take out full-page ads in the New York Times, Wall Street Journal and New York Post, urging the Administration to keep the United States in the Paris Agreement.

We believe that continued U.S. participation benefits U.S. businesses and the economy in important and multiple ways. A global framework strengthens competitiveness for American businesses. It creates new markets for innovative clean technologies, from green power to smart grids to cloud-enabled solutions. And by strengthening global action over time, the Agreement reduces future climate damage to people and organizations around the world.

We are disappointed with today’s decision by the White House to withdraw the United States from the landmark, globally supported Paris Agreement on climate change.

We remain steadfastly committed to the sustainability, carbon and energy goals that we have set as a company and to the Paris Agreement’s ultimate success. Our experience shows us that these investments and innovations are good for our planet, our company, our customers and the economy.”

–President Brad Smith on LinkedIn, June 1, 2017

 

Shell

“Our support for the #ParisAgreement is well known. We will continue to do our part providing more & cleaner energy.”

–Company statement on Twitter, June 1, 2017

Action on VW settlement heating up as summer approaches

Summer is around the corner, bringing barbeques, warm weather, and road trips. U.S. residents may benefit from Volkswagen (VW) funding for those last two items (and Nissan bravely experimented with the barbeque): reducing air pollutants that cause harmful health effects in warm weather through a Mitigation Trust, and extending electric vehicles’ (EVs) driving range through a series of charging infrastructure investments. Both programs are set to take effect shortly, and cities and businesses may benefit from early action.

As a quick reminder, VW is putting $4.7 billion in two separate funds for mitigating nitrogen oxides (NOx) emissions and investing in zero-emission vehicles as part of a settlement for installing devices designed to bypass U.S. auto emissions tests. (The two funds are shown below and described in greater detail in this blog post.)

Mitigation Trust to Reduce NOx emissions from heavy-duty vehicles

The Mitigation Trust will allocate funding to each state to spend on reducing the NOx emissions that were created by the altered VW vehicles. The funding will be disbursed within the state by one lead agency that must be approved by an appointed trustee. The trustee, investment firm Wilmington Trust, was selected in March. Once all parties confirm Wilmington Trust, which could happen any day, the Trust Effective Date will be established. The Trust Effective Date is essentially the “starter’s pistol” that will set the process of distributing Mitigation Trust funds to states in motion. The general timeline for applying for and receiving funds is shown below, though several deadlines are flexible and may proceed more quickly than the maximum amount of time allocated.

 

Cities and businesses should contact and work actively with the lead agencies in their states to identify and promote opportunities to replace older diesel engines and vehicles. Several states have already identified their lead agencies or principal contacts and are beginning to design plans for how the available funding will be spent. Though funding can be spent over 15 years, as much as two-thirds can be spent within the first two years. Therefore, it is in the best interest of cities or businesses to engage with state agencies early.

ZEV Investment to Expand public EV charging

VW’s initial ZEV Investment is also ready to be put into action through a $200 million California Investment Plan and a $300 million National Investment Plan that covers all other states. VW submitted separate investment plans that cover the next 30 months earlier this year to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the California Air Resources Board (CARB). The EPA approved the National Investment Plan, which allocates $40 million to lower-powered community charging in 11 major cities and $190 million to higher-powered fast charging along selected highways across the nation. Community charging will be focused in New York City, Washington, DC, Chicago, Portland (OR), Boston, Seattle, Philadelphia, Denver, Houston, Miami, and Raleigh. Estimated highway charging installations are displayed in Table 3 of the National Investment Plan (page 22).

Though the cities and corridors have been chosen, the sites and vendors have not. The process of selecting sites and vendors for the bulk of charging stations is scheduled for the second and third quarters of 2017. Cities identified for investments in community charging or nearby corridor charging can work with VW’s subsidiary, Electrify America, to identify optimal locations that may promote retail growth or adoption by low-income communities in multi-unit dwellings by hosting charging stations. Businesses may also benefit from increased traffic to use public charging stations (as C2ES has covered in a report on EV charging station business models) or from the opportunity to work with Electrify America to install charging stations.

CARB has not yet approved the California Investment Plan out of concerns for social equity and EV charging market competitiveness, sending a letter to Electrify America requesting that a supplemental plan reflect greater investments in low-income communities. Once CARB approves a plan, California cities and businesses should also consider opportunities to work with Electrify America to optimally site charging stations during the first 30-month round of investments. During the next round of investments, slated to begin in late 2019, proposals to Electrify America may be more successful if they incorporate CARB’s concerns and demonstrate air-quality benefits to low-income communities or a need to fill regional EV charging gaps.

With action on both VW settlements’ funding programs taking shape, cities and businesses should be prepared to identify opportunities to reduce NOx emissions and promote EV adoption .

 

Framework for Engaging Small and Medium-sized Businesses in Maryland on Climate Resilience

Framework for Engaging Small- and Medium-sized Businesses in Maryland on Climate Resilience

May 2017

By Katy Maher and Janet Peace

Download (PDF)

Many small businesses are not aware of the risks they face from changing climate conditions, and may not have plans in place to respond and recover from weather events. This issue is especially important in Maryland, where small businesses—defined as those with fewer than 500 employees—contribute heavily to the state’s economy. This report offers recommendations for both state and local officials on how to engage with small businesses, resources and information needs, and generally, how to best support businesses in enhancing resilience to extreme weather and climate change.

Key Takeaways

  • Use trusted messengers: Identify who businesses regularly engage with. Work with business networking organizations.
  • Leverage existing channels: Incorporate resilience into business activities. Expand resilience efforts to include businesses.
  • Identify opportunities: Form public-private partnerships. Develop business resilience networks.
  • Distribute targeted information: Tailor the message. Identify steps businesses can take.
Janet Peace
Katy Maher
0

Connecticut seeks to support nuclear energy

For more than a year, Connecticut legislators have been working to craft a policy to ensure that zero-emission electricity from the Millstone Nuclear Power Station continues to flow until at least 2035 and 2045, when its operating licenses expire.

Millstone, New England’s largest power plant, supplied 45 percent of Connecticut’s in-state power generation and nearly all its carbon-free electricity last year. With around 2,100 MW of installed capacity, the facility generates enough power each year to meet the needs of nearly 2 million Connecticut households. Moreover, the two reactors help avoid the emissions of more than 6 million metric tons of carbon dioxide per year.

But Millstone, like other nuclear power plants, faces economic headwinds. Challenges include sustained low natural gas prices, declining renewable energy costs, slow growth in electricity demand, and power markets structures and policies that don’t compensate nuclear for its environmental and reliability attributes. Mandated safety enhancements and other capital and maintenance investments are adding to plant costs. Since late 2012, six U.S. nuclear reactors have been retired prematurely, and seven more are set to close by 2025.

If this trend continues or accelerates, there could be serious climate implications. Nuclear power supplies 20 percent of total U.S. electricity, but makes up 57 percent of zero-carbon electricity. As all recent U.S. nuclear retirements have led to increased fossil fuel-fired generation, any additional loss of nuclear generating capacity would be expected to increase U.S. emissions of carbon dioxide as well as nitrogen oxides. These increased emissions will set back our efforts to fight climate change and regional air pollution. Although nuclear power enjoys bipartisan support in Congress, a federal remedy has failed to emerge, so individual states are taking action. Last August, New York established a clean energy standard to help assist its upstate reactors. In December, Illinois passed a law to support two (i.e., Quad Cities and Clinton) of its six nuclear power plants in a similar fashion. New Jersey, Ohio and Pennsylvania are exploring options to support their nuclear reactors.

In Connecticut, lawmakers have proposed creating additional opportunities for Millstone to sell its power. In the bill’s current form, nuclear power would be able to participate in a state solicitation for carbon-free power. Under this arrangement, the commissioner of the Department of Energy and Environmental Protection could direct electric distribution companies (i.e., utilities) to “enter into agreements for energy, capacity, and environmental attributes,” provided the proposals are in the best interests of the ratepayers and meet other criteria. At the same time, the bill would increase the state’s renewable portfolio standard (RPS) to 40 percent by 2040 from 27 percent by 2020. So as not to overwhelm the RPS and inhibit the growth of renewables, only a portion of Millstone’s output should be eligible under the final bill unless the ambition of the RPS is increased commensurately.

To remain economically viable, power plant owners rely on revenues (i.e., energy and capacity) they receive from participating in wholesale power markets. However, low natural gas prices continue to put downward pressure on wholesale electricity prices across the country. In 2016, prices in New England’s electricity market averaged $28.94/MWh – the lowest since the market was established in 2003 and below the average total generating cost for multi-unit nuclear reactors. Owners can also enter into two-party agreements directly with power consumers or other parties. While this offers an alternative revenue stream, these contract prices tend to reflect current circumstances in electricity markets.

Power markets are challenging and do not reward nuclear power for its large environmental and system reliability benefit. In the absence of a price on carbon, we need alternatives to ensure nuclear power plants do not retire prematurely. We applaud Connecticut’s proactive approach to recognizing the carbon-free attributes of New England’s largest power source. State leadership on climate has never been more critical. With reasonable policies in place to maintain the existing U.S. nuclear fleet, it will be easier for the U.S. to reduce its emissions and achieve its climate and air pollution reduction goals.

Energy efficiency: How Minneapolis is teaming up with utilities to reduce emissions

When the city of Minneapolis set out to cut greenhouse gas emissions 80 percent by 2050, it soon became clear the goal couldn’t be met without substantial help from the area’s two investor-owned energy companies.

Xcel and CenterPoint Energy provide their customers the electricity and natural gas that powers, heats, and cools the city’s commercial and residential buildings, which accounts for two-thirds of city emissions. Energy efficiency had to be part of the equation.

Utilities are largely regulated at the state level in Minnesota but cities do negotiate franchise agreements that allow utilities use of public property for transmission lines and pipelines. Under new 10-year franchise agreements with the city, the utilities agreed to establish a partnership to help the city reach its goal.

Now in its third year, the Clean Energy Partnership has drawn national attention. It won a Climate Leadership Award from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The Department of Energy recognized its software program that helps building owners understand their energy use. Several cities – including Salt Lake City; Santa Fe, N.M.; and Madison, Wis. – have looked to Minneapolis as a model for their own emissions-cutting efforts.

The partnership has set a series of ambitious goals, including reaching 75 percent of households with energy efficiency retrofit services and cutting energy use 17 percent by 2025, and achieving a carbon-free electricity supply by 2040. Steps the partnership has taken include encouraging commercial property owners, landlords, and individual homeowners to conserve energy – as well as continuing efforts to cut the electric and gas usage of city-owned buildings, streetlights, and vehicles.

“The first two years really were a learning experience,” said Luke Hollenkamp, a sustainability program coordinator for Minneapolis. “One of the biggest accomplishments was just getting it up and running.”

Initial work included building databases of energy usage and energy conservation efforts throughout the city and creating a community Energy Vision Advisory Committee (EVAC) – two steps that both proved crucial.

Measure first

The databases, which are managed by the city, were a key early accomplishment, giving the partnership a way to measure progress as well as track participation in its energy conservation programs down to the neighborhood.

“We had known that parts of the city weren’t participating as much in energy efficiency programs as others, but we didn’t know to what scale,” Hollenkamp said. “This gave us a way to track our progress at a more granular level.”

The city in 2013 adopted a benchmarking ordinance requiring all private commercial buildings larger than 50,000 square feet to report their natural gas, electricity, and water usage. Meter readings are automatically uploaded by the utilities and compiled into a publicly available online tool that uses EPA’s Energy Star measures to rate buildings. Overall, the Minneapolis buildings score 74 out of 100, well above the median national score of 50.

Low-performing buildings identified by the benchmarking can be targeted for assistance and all benchmarked properties are encouraged to conserve energy. The city has established a “Minneapolis Building Energy Challenge” to reduce energy consumption by 15 percent by 2020. Participants receive public recognition for their efforts and the city will help connect owners with the technical resources they need to achieve the goal. So far, 15 of 429 eligible buildings have signed up for the challenge.

Audrey Partridge, local energy policy manager at electric utility CenterPoint, said the partnership’s current two-year plan calls for more intensive outreach to tell property managers and owners about programs they may be eligible for to lower their energy usage -- and their bills.

Engage the community

The 15-member community advisory committee – which includes representatives from the community, environmental advocacy groups, major industrial energy consumers, and technical experts – has proved crucial to the program’s success.

“One of the great things that EVAC has done was provide a template for community engagement,” said Bridget Dockter, manager of policy and outreach for natural gas utility Xcel. “That ended up being the source for a pilot program we are actually engaged in now.”

Under the outreach pilot program, the partnership is enlisting neighborhood organizations to test the best ways to reach the two populations that have historically lagged in participating in energy-efficiency programs – lower-income neighborhoods and multi-family buildings.

More than half of Minneapolis residents are renters, making multi-family buildings a key area to target. But how do you persuade property owners to invest in energy efficiency when tenants typically pay the utility bills?

In October 2015, Xcel and CenterPoint began offering free energy audits through the partnership to owners of buildings with at least five units and set up financial incentives ranging from 15 to 25 percent of upgrade costs for efficiency improvements in market-rate buildings. Rebates are available through the utilities under a state requirement.

Dockter said it’s too soon to measure the results, since it can take months after an energy audit to secure the capital for efficiency improvements. But, she said, “we’ve had a handful of buildings actually make the formal investment.”

Setting goals

Early results include an increase in Home Energy Squad visits from 731 in 2014 to 1,198 in 2015. These home energy audits include installation of energy-saving devices such as LED lights, weather-stripping, programmable thermostats, low-flow shower heads and faucet aerators. For a limited time, the city offered no-interest financing to participants making insulation and air sealing upgrades.

In 2015, residential electric use decreased by 4 percent and natural gas use dropped 22 percent from the previous year. Reductions were in part due to energy efficiency improvements as well as a mild heating season, according to the partnership’s 2015 annual report.

Keys to Success

For municipalities looking to Minneapolis as a model for collaboration, Dockter says a key is having strong commitments from every partner to put in the time and resources needed for success.

“It’s important early on to recognize you aren’t going to find some bright shiny object that is the answer,” she said. “It’s a long, systemic answer that you need to build on to really change the direction and the results.”

Al Swintek, government relations officer at CenterPoint, agrees that the partners need to be committed and that the partnership be formal, with regular meetings, documented goals, and work plans so that it produces results. He recommends directly involving “those at the highest levels to help push this forward.”

To Learn More:

Solutions Story: Dominion, Microsoft team up with Virginia to build solar project

On 125 acres about an hour’s drive southwest of Washington, D.C., construction is in full swing on 260,000 photovoltaic panels.

In the short-term, the project will create more than 200 construction jobs. In the longer term, it will bring more than $70,000 a year in tax revenue to Fauquier County and provide 20-megawatts of solar power, which, at peak capacity, is enough to power several thousand homes.

The project was made possible by a public-private partnership involving the Commonwealth of Virginia, Dominion Energy, and Microsoft—one that could serve asd a model for similar projects.

Dominion’s goal is to install 500+ megawatts of renewable power by 2020.

Microsoft, which has data and technology centers in Virginia, has a goal to remain carbon neutral.

The Remington, Virginia, project is a win for all three. Dominion and MIcrosoft meet their goals with no extra cost to other customers, while the state and its taxpayers have locked-in energy costs.

“We saw this as an opportunity to develop solar for our customers and work toward our own goals for generating renewable energy,” said Dianne Corsello, director of business development for Dominion Generation.

Key to the agreement were renewable energy certificates (RECs). Because electricity from a wind or solar plant is fed into the grid and mixed with power from other sources, there’s no way for an end user to buy power coming from a particular source. A REC is an accounting mechanism to make sure that one (and only one) customer is credited with purchasing a given quantity of power from a particular renewable source.

Microsoft, which has been carbon neutral since 2012, agreed to enter into a long-term agreement to purchase all RECs the project will generate.

For Microsoft, the RECs are helping offset the carbon footprint of its data center in Boydton, Virginia, and contributing to the company’s goal of buying enough renewable energy to equal 100 percent of its energy consumption.

For Dominion, the RECs purchase agreement means  it  can sell the power from the Remington plant at a more competitive rate.

For the state, a 25-year power purchase agreement will allow it to purchase all the power generated from the solar project for no more than it would pay for fossil fuel-generated electricity. Over the lifetime of the deal, that could save taxpayers up to $1 million.

Dominion and Microsoft hope that this could be the start of a trend of creative collaboration on clean energy financing.

“I see opportunities for a growing number of companies that are looking to meet their environmental goals,” Corsello said. Dominion has invested more than $800 million in solar power in Virginia, with 398 megawatts of solar generation either completed or under development.

“We have a long way to go to develop renewable energy,” said Brian Janous, Microsoft’s director of energy strategy. “But we need more of the kinds of opportunities for partnership with utilities we’re seeing here to open up.”

To learn more:

Dominion Energy: Remington-Gordonsville

Microsoft: Adressing our carbon footprint

Virginia: Renewable Energy Programs

C2ES guide helps cities and businesses collaborate on climate resilience

Press Release
May 24, 2017
Contact Laura Rehrmann, rehrmannl@c2es.org, 703-516-0621

 

C2ES guide helps cities and businesses collaborate on climate resilience

WASHINGTON – Cities and businesses both face the threat of damaged infrastructure and disrupted operations due to climate impacts. A new C2ES guide outlines ways cities can collaborate with the local business community to strengthen climate resilience.

To create the Guide to Public-Private Collaboration on City Climate Resilience Planning, C2ES brought together local government and business officials in Kansas City, Mo.; Miami Beach, Fla.; Phoenix; and Providence, R.I., to assess each city’s climate preparedness and prioritize resilience needs. Each city has a unique economic make-up and faces different climate threats, but common threads led to recommendations for any city leader to invite and promote business collaboration, including:

  • Build resilience planning on the foundation of existing public-private programs and partnerships across city departments.
  • Show businesses that climate resilience planning is a key priority, and set up a process for continual collaboration to demonstrate that business involvement is valued.
  • Work with partners, including in academia and state and federal government, to develop localized data on climate threats to emphasize the business case for resilience planning.
  • Tailor the approach depending on the industry and size of the business.
  • Explore innovative financing for resilience projects, including public-private partnerships and insurance incentives.

“Every city hit by a severe storm understands the need for resilience and fast disaster recovery,” said C2ES President Bob Perciasepe. “Businesses need climate-resilient public infrastructure to maintain business continuity. Cities need climate-resilient businesses to maintain the economic health of the community. It only makes sense for them to work together.”

Just as cities and businesses jointly suffer the negative impacts of climate change, they may jointly benefit from the economic development opportunities that come from improving resilience, according to the guide. Upgrading or relocating infrastructure, implementing energy efficiency projects, building microgrids, and restoring natural ecosystems can improve resilience and create jobs.

Cities and businesses bring complementary strengths to climate resilience planning. Businesses may have data analysis and emergency response resources that would be helpful to cities. Cities, meanwhile, often find it easier to plan for the longer term.

Expanding the stakeholders involved in resilience planning can also increase political support and the willingness to devote public resources to the topic.

The Guide to Public-Private Collaboration on City Climate Resilience Planning was created with support from Bank of America.

Cities and businesses can make more resilient communities by working together

The impacts of climate change are being felt today – including more frequent and intense storms, heat waves, droughts, and rising sea level. These impacts take a human and economic toll on cities and the businesses operating in them. Despite the common threat, little guidance exists for how the public and private sectors can work together to prepare.

To address that gap, C2ES, in partnership with Bank of America created a Guide to Public-Private Collaboration on City Climate Resilience Planning. The guide outlines 13 recommended actions for city planners to invite and promote collaboration with businesses on climate resilience.

Working together makes sense because both public and private stakeholders want to see economic growth in their communities. Extreme weather events have caused more than $1 trillion in damage to the U.S. economy since 1980, and the intensity of these events is expected to worsen because of manmade climate change.

Storms can be particularly devastating for small businesses. The Hartford found 52 percent of small businesses affected by Hurricane Sandy in 2012 lost sales or revenue, and 25 percent of these businesses had to slow down or stop hiring.

C2ES brought together local government and business officials in Kansas City, Mo.; Miami Beach, Fla.; Phoenix; and Providence, R.I., to assess each city’s climate preparedness and prioritize resilience needs. Despite differences in each city’s geography, size, climate threats, and economic make-up, we found common insights into how to best foster city-business collaboration.

  • Resilience planning should be an extension of existing programs and partnerships. It requires involvement of officials in multiple city departments.
  • If cities demonstrate to businesses that climate resilience planning is a key priority, it’s more likely businesses will devote the resources to collaboration.
  • Businesses respond to data. By working with partners to find localized data on climate threats and vulnerabilities, cities can help articulate the business case for climate resilience planning.
     
  • ‘Business’ is not a monolith, and city climate resilience planners will need to tailor their approach. Small businesses, in particular, have unique needs.
     
  • Innovative financing can help promote collaboration. While not all climate resilience strategies will require additional funds, some will. The private sector is more likely to collaborate when they see that the city is committed to exploring all options for financing the steps in the climate resilience plan.

As the diagram below shows, business collaboration can be a part of every step of existing climate resilience planning frameworks.

 

Our recommendations supplement existing climate resilience planning frameworks.

 

City-business collaboration in times of disaster isn’t new. When Hurricane Sandy knocked out electricity to millions, American Water, the largest publicly traded U.S. water company, had more than 400 generators ready to keep providing clean water to its customers. The only problem was, the company didn’t have any place to store the fuel to run them. Local towns had fuel storage tanks, but no fuel. So, they worked together to move and store fuel to run not only the water pumps but also fire and police vehicles.

What’s needed is more collaboration before the fact, in light of new and increased threats. Providence, Rhode Island, faces increased flooding with sea level projected to rise as much as 2 feet by 2050. At our workshop, state officials, city departments, local businesses, universities, hospitals, utilities, and others started examining the risks and ways to respond. As Mayor Jorge Elorza put it, “We simply can’t afford to kick the can down the road.”

We hope this report will be a first step toward a climate resilience planning paradigm where cities and businesses work together to find the best ways to protect their communities from climate change impacts. We believe these important partners can achieve better results by working together.

Guide to Public-Private Collaboration on City Climate Resilience Planning

Guide to Public-Private Collaboration on
City Climate Resilience Planning

May 2017

Download (PDF)

Cities and businesses are separately preparing for climate change and building their resilience to impacts. But they have not had guidance on how to work together, until now. This report lays out the value in public-private collaboration on city climate resilience planning, and recommends to city resilience planners specific actions they can take to bring their business community into the climate resilience planning process.

Key Takeaways

  • Resilience planning is an extension of existing programs and partnerships. 
  • Businesses respond to city leadership.
  • Businesses respond to data.
  • 'Business' is not a monolith.
  • Innovative financing can help promote collaboration.
 
Ashley Lawson
Janet Peace
Katy Maher
0

Key Insights for Expanding Microgrid Development

Key Insights for Expanding Microgrid Development

April 2017

Dowload the fact sheet (PDF)

C2ES held a half-day Solutions Forum in March 2017 in Washington, D.C., focusing on the benefits of microgrids and examining what is standing in the way of accelerating their deployment. Two panels, comprising business and city leaders, shared their first-hand experience in the small, but rapidly developing microgrid industry. Discussion focused on what developers are learning from successful microgrid projects and overcoming obstacles to deployment. About 100 people, including policymakers, entrepreneurs, and academics, attended the forum at The George Washington University School of Law and 200 watched online. 

Key Takeaways

The nation’s first microgrid architect, Shalom Flank, Ph. D., of Urban Ingenuity, identified three economically viable categories of microgrid frameworks.

  1. The classic success model, considering primarily the urban situation, is the “combined heat and power (CHP) plus solar” microgrid. These work downtown, on campus, or at a large facility like a hospital. With improvements in modern electronics and controller technologies, these projects can earn even greater revenues (e.g. providing grid services).
  2. “Thermal only” microgrids pay for themselves. These involve creating a condenser water loop across multiple buildings with heat sources and sinks. They are highly efficient for serving heating and cooling loads. There is no resilience benefit in this instance, but emissions savings are excellent.
  3. “Solar saturation” microgrids are viable. The current grid can’t accommodate an entire neighborhood where all homes have solar without a microgrid. This kind of project provides emissions and resilience benefits.
 
 

Video

Watch our March 8, 2017 discussion at Geoge Washington University.

 
0
Syndicate content