The Smappee energy monitor just won the CES 2018 Innovation Awards but will Smappee also lead customers to conserve energy? It can be hard to change habits. 

What does materiality mean for an airline? JetBlue is one of the first companies — and the first airline — to report according to SASB’s standards, and to assess the materiality of climate risk. Check out the interview of Sophia Mendelsohn, JetBlue’s Head of Sustainability, and Jet Blue Sustainability Report. 

What Would You Invest In?

Last week we talked about TRI and KLD, however this week we are adding onto those findings by utilizing information from the formally known Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP). This UK based nonprofit provides investors with information related to carbon emissions. This allows investors to make more informed decisions with regards to the environmental performance of specific companies. An article published by the Environmental Leader discusses the increase in companies disclosing their environmental risk factors, including emissions. In the article it says that, according to CDP, there has been an eight-fold increase in the companies that quantify their emissions in terms of economic value. This all comes about from a desire of investors to know the environmental performance of companies and the desire of companies to provide information and reduce emissions. In the current political climate, cutting back on emissions is not a priority, and companies can seemingly get away with more than in the past. However, companies are still going forth with reductions, and it will be interesting to see whether this deregulation or investors carries more weight.

Article: https://www.environmentalleader.com/2017/10/174571/

Group members: Hogan Fenster, Zoe Robertson, Destiny Tafoya, Grant Sugimura, Vitor Takasu

Big-Tech Can’t Let Go of Dirty Energy

Our presentation focused on corporate environmental ratings. We analyzed the benefits of using TRI and KLD. However, other companies and non-profits publish their own ratings. Recently, Greenpeace released their environmental “grades” for big tech companies. Surprisingly, many tech companies have not reduced their greenhouse gas emissions and their toxic releases. A spokesperson from Greenpeace chided tech companies for claiming to lead the world in innovation but yet are still employing dirty energy. Greenpeace has a history of nudging tech companies to switch to renewable energy, and some have listened, but others are still holding on to fossil fuels. Also, these big tech companies are not using as much recycled material in their products as they should be. Samsung, the world’s largest smartphone producer, got a letter grade of D in renewable energy, which only accounts for 1% of its energy use. Amazon got an F in its overall environmental performance, partly due to its refusal to release its greenhouse gas emissions data. Greenpeace claims that if big tech companies do not make the switch to renewable energy, it will be difficult for the rest of the world to.

Article: http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory/greenpeace-faults-tech-giants-environment-impact-50524718

By: Mikyla Reta, Taylor Ely, and Arman Tahmazyan

Can you Start Impact Investing With Just $50 And Five Minutes? Here is an article that describes this possibility through swellinvesting. Of course, we know that this is not that simple, but being able to choose from a portfolio of stocks that align with your values, is becoming so much easier. 

Emission control vs. Cost efficient strategy

Our presentation discussed the US Acid Rain Program, the country’s first nation-wide cap and trade program. The program, which allowed utilities to adopt the most cost-effective strategy to reduce SO2 emissions, was widely considered a success so we looked into current events relating the ARP.

The owner of eight Dynegy coal plants in Illinois lobbied the EPA into setting annual caps on SO2 and NOx emissions instead of tracking pollution rates. This thinking mirrors Rick Perry’s grid reliability report on the effect of coal energy plant closures. While the report request suggested that emissions standards caused the closures, the results actually found that cheap natural gas prices were to blame.

The proposed amendment imposes a 55,000 tons/year SO2 and a 22,000 tons/year NOx cap. However, according to the US EPA Acid Rain Database, Dynegy’s eight coal plants are already emitting far less SO2 and NOx than both the current and new emissions limits.

What could be the risks of increasing emission caps for coal plants in heavily industrial areas? If this amendment goes through, will other states be inspired to act in the same way? What could be some incentives not to increase emission limits?

Article:https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/09/proposed-illinois-coal-rule-favors-cost-cutting-over-emissions-control/

Group members: Desmond Lim, Salome Vergne, Shelby Slaughter, Owen Emerson, Kayla Smith

To Breathe or Not to Breathe...

Our group covered the South Coast Air Quality Management District RECLAIM program. RECLAIM is a cap and trade system that allows businesses to decide the most economic way to reduce their pollution. While this program was considered ineffective, it is still a step in the right direction. However, the Trump administration recently announced rollbacks on Obama-era EPA regulations. Under the initiative of EPA Chief Scott Pruitt, the EPA announced on October 9th that it will end the Clean Power Plan, which was President Obama’s policy to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from power plants. President Trump highlighted the deregulation at a press conference on Monday, saying, "I am taking historic steps to lift restrictions on American energy, to reverse government intrusion, and to cancel job-killing regulations."

Given that California cap and trade programs follows the template set by the EPA, what does this mean for California’s standards? Will California need to set its own standards and will other states decide not to participate in order to incentivize factories or other large industries to move into their states?

Link to article: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-energy/trump-signs-order-dismantling-obama-era-climate-policies-idUSKBN16Z1L6

Link to think piece about what this means for California: http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/business/energy-green/sd-fi-clean-power-20170328-story.html

Group Members: Grace Reynolds, Peggy Ho, Judith Foster, Carly York, Maria Kiejnich

Is this a good change? Extending the CA Cap and Trade Program

Our group is covering the CA Cap and Trade program this week and we were curious about the overall success of the program. Coincidentally, we came across an article that was published on October 9th, 2017 titled, “Refining California’s Cap and Trade Program: Plan Accordingly,” by Jerry Bloom and Andrew Mayer on Environmental Leader. On July 25th, 2017, California Governor Jerry Brown signed the Assembly Bill 398 to extend the program from the initial 2020 to 2030. However, this modification brings additional rules to the renewed CA Cap and Trade program. One change is that there will be price ceilings on allowances so that companies can enjoy consistency when buying shares of it. Another change is that this new program reduces the amount of greenhouse gas (GHG) offsets that may be bought by other companies. Before the Assembly Bill 398 was passed, companies were allowed to buy up to 8% of their original emission capacity, but now, they are only allowed to buy up to 4% from 2021 to 2025 and up to 6% from 2026 to 2030.

Do you think that these new policy changes are more beneficial for businesses or for the environment?

Article Link: https://www.environmentalleader.com/2017/10/refining-californias-cap-trade-program/

Group Members: Hidetoshi Ikeda, Elyse Van Bebber, Camila Tipan, Melissa Kaidin, Sasicha Peechapol