Search

Like many living in San Francisco and other major cities across the United States, I have come to rely on transportation network companies (TNCs) such as Lyft, Uber, and Sidecar to get me around town. TNCs have revolutionized the way many of us get from Point A to Point B, but not for all of us -- not yet, anyway. There is a significant group that has long been let down by public transportation -- the disabled community -- and TNCs are struggling to break this trend.

I was reminded of this during a recent Lyft ride, where I happened to be picked up by one of the few wheelchair accessible vehicles in its (or any other TNC’s) fleet. My driver said her husband uses a wheelchair for mobility and regularly faces difficulties getting around the city when attempting to take taxis and MUNI (San Francisco’s light rail and bus system). MUNI buses often pass him by rather than stop to pick him up, and even wheelchair-accessible taxis often refuse to pick him up because they don’t want to lose the time it takes to lower and raise the lift and to strap him in.

To be fair, as a regular MUNI passenger, I can say first-hand that they seem to do a good job with accessibility -- most buses are equipped with wheelchair lifts and can "kneel" (lower the front of the bus) if a person has trouble moving up stairs. I have witnessed drivers make space for wheelchair users, and personally assist them to fasten the safety straps and wheel lock.

As for taxis, many fleets require a certain number of accessible vehicles to be on the road at any given time, which can be dispatched by phone. In December, Taxi Mecca New York City settled a major class-action lawsuit and adopted regulations requiring half the city’s more than 13,000 yellow cabs be accessible to people with disabilities within six years.

But with taxi fleets shrinking in several major cities as TNC popularity grows, the disabled community will have fewer transportation options -- that is, unless TNCs act.

In addition to helping some TNCs fully live up to their principles of fostering community, opening up to the disabled community makes business sense. Approximately 56.7 million people in the U.S. have some kind of disability -- and roughly 30.6 million of them have difficulty walking or climbing stairs, or use a wheelchair, cane, crutches or walker, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. The agency says people with disabilities "make up a significant market of consumers, representing more than $200 billion in discretionary spending and spurring technological innovation and entrepreneurship."

With TNCs -- especially Uber and Lyft -- fighting a bitter battle for ridesharing supremacy, the disabled community is a market they cannot afford to ignore. In California, they no longer have a choice.

Last fall, California's Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) outlined the first regulations for TNCs (and created the name), which included requiring driver background checks, driver training, drug and alcohol policies and minimum insurance coverage of $1 million. CPUC also mandated that TNCs develop an “Accessibility Plan,” including modifying apps so they "allow passengers to indicate their access needs," among other things.

Lyft, Uber, Sidecar and two other TNCs filed disability-access plans with the CPUC, claiming that they will ensure drivers don't discriminate against disabled customers. While the companies said they already have or soon will make their apps and websites accessible to blind users, they maintained drivers can still determine whether or not to allow service animals in their vehicles.

Uber recently came under fire for this when an UberX driver refused to transport a blind man because he was accompanied by a service animal. The Americans With Disabilities Act clearly states that “public transportation authorities may not discriminate against people with disabilities in the provision of their services,” but since most TNC-affiliated vehicles are privately owned and operated by independent contractors, this remains a legal gray area.

Offering wheelchair accessibility also is proving to be problematic, as Lyft, Uber, Sidecar and other TNCs profess only to provide the technology platforms that allow passengers and drivers to match themselves for a shared ride. As such, they can’t provide wheelchair accessible vehicles in the same way that taxis and sedan services can. However, CPUC is considering requiring rideshare companies to provide their own vehicle fleet for the disabled community.

TNCs can’t force drivers to go through the expensive process of modifying their vehicles for accessibility. The most realistic solution seems to be TNCs partnering with paratransit companies, which already have the proper vehicles and trained drivers to assist the disabled -- much easier said than done.

In 2012, Uber tried unsuccessfully to partner with a San Francisco paratransit company. But paratransit providers might be more receptive now that TNCs have become more mainstream and partnering could be more lucrative. Even so, wheelchair-accessible vehicles used by individuals do not always have a securement system, which commercial transport must have. This could lead to legal complications.

TNCs have come a long way in very little time, but they still have a long way to go. Several social, legal and business questions have yet to be answered. When they finally are, perhaps we will learn that TNCs aren’t just about logistics – getting from Point A to Point B – but about bringing communities together, so that we can move forward.

Image Credit: MyDoorSign.com

Based in San Francisco, Mike Hower is a writer, thinker and strategic communicator that revels in driving the conversation at the intersection of sustainability, social entrepreneurship, tech, politics and law. He has cultivated diverse experience working for the United States Congress in Washington, D.C., helping Silicon Valley startups with strategic communications and teaching in South America. Connect with him on LinkedIn or follow him on Twitter (@mikehower)

The ingenious Toyota i-Road program combines the convenience of a bike rental service, the comfort of an enclosed car and the compact footprint of a motorcycle in this electric three-wheeler that is being tested by rail commuters in Aichi, Japan in self-service vehicle-sharing stations. The program has initially been successful, with a growing amount of repeat users and high adoption rates.

There are now plans to introduce a car-sharing fleet of nearly 70 vehicles in the town of Grenoble in the French Alps, for a three-year test, starting at the end of 2014. The program is being adopted as solution for reducing greenhouse gas reduction targets.

The two-seater i-Road is designed for the "last mile" mobility needs of commuters that might otherwise bike or walk, thus complementing existing public transportation systems. Unlike a motorcycle, the enclosed cabin keeps the elements out. The i-Road has a single rear wheel that pivots and the vehicle uses an Active Lean technology for tight, stable turns. The i-Road automatically leans around corners, and Toyota says no specialized skill is required to operate it. With a width under 3 feet, the i-Road has motorcycle-like maneuverability. No helmet is required to operate the vehicle since it is enclosed, and because it can't exceed 30 miles per hour, no driver's licence is required to operate it.

The all-electric Toyota i-Road has a range up to 31 miles, produces zero emissions while in operation with a lithium-ion battery, and requires roughly three hours to be charged. No special charging infrastructure is required, as it can use a standard household power outlet. The i-Road uses a pair of 2-kilowatt motors, mounted within the front wheels. It can travel up to 28 miles per hour and has an ultra-compact body that is ideal for urban maneuvering. At 7.7 feet in length, it is also easier to park in urban areas. The i-Road does have an interior heating, audio and lighting system, but doesn't appear to have air conditioning at this point.

Toyota's long-term plans for the i-Road are unclear, and some doubt that it will make it to the American and European markets. Perhaps the i-Road will remain part of the sharing economy only. Currently no private sales of the vehicle are available. Toyota hasn't disclosed a price if the i-Road were on the market.

The vehicle certainly does serve a niche market that isn't served by the bike, motorcycle, or traditional automobile. The challenges are that it achieves relatively low speeds only, with a modest range and requires charging -- making it best suited for short-distance urban drivers.

There certainly is a lot to love about the i-Road too. The maneuverability makes it look like a lot of fun, and it's small size makes it convenient to park, even in the most crowded cities. No special charging infrastructure is needed, so the i-Road seems really convenient.

Toyota's secrecy around the i-Road's future makes the future unclear. It is likely still being determined, but vehicle-sharing is a smart way to test the vehicle in the meantime.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ScsDvRYyitc

Image credit: Toyota

Sarah Lozanova is a regular contributor to environmental and energy publications and websites, including Mother Earth Living, Green Building & Design, Triple Pundit, Urban Farm, and Solar Today. Her experience includes work with small-scale solar energy installations and utility-scale wind farms. She earned an MBA in sustainable management from the Presidio Graduate School and she resides in Belfast Cohousing & Ecovillage in Midcoast Maine with her husband and two children.

Guests at the Hilton hoping to order shark fin soup will have to take their business elsewhere: The hospitality giant recently announced a ban on the controversial delicacy in its restaurants and facilities worldwide – including the 96 properties it owns and manages in the Asia Pacific – by this April.

The company took shark fin off its menus in all restaurants and food and beverage facilities in China and Southeast Asia in December 2012, but continued to serve it upon request. Starting in September 2013, Hilton banned shark fin in its Southeast Asian properties, declining orders for the contentious ingredient, and implemented the same policy in its Greater Chinese facilities in February.

The final stage of the ban takes effect in Japan on April 1, although Hilton had stopped accepting banquet orders for shark fin dishes in Japan in Dec. 1, 2013.

"We made a decisive commitment to influence consumer demand and ensure operational compliance across our portfolio of hotels by taking a measured country-by-country approach,” said Martin Rinck, president of Hilton Worldwide’s Asia Pacific region, in a statement. “In placing a global ban on shark fin, we take action in support of environmental conservation efforts worldwide and progress our efforts in responsible business operations."

Chinese culture prizes shark fin soup as luxury dish served at special occasions like weddings and banquets. Because China’s recent economic prosperity has made the expensive ingredient more affordable for the average Chinese citizen, demand for shark fin dishes has increased over the past decade – at the expense of sharks, a particularly vulnerable population to overfishing since they cannot breed as quickly as other fish. In fact, the Chinese’s voracious appetite for shark fin has been called out as one of the leading contributors to the decline in global shark populations.

The method of collecting shark fins is also particularly gruesome and wasteful: Fishermen cut off the shark’s fins and then throw the body back in the ocean, where the shark bleeds out and dies.

Environmental campaigns including basketball star Yao Ming’s public opposition to shark fin are helping to slowly turn the cultural tide against the divisive delicacy, and many countries and even U.S. states have banned shark finning practices or shark fin food products. Despite these successes, we are a long way from fully protecting sharks and rebuilding their depleted populations, which is why policies prohibiting shark fin dishes from hospitality companies like Hilton that are asked to serve the eco-unfriendly ingredient at special events are another crucial piece in the puzzle to the solution of shark conservation.

“Hilton Worldwide's ban on shark fin will go a long way…towards protecting valuable shark species, which are in turn crucial for maintaining the health of our marine ecosystem,” said Elaine Tan, CEO of World Wide Fund for Nature – Singapore, in a statement. “Hilton Worldwide's measured and step-wise approach towards responsible sourcing is a fine example of how businesses with strong leadership can, and should, take responsibility for their impact on the environment."

The McLean, Va.-based company, which owns and manages 645 hotels worldwide, said the ban on shark fin is part of Hilton’s ongoing efforts to develop a sustainable sourcing policy – including sourcing of sustainable seafood – set to be released in the future.

Image credit: (c) 2014 Hilton Worldwide

Passionate about both writing and sustainability, Alexis Petru is freelance journalist based in the San Francisco Bay Area whose work has appeared on Earth911, Huffington Post and Patch.com. Prior to working as a writer, she coordinated environmental programs for Bay Area cities and counties. Connect with Alexis on Twitter at @alexispetru

By Andrew Behar

As the 2014 proxy season takes shape, more investors than ever are seeking transformation of corporate environmental, social and governance (ESG) policies. A record-breaking 417 social and environmental shareholder resolutions have been filed so far this proxy season, with political spending and climate change driving the majority of the activity.

This year we have broken every record on the number of resolutions filed, and over the past decade the average vote in support of social and environmental resolutions has nearly doubled. Shareholders today are looking not at these issues in isolation. Instead, they articulate a systemic critique, pointing out the connections between excessive political spending, inadequate energy policy, the dangers of our changing climate and its damaging impact on water and agriculture, toxic hazards, and how these are related to human rights.

Investors' strong demand for more disclosure of corporate political spending before and after elections account for almost a third of shareholder ESG resolutions. Proposals on climate change, energy, and their related risks — as well as interconnected questions about corporate sustainability strategies and transparency — have also grown, and account for about another 40 percent of the 417 resolutions filed to date. Human rights and diversity on boards and in the workplace make up most of the rest.

The flood of corporate political activity proposals continues unabated, and it's not just looking at electoral spending. A broad coalition of investors want companies to tell stockholders and the public more about what they spend before and after elections, both directly and most particularly through intermediary groups responsible for what some term "dark money" in the public influence game. The corporate political activity disclosure campaign has broadened in the last three years with an array of suggested responses to the new spending landscape opened up by the 2010 Citizens United U.S. Supreme Court decision. In the backdrop of this year’s shareholder campaign, further big modifications of campaign finance law may come any day from the court in McCutcheon v. FEC.

Resolutions on climate change and environmental issues are the second largest category of proposals filed. Investors are demanding greenhouse gas emissions reductions and disclosure. New carbon asset risk resolutions are asking companies if they are prepared to succeed in an increasingly carbon constrained world, amid fears of stranded carbon assets and the potential of a carbon bubble. The exploding shale energy business has intensified concerns about methane emissions, a far more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide.

This proxy season looks to be exciting and dynamic as issues that have been simmering over the past few years come to a full boil. Extreme weather and extreme politics are spawning extreme advocacy, while at the same time more and more companies are sitting down with their investors and finding common ground on the critical issues of our time.

Learn more about the issues investors have raised with their companies this proxy season in Proxy Preview 2014, a report As You Sow publishes annually with the Sustainable Investments Institute and Proxy Impact. Proxy Preview 2014 is the 10th edition of the report hailed as the "Bible for socially progressive foundations, religious groups, pension funds, and tax-exempt organizations" by the Chicago Tribune. Proxy Preview assesses the shareholder resolutions, how companies are responding, and policy changes affecting the proposals at the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).

Andrew Behar is the CEO of the As You Sow Foundation (www.asyousow.org), a nonprofit organization dedicated to increasing corporate environmental and social responsibility.

Just in time for World Water Day: The European Wind Energy Association has released a report examining the role that water plays in energy production. And the numbers are staggering.

According to the report, 44 percent of water usage in the European Union goes to energy production. That includes coal, nuclear, biofuels and natural gas, Europe’s four thirstiest energy industries. That’s almost half what is used in the next largest sector, agriculture, which is 24 percent.

Statistics released by the Union of Concerned Scientists paint a similar picture regarding U.S. usage, says the American Wind Energy Association.  Between 60 and 170 billion gallons are withdrawn from lakes, rivers and other essential water sources every day for thermoelectric plants, whose temperatures are regulated by water.  Although the amount that is actually consumed (lost) only ranges between 2.8 and 5.8 billion gallons, that still is significant, says the UCS.

“U.S. power plants withdrew enough freshwater each day in 2008 to supply 60 to 170 cities the size of New York.”

At a time when water security is a growing concern throughout the world, these are huge implications to consider, says the EWEA.

“In 2012, [wind] energy avoided the use of 1.2 billion m³ (317 billion gallons) of water in 2012, equivalent to the average annual household water use of 22 million EU citizens.” the EWEA says.

The AWEA has done its own calculations on the savings that were made from 140 million MWh of wind-generated power in the U.S. More than 30 billion gallons of water was saved using wind power that year instead of fossil-fuel generated power. That’s 97 gallons for every person in the U.S.

And last year’s savings? According to the AWEA’s website, the wind projects that were funded in part by tax credits under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act Section 1603 in 2012 saved an estimated 35 billion gallons of water, or 120 gallons per person, in 2013.

“The power sector withdraws more water than any other sector in the United States, including the agricultural sector,” says the AWEA.  “By displacing electricity generation from other sources, wind energy not only avoids CO2 emissions and pollutants, but also avoids water withdraws and consumption, preserving the water for other uses."

Interestingly, no specific data was provided by either wind energy organization about the cost of water in hydraulic fracturing, which is outside the boundaries of the EWEA’s study, but would significantly add to withdrawal and consumption costs of producing energy from fossil fuels.

With World Water Day 2014 upon us (March 22), the implications of impending water shortages from climate change go beyond the question of the creature comforts of a developed nation such as daily showers, clean dishes and a vibrant garden. According to the EWEA and AWEA’s stats, conserving our water sources may soon become even more challenging in the face of a growing demand for energy generation to meet a growing world population. Wind and other renewable sources are looking better and better.

Illinois wind farm: Shock264

By Calen May-Tobin

Like most Americans, I’m really devoted to the products I buy. I’ve been using Old Spice since I was 15 and entered my “Frank Sinatra” phase, on a bad day nothing cheers me up quite like a bowl (or six) of Lucky Charms or Cinnamon Toast Crunch, and seeing a Taco Bell sign or McDonald’s golden arches on a long car trip never fails to reinvigorate me. For better or worse, we Americans have developed an attachment to these brands and the companies that make them.

So, as I delved into the commitments these companies have made to address palm-related deforestation and peatland destruction, I was disheartened to see how little some of the brands I love are doing to address the problem. That research was part of a project to score 30 top consumer companies in the fast food, personal care and packaged food sectors on their commitments to source deforestation- and peat-free palm oil. The report, which was released this week, shows that while a few companies are leading the way, most have a long way to go to fully address palm-related habitat destruction and climate emissions.

F is for fast food

Fast food menu items, like doughnuts, are sometimes prepared with palm oil.

Most of us realize that fast food isn’t great for our health, but I was shocked to see how bad it was for the health of our planet as well. The fast food sector was far and away the worst-scoring of the sectors we evaluated. Only two companies (McDonald’s and Subway) out of 10 had palm commitments which were strong enough to receive points, and even those companies were pretty low scoring. This means the palm oil that’s going into our Dunkin’ Donuts and McDonald’s apple pies is still likely driving the destruction of habitat for the endangered orangutans and tigers, and spewing millions of tons of carbon dioxide (the leading greenhouse gas) into the atmosphere.

Over-reliance on half-measures

On average, personal care companies scored better than the fast food sector. However, only two companies, L’Oréal and Reckitt Benckiser (which makes Clearasil and other products), have committed to buying traceable deforestation- and peat-free palm oil. Many of the other companies rely on the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO) standards to meet their palm oil commitments. I’ve written before on the limitations of the RSPO to address deforestation and peatland conversion. Companies in all three sectors that currently rely on the RSPO need to go further in order to fully address the deforestation and peatland destruction associated with palm oil.

Leading the way but a long way to go

The packaged food sector has the strongest commitments overall. Four out of 10 companies (Kellogg’s, Mondelēz, Nestlé and Unilever) are leading the way with commitments to buy traceable deforestation- and peat-free palm oil. The rest of the companies in this sector have a lot of work to do to catch up with the leaders.

Even those companies that have made strong commitments, however, still have a long road ahead of them. Commitments are only the first step, and are only as good as the paper they’re printed on. The real change takes place when companies act on their commitments and put them into practice. A journey might start with a single step, but you’ll never reach your destination if you don’t take the rest of them.

Consumers speak, companies listen

What can you do to make companies change their ways? The best thing you can do is demand that these companies take deforestation off their ingredients list. We know from experience that when consumers talk, companies listen. For example, back in 2010 consumers and NGOs organized a massive campaign against Nestlé, after it was linked to deforestation and other problems related to the palm oil it used. As a direct result Nestlé now has the strongest palm oil commitment out there.

Does this mean you should stop buying products with palm oil? The short answer is “No.” The longer answer can be found in this post. It’s more effective to pressure companies than it is to change global buying habits.

So, let’s make sure we can buy our favorite products without feeling a pang of guilt and demand that ALL companies stop buying palm oil that destroys forests and peatland. Based on our review of 30 companies, UCS has chosen six of the largest palm oil buyers in the fast food, personal care, and packaged food sectors that have the ability to help move the entire industry—if they act now. We need your help to convince these big brands to take palm oil seriously. Visit www.ucsusa.org/palmoilaction to send a message to the companies demanding that they do better.

Sabah, Malaysia Image: Rhett Butler

Charts courtesy of the Union of Concerned Scientists 

A version of this post originally appeared on the Union of Concerned Scientists "The Equation" blog

Calen May-Tobin is a policy analyst for the Union of Concerned Scientists with expertise reducing emissions from tropical deforestation and degradation. He holds a Master’s degree in ecology from the University of California, Irvine. See Calen's full bio.

Leftover prescription and over-the-counter drugs flushed down the toilet or tossed in the garbage can end up in oceans and waterways, polluting the environment and threatening human health. Cash-strapped jurisdictions across California have come up with a patchwork of programs to collect and safely dispose of these medications, but now one state senator is proposing a statewide solution with a more reliable funding source, introducing legislation that would require the pharmaceutical industry to finance and manage drug disposal across the Golden State.

Under Senate Bill 1014, drug manufacturers would be obligated to design, pay for and administer a statewide program to collect their products from consumers at no charge and to dispose of drugs by safe, environmentally responsible means. After submitting a stewardship plan describing their program model and plan of operation to state waste management agency CalRecycle for approval, drug makers would implement the program and report back to CalRecycle annually. CalRecycle would require a review and update to the stewardship plan every three years.

The bill, introduced by State Senator Hannah-Beth Jackson (D-Santa Barbara), is modeled after similar industry-funded programs in Europe and Canada. For the past 15 years in parts of Canada, the pharmaceutical industry has paid for a successful initiative that collects unused medication in bins placed at local pharmacies.

These corporate-financed take-back programs are based on the principles of extended producer responsibility (EPR): a model of product stewardship that requires the manufacturers of a product to take responsibility for the environmental and social impacts of its product throughout the product’s lifecycle – from sourcing the material and production to consumer use and disposal. In addition to relieving governments and taxpayers from the high costs of product disposal, the ultimate goal of EPR is to motivate manufacturers to make their products in a more environmentally and socially responsible way because they are compelled to confront the externalities of their operations.

How will an EPR model of waste management achieve a more successful collection program for old drugs than the programs in place? While local governments have stepped up to plate to try to set up medication disposal options with their limited budgets, the supply of leftover drugs and demand for disposal options far exceeds the current infrastructure, Jackson said in a statement. There are only 305 disposal sites across the state to serve 38 million Californians.

SB 1014’s take-back program is expected to increase the amount of disposal sites for leftover medication and give every Californian access to drug disposal options -- because the program wouldn’t rely on local governments’ scant resources to operate. Californians will be more likely to learn about a statewide program promoted by a corporate-financed outreach campaign than they are likely to find out about their city’s program – if one exists. According to a fact sheet produced by Jackson’s office, public surveys across Canada indicate a strong awareness and participation in the country’s pharmaceutical take-back program.

“[The California Product Stewardship Council] supports SB 1014 because the public is demanding that there be a statewide medicine collection program for a variety of reasons including public and environmental health, and the policy solution the bill offers is business friendly, cost-effective, convenient to the public and proven to work with over 15 years of operations in Canada,” said Heidi Sanborn, executive director of the California Product Stewardship Council, one of the bill’s sponsors.

Will drug manufacturers embrace the proposed legislation? SB 1014 supporters say the bill is actually business-friendly, allowing the industry to design the collection program in the most efficient, cost-effective way to the companies, with only minimal oversight from state regulators.

But, despite paying for similar programs in Canada and Europe, drug makers will likely push back against SB 1014. Three pharmaceutical associations sued Alameda County when it passed a comparable ordinance requiring drug companies to set up a take-back program for its constituents. The county prevailed in trial court, and the case is now being considered by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

SB 1014 is sponsored by the California Product Stewardship Council, Clean Water Action, the California Alliance of Retired Americans, the City and County of San Francisco, and Alameda County. The bill will be heard by the state Senate’s Environmental Quality Committee at the end of the month before it moves to the Business and Professions Committee.

Image credit: Flickr/Carly Lesser & Art Drauglis

Passionate about both writing and sustainability, Alexis Petru is freelance journalist based in the San Francisco Bay Area whose work has appeared on Earth911, Huffington Post and Patch.com. Prior to working as a writer, she coordinated environmental programs for Bay Area cities and counties. Connect with Alexis on Twitter at @alexispetru

According to the EPA, buildings in the U.S. account for 36 percent of total energy used in the country and 65 percent of all electricity consumption, so any improvements in building energy efficiency that can be made provide a tremendous opportunity for huge benefits. That said, when it comes to energy, funding has tended to flow more freely towards renewable energy generation projects than towards energy efficiency projects -- effectively creating a barrier to necessary work, which would otherwise make the country's buildings far greener.

One energy efficiency and demand response financier is seeking to address this problem. "What is missing in the energy efficiency industry is akin to what is allowing solar to take off now," says Mike Gordon, CEO of Joule Assets Inc, "There has been no ability to create investments, which can be re-bundled and sold to investors down the line."

By doing just this, Joule Assets plans to correct the shortfall in energy efficiency projects by providing access to the necessary financing that will allow small- and medium-size contractors to unlock the potential in the market for energy efficiency work.
Part of the reason for a lack of funding thus far is one of scale. Investment in multi-million dollar renewable energy generation projects -- such as commercial solar installations -- has been available, because the potential for large profits to pour in have made it worthwhile for financial institutions to set up and service the loans necessary to build them. But, says Joule Assets' Gordon, "Energy efficiency projects at $250,000 or $750,000, don't have access to the financing that big projects do, because banks won't check credit extensively for projects of this [smaller] size in the same way as they will for multimillion dollar projects." The result being that projects in the order of magnitude of hundreds of thousands of dollars often remain without finance.

Since many energy efficiency retrofit projects fall into this size of capital expenditure, Joule Assets believes that what is needed is for small- and medium-size contractors to be able to deploy dollars at their own discretion on projects of this magnitude -- thereby making financing available to their customers for the energy efficiency work they undertake. Joule Assets provides the structure which allows them to do that, but in order to prevent contractors taking on projects that are not going to pay, the incentive for making wise decisions derives from the fact that contractors are subject to a loan-loss reserve -- effectively a share in some risk. It's a fair arrangement though; while contractors are on the hook for some liability if the project doesn't pay, they get access to financing that they would not be able to secure on their own, and in turn, a larger order pipeline.

Investors are backing Joule Assets benefit too, because typically the payback on energy efficiency projects is faster than investments in renewable energy. Furthermore, Joule Assets' Gordon asserts, their fund also offers an opportunity for better-than-normal returns since they have built software and a database which identifies all the extra value available in any given project. Here's an example:

Say an energy efficiency project allows a company to avoid paying for energy at times of peak demand. As well as the building owner getting an immediate saving in kilowatt-hours used, they can also, Gordon explains, secure a certificate of registration for this peak energy demand reduction, and sell that into the electricity market for a period of 15 years. By doing so, additional dollars from the electricity markets enhance the project's overall value. Despite this opportunity, however, few building owners are actually taking advantage of it, or even know how to go about it -- meaning much of the time, money is left on the table. Joule Assets helps identify and complete the registration for such opportunities, while taking a portion of the value realized, as a service.

Gordon explains the goal as an investment fund is threefold: Provide investors with a secure return, provide them with better than normal returns, and by dealing with regulators, create markets that allow a social benefit to be realized efficiently; in this case, that of energy reduction.

At launch, Joule Assets is working with Ener.co, an HVAC contractor that has a coating technology for air conditioning condensers which reduces power consumption by 15 percent on average. This could save a big-box store owner, for example, hundreds of thousands of dollars over 10 years at a single location, for a project with an average pay-back period, according to the company, of 1.5 years. By the end of the year, Joule Assets expects to be working with around 20 different contractors.

Image used with permission

Follow me on Twitter: @PhilCovBlog

Chipotle’s recent SEC filing caused quite a stir. Specifically, one of the risks stated in that filing caused a stir.

The company cited “changes associated with global climate change” as having a potential “significant impact on the price or availability of some of our ingredients.” Due to cost increases, Chipotle “may choose to temporarily suspend serving menu items, such as guacamole or one or more of our salsas.” However, Chipotle spokesperson, Chris Arnold downplays that specific example. “It’s routine financial disclosure,” Arnold told Think Progress. “Nothing more than that.”

Chipotle may or may not have to suspend serving such staples of its menu as guacamole and salsas. However, chances are great that climate change will have an effect on the fast food chain. The filing also mentioned that weather events “such as freezes or drought” could lead to temporary price increases on certain ingredients. The filing goes on to mention drought. “For instance, two years of drought conditions in parts of the U.S. have resulted in significant increases in beef prices during late 2013 and early 2014.”

California is in the midst of a three-year drought, and this drought is an historic one. Two scientists studied tree rings and found that the last time California had a drought this severe was 500 years ago. As a major agricultural state, California produces almost half of all fruit, nuts and vegetables grown in the U.S. Due to the ongoing drought, California farmers were told not to expect any water deliveries which means that to irrigate their crops they will be tapping ground water. If drought conditions continue, groundwater levels in California are likely to reach historic lows.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) released a report last year on the potential effects of climate change on agriculture. As the report makes it clear, climate change will affect agriculture. Temperature increases and more variable rainfall “will reduce productivity of crops.” Although effects will vary in various regions in the U.S., “all production systems will be affected to some degree by climate change.” The USDA is not the only federal agency to detail potential climate change effects on agriculture. The EPA cites both droughts and floods as posing challenges for farmers and ranchers. Both the USDA and EPA point out that farmers and ranchers need reliable sources of water, and drought puts stress on water supplies.

Chipotle is not the only company to recognize that climate change poses a risk to its operations. The CDP, formerly known as Carbon Disclosure Project, released  a report last September which looked at the risks of climate change to the supply chain. The report is based on the responses of 2,415 suppliers to a survey. In fact, 52 of the 54 CDP supply chain members responded to the survey, and they represent a combined spending power of almost $1 trillion. The majority (70 percent) of the respondents identified either a current or future risk related to climate change. Over half of the supply chain risks identified due to drought and rainfall extremes are already affecting the respondents’ operations or are expected to have an effect within the next five years.

Image credit: Flickr/foleymo

Extreme, atypical weather continues to take an unusually heavy toll on the U.S. economy and society this winter, patterns consistent with forecasts made by the world's leading climate scientists. Those same scientists have been urging world leaders to take action and proactively invest in climate change mitigation and adaptation initiatives for at least two decades.

When it comes to mitigating climate change, reducing carbon and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions is paramount. Here in the U.S. in 2009, a total of nine Northeastern and Mid-Atlantic states joined in launching the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI), a power sector emissions cap-and-trade market whereby the proceeds of emissions allowance auctions are invested in energy efficiency, renewable energy and other programs of benefit to consumers.

On March 5, RGGI completed its 23rd auction of CO2 allowances -- the first since a new, much lower cap on CO2 emissions from the region's power plants (those with capacity of 25 MW or more) was set in January. This year's emissions cap of 91 million tons of CO2 is 45 percent lower than last year's limit of 165 million.

RGGI CO2 emissions reductions back on track

Why such a drastic reduction in this year's CO2 emissions cap? As Jeff Spross of Climate Progress explains in a March 7 post, a flatlining secondary market price prompted the RGGI board to take action.

“Starting in 2010, the cost of the permits in RGGI’s auctions flatlined at just under $2 per ton. At such a low price, the incentive to cut was low-to-nonexistent — a sign that RGGI’s cap was so high it wasn’t reducing carbon emissions beyond what business-as-usual would’ve done.”

The results of the March 5 auction were encouraging. RGGI auctioned more than 23.491 million CO2 allowances at a clearing price of $4 per allowance, according to an RGGI press release.

The total sold included all 18.491 million allowances offered for sale by the nine RGGI states plus the entire 5 million cost containment reserve (CCR) allowances allocated for 2014. CCR allowances are only available for sale if CO2 allowance prices exceed certain levels each year ($4 for 2014).

As Kenneth Kimmell, chair of the RGGI board of directors and commissioner of the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection, elaborated:

“The results are what we expected—there was an increase in the allowance price, all the allowances we offered were sold, and the CCR operated as intended. These early results demonstrate RGGI is on track to reduce carbon emissions by 80-90 million tons through 2020 while helping states fund clean energy investments.”

More Than $2 Billion in Lifetime Energy Bill Savings

The March 5 auction generated $93.96 million in proceeds that will now be available to RGGI states for investment in a variety of beneficial energy initiatives, including energy efficiency, renewable energy, direct bill assistance, and greenhouse gas abatement programs, RGGI highlights. Cumulatively, RGGI auctions have yielded more than $1.6 billion for reinvestment.

Added Collin O'Mara, RGGI board vice-chair and secretary of the Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control:

“Our first auction under the new cap demonstrates how market-based programs cost-effectively reduce carbon pollution while driving investments in a clean energy economy. Our recently released Regional Investment of RGGI CO2 Allowance Proceeds, 2012, estimates that RGGI proceed investments will return more than $2 billion in lifetime energy bill savings to more than 3 million participating households and more than 12,000 businesses in our region.”

Image credit Baltimore Building & Construction Trades Council

*Graphs credit RGGI