Climate and Energy最新文献

The concept of making “polluters pay” for environmental damages is not a novel concept, and in fact is based on the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA), enacted by the U.S. Congress on December 11, 1980. Referred to as the “Superfund Law,” CERCLA allowed the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to: (1) established prohibitions and requirements concerning closed and abandoned hazardous waste sites; (2) provided for liability of persons responsible for releases of hazardous waste at these sites; and (3) established a trust fund to provide for cleanup when no responsible party could be identified. Hence the term “Superfund.” This program has been responsible for the cleanup of literally hundreds of federally listed hazardous waste sites across the country since its inception, the most notable likely being Love Canal in New York State, and the efforts by the infamous Erin Brockovich.

Electricity is essential to the economic and social well-being of modern societies. And while electricity is a necessity—in other words a public good—it is largely provided by private interests. As a result, local electric distribution utility operations and power generation are regulated by state and federal regulators and in some instances local governments. Distribution utilities in all 50 U.S. states deal with local, state, and federal oversight in some form. Each state has its own regulatory framework and policy directives to be met resulting in a patch work of varying degrees and forms of regulation—some more stringent than others.

The three Ds—decarbonization, decentralization, and digital enablement—are resulting in significant disruptions across all aspects of the energy and utility sector. In many instances, utilities themselves are spearheading these changes in this intricate new landscape. As the energy transition continues, the demands of utility consumers are evolving, necessitating enhanced tools for utility employees to effectively manage these changes. Amidst this transformation, digital utilities are emerging as trusted energy advisors, bringing cutting-edge digital products to both external and internal end-user markets to meet the evolving needs and expectations of their customers and employees.

Electric, natural gas, and water utilities, as well as infrastructure stakeholders across the United States are navigating an evolving landscape of federal, state, and regulatory initiatives where the term “equity” is a core principle prioritized in decision-making and project planning. The current regulatory environment, including key initiatives like the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) and Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) alongside federal and state programs such as the Justice40 Initiative and California's Equity and Access Grant Program, is driving an equity-centered evolution for utilities.¹ Within these frameworks, utilities are redefining and expanding their relationships with customers and the communities they serve.

Motivations to prioritize sustainability and decarbonization in operations have shifted for companies, especially in consumer and industrial products (C&IP). Notably, changing consumer sentiment and culture, growing technology and product innovation, and evolving dynamics of supply chains are driving trends for the C&IP industry to prioritize sustainability initiatives. As described below, a survey of the top 250 consumer product executives reported two-thirds of executives are focused on responding to changing consumer sentiment around sustainability, the need for digital transformation, and innovations along their supply chains.¹

In May 2023, we described the complexities of the energy market links between the United States and Canada due to national politics, US federal permitting policy, and the power of special interest groups.¹ Yet, for more than a century, the US and Canada have worked through those challenges to develop an integrated North American energy market. Major energy infrastructure projects—pipelines and electric transmission lines—and an institutional ecosystem to foster competitive development of resources mean that energy trade between these two countries remains essential. Recent legal woes related to Enbridge Line 5 strain that relationship.²

In my May, 2024 column, The Biden Administration's LNG Pause: Impacts and Long-term Implications,¹ I discussed at the conclusion how important U.S. Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) could be as a tool to address climate change outside of North America. Figure 1, which was included in that column, illustrates how dramatically greenhouse-gas (GHG) emissions from energy have increased in Asia during a period when those in North America have been flat to declining. Thus, I suggested that making the export of LNG to China and India in particular, if it would displace coal in power generation, could and should be a pillar of U.S. energy policy.

Given the current energy outlook in the United States, it is hard to believe that less than 50 years ago concerns over diminishing domestic supplies of oil and natural gas and the country's energy security led the U.S. Congress to enact the Powerplant and Industrial Fuel Use Act (Fuel Use Act), placing restrictions on the construction of baseload power plants utilizing natural gas as a primary fuel source for generation. Today, the US produces more crude oil than any other country, ever, leads the world in natural gas production by a very wide margin, and has overtaken Qatar and Australia as the largest exporter of liquified natural gas. And according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) there is enough technically recoverable natural gas available domestically to continue production at this rate for nearly another century.¹

Climate change is often synonymous with carbon dioxide (CO₂) emissions. But there is another greenhouse gas (GHG) that is also a contributor: methane (CH₄), a short-lived but extremely potent GHG. Methane emissions behave differently than CO₂ emissions when emitted into the atmosphere. The warming effects of CH₄ wear off quickly compared to CO₂, which remains in the atmosphere for centuries. But what it lacks in retention time, it makes up for in potency: CH₄ has approximately 80 times the warming impact of CO₂ over a 20-year period. That means it has a greater impact on near-term (20-year) temperature change. When CH₄ escapes (or is released) into the atmosphere, it acts as a heavy blanket in the atmosphere, trapping the sun's heat and warming the world.

Many if not most economists, both conservative and liberal, support a carbon tax.¹ As economist Alan Blinder recently remarked, “It's only a very slight exaggeration to say that all economists favor a carbon tax to mitigate climate change.” As this author discusses in this article, their position seems to overlook real-world politics, bureaucratic incentives, and the “pretense of knowledge.”² Advocates of a carbon tax seem to fall victim to what Nobel Laureate Ronald Coase labeled “blackboard economics”.³