Glossary

How Has COVID-19 Changed the Way We Think About Corporate Emissions?

How Has COVID-19 Changed the Way We Think About Corporate Emissions?

How Has COVID-19 Changed the Way We Think About Corporate Emissions?


by Derek Six, Chief Business Officer | October 22nd, 2020


Like many companies with office-based employees, ClimeCo has mostly had its staff working remotely over the past six months.  Over the next year, I suspect many firms will have some employees return to the office, but I think there will be a portion of office jobs that will permanently telecommute.  Both employers and employees have discovered that it is possible to be productive at home, and that the time saved from commuting is a valuable resource.  With more employees working from home now than before, I started to think about what carbon footprints may look like for companies and how this has likely changed since their employees have shifted from company facilities to off-site locations.


Emissions in 2020 vs. 2019

For many years, ClimeCo has committed to reducing its emissions as much as practical and to offset the rest each year.  I am guessing that when we perform our emissions accounting for 2020, the total will be substantially lower than in 2019.  Most of this will result from reduced travel to conferences and sales meetings, but a part of this will also be due to the lower use of electricity and natural gas at our office locations.  I think other companies will find the same when they do their accounting for 2020 – less energy used on-site; reduced heating and cooling costs; reduced purchases of office, breakroom, and bathroom supplies; and less spent on office space maintenance.

For companies that do extensive GHG reporting, this may bring cheers: “Look how much we reduced our emissions in 2020!”.  But is that true?  Or did we shift these same emissions to the homes of our employees?

Computers, monitors, lights, and coffee makers are buzzing between 9 and 5 each weekday at telecommuters’ homes across the country.  What responsibility do companies have for these employee emissions?  Even in “normal” times, should companies think more about employee emissions and employee health and sustainability issues than they previously have?  Could companies make a more significant impact by leveraging their size and scale to address employee sustainability issues at home?


Making a Bigger Impact

Stephen Bay, CEO of EarthUP, Inc., and Stacy Smedley, Skanska’s Director of Sustainability, recently introduced me to a new concept which they call “Scope 4 Emissions”.  For those of you unfamiliar with GHG reporting, companies typically have considered the following 3 Scopes described in the Greenhouse Gas Protocol:

  • Scope 1 – Direct Emissions: on-site fuel combustion, transport fuels for fleet vehicles, air conditioning leaks, etc., things that are under the direct control of the facility

  • Scope 2 – Indirect Emissions: purchased electricity, heat, and steam

  • Scope 3 – Other Indirect Emissions: business travel, waste, water use, purchased goods, services, etc.

Stacy and Stephen suggest that Scope 4 would include emissions from employee energy use, employee waste, and employee commuting.

Why is their concept of Scope 4 emissions compelling to me?  In times of COVID-19 telecommuting, the answer is easy – companies should take responsibility for the shifted emissions resulting from employees working from home.  But even in more “normal” times, I think there is still a compelling argument to do this.  Companies could make a significant impact on global emissions by assisting the employees to address household emissions.  A thoughtful strategy for doing this could include helping employees improve indoor air quality in their homes, reduce their energy bills and waste, as well as improve their quality of life, all while saving them money.

Many companies have found that reducing their corporate emissions by just a little bit is pretty easy and generally profitable, as simple solutions like installing programmable thermostats and more efficient lighting in the office can save them a lot of money; however, as the reduction goals become more ambitious, solutions tend to become more challenging.  Why not widen the net, so to speak, to allow companies to impact employees’ lives significantly?  Wouldn’t this lead to improved employee retention, reduced employee healthcare costs, and increased employee satisfaction and productivity?

For me, taking some responsibility for emissions of telecommuting employees is arguably necessary for any company committed to accurate GHG reporting, but taking additional responsibility for their employee emissions may be good business.

About the Author

Derek Six serves as Chief Business Officer at ClimeCo, where he leads the company’s cross-cutting business functions, as well as the firm’s ODS management program and private equity fund. He holds an MBA in investment management and portfolio analysis from Pennsylvania State University’s Smeal College of Business.

Offset Pricing Monthly Market Digest – September 2020

Offset Pricing Monthly Market Digest – September 2020

Offset Pricing Monthly Market Digest – September 2020

CA and General Market Commentary:

Offset Supply Information:

All CCOs issued to date: 201.97 million
Compliance credits awaiting issuance: 23.29 million

CA and General Market Commentary:

The trend of allowances moving higher and CCO prices moving lower continued in September. The spread between Allowances and CCOs continues to widen to record historical levels.  Because 2020 is not a triennial compliance true-up year, we believe the lack of interest in CCOs is because compliance entities do not need to purchase CCOs for compliance until 2021, and many entities may be waiting until closer to the true-up deadline in order to observe the uncertain economy and better understand their emissions for 2020.


ClimeCo
 is a respected project developer, advisor and trader of environmental commodity market products. Specialized expertise in regional criteria pollutant trading programs, California cap‐and‐trade, voluntary markets and project development and financing of internal CO2 abatement systems complement ClimeCo’s diverse commodity portfolio. Within the Climate Action Reserve, ClimeCo is the largest developer of U.S. GHG‐offset projects and producer of U.S. voluntary carbon offsets, managing projects that reduce more than four million tonnes of CO2e per year. For information, contact 484‐415‐0501 or nmarshall@climeco.com.

A Balanced Approach

A Balanced Approach

A Balanced Approach


by William Flederbach, President & CEO | September 30, 2020


Life is about balance.
Our fight against climate change must also be balanced.

At ClimeCo, we balance our investments on all types of projects that mitigate greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.  From sequestering carbon with nature-based solutions (NBS) like grassland preservation, reforestation, and mangrove re-establishment, to destroying it at manufacturing sites before it ever gets emitted into the atmosphere, we strive for a balanced approach to addressing climate change. 

Our first focus as a company is on destroying GHGs before they ever have a chance to be emitted into the atmosphere.  This results in a permanent, non-reversible reduction that offers assurances to our clients.  So why is this approach to climate change not as popular in the marketplace?  Why does the market prefer to sequester GHGs from the atmosphere after they have already been emitted than trying to prevent them from making it that far in the first place?  Imagine how much easier it would be to knock it out at its origin than to chase it down later.  To us, the proper approach requires a balance of both – destroying the GHG molecules before they are emitted to the atmosphere and then sequestering any unavoidable emissions that occur.

 

The Facts

The USEPA publishes world-wide sources of GHG emissions by major economic sector.  The USEPA reported that destructive patterns of land use account for 24 percent of human-caused GHG emissions (See Figure 1).  Of this, deforestation and forest degradation account for 17 percent of global GHG emissions. 

 

Figure 1 – Sources of GHG Emissions (USEPA)


At the same time, studies by the Global Carbon Project revealed that 45% of the GHGs emitted to the atmosphere are retained there, with only 55% being sequestered by land and oceans (See Figure 2).

 

Figure 2 – Fate of Carbon Emissions (Global Carbon Project)


Since nearly half of all GHGs will remain in the atmosphere for long periods of time, never to be sequestered, this supports the absolute need for a balanced approach: stop what you can from entering the atmosphere while increasing land-based solutions to enhance sequestration for the rest.  It’s that simple… right?

 

Nature-Based Solutions

NBS has become the buzz phrase recently but these practices, such as proper forest stewardship and regenerative agriculture, are not new and have been in place at some level for decades.  In fact, at the heart of the Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX), which was founded in 2003, was the Continuous Conservation Tillage and Conversion to Grassland protocol.  I grew up in the country where farmers would rotate crops between corn and soybeans, and we understood this helped to keep the soil healthy (not to mention its positive impact on our corn maze adventures!).  Now, this solid farming stewardship is considered fundamental to regenerative agriculture.

Today, there has been a renewed focus on at-scale reforestation efforts (such as ClimeCo’s partnership with Restore the Earth), grassland preservation and restoration, mangroves re-establishment, regenerative agriculture, and more.  These all play a critical role in combatting climate change.

 

Reversal Risks

California, under the Assembly Bill 32 Cap-and-Trade program, has issued over 151 million tonnes of carbon offsets (in the forestry sector) since its inception 8 years ago. The California Government Wildfire Report, states that, as of September 28, 2020, there have been over 8,100 fires this year that have consumed more than 3.7 million acres.  According to the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts, as of September 13, 2020, CO2 emissions from wildfires have reached about 83 million metric tonnes.  That is the highest level recorded since recordkeepings began in 2003.  The forest fires on the west coast are certainly exacerbated by climate change, as they are being fueled by two common contributors – dryer conditions and stronger winds.  Unfortunately, this will only get worse in the years ahead.  It is a sad story that highlights natural reversal risks in fire-prone areas of the country.

In addition to wildfires and other natural disasters, the intentional and illegal reversal of forests also occurs within countries wrought with political risk and unclear land rights.  For example, one only needs to look to Brazil, where a horrific tale of illegal deforestation is occurring.  According to conservation groups, deforestation in this region has soared since the Brazilian President, Jair Bolsonaro, took office last year.  Numbers released by the Amazon Deforestation Satellite Monitoring Project, a high-resolution system operated by INPE that produces Brazil’s official deforestation data, showed that 10,100 km2 of forest were cleared between August 2018 and July 2019, a 34% increase from the previous year. Imagine being an investor in forest carbon offset projects in Brazil; would you feel comfortable that you had made a sound investment, an investment that was going to help combat climate change?

Do the risks of accidental or intentional reversal mean that we should not pursue forest or other very important NBS projects?  No, I would argue that these examples are more reason to invest in projects to enhance NBS carbon sequestration.  That said, when making your investments, understand thoroughly how the methodologies account for reversal risk, and be sure to identify both the geographical and political risks.

 

Permanent GHG Removal

Removing GHGs at the point of origin has always been a major focus for ClimeCo.  We like this approach because of the permanent, non-reversible solution it provides us in the fight against climate change.  To-date, ClimeCo has stopped over 20 million tonnes of CO2e from entering the atmosphere, and we are just getting ramped up!  Our expertise includes nitrous oxide abatement at nitric acid plants, ozone-depleting substance (ODS) destruction, methane capture and use, methane avoidance (composting), and more. These projects have no reversal risks and are of the highest quality.  ClimeCo has recently leveraged its N2O experience to lead the development of the Climate Action Reserve (CAR) Adipic Acid Protocol, which was approved by the CAR Board on September 30th.  This project type will abate an additional 5-10 million tonnes of CO2e annually in the United States.  Adipic acid is used to produce high performance plastics, including plastics contained in automobile airbags and light weight plastic in electric vehicles.  ClimeCo is also designing and building additional nitric acid (primarily used in fertilizer production) N2O abatement projects across North America.  We will soon exceed 15 million tonnes per year of CO2e abatement.

Imagine if these projects had not happened and this GHG loading had entered the atmosphere.  This would mean that, in the absence of ClimeCo’s efforts, to-date there would be an additional 20 million tonnes of CO2e in the atmosphere and, over the next decade, another 150 million tonnes or more impacting our climate.  If we were to rely only on sequestering, like as in a reforestation project, to reverse 170 million tonnes of CO2e, it would require in today’s marketplace a total of 850,000 acres at an average price of $12/tonne (forestry credit prices currently range from $8-15/tonne), resulting in a total cost of around $2,040,000,000.  By comparison, the same impact could be realized for far less cost with no reversal risk from ClimeCo’s GHG abatement technologies.  

So, my point is that there needs to be a balance of both permanent destruction of GHG molecules and sequestration in the marketplace for us to achieve our climate goals.  Relying on just one method will not get us there but finding the balance between the two can.

About the Author

William “Bill” Flederbach cofounded ClimeCo in 2009 and has grown the business rapidly over the past 10 years.  Before starting ClimeCo, Bill managed the air quality practice at O’Brien and Gere (OBG), and worked and managed the international carbon markets at MGM International and AgCert.  He is a graduate of Pennsylvania State University and the Smeal College of Business at Penn State.

Offset Pricing Monthly Market Digest – September 2020

Offset Pricing Monthly Market Digest – August 2020

Offset Pricing Monthly Market Digest – August 2020

Offset Supply Information:

All CCOs issued to date: 190.88 million

Compliance credits awaiting issuance: 21.96 million

CA and General Market Commentary:

  • ARB’s August auction saw a $16.68 clearing price for its current vintages, with a bid-to-cover ratio of 0.89. The advance vintage auction cleared at $16.73 with a bid-to-cover ratio of 1.29.  This is an unusual result, typically entities would expect to receive a discount for purchasing future years’ allowances that cannot be used for 3 years.  It was also interesting to see that while only 3.5% of current vintage allowances were purchased by speculators, 19.9% of future vintage allowances were purchased by speculators.
  • Allowances continued to inch higher in August, while CCO prices inched lower. The spread between Allowance and CCO is historically high.  Because 2020 is not triennial compliance true-up year, we believe the lack of interest in CCOs is because compliance entities do not need to purchase CCOs for compliance until 2021, and many entities may be waiting until closer to the true-up deadline in order to observe the uncertain economy and better understand their emissions for 2020.

ClimeCo Corporation is a respected project developer, advisor and trader of environmental commodity market products. Specialized expertise in regional criteria pollutant trading programs, California cap‐and‐trade, voluntary markets and project development and financing of internal CO2 abatement systems complement ClimeCo’s diverse commodity portfolio. Within the Climate Action Reserve, ClimeCo is the largest developer of U.S. GHG‐offset projects and producer of U.S. voluntary carbon offsets, managing projects that reduce more than four million tonnes of CO2e per year. For information, contact 484‐415‐0501 or nmarshall@climeco.com.

A New Approach to Mitigating Future Carbon Emissions

A New Approach to Mitigating Future Carbon Emissions

A New Approach to Mitigating Future Carbon Emissions


by David Priddy, Vice President of Business Development | August 27th, 2020

Seldom has a day gone by that we have not heard of a company or organization announcing new climate change commitments.  Just in the past few months, we have witnessed companies, including Apple, Delta Air Lines, and Unilever, announcing bold carbon-neutrality goals as they seek to do their part to address the climate crisis.  In fact, Microsoft’s plan to offset its entire carbon footprint dating back to its inception in 1975 may represent the most ambitious commitment that we’ve seen yet!

So, this leads us to a question we are often asked:

How can my organization achieve carbon neutrality while we continue to grow?”

While it may be game-on in the pursuit to green up your existing operations, you must also consider your company’s future.  As your business grows, implements new projects, expands office space, increases staff, constructs new facilities, or locates new business sites, you will contribute additional GHGs above and beyond your existing footprint.  This will need to be addressed as you plan your mitigation approach. 

So how can this be achieved?  Will there be enough carbon offsets available to meet your needs?  More importantly, is there a way for you to have more direct engagement when it comes to emission reduction activities that will align with your growth timeline?  Well, thanks to Climate Forward, a new program recently instituted by the Climate Action Reserve (the Reserve), the answer is yes!

Climate Forward

Climate Forward is a program that provides a practical solution for companies and other organizations that seek cost-effective mitigation of anticipated GHG emissions. The program is designed to facilitate investments in emission reduction projects today that will result in future GHG reductions that are aligned to mitigate the future emissions of a company, organization, or project.  Its purpose is to incentivize the implementation of emission reduction projects that would otherwise be unviable using traditional carbon offset programs.

Under this program, the Reserve issues Forecasted Mitigation Units (FMUs) upfront for a project’s entire crediting period upon the completion of its confirmation, a process conducted by an independent third party that demonstrates that the project has been implemented according to an approved methodology.  The methodologies within this program contain the eligibility rules, quantification methods, and documentation and confirmation requirements that ensure the consistency and rigor of GHG reduction accounting for a specific mitigation project.  Meanwhile, the up-front issuance of FMUs helps to shift the project’s economic curve to better incentivize long-term mitigation efforts, allowing the company to plan and implement emission reduction projects that align with their sustainability objectives.


FMUs versus Offsets

While FMUs and offsets are similar in that they are both equal to the reduction of one metric ton of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e), there are several differentiating factors between them.  The primary difference is that FMUs represent emissions that are expected to be reduced (ex-ante), while offsets represent emissions that have already been reduced and have completed a rigorous monitoring and verification process (ex-post).  While offsets are typically applied against past emission-producing activities, FMUs can only be applied against a future stream of greenhouse gas emissions.  While the detailed auditing process for both project types is similar, they occur at different stages of the project cycle: for offset projects, the “verification” process is conducted periodically throughout the crediting period but, for FMU projects, the “confirmation” process is done only once, at the beginning of the crediting period. This one-time confirmation process helps to facilitate the monetization of FMUs in the early stages of the project, which in turn can be used to support the financing of future activities associated with the project.


Benefits and Applications

The Climate Forward program offers several benefits to organizations and developers that are seeking carbon neutrality:

  • It reduces the barriers for innovative, targeted climate solutions.
  • It can incentivize the development of carbon projects that produce co-benefits that may help the organization achieve ESG goals above and beyond climate impacts; such co-benefits can be tailored to the organization’s goals and values.
  • Projects can be targeted to occur in the communities that are directly impacted by their operations.
  • Projects under these types of programs help demonstrate climate leadership.

One potential application of Climate Forward is for GHG mitigation requirements under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).  CEQA requires state and local agencies to follow a protocol of analysis and public disclosure of future environmental impacts of a proposed project and to adopt feasible measures to mitigate those impacts.  Climate Forward can provide entities that are subject to CEQA GHG mitigation requirements with a cost-effective and environmentally rigorous option for future GHG mitigation.

Another potential application of Climate Forward is for developers of mixed-use communities to participate in reforestation projects, where the purchase of FMUs could be used to mitigate the carbon footprints of their projects while incentivizing reforestation efforts. In fact, ClimeCo is presently supporting a reforestation project in the Mississippi River Basin in partnership with Restore the Earth Foundation, using Climate Forward’s Reforestation methodology; the long-term goal of this project is to restore a total of 1 million acres using this methodology.


Getting Involved

Climate Forward provides organizations with a unique opportunity to partner with other organizations to implement sustainable projects while providing benefits to their future mitigation efforts.  As of this writing, there are a half-dozen methodologies that are either approved or under development in the Climate Forward program; however, there are many more creative, innovative mitigation activities that could be considered for development as a future methodology. The program is designed to expand the scope of feasible GHG mitigation project types by encouraging third parties to submit their methodologies for mitigation activities.  So, if you have an idea in mind for an innovative emission reduction or carbon sequestration project, ClimeCo is happy to help! 

About the Author

Dave Priddy is ClimeCo’s Vice President of Business Development. He has more than 25 years of experience in the environmental management field.  He is responsible for the strategy, development, and promotion of ClimeCo’s Nature-based Solutions initiative, and for developing mutually-beneficial partnerships with both landowners and conservation organizations that result in projects that generate positive environmental attributes. David holds a B.S. in Engineering from the University of Louisiana, Lafayette.