Search Climate Insights Directory

Landfills are the third largest source of anthropogenic methane in the United States, contributing 17.7 percent of all U.S. methane emissions. The EPA regulates large municipal solid waste (MSW) landfills and manages the voluntary Landfill Methane Outreach Program (LMOP) to encourage the capture of landfill gas (LFG) for energy production. While projects in landfills with existing capture systems are generally profitable, those requiring new systems may face net losses unless they leverage tax credits, carbon credits, or on-site electricity use. LFG projects can produce electricity, heat, or vehicle fuels, providing both climate benefits and local employment.

Landfills are the third largest source of anthropogenic methane in the U.S., contributing 17.7 percent of all U.S. methane emissions. The EPA regulates large municipal solid waste landfills through the Clean Air Act and RCRA, while the voluntary Landfill Methane Outreach Program (LMOP) facilitates the development of energy projects. As of October 2012, 605 operational energy projects exist across 48 states, producing 15 billion kWh of electricity and 100 billion cubic feet of gas for direct use annually. The economic viability of these projects depends heavily on whether capture systems are already in place; for example, a 3 MW turbine project with an existing system can yield a net return of $590,000 over 15 years, whereas one without a system may lose $3.5 million without additional tax credits or carbon offsets.

The report identifies heating oil as a significant economic and environmental drain on the Northeast U.S., costing the region over $14 billion annually. It compares natural gas and heat pumps as alternatives, concluding that heat pumps offer superior long-term economic savings and emissions reductions, particularly when paired with a renewable grid. The author identifies high upfront costs, lack of technical knowledge, and retrofit difficulties as primary barriers and suggests incentives, third-party financing, and leasing as solutions to scale the market.

Coal mining accounts for 8 percent of global methane emissions. While significant potential exists for abatement through degasification and ventilation air methane (VAM) oxidation, progress is hindered by policy, financial, and technological barriers. In China, legal frameworks and conflicting safety/emission standards create hurdles, while India lacks resource assessments. Russia faces issues with licensing and inefficient degasification systems. In the US, split-estate ownership on federal lands and a lack of federal mandates limit viability. The report suggests that while large-scale investment is available, a lack of small-scale funding for design and demonstration is a primary obstacle, proposing revolving funds and micro-loans as solutions.

The report finds that federal incentives were critical for the viability of U.S. wind and solar projects in 2010, bridging roughly half the gap between generation costs and market prices. While cost reductions have made wind nearly viable with federal support alone by 2013, the report argues that current tax-based incentives are inefficient because project developers often lack the tax liabilities to fully utilize them, necessitating costly tax-equity financing. The authors propose replacing the Production Tax Credit (PTC) for wind with a Taxable Cash for Production (TCP) incentive and offering solar PV projects a 20% 1603 Cash Grant instead of a 30% Investment Tax Credit (ITC) to maintain support while significantly reducing costs to federal and state governments.

The Union of Concerned Scientists evaluated the ten largest publicly owned utilities (POUs) in California based on their 2010 compliance with the state's Renewables Portfolio Standard (RPS). While these utilities collectively increased their RPS-eligible investments from 4.1% of retail sales in 2003 to 18.8% in 2010, the report finds significant disparity in how this was achieved. Some utilities, such as Silicon Valley Power and Modesto Irrigation District, are categorized as "running ahead," while others, like Roseville Electric and Imperial Irrigation District, are labeled as having a "false start" due to a reliance on short-term contracts that do not promote new clean energy development. The report emphasizes that long-term contracts and ownership of facilities are essential to meet the increased 33% RPS requirement for 2020 and to reduce the state's continued heavy reliance on fossil fuels.

The Union of Concerned Scientists evaluated how California's 10 largest publicly owned utilities (POUs) performed against the 20 percent by 2010 Renewables Portfolio Standard (RPS). While collective RPS-eligible investments rose from 4.1 percent in 2003 to 18.8 percent in 2010, the report found significant variance in utility performance. Three utilities—Silicon Valley Power, Turlock Irrigation District, and Modesto Irrigation District—were categorized as "sprinting ahead," while others were labeled as "on the right track" or a "false start." The analysis highlights that reliance on short-term contracts fails to provide financial security for developers and does not effectively promote new clean energy facilities. To meet the strengthened 33 percent by 2020 requirement, the report recommends that POUs prioritize long-term contracts and direct ownership of projects to reduce fossil fuel reliance and stabilize prices.

The report analyzes how California's 10 largest publicly owned utilities (POUs) met the 2010 RPS goal of 20 percent renewables. While collective RPS-eligible investments rose from 4.1 percent in 2003 to 18.8 percent in 2010, the quality of these investments varied. The authors emphasize that long-term contracts for new facilities are the most effective way to drive new clean energy development and stabilize rates. The report categorizes POUs into three groups: those 'sprinting ahead' (e.g., Silicon Valley Power), those 'on the right track' (e.g., LADWP), and those with a 'false start' (e.g., Imperial Irrigation District). It concludes with recommendations for the California Energy Commission (CEC) and POUs to prioritize long-term investments and improve reporting to meet the 33 percent RPS by 2020.

The research paper evaluates four types of cost limits—alternative compliance payments, contract price caps, retail rate/revenue impact caps, and renewable energy fund caps—across several U.S. states. It finds that while cost limits can insure against unacceptably high costs, they often create market uncertainty, may act as price floors rather than ceilings, and can conflict with renewable energy targets if not aligned with expected costs. For California, the author recommends avoiding public contract-level benchmarks, ensuring the limit is consistent with expected RPS costs, and implementing a simple, clearly defined mechanism with a predictable review process.

The report examines how the growth of distributed energy resources (DERs), particularly rooftop solar PV, disrupts traditional utility business models in California. It argues that existing volumetric rate structures and net energy metering (NEM) create economic misalignments and cost shifts from solar adopters to non-adopters. To resolve this, the authors propose three building blocks: improving the measurement of DER costs and benefits, implementing pricing models that reflect the actual value of energy based on time and location, and adapting utility business models toward either an 'incentive regulation' or 'network utility' approach.

The document analyzes the water-energy nexus, highlighting that while low-carbon technologies are essential for reducing greenhouse gas emissions, some may require as much or more water than fossil-fuel generation. It distinguishes between water withdrawal and consumption, noting that cooling systems (once-through, wet-recirculating, and dry) significantly influence water demand. A California case study demonstrates that a standard Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) can reduce emissions and withdrawals but may increase water consumption; however, a strategic 'RPS+Technology' approach—prioritizing solar PV over solar thermal and adopting dry-cooling and carbon capture and sequestration (CCS)—can simultaneously reduce emissions and water use.

The document argues that climate, water, and energy are intricately linked, requiring integrated modeling tools to understand cross-sectoral tradeoffs. To address this, the Stockholm Environment Institute (SEI) linked its WEAP and LEAP systems. A California case study shows that meeting 5% of Southern California's urban water demand via desalination by 2049 could reduce water imports by 300 million cubic meters per year in normal years, but would increase the water sector's electricity use by approximately 3 TWh and GHG emissions by 1.4 million tonnes of CO2e per year.

The report assesses the innovation systems of solar PV and CCS, finding that while solar PV is rapidly declining in cost and expanding globally, CCS remains stuck in a 'valley of death' requiring large-scale demonstration. It contrasts the European preference for 'market pull' policies (like feed-in tariffs) with the US emphasis on 'technology push' (R&D funding), arguing that a balanced approach is necessary to meet global climate goals.

The report analyzes six case studies—onshore wind in the U.S. and Spain, solar PV in the U.S. and Italy, a solar power tower in the U.S., and offshore wind in Denmark—to determine how policy impacts the cost of finance. It identifies seven policy impact pathways, finding that the duration of revenue support and revenue certainty are the most critical factors in reducing financing costs. The analysis shows that while most projects' costs and returns align with benchmarks, the Italian PV case experienced inflated costs and returns due to a rush to qualify for a Feed-in-Premium. The report concludes that policies reducing risk and providing revenue certainty are essential for attracting institutional investors and scaling innovative technologies.

This working paper by the Climate Policy Initiative (CPI) establishes a framework for diagnosing policy effectiveness by analyzing the link between policy, finance, and outcomes. It argues that policies impact the investment environment by altering the allocation of costs, revenues, and risks, which subsequently affects the types of investors attracted to projects. The paper details the specific requirements and risk tolerances of different investor classes—including debt, equity, mezzanine, and venture capital—and explains how these dynamics shift across the development, construction, and operation stages of a project. CPI intends to use this framework for future case studies to test hypotheses on financial structures and contractual risk allocation.

The report argues that the nuclear power industry has relied on extensive taxpayer and ratepayer subsidies for over 50 years, which mask the true costs of production and shift significant financial, safety, and environmental risks to the public. It finds that legacy subsidies for the first generation of reactors often exceeded the value of the power produced, and that new reactors are poised to repeat this pattern with projected subsidies ranging from 70% to 200% of their power value. The author recommends reducing nuclear subsidies, implementing technology-neutral competitive bidding for low-carbon energy, and modernizing liability and waste management systems to internalize costs.

The document argues that technological innovation, particularly in the electricity sector, is essential for reducing greenhouse gas emissions, but is currently hindered by high risks and long investment cycles. It highlights that while solar PV has seen rapid growth driven by European feed-in tariffs and US tax incentives, carbon capture and storage (CCS) remains stalled in the 'valley of death' due to insufficient funding and political commitment for large-scale demonstration. The authors emphasize the need for a combination of 'push' (R&D) and 'pull' (market creation) mechanisms to ensure sustainable technological scaling and suggest that market formation must expand beyond Europe to ensure global stability for these industries.

The report finds that Hispanics, African Americans, and other minority groups are often as supportive of, or more supportive of, national climate and energy policies than white Americans, challenging the perception that climate change is primarily a concern of the white upper-middle class.

The report examines domestic policy reforms in developing countries focused on price reform, energy efficiency, and low-carbon fuels to mitigate climate change. It analyzes the political and economic barriers to price reform, the necessity of legal frameworks and specialized agencies for energy efficiency, and the role of financial incentives and standards. The document also evaluates the use of input, output, outcome, and impact indicators for monitoring, reporting, and verification (MRV) of Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions (NAMAs), concluding that only impact indicators provide a reliable basis for financial rewards, despite significant data gaps in developing countries.

As of February 2009, 28 U.S. states and Washington D.C. have implemented renewable electricity standards to increase the share of wind, solar, and bioenergy in their power supplies. The Union of Concerned Scientists projects these standards will support 76,750 MW of new renewable power by 2025, reducing annual carbon dioxide emissions by over 183 million metric tons. While success varies by state—with Texas significantly exceeding its targets—the document argues that state leadership proves these standards can reduce market barriers, justifying a national renewable electricity standard to enhance energy security and fuel diversity.