Search Climate Insights Directory

The report argues that TTIP's regulatory cooperation provisions, primarily based on EU proposals, would institutionalize oversight of US state-level legislation and regulations by federal and international bodies. This framework would likely lead to 'regulatory chill' through onerous procedural requirements, such as early warning systems and trade impact assessments, which favor industry influence over public interest. The document highlights that US states often act as the primary regulators of toxic chemicals and pesticides when federal action is lax, and that TTIP's goal of 'regulatory compatibility' could effectively set federal or international standards as a ceiling, preventing states from adopting more protective measures. It specifically warns that such mechanisms could be used to challenge state-level bans on substances like Bisphenol A (BPA) or pesticide residue monitoring programs in California.

A joint letter from the Attorneys General of New York, Delaware, Maryland, Massachusetts, Oregon, Rhode Island, and Vermont requests that the EPA establish methane emission standards for the distribution sector. The states argue that excluding this sector undermines the climate benefits of the Clean Power Plan and cite an EPA Inspector General's report stating that voluntary industry efforts have failed and that distribution leaks cost consumers approximately $192 million in 2011.

The report argues that rising temperatures and drier conditions in the American West, combined with a trend of building homes in wildfire-prone areas, have led to longer fire seasons and soaring suppression costs. It highlights a misalignment of incentives where federal taxpayers bear the brunt of firefighting costs while local zoning allows risky development. The document details the broad economic impacts of wildfires—extending far beyond direct suppression to include public health crises, infrastructure damage, and tourism losses—and recommends a shift toward resilience, stricter building codes, and carbon emission reductions.

A joint statement from the Attorneys General of New York, Delaware, Maryland, Massachusetts, Oregon, Rhode Island, and Vermont urging the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to establish formal emission standards and guidelines for methane in the oil and gas sector following the publication of five technical white papers.

The report introduces 'governAbilities' as the nexus of sustainability, accountability, and adaptability, arguing that these three operational areas are essential for governments to maintain a 'social licence to operate' in a complex, uncertain century. It identifies four common principles—outcome-based, multistakeholder, forward-looking, and multi-dimensional—that link these abilities. To operationalize these, the authors propose a toolkit including Budgeting for Outcomes, Indicator Information Systems, Multistakeholder Councils, Scenario Planning, and Integrated Strategies. The report provides global case studies, such as Germany's sustainability reporting and Washington State's budgeting process, to demonstrate how these tools can be implemented to improve public management and policy resilience.

The briefing outlines a strategic policy framework for California to maintain its climate leadership and reach its 2050 emissions targets. It emphasizes the need for a 2030 carbon cap to provide investment certainty and recommends specific reforms: transitioning utilities to performance-based regulation, implementing energy labels for existing buildings, enhancing the Low Carbon Fuel Standard, and establishing 'gold standard' methane emissions regulations. The authors also advocate for regional cooperation with other U.S. states and technical collaboration with China to scale clean energy technologies globally.

The Stockholm Environment Institute (SEI) develops consumption-based accounting tools, such as multi-regional input-output (MRIO) models, to reveal environmental costs often ignored by territory-based emissions tracking. SEI argues that while consumers play a role, systemic shifts driven by government and business are essential to overcome infrastructure and business models that lock in unsustainable patterns. Their research also highlights how complex global supply chains can transfer vulnerabilities and environmental risks between producer and consumer regions.

The document discusses the shift toward regulatory-based climate policies in both Canada and the U.S., emphasizing the need for 'equivalency' in measuring carbon reductions across different provincial and state systems. It analyzes the economic impact of proposed Canadian oil and gas regulations, noting that a 40/40 target (40% reduction with a $40 price ceiling) would cost significantly more than a 20/20 target. Finally, it suggests Canada is unlikely to meet its 17% emissions reduction target for 2020 due to delayed oil and gas regulations and increasing energy sector emissions.

The report argues that replacing coal with natural gas is insufficient to meet U.S. climate goals due to continued CO2 emissions and methane leakage. It highlights risks including water contamination from fracking, price volatility, and the potential to crowd out renewables. The authors advocate for a transition to a system where renewables and efficiency provide 80% of electricity by 2050.

The U.S. Highway Trust Fund (HTF), which relies on federal fuel taxes that have not been adjusted since 1993, is facing insolvency due to rising costs and declining fuel consumption. The document argues that current funding is insufficient, contributing to a 'D' grade for national infrastructure and an annual funding gap of $112 billion. It evaluates several solutions, including indexing fuel taxes to inflation or construction costs, increasing the per-gallon tax rate, and transitioning to a vehicle miles traveled (VMT) fee to better align costs with infrastructure wear, particularly from heavy trucks.

The U.S. Highway Trust Fund (HTF), which relies on fuel taxes unchanged since 1993, faces insolvency due to rising costs and declining fuel consumption. The document argues that current funding is insufficient to maintain a state of good repair, citing a $112B annual funding gap. It evaluates several solutions, including indexing fuel taxes to inflation, increasing the per-gallon tax rate, implementing vehicle miles traveled (VMT) fees, or shifting to a fuel sales tax, while highlighting the interdependence of highway and transit systems for economic efficiency.

The document highlights a trend of increasingly destructive wildfires in the U.S., driven by climate change and a lack of funding for hazardous fuel reduction. It notes that forests are shifting from carbon sinks to emitters and that the U.S. Forest Service faces significant budget cuts despite rising fire risks. The author proposes that developing markets for woody biomass and bioenergy could provide a sustainable funding mechanism for forest restoration and wildfire prevention.

A coalition of environmental and health organizations petitions the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to move beyond project-specific reviews and undertake a comprehensive area-wide Environmental Impact Statement for proposed coal export terminals in the Pacific Northwest. The petitioners argue that the combined capacity of approximately 100 million metric tons of coal per year creates systemic risks to rail infrastructure, public health, and global climate that cannot be adequately assessed on a site-by-site basis.

The US experienced a nearly four-fold increase in electricity from wind and solar between 2007 and 2012, with nine states already generating 10 percent or more of their power from these sources. The document asserts that current grid tools can handle higher percentages of variable renewable energy and that a combination of wind, solar, geothermal, biomass, and hydropower could supply 80 percent of US electricity by 2050, with wind and solar alone contributing 50 percent.

The document details the U.S. effort to reach a goal of one million electric vehicles by 2015 through the development of 'deployment communities' and infrastructure. It describes federal initiatives like the Transportation Electrification Initiative and Clean Cities, regional efforts such as the Northeast Electric Vehicle Network, and commercial fleet adoptions by companies like Frito Lay and General Electric. It also lists specific legislative proposals aimed at increasing consumer tax credits and funding for community deployment and fleet upgrades.

The document details US efforts to reach a goal of one million electric vehicles by 2015, focusing on federal, state, and local deployment programs, the role of commercial and government fleets, and proposed legislation to incentivize PEV adoption and infrastructure.

The document describes the technical operation of battery electric vehicles (EVs) and plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs), noting that a range of 60 to 120 miles can satisfy the vast majority of daily travel needs. It details the 2012 U.S. market, highlighting the Chevrolet Volt and Nissan LEAF as dominant models and comparing specifications for several other vehicles. The text analyzes the economic impact of battery costs, the necessity of charging infrastructure, and the role of federal and state tax credits in making PEVs commercially viable.

The brief highlights the role of the 2008 Farm Bill in stimulating the U.S. biofuels industry and reducing oil dependence. It details specific programs like the Biomass Crop Assistance Program (BCAP) and the Biorefinery Assistance Program, noting that while initial investments of less than $2 billion have shown promise, significant further investment is required to meet Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) targets for 2022. The author emphasizes that shifting to biofuels can improve energy security, support rural economic development, and mitigate climate change.

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.