Search Climate Insights Directory

The report addresses the conflict between the Northeastern U.S.'s aggressive renewable energy targets and its limited available land. It argues that meeting these goals requires a combination of innovative siting on low-conflict lands (such as brownfields and prison lands), the acceleration of offshore wind, the use of distributed energy resources, and the import of Canadian hydroelectricity. The authors emphasize that overcoming local opposition through early community engagement and 'Smart from the Start' principles is critical to avoiding project delays and failures.

The document outlines a structured approach to grid modernization, emphasizing integrated distribution planning and the use of outcome-oriented metrics for affordability, resilience, and environmental performance. It suggests tying utility revenue to these performance targets through conditional rates of return or budget caps with shared savings to align utility incentives with public benefits.

The document outlines critical questions for regulators and stakeholders to assess utility regulatory models. For states using cost of service regulation, it prompts analysis of whether current financial structures incentivize innovation, environmental performance, and the role of third-party providers. For those considering performance regulation, it focuses on the definition of quantitative metrics, the consultation of stakeholders, the setting of ambitious targets, and the balance of financial incentives and penalties to drive the energy transition.

The report identifies a set of 21 cost-effective and technically feasible policies that can enable Mexico to meet its 2030 climate goals. It proposes two scenarios: an unconditional package to reduce GHG emissions by 22% below the baseline and a conditional package for a 36% reduction. The analysis indicates that Mexico can achieve these targets while realizing significant net financial savings and public health benefits through reduced particulate matter pollution. The proposed eight-point action plan prioritizes industrial efficiency, methane capture, and carbon pricing as the most impactful interventions.

The report analyzes 35 climate and energy policies for China using the Energy Policy Simulator (EPS), comparing a Reference Scenario (RS) with a Low Carbon (LC) and an Accelerated Low Carbon (ALC) scenario. It finds that carbon pricing, renewable energy standards, and enhanced building codes are among the most effective tools for reducing CO2e emissions. While the LC scenario aims to peak CO2 emissions between 2025 and 2030, the ALC scenario focuses on cost-effectiveness to peak CO2 as soon as possible, achieving a peak in 2022. The analysis highlights that regulatory policies generally drive the majority of emissions reductions, though carbon pricing has the highest overall abatement potential. The report recommends a carbon price of at least 60 RMB per ton, increased renewable energy targets beyond 30% by 2030, and the adoption of MOHURD One Star as the minimum building code standard.

The report proposes eight strategic policy axes for Mexico City to transition toward a sustainable urban model: Transit-Oriented Development, territorial delimitation, public transport integration, mixed land use, small blocks, non-motorized mobility, automobile use control, and recreational public spaces. It establishes quantitative benchmarks for 2018, 2024, and 2030 to reduce car dependency and improve air quality and public health. Key recommendations include implementing a single payment card for integrated transport, establishing strict urban growth boundaries, and promoting 'urban recycling' to create walkable neighborhoods.

The report analyzes various policy scenarios for China's energy transition, highlighting that carbon pricing and renewable energy standards are the most powerful tools for reducing emissions. It emphasizes that regulatory policies, particularly energy efficiency standards in buildings and industry, are highly cost-effective. The analysis suggests a transition toward a service-based economy and a decarbonized electricity grid to meet emissions peaking goals by 2030.

The paper argues that traditional Cost of Service Regulation (COSR) creates a capital bias that motivates utilities to pursue expensive infrastructure projects over more cost-effective, non-utility-owned, or distributed energy resource (DER) alternatives. Through three case studies—distribution circuit upgrades, grid modernization, and regional capacity requirements—the author demonstrates that COSR often misaligns shareholder value with public interest. The analysis finds that multiyear revenue caps, particularly those with 'stretch factors' to encourage efficiency, and Performance Incentive Mechanisms (PIMs) targeting specific outcomes like CO2 reduction or peak demand, are more effective at aligning utility motivation with societal goals. The document recommends a gradual transition toward these PBR tools to manage investor risk while accelerating the energy transition.

The document addresses four perceived barriers to the clean energy transition: the 'duck curve' ramping problem, the necessity of curtailing excess generation, the high cost of renewables, and the role of natural gas in emissions reductions. It argues that demand response and battery storage can manage variability, regional electricity trading can prevent waste, and energy efficiency combined with falling technology costs keeps customer bills low. Finally, it asserts that renewable energy and energy efficiency have contributed more to U.S. carbon emission declines since 2007 than the shift to natural gas.

The policy brief asserts that global climate success depends on the 20 largest emitting nations adopting a small set of high-impact policies across four sectors: electricity, buildings, industry, and transportation. It emphasizes that policy design is critical to avoid inefficiencies and suggests the use of 'Best Practice Networks' (BPNs) to provide technical expertise to governments to ensure these policies are effectively implemented.

The document advocates for outcome-oriented energy efficiency metrics, such as kWh per customer, as a more transparent and less administratively burdensome alternative to measure-by-measure savings calculations. It details several potential metrics, discusses the necessity of adjustment mechanisms for exogenous factors like weather and GDP, and provides recommendations for regulators to minimize regulatory conflict by using independently verified data.

The document examines the failures of California's Risk-Reward Incentive Mechanism (RRIM), where disagreements over counterfactual assumptions for energy savings led to massive swings in utility penalties and bonuses. It argues that measure-by-measure estimation is administratively burdensome and contentious, recommending a shift toward outcome-oriented metrics or the use of approved ex ante values to reduce regulatory conflict.

The paper argues that traditional cost-of-service regulation incentivizes utilities to invest in capital expenditures to meet peak demand. To counter this, it proposes a PIM based on an outcome-oriented metric—specifically the percentage reduction in peak load—rather than a measure-by-measure counterfactual approach, which it claims failed in California's Risk Reward Incentive Mechanism (RRIM). The author recommends setting long-term targets (five to eight years) with annual interim goals and utilizing a sloped, symmetrical incentive structure with upper and lower caps. To manage risk, the proposal suggests a gradual implementation starting with small revenue amounts, eventually scaling the PIM based on independent studies of the net societal benefits of peak reduction.

The document argues that as variable clean energy sources become a larger part of the electricity mix, grid operators must transition from simply dispatching supply to meet uncontrollable demand toward a flexible system that dynamically matches supply and demand. It identifies a hierarchy of flexibility resources, noting that improved operations (such as sub-hourly dispatch and better weather forecasting) are the lowest-cost options, followed by demand response, grid infrastructure upgrades, flexible generation (e.g., fast-ramping gas plants), and energy storage.

California has successfully decoupled economic growth from greenhouse gas emissions through a policy blend of performance standards and a broad cap-and-trade program. Since 2006, the state has seen a 7 percent decline in emissions while experiencing robust job growth, particularly in the green technology sector. Key achievements include significant adoption of plug-in electric vehicles, a growing renewable energy portfolio, and the influence of its building and appliance codes on other U.S. states and federal policy. The state is now shifting focus toward 2030 targets, including a 50 percent renewable portfolio standard and a goal to reduce economy-wide emissions by 40 percent below 1990 levels.

The report outlines a three-step approach for improving the performance of publicly-owned utilities (POUs). The first step involves 'no regrets' actions, such as engaging diverse stakeholders to define goals and using Integrated Resource Plans (IRPs) to balance reliability, cost, and environmental targets. The second step focuses on governance evolutions, specifically delineating the roles of boards and management and implementing board self-evaluations. The third step suggests more drastic measures for lagging performance, including revenue decoupling to support energy efficiency, performance-based employee compensation, and the use of third-party non-profit entities for specific utility functions.

The report argues that smart land use policy is critical for California to meet its 2030 decarbonization goals. Using the RapidFire model and E3 California Pathways data, the study finds that 'More Compact' and 'Infill Focus' scenarios can lead to statewide emissions reductions of 40-41% below 1990 levels when combined with aggressive energy technology deployment. Beyond climate targets, smart growth is projected to deliver significant co-benefits, including billions of dollars in household and infrastructure cost savings, improved public health outcomes through reduced air pollution, and the preservation of greenfield land. The authors recommend that the California Air Resources Board (CARB) strengthen emissions reduction targets under SB 375 and provide substantial funding to support cities and regions in implementing target-compliant land use plans.

Energy Innovation used the Energy Policy Simulator to determine that a specific combination of six policies could meet the Clean Power Plan's goal of reducing power sector CO2 emissions by 32 percent by 2030 while saving the U.S. economy nearly 40 billion dollars between 2016 and 2030. The recommended package focuses on improving coal plant efficiency, accelerating coal retirements, enhancing building and industrial energy efficiency, implementing a 25 percent national average renewable portfolio standard, and increasing transmission capacity. The report contrasts this approach with more expensive alternatives, such as those relying heavily on nuclear power or carbon capture and storage.

The fact sheet compares two scenarios for meeting U.S. 2025 decarbonization targets: a 'Policy Solutions' package starting in 2016 and a 'Delayed' scenario starting in 2020. It finds that delaying action by four years would cost nearly $400 billion in lost cumulative savings by 2030 and result in less than three-quarters of the total greenhouse gas abatement over the 15-year period. The document emphasizes that early adoption leverages natural capital stock turnover in vehicles and buildings, whereas delayed action requires more aggressive and costly measures, such as higher carbon taxes and accelerated coal plant retirements, to reach the same 2030 emissions levels.

Energy Innovation presents a set of 15 targeted policies across economy-wide, industrial, transportation, power, building, and land-use sectors. These policies, modeled via the Energy Policy Simulator, aim to reduce emissions and save the U.S. approximately $840 billion between 2016 and 2030 while positioning the country as a leader in clean energy technology.