Author: rogerballentine

[I’m here to share an interview I did with RewewPR’s Ben Finzel on climate discussion back in 2019.]

The Common Sense Colloquy: Q&A with Roger Ballentine of Green Strategies

We’ve had the pleasure of working with Roger several times and currently collaborate with him on behalf of RENEWPR client the Carbon Capture Coalition. Roger is that rare combination of policy and technology expert and smart communicator: he knows how to succinctly and appropriately explain challenging issues. We consider ourselves lucky to call him both friend and colleague.

Our BIG thanks to Roger for sharing his time and insight with us – and you.

Q: We seem to be at a unique point in our history in terms of opportunity for action on energy, environment and climate change policies: we’re more polarized than ever yet there does seem to be bipartisan political interest in action on at least a few priorities. How should advocates be communicating about their priorities in this political climate? 

A: Of course, it depends a bit on the audience, but your question suggests a mistake that advocates often make: talking exclusively in terms of “their” priorities, instead of communicating opportunities for shared value/shared progress – and doing so with awareness of and empathy for those who might not share in the near term benefits of a clean energy transition.

Q: You’re known as someone who communicates about complex and challenging topics directly and succinctly. What advice do you have for communicators considering how to make energy, environment and climate issues understandable? 

A:  All people and policymakers worth talking to either think that climate change is real or think that it might be. Then the question is what to do about it and why. “Why” is about managing risk (which we do in every other aspect of our economy, our families, and our national well-being) and preserving the world for our kids. “What” is about investment in and transition to an equal or greater prosperity across the economy by building a clean energy economy.

Q: In your impressive career, you have advised presidents and CEOs (among many others). Now we have a president who was a CEO who doesn’t seem that interested in energy, environmental or climate advocacy. If you were advising him on energy, environmental and climate change policy, what would you tell him? 

A: I don’t think he cares about either the moral or economic arguments for action. But I would tell him that he can “brand” a new energy economy in his name (not literally, please) and succeed in that where all other Presidents have failed. Nothing but ego to appeal to.

Q: What’s that the best “common sense” advice about communications you’ve received from others? 

A: Know your audience and what motivates them.

Q: What’s the best “common sense” advice about communications you’ve given to others? 

A: Again, know your audience, understand them, listen as much as you speak, have humility, and then frame your message not in terms of just what you want to say, but also in terms of what your audience wants to hear. Find that win-win message.

The full article was originally published on https://www.renewpr.com/.

[I’m here to share a GreenBiz article on ‘the lowly shipping pallet’ which I wrote in conjunction with Adam Pener, of Green Ox Pallet Technology, back in 2017.]

For some context, Change the Pallet, a national nonprofit disrupting the wood pallet monopoly, released a letter in 2018 signed by 15 universities, ICLEI-Local Governments for Sustainability, the Assoc. for the Advancement of Sustainability in Higher Education, and endorsed by Army logisticians and myself, Roger Ballentine. Lightweight corrugated cardboard pallets reduce shipping weight, and thus fuel emissions; are fully recyclable; and are safer for workers. Read more on the environmental and fiscal value of lightweight pallets in my GreenBiz article.

[As I often do, I am sharing here my Forward from the Report on the 2018 Aspen Institute Clean Energy Innovation Forum I Co-Chair with Jim Connaughton]

 

Co-Chairs’ Foreword

At the dawn of the internet, no one saw Facebook coming, and certainly no one submitted a resource development and deployment plan that pledged “Facebook by 2010”.  With relatively few regulatory constraints and with no incumbent economic or physical legacy systems to overcome, innovation occurred in a non-linear fashion.  While we certainly recognize the limits of this analogy, The Aspen Institute Clean Energy Innovation Forum continues to be the place where the tough questions are asked about how we can more fully empower innovation to modernize our energy system.  Our mantra in exploring the potential for an energy system that is cleaner, smarter, and better is to eschew the mindset of “no, because” in favor of “yes, if”.

Innovation in the face of the constraints posed by our legacy energy system is our ongoing theme.  We don’t come up with all the answers, but we seek to ask all the tough questions.  And again in 2018, we convened some of the brightest minds and most influential players to engage in the discussion.

Questions we explored included: Can we really do “long-term planning” in the electricity sector in an age of rapid innovation and low to zero marginal cost electricity?  What are the regulatory and business model impediments to innovation?  Is the road to “deep decarbonization” just a long trip on the same road that leads first to “shallow” decarbonization — or do we need to make hard choices now?  Are utilities really an obstacle or do we just need to rethink how to better allow them to innovate?  What functions really should be assigned to monopolies?  Is it realistic to expect utilities to replace their capital investments with third party services?  Is there necessarily a conflict between core obligations under the social compact and innovation?  Should the tradition permission-based regulatory model of FERC/utility commissions be replaced (or joined with) more of a Federal Trade Commission-type regulatory model whereby consumer protections/climate protections are the sideboards within which industry innovates and competes?  By what metrics do we plan the electricity system in the age of innovation? Do we “plan” for – or even mandate — low carbon outcomes – and let energy transitions, innovation and financing develop in service of that end?  Do important concerns about reliability, resiliency and cybersecurity cut against some otherwise attractive innovation pathways?  And so forth.

As can be seen in this report of our 2018 Forum, we dove deep into these issues.  We sought to look around the corner to identify change already baked into the system and to contemplate changes that can be made today to get to a better future.

Few discussions on virtually any aspect of the economy today avoid Blockchain; we were no different.  Some have gone as far to say that Blockchain could pose an existential threat to the regulated utility model.  We came to no conclusion, but transactive energy markets at the end-user level do seem to have the potential for efficiencies and great optionality for customers and almost certainly could benefit clean energy access.

[As I have in the past, I share the Executive Summary of the report from the 2016 Aspen Institute’s Clean Energy Innovation Forum that I Co-Chaired with Andy Karsner]

The tripartite paradigm of technology, finance and policy remains the foundation for the clean energy sector. Driven by dramatic price decreases and national policies, and despite a generally low-cost energy environment in much of the world, clean energy deployment is booming. This expanding global clean energy deployment has been enabled by robust clean energy investment – $350 billion in 2015 – most of which came from the private sector and more than half of which went into Asia. Most investment was in the form of asset financing, using various forms of debt and tax equity, though green bonds are gaining traction in clean energy as well.

Continuing innovation in finance, policy, and technology will be needed for clean energy to play its needed role in stabilizing atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations at a level that can keep global temperatures at a manageable level. But the pathway to long-term global climate targets is complex. The global framework agreed to in Paris in late 2015 pulled together plans from countries representing the vast majority of the greenhouse gases in the world and set a long-term target of decarbonization by midcentury. The plans put forward by countries do not put the world on a 2°C path, much less a 1.5°C path, but they are robust and clearly a step in the right direction.

Meeting the pace of Paris will require spurring clean energy innovation, as embodied in the goals of the Mission Innovation initiative launched at the beginning of the Paris meeting. Experts believe that we will need an increase in research and development of new, cheaper, more efficient clean technologies at a rate of $500b a year for the next 25 years. It will also require greatly accelerated clean energy deployment, though harnessing low-grade, dispersed renewables (e.g., solar, wind) at scale may well require increased investments in transmission. Policy support – ideally technology-neutral and perhaps including a price on carbon will be essential to scale clean energy to meet global climate objectives economically.

While renewable energy has been the tip of the spear in the move toward a clean energy future, other zero-carbon energy solutions will be needed as well if global climate goals are to be achieved. Fossil fuels are not going away of their own accord globally, given the increasing dependence on natural gas in the West and the inevitable use of fossil resources in India, China, Africa, and elsewhere. Carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology for coal and for gas is needed to allow fossil fuel use without jeopardizing the climate and we must continue to address the impacts of methane from natural gas production and distribution.

Nuclear power, meanwhile, is already a vital source of zero-carbon energy around the world, but its fortunes are flagging in some developed countries, particularly the US, where some plants have closed and others are scheduled to close in the near future. Federal and state policy support will be needed to safely and economically keep existing nuclear plants alive for at least another decade or two, stand up new ones, and advance next-generation nuclear. Other zero-carbon solutions similarly require greater attention, including hydropower and geothermal power, and should not be ignored – all such options including nuclear should be considered in any new clean energy standards. That being said, some renewable energy advocates are not open to zero-carbon solutions other than wind, solar, and energy efficiency. There is a need for leadership highlighting the importance of deploying all zero-carbon solutions.

The traditional grid characterized by centralized generation, one-way power flows, and energy provided as an undifferentiated commodity appears to be transitioning to one characterized by distributed generation, two-way power flows, greater clean energy optionality, and energy provided as services. A consumer-facing package of integrated solutions – including rooftop solar, energy storage, electric vehicles, and demand response – could represent a breakthrough opportunity. There are hurdles to a distributed future, however, and it may be premature to write off the centralized generation system – it is likely that a hybrid system will emerge with elements of both. Although rooftop solar gets a lot of attention and subsidy, more than 2/3 of solar generation in the last two years has been from utility scale solar, with only 1/3 from roof top distributed solar. Technologies growing in the marketplace can also increasingly enable the matching of demand to the available supply (instead of ramping generation to match demand). There is a need for major rate reform, though, regarding how utilities are compensated, how customers can monetize services provided to the grid, how utilities can actively participate in solutions, and how customers are incentivized to take action.

Within the context of this evolving grid, we should recognize and praise the fact that the nearly century-old social compact of providing universal access to reliable, safe, and affordable electricity has largely been achieved. Going forward, we as a country should set our sights toward a new 21st Century social compact for an electricity grid that promises additional attributes, such as sustainability and robust resilience. This evolution is raising challenging questions regarding equity and equal access, the attributes that should have primacy, and whether change can occur incrementally. Evolving demands, including by large corporations that have made clean energy consumption a core business strategy, and the growing consensus around environmental priorities such as addressing climate change, suggest that the time is right for Social Compact 2.0. To some extent, the attributes of resilient and clean are already being reflected in policy changes and efforts to restructure energy markets. The role of the conventional utility is a pressing question if we are to embark on this new level of social ambition.

Major takeaways and recommendations from the 2016 Aspen Institute Clean Energy Innovation Forum included the following:

• The trend toward a more distributed, two-way grid with more consumer choices, clean energy options and new energy service providers is well underway – but regulatory structures must continue to evolve to increase the pace of change.

• Utility scale renewable energy has largely achieved cost-competitiveness although pricing and contracting mechanisms must be such that projects are not only bid at competitive prices but can be successfully financed and brought online.

• While our immediate challenge is to greatly accelerate the deployment of existing clean energy and demand side technologies, meeting worldwide decarbonization goals will require a significant increase in research and development at a rate of $500b a year for the next 25 years, and will likely require governments around the world to put a price on carbon to most efficiently redirect investment toward reducing emissions.

• The future of a modernized electrical grid will require major public and private investment in our energy system infrastructure as well as greater demand side efficiency and use optimization. The near future energy system will require that we preserve and enhance nuclear energy’s contribution and that we seek to decarbonize ongoing fossil energy generation through carbon capture, use and storage.

• In the US, we have largely fulfilled the 20^th Century social compact of providing affordable, reliable and accessible electrification and the economic benefits resulting from that achievement. It is time to consider the next social compact (Social Compact 2.0) to provide affordable, reliable, accessible and clean energy, as well as advanced energy services and products, to all consumers.

I have the privilege of Co-Chairing the Aspen Institute’s annual Clean Energy Forum.  We have just published our report from the 2015 Forum (available at: http://www.aspeninstitute.org/policy-work/energy-environment/our-policy-work/aspen-clean-energy-innovation-forum.  Below is our Forward to that report.

It is fair to say that the last few years have ushered in an era of dynamic change in the electricity sector the likes of which we have not seen in decades.  The late 1970s, thanks largely to the Public Utilities Regulatory Policies Act (PURPA), brought a new set of players into the electricity sector as smaller generators flourished and began to change what we traditionally thought of when we considered how new generation was added to the grid.  In the following decades, wholesale and some retail markets were opened to competition, again bringing a new set of players into the sector.  These changes were significant and, to an extent, altered the traditional model of regulated monopolies providing centralized generation and distribution services to customers.  Independent power producers, non-utility project developers, and new retail businesses were “insurgents” taking advantage of new market opportunities provided by changes in policy.

Today, however, we are beginning to see changes that promise to be much more fundamental than the developments of the past.  Today’s insurgents are not just “energy companies” that, while operating under a different risk-return framework, are seeking to do just what traditionally utilities have always done – generate electrons and sell them to customers.  Instead, we see technologists, software companies, financing providers, and information technology companies seeking to redefine the very nature of energy services and to challenge the century-old-model of a one-way grid enabling centralized generation and distribution of electrons to customer meters whose primary function is to record and report consumption.

We are starting to see distributed generation, data analytics, and connected, smart devices being offered to customers not just to optimize consumption, but to position customers as full participants on a grid or distribution system where both electrons and information can flow freely in two directions.  The promise is for customers to make choices and for the grid to have new options to meet the balance of supply and demand while lowering carbon intensity and reducing the need for new, centralized generation.

The cutting edge of disruption in the electricity sector today is the growth of distributed generation, primarily rooftop solar.  This has led to fervent debates across the country as to how and whether behind-the-meter generation should be encouraged, financed, and charged.  Yet even that debate is rapidly falling behind the cutting edge of change.  Distributed generation is growing at the same time that information and control technologies are ushering in a market beyond “DG” to a more comprehensive suite of distributed energy resources (DER) that promise a more complex and potentially highly beneficial two-way grid that may ultimately blur the lines between the binary construct of “centralized” versus “distributed”.

Central to this potential revolution is the reimagining of the “customer”.  Electricity policy and market innovations in the past were made with only a static view of the customer – the idea that all relevant changes to the system would occur up to the point where the electrons hit the customer’s meter.  That is no longer the case.  Yet new technologies and insurgent businesses can only be disruptive if somebody demands the products.  Skeptics of this new “energy innovation economy” continue to believe that customer interests in energy do not go far beyond reliability and price – and in many cases today that is true.  Evangelists, on the other hand, might remind us that Henry Ford and Steve Jobs changed the world by bringing to customers products that they did not know they wanted or needed.  And, of course, all of these debates must occur with recognition of the need for universal, reliable, and affordable energy and energy services.

Major disruption and innovation in a sector like cellphones or software happens at least on an annual basis.  If you substituted “centennial” for “annual”, you’d have a pretty good idea of the timeframe in which similar levels of disruption and innovation occur in the electricity sector.  Ok; that may be a little exaggerated, but not much: major disruptive events in electricity are associated with decades, not years.

The late 1970’s, thanks largely to the Public Utilities Regulatory Policies Act (PURPA), brought a new set of players into the electricity sector as smaller generators flourished and began to change how we traditionally thought of how new generation was added to the grid.  In the following decades, wholesale and some retail markets were organized and opened to competition, again bringing a new set of players into the sector.  These changes were significant and, to an extent, they altered the traditional model of regulated monopolies providing centralized generation and distribution services to customers.  Independent power producers, non-utility project developers, and new companies offering retail alternatives to customers were new entrants onto a field long dominated by monopolistic providers of all electricity products and services.  Yet one might think of these new market entrants as more like culturally-enhancing immigrants than hostile invaders; while perhaps operating under a different risk-return framework, they were essentially seeking only to do just what traditionally utilities had always done – generate or sell electrons.

But the cycle of disruption in the electricity sector is beginning to accelerate, driven in part by the infusion of DNA from more innovative types of businesses and business models.  The players today clamoring to get on the field are not just “energy” companies as we have come to understand them.  Instead, we see technologists, software companies, financing providers and information technology companies seeking to redefine the very nature of energy services and to challenge the century-old-model of a one-way grid enabling centralized generation and the distribution of electrons to customer meters the primary function of which is to record and report consumption.

Instead, distributed generation behind the meter, data analytics and connected, smart devices are being offered to customers not just to optimize consumption, but to position them as full participants on a grid and distribution system where both electrons and information can flow freely in two directions.  The promise is for customers to have more choices and for grid operators to have new options to balance of supply and demand, lower carbon intensity, and reduce the need for new utility scale generation.

The cutting edge of disruption in the electricity sector today is the growth of distributed generation, primarily rooftop solar.  This has led to fervent debates across the country as to how and whether behind the meter generation should be encouraged, financed and charged.  Yet even that debate is rapidly falling behind the cutting edge of change.  Distributed generation is growing at the same time that information and control technologies are ushering in a market beyond “DG” to a more comprehensive suite of distributed energy resources (DER) that promise a more complex and potentially highly beneficial two-way grid that may ultimately blur the lines between the binary construct of “centralized” versus “distributed”.

Central to this potential revolution is the reimagining of the “customer”.  Electricity policy and market innovations in the past were made with only a static view of the customer – the idea that all relevant changes to the system would occur up to the point where the electrons hit the customer’s meter.  That is no longer the case.  Yet new technologies and insurgent businesses can only be disruptive if somebody demands the products.  Many see customers as the key drivers of change in the electricity world, as technology enabling the servicing of customers’ energy desires and the tailoring of offerings to individual consumer preferences are being imagined and offered. Skeptics believe that customer interests in energy do not go far beyond reliability and price – and in many cases today that is true.  Evangelists, on the other hand, might remind us that Henry Ford and Steve Jobs changed the world by bringing customers products that they did not know they wanted or needed.

Certainly, bringing customers to the center of the conversation is still a relatively new thing for the electricity sector, and regulatory structures are not optimized to encourage innovation of the customer-provider model.  Some state regulators are pursuing initiatives to create space in the electricity sector for experimentation and for the development of customer-focused partnerships between technologists and energy providers.  Such partnerships could allow utilities – or, depending on regulatory approaches, non-utility players — to provide a range of potential new services to their customers, dramatically increase customer engagement and interaction, and provide consumers with a value and experience proposition far beyond the meter-reading and utility bills of the past.

The simplified but instructive construct of incumbents defending the legacy system and insurgents pursuing disruption leads to assigning a label to companies, regulators and other stakeholders as either propelling innovation and risk-taking or blocking evolution to a new clean energy economy.  The reality, of course, is not so black or white.  While there are active incumbent forces trying to be obstacles to accelerating clean energy to escape velocity, other incumbents are partnering with insurgents or actively working to morph themselves into disruptors.  And, of course, all of these debates must occur within the given of the need for universal, reliable and affordable energy and energy services.  At the end of the day, technology and new consumer value always win.  We might as well show the barbarians in.

The past few weeks have been a whirlwind in the climate world.  The impact of the Pope’s Encyclical is still being measured, even as it moves off the headlines.  Fundamentally, the Pope has upended the political dynamic of the climate debate.  To date, the climate issue has been largely debated in a two-dimensional echo chamber reinforced by calcified ideological presuppositions: it’s the economy versus the environment.  Despite the fact that many of us like to think that this perceived trade-off has long-since been vanquished, political debates can sometimes be immune from evidentiary influence.  What the Pope has done is add a third dimension — morality — to the binary debate.  Intergenerational equity and the regressive impacts of a changing climate have long been preached, but not by a preacher with such a megaphone.  This third dimension can be particularly impactful on the U.S. climate debate precisely because neither side in the binary struggle can exclusively claim or wholly dismiss the moral message.  The Pope’s visit to Washington in September will put this dimension back on the radar screen of policymakers at a time when opponents of action continue to hang their opposition on perceived short term economic considerations alone.

In the U.S., it seems almost inevitable that the Supreme Court will have a major say in how we meet the climate challenge.  Many are pointing to the Court’s invalidation (sort of) of the EPA’s power plant mercury emissions rule as a sign that the Administration’s upcoming rule to regulate CO2 emissions from existing power plants might be heading for trouble.  Without getting into the legal weeds, the Court’s invalidation of the EPA mercury rule probably is less indicative of how the Court might rule on the upcoming carbon rule than does the Court’s upholding of the Affordable Care Act the same week.  One of the principal legal challenges to the EPA’s Clean Power Plan is based on the fact that Congress managed to pass two versions of the same law with underpins EPA’s claim of authority to regulate GHG emissions.  One version said that EPA cannot use the relevant section of Clean Air Act (Section 111) if it had already regulated a given pollutant (like CO2) under different section of the Act.  The other version said that EPA cannot use Section 111 to regulate a given source is that same source (like a power plant) was already regulated for any pollutant under a different section of the Act.  Opponents of the carbon rule argue that because power plants are regulated already for things like mercury under a different section of the Act, then they cannot be regulated under Section 111 for any pollutant.  Just like in the ACA case, a literal reading (one version anyways) of the Act would seem to invalidate the carbon rule.  However, in the ACA case Justice Roberts found that despite the literal wording, the most reasonable view of Congress’ intent was not consistent with (or limited by) the literal wording of the statute.  In the case of the carbon rule you not only have conflicting language, but the version relied on by the opponents almost certainly will be seen as inconsistent with what Congress intended as it drafted revisions to the Clean Air Act meant to, well, clean the air.

Also last week, a study was released showing that a surge in solar installations in Georgia in the first three months of 2015 resulted in the creation of 3,000 new jobs.  This job growth stemmed directly from changes in Georgia law meant to make it easier for consumers to add solar panels to their homes and businesses (see “Southern Cooking”, below).  While this factoid may seem unrelated to “Popes” and “Robes”, I think it is not. The fact is that the demand for clean energy is growing rapidly – for all sorts of reasons.  Businesses are being created and consumers are expecting more options when it comes to how they consume energy.  Clean energy is part of a strong, national social and economic “revolution” (maybe not so unlike same-sex marriage?) that I believe is likely to overwhelm politicians and a lethargic regulated electricity sector.  The pathway to reducing emissions and transforming our energy economy toward a more climate friendly direction is becoming clearer and stronger.  It cannot be reversed.

Popes, Robes and Paychecks all seem to be leaning toward a more climate friendly future.

When considering where in the country renewable energy is thriving, one might be inclined to point to California or Hawaii or maybe Massachusetts or Iowa.  That would be fair, given those are examples of places where clean energy today has the biggest footprint.  But to get a confirmation of the fact that renewable energy will play a bigger and bigger role in our energy future, take a look at the Southeast.  Long considered the land of God, Guns and Fossil Energy, the South is changing.  In South Carolina and Georgia, the last year has seen laws passed and deals cut to open markets to renewable energy — and solar in particular.  In Florida, a constitutional amendment ballot is being considered that will open that state to distributed energy options like rooftop solar.

These states all have something in common that makes the changes happening there surprising — they are all states that rely on the 20th century model of vertically integrated monopoly electric utilities.  There is little or no market competition for the generation or delivery of energy.  The incumbent utilities all operate on the traditional model of a single provider building centralized generation assets (largely coal and gas) and transmitting and distributing that power to customers at rates designed to return the utility’s investment with a regulated profit.  Consumers have little choice in the matter.

Perhaps the most fascinating political aspect of these changes is that they were driven not just by environmentalists but by conservative activists.  The South is the birthplace of the “Green Tea” movement — Tea Party-inclined conservatives who are asking the basic question — why is the government telling me that I do not get to choose how and from whom I buy energy? Consumers have choices in a free market when it comes to buying almost anything else.  Add to that the fact that many are attracted to self-sufficiency of self generation (such as by installing solar on their rooftop), and the conservative argument for solar becomes more clear.

Last week, Southern Company — the dominant investor-owned utility system in the South — announced that it would now get into the rooftop solar business.  “[Y]ou can call Georgia Power [one of Southern’s companies], and Georgia Power will arrange to get a solar panel on your roof” said Southern CEO Tom Fanning at the Company’s annual meeting. Certainly, Southern now has little choice given a law passed (unanimously) by the Georgia Legislature earlier this year.

But there is more (and less) going on here.  First, the glass half-full: the move into distributed generation by an old-school player like Southern flies against the narrative of most of the regulated utility sector, which is that distributed generation is disruptive to their management of the grid, shifts costs to non-solar customers, and is otherwise a threat to basic business model that built America’s electricity system.  It also is an acknowledgment of the rapid decline in the costs of solar.

On the other hand, what is happening in Georgia and other southern states is short of what both free market conservatives and solar advocates really want — unfettered competition for the supply of energy choices.  The question is not just whether I can call Georgia Power to get my solar; but can I call a whole bunch of suppliers and have them compete for my business. This is precisely the question before the North Carolina legislature, which is considering a bill which will allow for full competition for the provision of distributed energy services.  Southern’s regulated utility sister company Duke Energy is, so far, vehemently opposing that bill.  Duke and Florida Power and Light are taking the same position in Florida.

But progress is progress.  Whether you think solar will help fight climate change or whether you just don’t like the government telling you what to buy, from whom and at what price, the winds of change are blowing — even in Dixie.

There is little doubt that the most direct way to get private sector companies to change behavior to lessen climate impacts is through strong and binding legal/regulatory requirements. This has been the main focus of many climate activists and their policy maker allies for decades – and by and large, the wait continues. But short of legal requirements, perhaps the most effective influences on corporate governance and behavior are the demands and expectations of the capital markets – as VantagePoint Managing Director Steve Dolezalek put it recently: “[U]ntil you convince the financial markets of something, you’re not going to change behaviors at a meaningful scale.” Over the past decade, many corporate leaders, academics, commentators – and even the SEC (to a point) – have preached that climate change is a central business issue that impacts company value. The main focus of these discussions has been around two types of climate risk. First, a changing climate characterized by more extreme weather threatens property values, access to key natural inputs like water, and the resiliency of supply chains. Second, governmental responses to climate change are proliferating and new regulatory structures can limit markets for some products (like inefficient appliances or high global warming potential refrigerants), increase energy costs, force changes to industrial processes, or otherwise force changes to business as usual practices. Unilever CEO Paul Polman has stated that climate change costs his company more than 200 million Euros a year. Many leading companies, including Unilever, Walmart, Dow, NRG Energy, Dupont and others have made significant investments and changes to business practices in order to limit their exposure to climate risks – and to seek competitive advantage by making such changes.

But here’s The Big Disconnect – mainstream financial markets do not seem to care. For better or for worse (and usually it’s for the worse) management is forced to be responsive to the questions and demands of analysts and investors on a quarterly basis. Management compensation is often tied to share price and analysts and investors are not translating mitigated climate risk or proactive “climate competitiveness” investments into equity value. Earnings calls rarely elicit questions about climate risk broadly, or even more specifically about energy productivity, fossil fuel reliance, or extreme weather vulnerability. If a company like Unilever faced a 200 million Euro annual liability for anything other than something called “climate change”, could one imagine an analyst not asking about it? Of course there are activist investors (an increasing number) who do care and who do ask and who do make investment decisions with climate considerations in mind. These groups, like CERES Investor Network on Climate Risk (INCR), represent sizable and increasingly important voices in the investor community — but they remain a distinct minority. The mainstream sell-side analysts and financial markets are the dogs that didn’t bark.

Why the Big Disconnect? There are many theories and potential explanations (not among them is that climate is not financially relevant). It could be that analysts and investors are fully aware of climate risks and opportunities, but given liquidity and short- termism they don’t care; they will sell when the climate chickens start to come home to roost. Maybe. But I think we are giving the mainstream mind too much credit. Short-termism is very real, but it doesn’t, for example, prevent analysts and investors from approving of a company’s R&D expenditure plan if they think it will yield competitive value in the future. Or, it could be that mainstream market players just don’t have the information they need. This is likely closer to the truth and its why there has been increasing focus among activists and activist investors to get companies to disclose more information about greenhouse gas emissions and climate risks. This in part the theory behind the very successful Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP) which has signed up a sizable portion of the Fortune 500 to report GHG emissions and other climate and sustainability related data.

But the Big Disconnect remains; demand is not keeping up with supply. The answer does not lie in convincing the mainstream markets that climate change is the world’s preeminent threat. We shouldn’t care whether they care. The answer may lie in presenting what is considered essentially “non-financial” data in a form and in a language that is familiar to mainstream investors. We want them to consume financially-relevant data as they typically do; we just want them to see climate related risk and opportunity as just another data point that helps them do their job better. When unenlightened self-interest becomes a tool in the climate debate, we will have made progress.

Financial Time’s columnist Gary Silverman isn’t directly commenting on sustainability in his piece “Activists in the Boardroom” (http://tablet.olivesoftware.com/Olive/Tablet/FTUK/SharedArticle.aspx?href=FTU%2F2015%2F05%2F09&id=Ar01403 ), but he comes pretty close to it and presents a way of considering the role of sustainability in the face of the “Millennial Economy”. His premise is that the leaders of Starbucks and McDonalds are adopting an Obama 2008 approach to governance – a mix of social activism and unbridled optimism. I think the direct connection to Obama is a bit of a reach and really just a hook for the article. But the indirect linkage makes sense: millennials make consumption choices according to a broader array of preferences — and in response to new channels of communication — than previous generations. Starbucks is driven in part by Schultz’s personal agenda, but its high profile social agenda aligns with the need for the brand to stay relevant with millennials. It’s a natural evolution. For McDonalds, it’s different and more along the lines of a revolution. The company is struggling, has changed CEOs and is looking at a weakening position as millennials make up a larger and larger share of their target customer. McDonald’s problem is twice as hard as Starbucks — it has a brand/image problem and a product problem. Starbucks really only has the former (millennials like coffee). But there is a common lesson for any consumer product company: talk to consumers via channels they rely on and respond to, and talk to them about not just your products, but the larger array of factors that impact consumer decision-making.

 

For sustainability, arguable the lesson here is somewhat of a mixed bag (but overall good news). Targeting very real consumer decision making factors via information about corporate sustainability actions helps where sustainability has sometimes struggled within companies – drawing a line from sustainability to the top line. I have no problem with a company investing in sustainability for no other reason than because it increases sales – if that is what it takes. The only downside to this approach is that it reinforces the misconception that at its core sustainability is just about marketing. But arming sustainability advocates with an argument for top line value creation — to go along with the easier to prove bottom line value of sustainability actions like energy or supply chain efficiencies and the more inchoate but no less real “brand value” creation argument – is undoubtedly a good thing.