You’re out of free articles.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
Sign In or Create an Account.
By continuing, you agree to the Terms of Service and acknowledge our Privacy Policy
Welcome to Heatmap
Thank you for registering with Heatmap. Climate change is one of the greatest challenges of our lives, a force reshaping our economy, our politics, and our culture. We hope to be your trusted, friendly, and insightful guide to that transformation. Please enjoy your free articles. You can check your profile here .
subscribe to get Unlimited access
Offer for a Heatmap News Unlimited Access subscription; please note that your subscription will renew automatically unless you cancel prior to renewal. Cancellation takes effect at the end of your current billing period. We will let you know in advance of any price changes. Taxes may apply. Offer terms are subject to change.
Subscribe to get unlimited Access
Hey, you are out of free articles but you are only a few clicks away from full access. Subscribe below and take advantage of our introductory offer.
subscribe to get Unlimited access
Offer for a Heatmap News Unlimited Access subscription; please note that your subscription will renew automatically unless you cancel prior to renewal. Cancellation takes effect at the end of your current billing period. We will let you know in advance of any price changes. Taxes may apply. Offer terms are subject to change.
Create Your Account
Please Enter Your Password
Forgot your password?
Please enter the email address you use for your account so we can send you a link to reset your password:
The Science Based Targets initiative released long-awaited guidance that doesn’t exactly clarify matters.
The carbon removal industry is in a rut.
Last year, companies with climate targets purchased about 8 million tons of future carbon removal — an impressive 78% increase from the year prior, according to the sales tracking site CDR.fyi. And yet 80% of those purchases were made by the same three entities — Microsoft, Google, and Frontier — that have been more or less singlehandedly supporting the industry since its inception. The number of new buyers entering the market declined by 18%.
“Demand is the greatest existential threat for the carbon removal industry,” Giana Amador, the executive director of the Carbon Removal Alliance, an industry group, told me. “These companies are developing technologies that don’t really have a natural customer. There are corporates who are purchasing carbon removal as part of their sustainability strategies, but buyers at scale are few and far between.”
That was all set to change when the Science Based Targets initiative, a nonprofit authority on best practices for corporate sustainability, released its revised Net Zero Standard — or at least that was the hope. The influential group had not previously given companies any direction as to whether they should be buying carbon removal in the near-term, and was widely expected to get more explicit about the need to do so. But while SBTi’s new draft standard, which was finally released on Tuesday, takes a step in that direction, it may not go far enough to make a difference.
As the name implied, SBTi’s previous Net Zero Standard assumed that companies would have to purchase carbon removal eventually — “net-zero emissions” means pulling carbon out of the atmosphere to offset emissions that can’t be eliminated at the source. The standard was designed to align companies with the Paris Agreement goal of limiting global warming to as close to 1.5 degrees Celsius as possible, and it expected companies to hit net-zero by 2050. But it didn’t say anything about what companies should do with regards to carbon removal between now and then.
As a result, many companies have interpreted that as “they shouldn’t or don’t have to buy carbon removal credits until 2049,” Lukas May, the chief commercial officer and head of policy at Isometric, a carbon removal registry, told me. “And potentially it’s even a bad thing if they did it before then because it might be considered a distraction from their decarbonization. And they certainly don’t get any credit for it from SBTi.”
The problem is that it may not be possible to remove the required amount of carbon from the atmosphere in 2049 if more companies don’t start paying for it now. Startups need demand to finance first-of-a-kind projects, learn from their mistakes, discover efficiencies, and scale. While the U.S. government has some funding available, it’s not enough.
Amador said she’s had conversations with potential carbon removal buyers who have been waiting on the sidelines, in part to see what SBTi would say. They are deterred by the cost, but they also want to make sure that if they do jump in, their investment will be viewed by this third-party authority as meaningful so that they avoid accusations of greenwashing. “I think there are a lot of companies who need to know that this is a core component of what counts as their net zero strategy, and they’re holding off on buying until they have greater clarity,” Amador told me.
But SBTi is in a precarious position. Some companies are starting to back away from their climate plans. Big tech, which once led the pack on climate, is now focused on developing AI and building data centers at the expense of increased emissions. Environmental, social, and governance strategies, or ESG, are now often viewed as more of a liability by investors than a selling point — not to mention a political risk in the U.S. under the Trump administration. Top corporate supporters of the American Is All In coalition, a group committed to upholding the Paris Agreement, recently refused to sign a letter reiterating that commitment. If SBTi’s new Net Zero Standard is viewed as too onerous or expensive to comply with, it’s easy to imagine companies deciding to walk away from it altogether.
In the proposal published Tuesday, SBTi proceeded with caution. In the section on carbon removal, it described several potential approaches of varying ambition. The first was to require that companies begin procuring carbon removal in 2030, starting with enough to offset just 5% of what they expect their residual emissions will be in 2050, and ramping up over time. The second was for companies to set their own voluntary near-term carbon removal targets and receive extra “recognition” from SBTi for doing so. The third approach would give companies more flexibility either to purchase carbon removal beginning in 2030, or to get ahead of schedule on their emission reductions, or to do some combination of the two.
It’s normal in draft proposals to see options with varying levels of ambition. But in this case, it’s not clear that even the first option is an ambitious goal. That’s because it would only apply to companies’ “Scope 1” emissions, the emissions a company has direct control over. Most of the companies that have sought out SBTi’s stamp of approval in the past have very small Scope 1 emissions. Take Apple, for example: Less than 1% of its emissions are Scope 1. The vast majority of its carbon footprint comes from the third parties that produce and ship its products and customers using the products — also known as “Scope 3” emissions.
Robert Hoglund, a carbon removal advisor who co-founded CDR.fyi, published a newsletter on Tuesday, in which he argued that the companies with significant Scope 1 emissions, such as those in aviation, shipping, heavy industry, and mining, have mostly ignored SBTi so far, and regardless, are less able to pay for carbon removal than companies further downstream. By his analysis, among the top 200 companies in the world, the 25 biggest Scope 1 emitters made annual average profits of $85 for every ton of carbon they released across all Scopes. The remaining companies made an average of $32,000.
“The downstream companies, especially in high-profit, low-emission sectors like finance, insurance, and tech, are needed to fund CDR efforts,” he wrote. “If only Scope 1 emissions are required to set interim targets for, then the durable CDR sector will likely fail to scale fast enough in the coming decade. This would risk giving us a lost decade ahead, jeopardising our ability to reach net zero.”
SBTi proposed several other important updates to the Net Zero Standard. Companies buying carbon removal may have to use a “like for like” approach, for instance, purchasing removal services that are as durable as the specific greenhouse gas they release in the atmosphere. In other words, carbon emissions would have to be offset with removals that last a thousand years, while nitrous oxide emissions could be offset with shorter-term removals. The group also recommended a deadline of 2040 for companies to move to low-carbon electricity.
Feedback on the draft is due by June 1, after which the group’s technical department and expert working groups will refine it. There may be another round of public consultation before a final draft goes to SBTi’s board for approval, the group said. It expects companies to begin using the new standard to refine their targets in 2027.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
A conversation with Mary King, a vice president handling venture strategy at Aligned Capital
Today’s conversation is with Mary King, a vice president handling venture strategy at Aligned Capital, which has invested in developers like Summit Ridge and Brightnight. I reached out to Mary as a part of the broader range of conversations I’ve had with industry professionals since it has become clear Republicans in Congress will be taking a chainsaw to the Inflation Reduction Act. I wanted to ask her about investment philosophies in this trying time and how the landscape for putting capital into renewable energy has shifted. But Mary’s quite open with her view: these technologies aren’t going anywhere.
The following conversation has been lightly edited and abridged for clarity.
How do you approach working in this field given all the macro uncertainties?
It’s a really fair question. One, macro uncertainties aside, when you look at the levelized cost of energy report Lazard releases it is clear that there are forms of clean energy that are by far the cheapest to deploy. There are all kinds of reasons to do decarbonizing projects that aren’t clean energy generation: storage, resiliency, energy efficiency – this is massively cost saving. Like, a lot of the methane industry [exists] because there’s value in not leaking methane. There’s all sorts of stuff you can do that you don’t need policy incentives for.
That said, the policy questions are unavoidable. You can’t really ignore them and I don’t want to say they don’t matter to the industry – they do. It’s just, my belief in this being an investable asset class and incredibly important from a humanity perspective is unwavering. That’s the perspective I’ve been taking. This maybe isn’t going to be the most fun market, investing in decarbonizing things, but the sense of purpose and the belief in the underlying drivers of the industry outweigh that.
With respect to clean energy development, and the investment class working in development, how have things changed since January and the introduction of these bills that would pare back the IRA?
Both investors and companies are worried. There’s a lot more political and policy engagement. We’re seeing a lot of firms and organizations getting involved. I think companies are really trying to find ways to structure around the incentives. Companies and developers, I think everybody is trying to – for lack of a better term – future-proof themselves against the worst eventuality.
One of the things I’ve been personally thinking about is that the way developers generally make money is, you have a financier that’s going to buy a project from them, and the financier is going to have a certain investment rate of return, or IRR. So ITC [investment tax credit] or no ITC, that IRR is going to be the same. And the developer captures the difference.
My guess – and I’m not incredibly confident yet – but I think the industry just focuses on being less ITC dependent. Finding the projects that are juicier regardless of the ITC.
The other thing is that as drafts come out for what we’re expecting to see, it’s gone from bad to terrible to a little bit better. We’ll see what else happens as we see other iterations.
How are you evaluating companies and projects differently today, compared to how you were maybe before it was clear the IRA would be targeted?
Let’s say that we’re looking at a project developer and they have a series of projects. Right now we’re thinking about a few things. First, what assets are these? It’s not all ITC and PTC. A lot of it is other credits. Going through and asking, how at risk are these credits? And then, once we know how at risk those credits are we apply it at a project level.
This also raises a question of whether you’re going to be able to find as many projects. Is there going to be as much demand if you’re not able to get to an IRR? Is the industry going to pay that?
What gives you optimism in this moment?
I’ll just look at the levelized cost of energy and looking at the unsubsidized tables say these are the projects that make sense and will still get built. Utility-scale solar? Really attractive. Some of these next-gen geothermal projects, I think those are going to be cost effective.
The other thing is that the cost of battery storage is just declining so rapidly and it’s continuing to decline. We are as a country expected to compare the current price of these technologies in perpetuity to the current price of oil and gas, which is challenging and where the technologies have not changed materially. So we’re not going to see the cost decline we’re going to see in renewables.
And more news around renewable energy conflicts.
1. Nantucket County, Massachusetts – The SouthCoast offshore wind project will be forced to abandon its existing power purchase agreements with Massachusetts and Rhode Island if the Trump administration’s wind permitting freeze continues, according to court filings submitted last week.
2. Tippacanoe County, Indiana – This county has now passed a full solar moratorium but is looking at grandfathering one large utility-scale project: RWE and Geenex’s Rainbow Trout solar farm.
3. Columbia County, Wisconsin – An Alliant wind farm named after this county is facing its own pushback as the developer begins the state permitting process and is seeking community buy-in through public info hearings.
4. Washington County, Arkansas – It turns out even mere exploration for a wind project out in this stretch of northwest Arkansas can get you in trouble with locals.
5. Wagoner County, Oklahoma – A large NextEra solar project has been blocked by county officials despite support from some Republican politicians in the Sooner state.
6. Skagit County, Washington – If you’re looking for a ray of developer sunshine on a cloudy day, look no further than this Washington State county that’s bucking opposition to a BESS facility.
7. Orange County, California – A progressive Democratic congressman is now opposing a large battery storage project in his district and talking about battery fire risks, the latest sign of a populist revolt in California against BESS facilities.
Permitting delays and missed deadlines are bedeviling solar developers and activist groups alike. What’s going on?
It’s no longer possible to say the Trump administration is moving solar projects along as one of the nation’s largest solar farms is being quietly delayed and even observers fighting the project aren’t sure why.
Months ago, it looked like Trump was going to start greenlighting large-scale solar with an emphasis out West. Agency spokespeople told me Trump’s 60-day pause on permitting solar projects had been lifted and then the Bureau of Land Management formally approved its first utility-scale project under this administration, Leeward Renewable Energy’s Elisabeth solar project in Arizona, and BLM also unveiled other solar projects it “reasonably” expected would be developed in the area surrounding Elisabeth.
But the biggest indicator of Trump’s thinking on solar out west was Esmeralda 7, a compilation of solar project proposals in western Nevada from NextEra, Invenergy, Arevia, ConnectGen, and other developers that would, if constructed, produce at least 6 gigawatts of power. My colleague Matthew Zeitlin was first to report that BLM officials updated the timetable for fully permitting the expansive project to say it would complete its environmental review by late April and be completely finished with the federal bureaucratic process by mid-July. BLM told Matthew that the final environmental impact statement – the official study completing the environmental review – would be published “in the coming days or week or so.”
More than two months later, it’s crickets from BLM on Esmeralda 7. BLM never released the study that its website as of today still says should’ve come out in late April. I asked BLM for comment on this and a spokesperson simply told me the agency “does not have any updates to share on this project at this time.”
This state of quiet stasis is not unique to Esmeralda; for example, Leeward has yet to receive a final environmental impact statement for its 700 mega-watt Copper Rays solar project in Nevada’s Pahrump Valley that BLM records state was to be published in early May. Earlier this month, BLM updated the project timeline for another Nevada solar project – EDF’s Bonanza – to say it would come out imminently, too, but nothing’s been released.
Delays happen in the federal government and timelines aren’t always met. But on its face, it is hard for stakeholders I speak with out in Nevada to take these months-long stutters as simply good faith bureaucratic hold-ups. And it’s even making work fighting solar for activists out in the desert much more confusing.
For Shaaron Netherton, executive director of the conservation group Friends of the Nevada Wilderness, these solar project permitting delays mean an uncertain future. Friends of the Nevada Wilderness is a volunteer group of ecology protection activists that is opposing Esmeralda 7 and filed its first lawsuit against Greenlink West, a transmission project that will connect the massive solar constellation to the energy grid. Netherton told me her group may sue against the approval of Esmeralda 7… but that the next phase of their battle against the project is a hazy unknown.
“It’s just kind of a black hole,” she told me of the Esmeralda 7 permitting process. “We will litigate Esmeralda 7 if we have to, and we were hoping that with this administration there would be a little bit of a pause. There may be. That’s still up in the air.”
I’d like to note that Netherton’s organization has different reasons for opposition than I normally write about in The Fight. Instead of concerns about property values or conspiracies about battery fires, her organization and a multitude of other desert ecosystem advocates are trying to avoid a future where large industries of any type harm or damage one of the nation’s most biodiverse and undeveloped areas.
This concern for nature has historically motivated environmental activism. But it’s also precisely the sort of advocacy that Trump officials have opposed tooth-and-nail, dating back to the president’s previous term, when advocates successfully opposed his rewrite of Endangered Species Act regulations. This reason – a motivation to hippie-punch, so to speak – is a reason why I hardly expect species protection to be enough of a concern to stop solar projects in their tracks under Trump, at least for now. There’s also the whole “energy dominance” thing, though Trump has been wishy-washy on adhering to that goal.
Patrick Donnelly, great basin director at the Center for Biological Diversity, agrees that this is a period of confusion but not necessarily an end to solar permitting on BLM land.
“[Solar] is moving a lot slower than it was six months ago, when it was coming at a breakneck pace,” said Patrick Donnelly of the Center for Biological Diversity. “How much of that is ideological versus 15-20% of the agencies taking early retirement and utter chaos inside the agencies? I’m not sure. But my feeling is it’s less ideological. I really don’t think Trump’s going to just start saying no to these energy projects.”