Areas of Expertise:
climate and energy, offsets, carbon markets, clean air act
Tim Profeta is the director of the Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions. Since 2005, the Institute has grown into a major nonpartisan player in key environmental debates, serving both the public and private sectors with sound understanding of complex environmental issues.
Profeta’s areas of expertise include climate change and energy policy, the Clean Air Act, and adaptive use of current environmental laws to address evolving environmental challenges. His work at the Institute has included numerous legislative and executive branch proposals to mitigate climate change, including providing Congressional testimony several times on his work at Duke University, developing multiple legislative proposals for cost containment and economic efficiency in greenhouse gas mitigation programs, and facilitating climate and energy policy design processes for several U.S. states.
Prior to his arrival at Duke, Profeta served as counsel for the environment to Sen. Joseph Lieberman. As Lieberman’s counsel, he was a principal architect of the Lieberman-McCain Climate Stewardship Act of 2003. He also represented Lieberman in legislative negotiations pertaining to environmental and energy issues, as well as coordinating the senator’s energy and environmental portfolio during his runs for national office. Profeta has continued to build on his Washington experience to engage in the most pertinent debates surrounding climate change and energy.
In addition to his role at the Institute, Profeta serves as Chairman of the Board for 8 Rivers Capital, is a member of the Climate Action Reserve Board of Directors, and is a member of The American Law Institute. Profeta also holds an appointment as an Associate Professor of the Practice at Duke University’s Sanford School of Public Policy.
Profeta earned a J.D., magna cum laude, and M.E.M. in Resource Ecology from Duke in 1997 and a B.A. in Political Science from Yale University in 1992.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposed in 2012 proposed performance standards for carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from new fossil fuel–fired power plants. Once finalized, the new-source standards will trigger section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act, which required the EPA to regulate CO2 emissions from existing power plants. Broad statutory language and limited legal precedent suggest that a variety of policy design options are available to the EPA and states when regulating CO2 emissions from existing power plants. At the same time, section 111(d) raises unanswered questions. In October 2012, the Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions convened a stakeholder workshop in Washington, D.C., to discuss these questions. This report preserves the workshop discussion by summarizing panel presentations, highlighting points of conversation, and capturing key themes. This report also identifies tradeoffs facing regulators who will draft the existing-source regulations and notes issues ripe for further exploration.
Author(s):Jeremy M. Tarr, Jonas Monast, and Tim Profeta
Researchers at the Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions contributed to a chapter in the publication "Environmental Leadership: A Reference Handbook." The book covers topics that confront the particular intractable characteristics of environmental problem solving. Individual chapters focus on how environmental leadership actions or initiatives may be applied to address specific problems in context, offering both analyses and recommendations.
On December 9, 2011, the Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions convened a broad range of stakeholders to explore the legal and policy issues presented by the regulation of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions under 111(d) (existing source performance standards) of the Clean Air Act. The workshop focused primarily on the options for states to demonstrate that existing GHG policies are equivalent to the 111(d) requirements. The Nicholas Institute distributed this document to workshop participants prior to the event to provide a framework for the issues that would be discussed. Nothing in this document should be interpreted as expressing the Institute’s opinion of the path the EPA should take on any given issue.
Author(s):Jonas Monast, Tim Profeta, Brooks Rainey Pearson and John Doyle
The California Air Resources Board (ARB), as a result of a recent court decision, is required to provide information about a carbon fee as one of several alternatives to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases. Other alternatives include direct regulation of facilities, cap and trade, and a mix of sectoral strategies. This paper examines the carbon fee as an option for controlling greenhouse gases and compares it to other regulatory alternatives, such as the cap-and-trade approach ARB initially decided to take.
Author(s):Brian C. Murray, Jan V. Mazurek, and Timothy H. Profeta
Areas of Expertise:
climate and energy, electricity policy, environmental law
Sarah Adair joined the Climate and Energy Program at Duke's Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions in June 2011. Her research interests includes electricity policy, climate policy and state-level energy and environmental regulation. Since joining the Nicholas Institute, Sarah's work has focused on issues that range from state regulation of shale gas extraction to public utility regulation and public opinion of U.S. climate policy options. She holds a master's degree in environmental management from Duke University and a bachelor's degree in psychology and environmental policy from Northwestern University.
Energy infrastructure across the United States is aging, and plant retirements are increasing due to a combination of newly implemented and impending environmental requirements and inexpensive natural gas. Utilities and regulators will have to decide how to update or replace aging facilities—estimated at a cost of $1.5 to $2 trillion over the next twenty years. This article in the Columbia Journal of Environmental Law explores the opportunities and challenges to aligning state energy, environmental, and consumer protection goals within the current regulatory system, and proposes a “triple bottom line” (“TBL”) approach to state utility regulation to achieve this alignment.
This policy brief presents the results of a recent Duke University survey of American public opinion on climate change and climate policies, which suggests that the percentages of Americans who think the climate is changing and that this change is caused by human activity have reached their highest levels since 2007. Opinions on climate change remain divided across party lines, but the survey found bipartisan support for regulating greenhouse gas emissions and for clean energy requirements. However, neither support for carbon taxes nor understanding of carbon markets is widespread. The survey—designed by researchers Duke University’s Sanford School of Public Policy and Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions and conducted January 16–22, 2013—is part of an ongoing effort to inform the climate policy debate, including through assessment of public opinion on policy alternatives.
Author(s): Frederick Mayer, Sarah Adair, and Alex Pfaff
The development and deployment of low-carbon coal technologies is critical to any plan to limit greenhouse gas emissions in the United States. In 2011, coal-fired power generation contributed nearly 35% of national greenhouse gas emissions. The public sector has continued investing in research and development in recent years, and has made funds available for early demonstration projects. But even with federal funding, advanced coal demonstration projects have faced barriers at the state level, highlighting the important, but often overlooked, role that state regulators will play in deploying low-carbon coal technologies. Demonstrating and deploying low-carbon coal technologies at scale poses a number of challenges, including unique regulatory hurdles in states with traditionally regulated electricity markets. To address these challenges, this draft paper provides (1) an overview of the federal and state policies affecting deployment of low-carbon coal technologies, (2) a case study of two proposed Appalachian Power Company demonstration projects that illustrate the particular challenges in traditionally regulated states, and (3) options for both traditionally regulated and restructured states to address state-level challenges regarding technology deployment.
Author(s):Sarah K. Adair, David Hoppock, Jonas Monast, and Dalia Patino Echeverri
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) and Mercury Air Toxics (MATS) Rule require power plants to install technologies that reduce sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide and other harmful emissions. Federal environmental regulations such as these often require compliance on restricted timelines, forcing some utilities to make significant investments over short time periods and causing sudden jumps in electricity rates for consumers. This report examines the ratepayer impacts and health benefits of North Carolina’s Clean Smokestacks Act, a law passed in 2002 requiring emission reductions similar to MATS and CSAPR. The law allowed North Carolina to stagger the cost of pollution-control technologies over a longer period and positioned the state well to comply with the EPA rules while enjoying health benefits and avoiding a sudden spike in consumer electricity rates.
Author(s):David Hoppock, Sarah K. Adair, Brian Murray, and Jeremy Tarr
K. Emerson Beyer serves as Associate Director for Corporate and Foundation Relations. He is responsible for helping Duke's Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions develop its strategies and capacities in partnership with donor organizations and other stakeholders.
Prior to joining the Nicholas Institute, Beyer was an institutional giving office officer at the Environmental Defense Fund. In addition to grant development and fundraising, Emerson has trained and consulted to public and private grant makers. He holds a master's degree in arts administration and policy from the School of the Art Institute of Chicago and has completed additional graduate work in psychoanalytic study of organizations.
David joined Duke's Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions in February 2013. He provides administrative support and assistance to the director of operations and planning. He has many years of experience providing customer service and administrative support, retail management, purchasing and staff training.
Becka joined Duke's Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions in April 2012. She provides administrative support and research assistance for several directors at the Institute, as well as other Nicholas Institute staff. She has a bachelor's degree in sociology and a minor in communications from Ithaca College. Prior to joining the Nicholas Institute, Becka provided program coordination in the Executive Education Department at the Harvard Business School.
Areas of Expertise:
Clean Air Act, climate and energy
Robert Brenner joined the Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions as a senior fellow in October 2011. At the Nicholas Institute, Brenner is assessing the cost-effective technologies, policies and regulatory approaches that can be used, in conjunction with the Clean Air Act, to meet air quality goals for multiple pollutants and sources.
Prior to joining Duke, Brenner served the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 32 years before retiring in August 2011 from his role as Director of the Office of Policy Analysis and Review at the Office of Air and Radiation, where he was focused on finding innovative, cost-effective ways to implement the Act—particularly through the use of market-based approaches such as emissions trading and other economic incentives.
Before starting with the EPA in 1979, Brenner worked at Princeton University's Center for International Studies. He holds both a bachelor's degree and master's degree in economics and public policy from Princeton University.
Susan joined Duke's Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions in August 2012 as Administrative Coordinator and Financial Supervisor. She works closely with the Administrative Manager to oversee and guide the Nicholas Institute's financial and administrative operations. Since coming to Duke University in 1984, she has worked in several interdisciplinary units, including the Kenan Institute for Ethics and most recently the Institute for Genome Sciences and Policy. She has a bachelor's degree in French from the University of Tennessee, and a master's in teaching from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
Areas of Expertise:
water supply and sanitation, microfinance, gender and equity, international development
Cheryl Choge joined Duke's Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions Washington D.C. office in April 2010. She monitors the water policy environment in Washington D.C. and works on initiatives related to improving access to water supply and sanitation in the developing world.
Prior to joining the Nicholas Institute, Cheryl consulted on water, sanitation and hygiene programs in Sub-Saharan Africa for the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, Global Water Challenge and Millennium Water Alliance. Her experience ranges from researching integrated water resources management to building a rainwater harvesting system for a primary school in Ghana. Cheryl is also interested in alternative financing mechanisms, particularly microfinance. While in Tanzania, she established a microcredit program serving women with HIV/AIDS.
MPA, Columbia University & London School of Economics and Political Science, May 2008
BA, International Relations, Alliant International University, May 2002
While billions still lack safe drinking water and sanitation, access can be enhanced through improved policy and strategic outreach, according to this report by Duke University's Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions and the Aspen Institute. A Silent Tsunami Revisited outlines the progress made on the expansion of water, sanitation and hygiene (WASH) services since its companion report was released in 2005. It highlights these experts' recommendations for improving the efficacy of the WASH sector and achieving universal access to safe water and sanitation.
Access to safe water and sanitation has expanded significantly around the world in recent years, in part because of efforts by the United States, which has been increasingly active in the water, sanitation, and hygiene (WASH) sector through engagement by the government, foundations, NGOs, faith-based organizations, academia and the private sector. The Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions at Duke University has assessed the momentum, funding and effectiveness of this engagement since 2005, when the Nicholas Institute and the Aspen Institute held a forum on WASH challenges. This report references recommendations from that forum and presents the results of recent structured interviews with over 45 stakeholders active in the WASH sector. These stakeholders provided invaluable insights on what has been achieved, what has changed, and what requires attention. Particular consideration was given to the efforts of the U.S. government (USG).
Author(s):Cheryl Choge, Courtney Harrison, Peter McCornick, and Ryan Bartlett
While significant progress has been made towards addressing the challenge of providing basic water access, there are still nearly one billion people who lack convenient access to safe water, most of them in sub-Saharan Africa and South and East Asia. Furthermore, over two and a half billion people in the world lack access to adequate sanitation. This brief examines an integrated approach of water, sanitation, and hygiene which will maximize health impacts.
Molly serves as the Development Associate at Duke's Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions. She works closely with the Director and Associate Director for Corporate and Foundation Relations to fulfill the Nicholas Institute’s strategies and partnerships with donor organizations and stakeholders.
Molly previously worked as the executive assistant to the President and CEO of Americans for the Arts in Washington, D.C., where she ensured that the executive office ran effectively and efficiently as well as acting as liaison to the Board of Directors. Prior to that position, she worked as a legal assistant at a boutique law firm. Molly graduated from the University of Virginia with a double major in drama and English literature in 2008.
Stephanie Evans joined Duke's Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions in April of 2007 as a Staff Accountant. Prior to joining Duke in 1999, she worked for over ten years in the accounting and financial industry.
Areas of Expertise:
offsets, environmental economics, agriculture, forestry, climate policy, bioenergy
Christopher Galik is an senior policy associate at Duke's Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions. He is currently working to better document issues associated with on-the-ground implementation of climate and low-carbon energy policy. He continues to partner with researchers at North Carolina State University to investigate the forest resource implications of expanded renewable energy targets. He is likewise working with faculty at Duke and other universities to highlight the impact of existing regulations and offset protocol design on forest carbon offset supply.
Prior to joining Duke's Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions, Christopher served as a research coordinator for the Climate Change Policy Partnership (CCPP), a collaborative project intended to leverage the resources of Duke to determine practical strategies to respond to climate change. Within the Partnership, Christopher had primary oversight over biological sequestration, bioenergy, and biofuels policy analysis and applied research activities.
Before CCPP, Christopher spent several years in Washington, D.C. as a policy analyst, specializing in species conservation and federal forest management and policy.
Ph.D. Student; Forestry and Environmental Resources. North Carolina State University. (exp 2016)
Master of Environmental Management; Resource Economics and Policy. Nicholas School of the Environment, Duke University. 2002.
Bachelor of Arts; cum laude, Biology. Vassar College. 1999.
In this article, researchers look at the potential of southern forests to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions by sequestering carbon. Striving to produce a more realistic assessment of the potential for these forests to sequester carbon in response to future markets or policies, researchers used National Woodland Owner Survey data from the Forest Inventory and Analysis program to link landowner demographic and behavioral data with forest conditions. The report also examines barriers to individual nonindustrial private forest participation in carbon offset programs and offers recommendations for overcoming those barriers.
Author(s):Christopher S. Galik, Brian C. Murray, D. Evan Mercer
This paper discusses the operational issues associated with the expanding scope of reduced emissions from deforestation (RED) as forest degradation, conservation and enhancement of forest carbon stocks (REDD+) and other sectors and activities are added. The review looks to the ideas of countries, observers, and experts, as well as to the experience of those moving toward implementation through country REDD+ plans and voluntary offset markets. While not all countries may be ready to implement programs or policies across all REDD+ activities, expanding RED to REDD+ can bring significant benefits for strategic planning, coordination across sectors and activities, and increasing mitigation opportunities.
Author(s):Lydia P. Olander, Christopher S. Galik, Gabrielle A Kissinger
Afforestation and reforestation (A/R) projects can generate greenhouse gas reduction credits by removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere through biophysical processes and storing it in terrestrial carbon stocks such as biomass, litter, and soils. One feature of these A/R activities is the possibility of carbon reversal, whereby the stored carbon is subsequently lost though natural disturbances, such as fire and wind, or anthropogenic disturbances such as harvesting. Adequately accounting for carbon reversal under land use, land-use change, and A/R has been a point of ongoing discussion at the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change’s (UNFCCC) Conference of the Parties. This report examines alternative approaches to addressing reversals to inform ongoing UNFCCC discussions on the effectiveness and economic and practical feasibility of various approaches.
Author(s):Brian C. Murray, Christopher S. Galik, Stephen Mitchell, Phil Cottle
This paper presents a revised accounting framework to track biogenic carbon emissions, or the greenhouse gas emissions associated with the production and use of biomass resources. It is designed to achieve three overarching principles: to be cost-effective, to be adaptive and responsive to changing conditions, and to provide incentives for continuous improvement. The revised framework achieves these three principles through a three-tiered system. The first tier consists of the establishment of regional default biogenic accounting factors (BAFs) for classes of feedstock. The second is the targeted exemption of individual feedstocks based on evidence of minimal net emissions associated with their use. The third and final tier provides the opportunity for individual feedstock producers to become certified under the framework, and in doing so, employ a BAF other than the feedstock default. Although biogenic carbon dioxide accounting is complicated, and any accounting framework will surely involve economic, scientific, and political tradeoffs, the paper looks to show that an intuitive and defensible system is nonetheless possible to construct.
Areas of Expertise:
environmental economics, climate and energy, electricity policy, systems modeling, economics, offsets, carbon markets
Etan Gumerman is a senior policy analyst at Duke's Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions. At the Nicholas Institute, he has led several energy and climate policy research projects. His recent works includes assessing cost-effective energy efficiency potential in the South. Previously, he led the Nicholas Institute's emissions and reduction analysis for the state of Utah, based on Utah's Blue Ribbon Advisory Council on Climate Change (BRAC) recommendations to the Governor.
Etan’s background is in engineering and policy with considerable experience in modeling. Before joining the Nicholas Institute, he was involved with a wide range of energy and climate change policy projects. At Lawrence Berkeley National Lab he was the lead modeler and analyst for the Scenarios for a Clean Energy Future project, coordinating the efforts of scientists at five national laboratories.
He has investigated appliance standards’ effects on energy, load shapes, peak effects, and emissions. He has worked with California’s Air Resources Board evaluating the effectiveness of California’s Smog Check program.
M.S. in Engineering and Policy, Washington University, May 1995
B.A. in Environmental Studies, University of Pennsylvania, December 1991
Previous analysis by Duke University’s Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions and the Georgia Institute of Technology demonstrates how aggressive energy-efficiency policies in the South could reduce the need for new electric generation over the next 20 years, reduce water consumption, moderate projected electricity-rate increases, and create jobs. This new report builds on this work, and focuses on current clean energy opportunities within existing economic and policy constraints. Specifically, it explores two technologies: combined heat and power and solar water heating. Through four case studies, it highlights how Southeastern project managers have navigated a variety of economic, policy, and informational barriers to develop successful customer-owned clean energy installations, and offers some of the lessons these developers have learned along the way.
Author(s):Etan Gumerman, Amy Morsch, Sarah Plikunas, and Ken Sercy
Solar water heating uses energy from the sun to preheat water, reducing the conventional energy needed to supply hot water by 40 to 80 percent. This reduces energy costs and provides a number of other benefits. This case study examines two successful solar water heating applications in the Southeast, at Guilford College in Greensboro, North Carolina, and at the Hilton Asheville Biltmore Park.
Author(s):Etan Gumerman, Amy Morsch, Sarah Plikunas, Kenneth Sercy, and Whitney Ketchum
Combined heat and power (CHP) maximizes the usable energy from a fuel source by simultaneously generating thermal and electric outputs. CHP can achieve operating efficiencies of up to 80%, compared to the 45% efficiency typically achieved by conventional energy production. This case study examines two successful CHP applications in the Southeast: one at Vanderbilt University in Nashville, Tennessee, and one at the R.M. Clayton Wastewater Treatment Plant in Atlanta, Georgia.
Author(s):Etan Gumerman, Amy Morsch, Sarah Plikunas, Kenneth Sercy, and Whitney Ketchum
Low natural gas prices and forthcoming Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulations for coal plant emissions, coal wastes, and thermal-generation cooling systems are forcing utilities and utility regulators to decide whether to retrofit or to retire and replace existing coal plants. To help utility commissions and other interested parties make informed investment decisions and quantify cost risk for ratepayers, researchers at Duke University will make the Risk Based Decision Model available to the public. The model can be employed to estimate the impact of abrupt changes, or “shocks,” and the cost of making “bad” investments that are later abandoned. To demonstrate the model, this paper models the least-cost investment decision for Louisville Gas and Electric’s Mill Creek coal-fired power plant to meet the forthcoming EPA regulations under uncertainty using publicly available data.
Author(s):David Hoppock, Dalia Patino Echeverri, and Etan Gumerman
Courtney Harrison is a Water Policy Associate at Duke University's Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions. Her research focuses on water and sanitation, water and agriculture, and water resource management. She has a master’s degree in city and regional planning from the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, where she concentrated on land use and environmental management, with emphasis in water studies. She also holds a bachelor's degree in peace and conflict studies from the University of California, Berkeley.
Alongside the persistent challenges of poverty and rural subsistence, many low-income countries such as Ethiopia face new problems brought by climate change and surging global economic activities. This paper by Duke University researchers examines the combined impacts of global climate change and the changing nature of donor assistance in Africa on economic development broadly and food security through the example of Ethiopia.
Author(s):Christopher Paul, Erika Weinthal, Courtney Harrison
While billions still lack safe drinking water and sanitation, access can be enhanced through improved policy and strategic outreach, according to this report by Duke University's Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions and the Aspen Institute. A Silent Tsunami Revisited outlines the progress made on the expansion of water, sanitation and hygiene (WASH) services since its companion report was released in 2005. It highlights these experts' recommendations for improving the efficacy of the WASH sector and achieving universal access to safe water and sanitation.
Access to safe water and sanitation has expanded significantly around the world in recent years, in part because of efforts by the United States, which has been increasingly active in the water, sanitation, and hygiene (WASH) sector through engagement by the government, foundations, NGOs, faith-based organizations, academia and the private sector. The Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions at Duke University has assessed the momentum, funding and effectiveness of this engagement since 2005, when the Nicholas Institute and the Aspen Institute held a forum on WASH challenges. This report references recommendations from that forum and presents the results of recent structured interviews with over 45 stakeholders active in the WASH sector. These stakeholders provided invaluable insights on what has been achieved, what has changed, and what requires attention. Particular consideration was given to the efforts of the U.S. government (USG).
Author(s):Cheryl Choge, Courtney Harrison, Peter McCornick, and Ryan Bartlett
Areas of Expertise:
fisheries, fisheries management, oceans and coasts
John Henderschedt is the Executive Director of the Fisheries Leadership and Sustainability Forum, part of the Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions.
Based in Seattle, Washington, John has twenty-five years of experience working in the Alaska and West Coast groundfish fisheries. Prior to joining the Fisheries Forum as its first Executive Director, John served as the Vice President of Phoenix Processor Limited Partnership, owner of the AFA pollock mothership processors the Ocean Phoenix and Excellence. John was responsible for fleet cooperative quota tracking, safety and security management, food safety programs, regulatory compliance, and special projects. He started his career in Alaska fisheries as an at-sea representative and interpreter for Russian joint venture Bering Sea fishing operations in the mid 1980s.
John holds one of Washington State's two obligatory seats on the North Pacific Fishery Management Council and has been engaged in the federal fisheries management process since 1988.
He has a bachelor's degree in russian studies from Muhlenberg College, and certificate in Russian Language and Literature from the Pushkin Institute in Moscow.
Areas of Expertise:
electricity policy, climate and energy, natural gas, markets, energy efficiency, systems modeling
David Hoppock joined Duke's Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions in June 2008 as a Research Analyst specializing in energy efficiency, natural gas markets, and electricity policy. His research interests include utility market structure, commercial and residential building codes, energy efficiency policy, natural gas markets under a carbon cap, transmission and renewable energy, and reducing electricity sector emissions.
He is currently working on environmental risk in public utility commission and utility decision making; reviewing the electricity sector provisions of proposed energy legislation, and incorporating storage into carbon capture and storage (CCS) for coal plants.
Master of Public Affairs; LBJ School of Public Affairs, The University of Texas at Austin. 2008.
Bachelor of Science; Tau Beta Phi, Civil and Environmental Engineering. The University of California at Berkeley. 1999.
The U.S. electricity sector faces significant uncertainty as it makes large capital investments to replace aging infrastructure and to comply with forthcoming environmental regulations. Near- and long-term uncertainties include fuel prices, demand growth, and environmental and climate policy. Utilities and regulators must manage these risks in order to maintain reliable electricity at affordable prices. Energy efficiency investments can provide an important tool for managing risk by reducing exposure to uncertain costs, deferring major generation investments, and reducing environmental emissions. This paper describes an example analysis of an investment in a natural gas power plant with and without energy efficiency under natural gas price uncertainty and the value of efficiency as a hedge against a price spike. The example presented illustrates a method to quantify the value of energy efficiency as a hedge against a variety of risks.
Author(s):David Hoppock and Dalia Patino Echeverri
The development and deployment of low-carbon coal technologies is critical to any plan to limit greenhouse gas emissions in the United States. In 2011, coal-fired power generation contributed nearly 35% of national greenhouse gas emissions. The public sector has continued investing in research and development in recent years, and has made funds available for early demonstration projects. But even with federal funding, advanced coal demonstration projects have faced barriers at the state level, highlighting the important, but often overlooked, role that state regulators will play in deploying low-carbon coal technologies. Demonstrating and deploying low-carbon coal technologies at scale poses a number of challenges, including unique regulatory hurdles in states with traditionally regulated electricity markets. To address these challenges, this draft paper provides (1) an overview of the federal and state policies affecting deployment of low-carbon coal technologies, (2) a case study of two proposed Appalachian Power Company demonstration projects that illustrate the particular challenges in traditionally regulated states, and (3) options for both traditionally regulated and restructured states to address state-level challenges regarding technology deployment.
Author(s):Sarah K. Adair, David Hoppock, Jonas Monast, and Dalia Patino Echeverri
Flexible operation of a carbon capture and storage (CCS) plant can lower the cost of foregone electricity sales in competitive wholesale electricity markets, but it reduces the amount of carbon dioxide (CO2) captured over the lifetime of a CCS plant and increases the capital cost of CCS systems per unit of emissions captured. Whether the benefits of flexible CCS exceed the increased costs depends on a relationship between capital and operating costs and cyclical electricity price differentials. This paper explores these tradeoffs, proposes a method to quantify them, and applies this framework to U.S. data on CCS capital costs and electricity prices.
Author(s):Dalia Patino-Echeverri and David C. Hoppock
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) and Mercury Air Toxics (MATS) Rule require power plants to install technologies that reduce sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide and other harmful emissions. Federal environmental regulations such as these often require compliance on restricted timelines, forcing some utilities to make significant investments over short time periods and causing sudden jumps in electricity rates for consumers. This report examines the ratepayer impacts and health benefits of North Carolina’s Clean Smokestacks Act, a law passed in 2002 requiring emission reductions similar to MATS and CSAPR. The law allowed North Carolina to stagger the cost of pollution-control technologies over a longer period and positioned the state well to comply with the EPA rules while enjoying health benefits and avoiding a sudden spike in consumer electricity rates.
Author(s):David Hoppock, Sarah K. Adair, Brian Murray, and Jeremy Tarr
Areas of Expertise:
oceans and coasts, marine ecosystems
Megan joined the Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions in September 2012, after graduating from Duke University with a master's in environmental management. Her master's project looked at ways the Marine Ecosystem Services Partnership (MESP) could help bring standards to the field of ecosystem services valuation. She now works under the Nicholas Institute's Ocean and Coastal Policy Program providing support for the MESP and conducting research.
Across the Caribbean, national economies are heavily dependent on coastal ecosystem services. Coral reefs, mangroves, and other coastal ecosystems provide fish habitat, attract tourists, and protect shorelines from storm damage. However, coastal habitats continue to degrade due to local and global pressures. For example, more than 75 percent of the Caribbean’s coral reefs are currently threatened by human activities. These threats to coastal ecosystems stem from both a lack of awareness of the benefits these ecosystems provide and the costs of insufficient protection, and a lack of political will to protect and sustainably manage these ecosystems. Many of the activities that damage coastal ecosystems arise from shortsighted
and poorly informed decisions that fail to take long-term ecosystem values and the full range of benefits from coastal ecosystem services into account. Economic valuation can contribute to better informed and more holistic decision making about resource use and identify opportunities for effective conservation.
Author(s):Benjamin Kushner, Richard Waite, Megan Jungwiwattanaporn, and Lauretta Burke
Katie Latanich is a policy analyst for the Fisheries Leadership and Sustainability Forum, a partnership between the Nicholas Institute, Stanford's Woods Institute and the Environmental Defense Fund. The Fisheries Forum provides continuing education and professional development opportunities for members of the eight regional fishery management councils.
As a member of the Fisheries Forum staff, Katie is committed to supporting sustainable fisheries and fishing communities, and demonstrating the value of lifelong environmental education. Katie is a trained Environmental Educator certified through the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources. For her final "action project", she worked with the North Carolina Maritime Museum to develop an interactive curriculum to introduce North Carolina students to the state's many recreational fishing opportunities. Prior to joining the Nicholas Institute in 2009, Katie worked with the North Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries as a port sampler and liaison to the recreational and for-hire fishing communities.
Katie received a joint B.A. in Environmental Science and Policy and Political Science from Duke University, and completed her Master's degree in Coastal Environmental Management at Duke's Nicholas School of the Environment. As a graduate student at Duke, Katie studied fisheries policy and interned with the Cape Cod Commercial Hook Fishermen's Association in Chatham, MA. Katie is located at the Duke Marine Lab in Beaufort, North Carolina and is an avid fisherman, kayaker and scuba diver.
Areas of Expertise:
international water policy, water resources, climate adaptation
Peter McCornick is a senior fellow with the Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions water program. In this capacity he focuses on critical water resources management issues, with on-going activities in North East Africa, South East Asia, South Asia, the Middle East, and the United States. He has approximately three decades of experience in addressing the challenges in the water resources, agriculture and environment sectors, that has included research, policy development, planning, implementation, teaching and capacity building. He has worked extensively in Africa, Asia, the Middle East and North America, including long-term assignments in Ethiopia, Eritrea, India, Indonesia (Timor and Java), Jordan and Sri Lanka. Much of this has been in a senior leadership role, working with decision makers in international, national and sub-national institutions in the public and private sector.
He is currently Director for Asia for the International Water Management Institute.
He has a Ph.D. and master's degree in water resources and irrigation engineering from Colorado State University, and a bachelor's degree in agricultural engineering from the University of Newcastle upon Tyne in the U.K. He is a registered Civil Engineer in Colorado, and a member of the American Academy of Water Resources Engineers (AAWRE). He has published widely on critical water issues.
Increased intake of dietary calcium may be key to addressing widespread dental health problems faced by millions of rural residents in Ethiopia’s remote, poverty-stricken Main Rift Valley, according to a new Duke University-led study published in the journal Environment International. As many as 8 million people living in the valley are estimated to be at risk of dental and skeletal fluorosis as a result of their long-term exposure to high levels of naturally occurring fluoride in the region’s groundwater. Most efforts to combat fluorosis in the region have focused primarily on treating drinking water to reduce its fluoride content. Increasing the amount of calcium in villagers’ diets, or finding alternative sources of drinking water may be necessary in addition to these fluoride-reducing treatments, the study found. Support came from the Duke Global Health Institute and Duke’s Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions.
Author(s):Tewodros Rango, Julia Kravchenko, Behailu Atlaw, Peter G. McCornick, Marc Jeuland, Brittany Merola, Avner Vengosh
Climate change is one of the drivers of change in the Ganges river basin, together with population growth, economic development and water management practices. These changing circumstances have a significant impact on key social and economic sectors of the basin, largely through changes in water quantity, quality and timing of availability. This paper evaluates the impact of water on changing circumstances in three sectors of the Ganges basin: agriculture, ecosystems and energy. Given the inherent interconnectedness of these core sectors and the cross-cutting impact of changing circumstances on water resources, we argue that adaptation should not be viewed as a separate initiative, but rather as a goal and perspective incorporated into every level of planning and decision making. Adaptation to changing circumstances will need to be closely linked to water resource management and will require significant collaboration across the sectors.
Author(s):Heather R. Hosterman, Peter G. McCornick, Elizabeth J. Kistin, Bharat Sharma, and Luna Bharati
While billions still lack safe drinking water and sanitation, access can be enhanced through improved policy and strategic outreach, according to this report by Duke University's Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions and the Aspen Institute. A Silent Tsunami Revisited outlines the progress made on the expansion of water, sanitation and hygiene (WASH) services since its companion report was released in 2005. It highlights these experts' recommendations for improving the efficacy of the WASH sector and achieving universal access to safe water and sanitation.
This report is part of a project of WWF Nepal and the Nepalese Water and Energy Commission Secretariat (WECS). It outlines the discussions and conclusions of three workshops held in Nepal to determine the vulnerability of the Indrawati sub-basin to the impacts of climate change and development within the context of climate change vulnerability at the national level. Held over the course of four days in Kathmandu and in the Sindhupalchok district headquarters of Chautara, the workshops brought together a diverse group of more than 60 participants, including Nepali national experts, local bureaucrats, and most importantly, local water users and subsistence farmers with direct knowledge of resource management issues in the basin.
Author(s):Ryan Bartlett, Sarah Freeman, Jonathan Cook, Bhawani S. Dongol, Roshan Sherchan, Moon Shrestha, and Peter G. McCornick
Erin McKenzie is the communications specialist for Duke University’s Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions. Here she manages communication activities and branding across the Nicholas Institute’s six program areas: ocean and coastal policy, climate and energy, water policy, environmental economics, state policy and ecosystem services. This work includes overseeing the Nicholas Institute’s website and social media, print communications and media relations.
Before joining the Nicholas Institute in August 2010, Erin worked in the Communications Office at the University of Houston's Cullen College of Engineering as editor of their research and alumni magazines and prior as a journalist with Cox Enterprises.
Areas of Expertise:
climate change, carbon markets, offsets, air quality, public utility commissions
Jonas Monast directs the Climate and Energy Program at Duke University's Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions. Jonas’s work focuses on the interaction of state and federal energy policies, regulatory options for reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and the intersection of financial markets and climate policy. He directed Duke University’s Climate Change Policy Partnership from 2007-2010 and coordinated the Nicholas Institute’s Carbon Market Initiative.
Jonas also teaches courses on the intersection of energy and environmental issues at Duke University’s School of Law and Nicholas School of the Environment.Prior to joining Duke, Jonas worked as an attorney in the Corporate Social Responsibility Practice at Foley Hoag LLP, where he advised clients on emerging legal and reputational risks regarding human rights and the environment. Jonas also served as a congressional fellow for the late Senator Paul Wellstone and as legislative counsel for the Center for Responsible Lending. He earned his law degree from Georgetown University and his B.A. from Appalachian State University.
Energy infrastructure across the United States is aging, and plant retirements are increasing due to a combination of newly implemented and impending environmental requirements and inexpensive natural gas. Utilities and regulators will have to decide how to update or replace aging facilities—estimated at a cost of $1.5 to $2 trillion over the next twenty years. This article in the Columbia Journal of Environmental Law explores the opportunities and challenges to aligning state energy, environmental, and consumer protection goals within the current regulatory system, and proposes a “triple bottom line” (“TBL”) approach to state utility regulation to achieve this alignment.
There is a pressing need for technology improvements that make it cost-effective for coal-fired power plants to capture carbon emissions. Carbon capture and storage technologies are particularly important for the fleet of existing coal-fired power plants, as energy projections suggest that these facilities will continue to provide a major portion of the nation's electric power—and the nation’s CO2 emissions—for decades to come.
This paper, the second in the "Deploying Low-Carbon Coal Technologies Series," not only looks at factors affecting domestic coal-fired generation and provides an overview of CO2 emission projections associated with the existing fleet of coal-fired power plants, but also highlights near-term policy choices.
Author (s): Brooks Rainey Pearson, Jonas Monast, Jeremy M. Tarr, Jessalee Landfried
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposed in 2012 proposed performance standards for carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from new fossil fuel–fired power plants. Once finalized, the new-source standards will trigger section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act, which required the EPA to regulate CO2 emissions from existing power plants. Broad statutory language and limited legal precedent suggest that a variety of policy design options are available to the EPA and states when regulating CO2 emissions from existing power plants. At the same time, section 111(d) raises unanswered questions. In October 2012, the Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions convened a stakeholder workshop in Washington, D.C., to discuss these questions. This report preserves the workshop discussion by summarizing panel presentations, highlighting points of conversation, and capturing key themes. This report also identifies tradeoffs facing regulators who will draft the existing-source regulations and notes issues ripe for further exploration.
Author(s):Jeremy M. Tarr, Jonas Monast, and Tim Profeta
The development and deployment of low-carbon coal technologies is critical to any plan to limit greenhouse gas emissions in the United States. In 2011, coal-fired power generation contributed nearly 35% of national greenhouse gas emissions. The public sector has continued investing in research and development in recent years, and has made funds available for early demonstration projects. But even with federal funding, advanced coal demonstration projects have faced barriers at the state level, highlighting the important, but often overlooked, role that state regulators will play in deploying low-carbon coal technologies. Demonstrating and deploying low-carbon coal technologies at scale poses a number of challenges, including unique regulatory hurdles in states with traditionally regulated electricity markets. To address these challenges, this draft paper provides (1) an overview of the federal and state policies affecting deployment of low-carbon coal technologies, (2) a case study of two proposed Appalachian Power Company demonstration projects that illustrate the particular challenges in traditionally regulated states, and (3) options for both traditionally regulated and restructured states to address state-level challenges regarding technology deployment.
Author(s):Sarah K. Adair, David Hoppock, Jonas Monast, and Dalia Patino Echeverri
Areas of Expertise:
environmental economics, market-based policy, carbon markets, climate change, bioenergy, economic modeling, agriculture, REDD
Brian Murray is widely recognized for his work on the economics of climate change policy, including the design of cap-and-trade policy elements to address cost containment and inclusion of offsets from traditionally uncapped sectors such as forestry and agriculture. He routinely advises members of the United States Congress and their staff on climate change legislative proposals. He is currently leading an effort to develop protocols and methods for reduced emissions from deforestation and degradation (REDD) in the Amazon region. Murray has been invited as a co-author of several national and international assessments of forest resources, especially related to climate change. Of particular note, he was a convening lead author of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s Special Report on Land Use, Land Use Change, and Forestry. He has convened several forums of economic modeling experts to examine and communicate the results of their climate, energy and land use policy efforts to the public and private sectors. His research has examined the economic effects of traditional command-based regulatory strategies for pollution control and more market-oriented approaches such as cap-and-trade programs and emission taxes. His work has been published in books, edited volumes, and professional journals. Prior to coming to the Nicholas Institute in 2006, Murray was Director of the Center for Regulatory Economics and Policy Research at RTI International, a university-affiliated not-for-profit research institution.
He holds both a doctoral and master's degree in resource economics and policy from Duke University and a bachelor's degree in economics and finance from the University of Delaware.
This article in the journal Energy Policy investigates the impacts of the U.S. renewable fuel standard (RFS2) and several alternative biofuel policy designs on global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from land use change and agriculture over the 2010–2030 horizon. Analysis of the scenarios relies on GLOBIOM, a global, multi-sectoral economic model based on a detailed representation of land use. The results reveal that RFS2 would substantially increase the portion of agricultural land needed for biofuel feedstock production. U.S. exports of most agricultural products would decrease as long as the biofuel target would increase leading to higher land conversion and nitrogen use globally. In fact, higher levels of the mandate mean lower net emissions within the U.S. but when the emissions from the rest of the world are considered, the US biofuel policy results in almost no change on GHG emissions for the RFS2 level and higher global GHG emissions for higher levels of the mandate or higher share of conventional corn-ethanol in the mandate.
Author (s): A. Mosnier, P. Havlik, H. Valin, J. Baker, B. Murray, S. Feng, M. Obersteiner, B.A. McCarl, S.K. Rose and U.A. Schneider
Future productivity growth in agriculture is necessary to satisfy rising food, fiber, and bioenergy demands, and to contribute to global environmental objectives, including greenhouse gas (GHG) mitigation. This paper explores alternative crop productivity growth trajectories in the United States and focuses on implications for land use change and emissions on a national scale within the agricultural and forestry systems.
Author(s):Justin S. Baker, Brian C. Murray, Bruce A. McCarl, Siyi Feng and Robert Johansson
In this article, researchers look at the potential of southern forests to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions by sequestering carbon. Striving to produce a more realistic assessment of the potential for these forests to sequester carbon in response to future markets or policies, researchers used National Woodland Owner Survey data from the Forest Inventory and Analysis program to link landowner demographic and behavioral data with forest conditions. The report also examines barriers to individual nonindustrial private forest participation in carbon offset programs and offers recommendations for overcoming those barriers.
Author(s):Christopher S. Galik, Brian C. Murray, D. Evan Mercer
Afforestation and reforestation (A/R) projects can generate greenhouse gas reduction credits by removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere through biophysical processes and storing it in terrestrial carbon stocks such as biomass, litter, and soils. One feature of these A/R activities is the possibility of carbon reversal, whereby the stored carbon is subsequently lost though natural disturbances, such as fire and wind, or anthropogenic disturbances such as harvesting. Adequately accounting for carbon reversal under land use, land-use change, and A/R has been a point of ongoing discussion at the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change’s (UNFCCC) Conference of the Parties. This report examines alternative approaches to addressing reversals to inform ongoing UNFCCC discussions on the effectiveness and economic and practical feasibility of various approaches.
Author(s):Brian C. Murray, Christopher S. Galik, Stephen Mitchell, Phil Cottle
Areas of Expertise:
offsets, climate mitigation, agriculture, REDD, climate policy, ecosystem services
Lydia Olander is currently developing the Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions and Duke University's expanding initiative on ecosystem services. This includes coordinating Duke’s Ecosystem Services Working Group; coordinating the development of a National Ecosystem Services Partnership; helping to coordinate the Institute’s programs on greenhouse gas offsets; directing the Technical Working Group on Agricultural Greenhouse Gases; and, when time permits, working on the burgeoning multinational effort on reduced emissions from deforestation and degradation (REDD).
Olander is also an adjunct professor in the Nicholas School of the Environment.
Better information on greenhouse gas emissions and mitigation potential in the agricultural sector is necessary to manage these emissions and identify responses that are consistent with the food security and economic development priorities of countries. Critical activity data, what crops or livestock are managed in what way, are poor or lacking for many agricultural systems, especially in developing countries. In addition, the currently available methods for quantifying emissions and mitigation are often too expensive or complex or not sufficiently user friendly for widespread use. This article introduces a series of pieces in a special issue of the journal Environmental Research Letters foces on providing a vision for an improved system for quantifying greenhouse gas emissions in agriculture.
Author (s): Lydia Olander, Eva Wollenberg, Francesco Tubiello and Martin Herold
This paper discusses the operational issues associated with the expanding scope of reduced emissions from deforestation (RED) as forest degradation, conservation and enhancement of forest carbon stocks (REDD+) and other sectors and activities are added. The review looks to the ideas of countries, observers, and experts, as well as to the experience of those moving toward implementation through country REDD+ plans and voluntary offset markets. While not all countries may be ready to implement programs or policies across all REDD+ activities, expanding RED to REDD+ can bring significant benefits for strategic planning, coordination across sectors and activities, and increasing mitigation opportunities.
Author(s):Lydia P. Olander, Christopher S. Galik, Gabrielle A Kissinger
Researchers at the Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions contributed to a chapter in the publication "Environmental Leadership: A Reference Handbook." The book covers topics that confront the particular intractable characteristics of environmental problem solving. Individual chapters focus on how environmental leadership actions or initiatives may be applied to address specific problems in context, offering both analyses and recommendations.
Corporations are facing increasing risks associated with ecosystems from both natural drivers, such as climate change, as well as institutional drivers resulting from retailers and brands, increasingly making supplier decisions based on life cycle reporting and indexing. These efforts reflect a transition from traditional firm sustainability to a more quantitative product focus, within which the importance and weight of earth resources and ecosystems is dramatically increasing. This paper provides an overview of the limitations traditional life cycle assessment (LCA) methods and presents emerging developments to improve on LCA for resources and ecosystems. This includes LCA efforts to account for spatial relevance, indices of stress, stocks and flows and integrated valuation of services and trade-offs.
Author(s):Tara O'Shea, Jay Golden, and Lydia Olander
Areas of Expertise:
ocean and coastal policy, environmental economics, ecosystem services, climate adaption
Linwood Pendleton directs the Ocean and Coastal Policy Program at Duke University's Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions. Pendleton’s work focuses on policies that affect human uses and enjoyment of ocean and coastal resources – both living and non-living. He is the Director of the Marine Ecosystem Services Partnership, author of many scholarly articles, and coordinates the Marine Secretariat of the international Ecosystem Services Partnership. Pendleton’s current projects include work with the United Nations Environment Program’s Green Economy Project, UNEP GRID Arendal’s High Level Steering Committee on Deep Sea Mineral Resources in the Pacific, and Blue Carbon Economics (joint with Brian Murray, also from the Institute). Pendleton has served as Acting Chief Economist at NOAA since January 2011.
He holds a doctoral degree in resource and environmental economics from Yale University; a Master's degree in public administration from Harvard’s Kennedy School; a Master's degree in ecology, evolution, and behavior from Princeton; and a Bachelor's degree in biology from the College of William and Mary.
Recent attention has focused on the high rates of annual carbon sequestration in vegetated coastal ecosystems—marshes, mangroves, and seagrasses—that may be lost with habitat destruction. Relatively unappreciated, however, is that conversion of these coastal ecosystems also impacts very large pools of previously-sequestered carbon. Residing mostly in sediments, this ‘blue carbon’ can be released to the atmosphere when these ecosystems are converted or degraded. Here we provide the first global estimates of this impact and evaluate its economic implications. Combining the best available data on global area, land-use conversion rates, and near-surface carbon stocks in each of the three ecosystems, using an uncertainty-propagation approach, we estimate that 0.15–1.02 billion tons of carbon dioxide are being released annually, several times higher than previous estimates that account only for lost sequestration.
Author(s):Linwood Pendleton, Daniel C. Donato, Brian C. Murray, Stephen Crooks, W. Aaron Jenkins, Samantha Sifleet, Christopher Craft, James W. Fourqurean, J. Boone Kauffman, Núria Marbà, Patrick Megonigal, Emily Pidgeon, Dorothee Herr, David Gordon, Alexis Baldera
Blue carbon has been defined as “the carbon stored, sequestered or released from coastal ecosystems of tidal marshes, mangroves and seagrass meadows.” These marine and coastal ecosystems store large amounts of carbon in the plants and the sediment below them. When these ecosystems are degraded or destroyed, significant amounts of carbon dioxide are released into the atmosphere, contributing to climate change risk. The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) has considered conserving and restoring forests an important aspect of climate change mitigation through its REDD+ (reduced emissions from deforestation and degradation) mechanism. Broadening these approaches to include other natural systems, such as blue carbon ecosystems, could help reduce emissions from the degradation and destruction of these areas as well. This policy brief examines the evolution of blue carbon in the UNFCCC process—how it entered, where it stands, and what path lies ahead.
Author(s):Brian C. Murray, Colette E. Watt, David M. Cooley, and Linwood H. Pendleton
Many federal statutes and policies specifically require that impacts on ecosystem services be considered in policy implementation. Some federal policies directly include the economic value of certain ecosystem services in estimates of economic impact. Yet, we are unaware of a single federal statute, regulation, or policy that accounts directly for the carbon held in coastal habitats. Explicitly accounting for coastal carbon could change the outcome of federal policy actions for variety of federal statutes and policies, including the National Environmental Policy Act, Clean Water Act, and others. These statutes and policies allow for agency discretion in deciding which ecosystem services to include when considering alternative policies, plans, actions, and even assessments of the economic costs of damages to coastal ecosystems. Coastal carbon is an ecosystem service that could be included.
Author(s):Linwood Pendleton, David Gordon, Brian Murray, Britta Victor, Roger Griffis, Ariana Sutton-Grier, and Jen Lechuga
The International Seabed Authority in collaboration with the Government of Fiji and the SOPAC Division of the Secretariat of the Pacific Community held a Workshop on Environmental Management Needs for Exploration and Exploitation
of Deep Sea Minerals, in Nadi, Fiji.This initiative reflected the increasing interest in and associated concerns about the potential environmental impacts of deep sea minerals exploration and mining and how competent authorities at the national and international level will regulate this emerging economic development opportunity in a sustainable manner in areas within and beyond national jurisdiction. This document contains the outcomes of the discussions at the workshop.
Areas of Expertise:
state policy, North Carolina, state and local governments, water, climate adaptation
Amy Pickle is currently working with the NC General Assembly to develop a science-based state water allocation policy, working with the North Carolina Wildlife Resource Commission on developing a model upland habitat conservation ordinance, working with the NC Division of Water Quality and local governments in the Upper Neuse River Basin/Falls Lake watershed to develop effective state and local policies to reduce pollution in Falls Lake and other drinking water supplies, and working with NC’s Albemarle-Pamlico National Estuary Program on a Climate Ready Estuaries project.
Pickle holds a a J.D. from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, a bachelor's degree in English and a bachelor's degree in chemistry from the Univeristy of Florida.
Initially conceived as an outreach pilot to increase public and local government awareness in five counties of the Albemarle-Pamlico region, our Blueprint summarizes the initial outreach efforts, includes findings and recommendations for increasing the region’s climate resilience, compiles a resource of up-to-date science on sea-level rise impacts, and serves as a first step in educating the public and decision makers about the opportunities and challenges of becoming a climate ready estuary.
Initially authorized in response to egregious pollution from water water treatment plants and major industrial sources, the Clean Water Act has catalyzed the cleanup of many of our nations' waters. The outlook for continuing progress under the Clean Water Act, however, has been diminished in the face of modern pollutants, aging infrastructure, the Act's limited tools to address nonpoint sources and increasing stresses from unregulated development, population growth and climate change. Concerns about the Clean Water Act limits prompted the Water Environment Federation and Duke University's Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions along with the Johnson Foundation at Wingspread to convene a facilitated three-day workshop about the state of the Clean Water Act.
Areas of Expertise:
climate and energy policy, clean energy finance, environment and development, environmental regulation
Billy Pizer holds joint appointments as an associate professor in the Sanford School of Public Policy and as a faculty fellow in the Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions.
His current research examines how public policies to promote clean energy can effectively leverage private sector investments, how environmental regulation and climate policy can affect production costs and competitiveness, and how the design of market-based environmental policies can be improved. From 2008 until 2011, he was Deputy Assistant Secretary for Environment and Energy at the U.S. Department of the Treasury, overseeing Treasury’s role in the domestic and international environment and energy agenda of the United States. Prior to that, he was a researcher at Resources for the Future for more than a decade. He has written more than two dozen peer-reviewed publications, books, and articles, and holds a Ph.D. and Master's degree in economics from Harvard University and Bachelor's degree in physics from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
Fifteen years after the signing of the Kyoto Protocol and the creation of the first major platform for carbon markest, the prospect for a unified global trading system in the foreseeable future is essentially finished. However, carbon markets are a reality and the design of carbon markets is benefiting from actual experience. The challenge now is to figure out how carbon markets can work in a much more complex world. This article in the Journal of Economic Perspectives offers a comprehensive review of the history of carbon markets to date, lessons learned and recommendations on where we can go in the near future.
Author (s): Richard G. Newell, William A. Pizer and Daniel Raimi
There are a number of reasons for considering some kind of market-based, pay-for-performance mechanism to mitigate developing country greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. This policy brief lays out arguments for the auctioned put option as a pay-for-performance mechanism that would allow governments or philanthropic organizations to support and catalyze markets for GHG reductions. The existing offset market, with its detailed methodologies for calculating emission reductions, offers tools that could be borrowed by such a mechanism. Auctioned put options could target a subset of Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) projects—segregated by type of project or country of origin—or an entirely different set of activities, such as REDD+ (reduced emissions from deforestation and degradation plus conservation, sustainable forest management, and enhancement of carbon stocks). The key element is that there must be standardized rules (or the promise of rules) detailing how emission reductions get counted and certified.
The economic debate over using taxes versus cap-and-trade to control pollution emissions revolves around the relative merits of using prices versus quantities as the policy instrument. A cap-and-trade system fixes the quantity of emissions allowed, but leaves the market price of emissions rights uncertain. In contrast, a tax fixes the price of emissions at the tax rate, but leaves the quantity of emissions uncertain. This trade-off raises essential questions for policy design.
Author(s):Brian C. Murray, Richard G. Newell, and William A. Pizer
On efficiency grounds, the economics community has to date tended to emphasize price-based policies to address climate change, such as taxes or a safety-value price ceiling for cap-and-trade, while environmental advocates have sought a more clear quantitative limit on emissions. This paper presents a simple modification to the idea of a safety valve: a quantitative limit that we call the allowance reserve. Importantly, this idea may bridge the gap between competing interests and potentially improve efficiency to tax or other price-based policies.
Document
Author(s):Brian C. Murray, Richard G. Newell and William A. Pizer
Public Administration and Public Policy Consultant
John Raidt is a public administration and public policy consultant with over 20 years of professional experience, including on national environmental, energy, and natural resource policy issues. He was the lead Senate staff member in establishing the U.S. Institute for Environmental Conflict Resolution, and served as Legislative Director to Senator John McCain and Staff Director of the U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. He served as a staff member of National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (9/11 Commission), is a fellow at the George Washington University’s Homeland Security Institute, and holds a Master of Public Administration degree from the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University.
Areas of Expertise:
modeling, environmental economics
Martin Ross is a senior research economist at Duke University's Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions, specializing in environmental and energy economics and macroeconomic-simulation modeling.
Prior to joining the Nicholas Institute at the end of 2011, he worked with RTI International where he developed the Applied Dynamic Analysis of the Global Economy (ADAGE) model, which is used by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to respond to Congressional requests for legislative analyses. The ADAGE model can investigate many types of economic, energy, environmental, and trade policies at the international, national, and U.S. regional levels. It is particularly useful for examining how climate-change mitigation policies limiting carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from energy consumption and non-CO2 greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions will affect all sectors of the economy, altering industrial and residential energy consumption and efficiency. Research conducted for the U.S. EPA Climate Change Division, the Stanford Energy Modeling Forum, and the Pew Center on Global Climate Change has involved using the ADAGE model to estimate U.S. macroeconomic impacts of legislative proposals to reduce GHG emissions. Other modeling by Ross has included developing a detailed technology model of electricity markets to examine how criteria pollutant and GHG policies affect capacity planning decisions and generation costs.
Prior to joining RTI, Ross spent several years at Charles River Associates where he developed regional models to look at effects of climate-change mitigation policies and macroeconomic impacts of electric-utility legislation. In addition to his legislative analysis, Ross has advised industry groups such as the Electric Power Research Institute and Edison Electric Institute on economic and electricity modeling, and is published in The Energy Journal, Energy Economics, and Climactic Change, among others.
Ross holds both a doctoral and master's degree in economics from the University of Colorado, Boulder, and a bachelor's degree in economics Michigan State University.
On August 2, 2007 Senator Lieberman and John Warner (R-VA) introduced a framework for Lieberman-Warner America's Climate Security Act of 2007. The proposal, which we refer to here as the "Lieberman-Warner" bill, calls for the United States to make substantial cuts in greenhouse gas emissions below current levels by 2050. Such greenhouse gas emissions cuts will contribute to global efforts aimed at reducing atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases and mitigating harm to our climate system. The most recent assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change provides a scientific basis for th world's countries to take strong action to mitigate the threats of climate change.
This study employs a computable general equilibrium model of the U.S. integrated into the global economy (ADAGE) and a detailed model of the U.S. energy sector (NI-NEMS) to examine the broad and deep economic implications of interim-term greenhouse gas cap-and-trade programs across sectors and regions of the U.S. economy over time. Interim target scenarios hold U.S. emissions to either 1990 or 2005 levels in the year 2020. These 2020 emission targes are in the range of those now being considered by the U.S. Congress, though several of the Congressional proposals call for continued cuts beyond 2020. This study therefore provides abounding assessment of the initial pathway to greenhouse gas reductions, one which can provide a first order assessment of "economic harm" and provides a platform for guaging implications of longer term cuts should they be applied. Results suggest rather modest macroeconomic impacts on the U.S. economy of greenhouse gas targets considered, though impacts tend to be concentrated, as expected, in the more energy intensive sectors.
This paper introduces, explains and describes the methods for addressing the issues of permanence, leakage and additionality (PLA) of agricultural soil carbon sequestration (ASCS) activities at the project level. Further, it evaluates methords for identifying and estimating PLA and guages the potential magnitude of these effects on the economic returns to a project.
Author(s):Brian C. Murray, Brent Sohngen, and Martin T. Ross
Approximately 60 percent of United States biomass energy consumption occurs in the forest products industry. The large majority of this consumption is for process heat and steam. The forest products industry produces its own sources of biomass, as a by-product of pulp and paper production and woods products manufacturing. The pulp and paper sector of the forest products industry is particularly energy intensive, and the economics of the industry greatly depend on efficient reuse and recycling of chemicals, water and energy. In its Manufacturing Energy Consumption Survey (MECS) conducted every four years, the Energy Information Administration (EIA) inly surveys biomass facilities that solely produce process heat and steam as an ancillary fuel. Thus, it is important to understand how changes in the sector during intervening years may affect biomass energy use in the forest products industry.
Author(s):Brian Murray, Rebecca Nicholson, Martin Ross, Thomas Holloway, and Sumeet Patil
Areas of Expertise:
ecosystem services, water quality
Emily Schieffer is a senior policy associate at Duke University's Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions. She is working on the National Ecosystem Services Partnership (NESP), collaborating with federal agencies to better integrate ecosystem services into agencies’ planning and resource management activities.
Before joining the Nicholas Institute, Emily worked as a senior project manager and team lead at an environmental and engineering firm, specializing in CWA and NEPA projects, primarily for public sector clients. She has also worked on ecosystem services, water quality, conservation, and riparian planning with community groups and non-profits in North Carolina and Texas.
Emily received her Master of Environmental Management degree in ecosystem science and conservation from Duke University in 2011 and her Bachelor of Science in ecology, evolution and conservation biology from the University of Texas at Austin in 1998.
Laura Schloss is the Administrative Manager for the Nicholas Institute. Her primary duties include management of all business, personnel, and financial matters for the Institute. She received her B.A.S. in Accounting from the University of Arizona, and her M.B.A. from Elon University. Laura worked several years in the private sector before joining Duke in 1999. She served as the Assistant Controller for the Duke Clinical Research Institute until February of 2006 when she joined the Nicholas Institute.
Jessica Sheffield joined the Nicholas Institute in October 2008 as the Assistant to Director Tim Profeta. A 1999 graduate of Allegheny College, Jessica earned a bachelor's degree in environmental studies with a concentration in Third World development. She received her master's degree in environmental education from Slippery Rock University in 2002, and her certificate in nonprofit management from Duke University in 2005. Prior to joining the Institute Jessica served as Executive Director for Schoolhouse of Wonder, Durham's premier environmental education nonprofit program.
Larry Shirley serves as the Director of Operations and Planning for the Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions at Duke University. Shirley comes to the Institute with over three decades of experience managing energy-related university, governmental and nonprofit organizations and programs.
Prior to his arrival at Duke, Shirley was the Director of the Green Economy for the NC Department of Commerce, the first official appointed to this post. His sustainable economic development work encompassed renewable energy, energy efficiency, alternative fuels and the Smart Grid. Shirley coordinated the state's efforts to launch an offshore wind program and initiated a statewide task force working to advance vehicle electrification.
Before his appointment as Green Economy Director, Shirley served for nine years as the Director of North Carolina's Energy Office. During his tenure, he launched the Utility Savings Initiative, a nationally acclaimed program centered on reducing energy consumption in state universities and agencies by 30% by 2015. To date, the program has saved over $400 million. Among several awards, it received the Regional Innovation Award from the Council of State Governments in 2007, cited as the most innovative state program in the South.
Much of Shirley's earlier career was dedicated to the founding and management of the North Carolina Solar Center at NC State University. There he served as executive director for 13 years and created the Database of State Incentives for Renewable Energy (DSIRE), the preeminent national website for information on national, state, local and utility financial incentives. Today, the Solar Center is one of the largest university-based renewable energy centers in the nation.
Shirley currently serves on the Board of Directors of the Interstate Renewable Energy Council and Southeast Energy Efficiency Alliance, as well as the Board of Advisors for Catawba College's Center for the Environment. He is the former Chairman of the American Solar Energy Society and holds a degree in political science from UNC Chapel Hill.
Areas of Expertise:
environmental policy, regulation, climate change, clean air act, carbon markets, environmental law
Jeremy Tarr joined Duke University's Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions in April 2012. As Policy Counsel in the Climate and Energy Program, Jeremy’s work focuses on regulatory options for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. An alumnus of Davidson College, Jeremy graduated with honors from the University of North Carolina School of Law in 2010, where he was an editor on the North Carolina Law Review.Most recently, Jeremy served as a law clerk to the Honorable Patricia Timmons-Goodson at the Supreme Court of North Carolina.
There is a pressing need for technology improvements that make it cost-effective for coal-fired power plants to capture carbon emissions. Carbon capture and storage technologies are particularly important for the fleet of existing coal-fired power plants, as energy projections suggest that these facilities will continue to provide a major portion of the nation's electric power—and the nation’s CO2 emissions—for decades to come.
This paper, the second in the "Deploying Low-Carbon Coal Technologies Series," not only looks at factors affecting domestic coal-fired generation and provides an overview of CO2 emission projections associated with the existing fleet of coal-fired power plants, but also highlights near-term policy choices.
Author (s): Brooks Rainey Pearson, Jonas Monast, Jeremy M. Tarr, Jessalee Landfried
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposed in 2012 proposed performance standards for carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from new fossil fuel–fired power plants. Once finalized, the new-source standards will trigger section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act, which required the EPA to regulate CO2 emissions from existing power plants. Broad statutory language and limited legal precedent suggest that a variety of policy design options are available to the EPA and states when regulating CO2 emissions from existing power plants. At the same time, section 111(d) raises unanswered questions. In October 2012, the Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions convened a stakeholder workshop in Washington, D.C., to discuss these questions. This report preserves the workshop discussion by summarizing panel presentations, highlighting points of conversation, and capturing key themes. This report also identifies tradeoffs facing regulators who will draft the existing-source regulations and notes issues ripe for further exploration.
Author(s):Jeremy M. Tarr, Jonas Monast, and Tim Profeta
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) and Mercury Air Toxics (MATS) Rule require power plants to install technologies that reduce sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide and other harmful emissions. Federal environmental regulations such as these often require compliance on restricted timelines, forcing some utilities to make significant investments over short time periods and causing sudden jumps in electricity rates for consumers. This report examines the ratepayer impacts and health benefits of North Carolina’s Clean Smokestacks Act, a law passed in 2002 requiring emission reductions similar to MATS and CSAPR. The law allowed North Carolina to stagger the cost of pollution-control technologies over a longer period and positioned the state well to comply with the EPA rules while enjoying health benefits and avoiding a sudden spike in consumer electricity rates.
Author(s):David Hoppock, Sarah K. Adair, Brian Murray, and Jeremy Tarr
On March 27, 2012, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency proposed a performance standard to limit greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from new fossil-fuel-fired power plants. This primer begins with a background summary of Clean Air Act regulations that control GHG emissions. Subsequent sections discuss the regulation of large stationary sources, such as power plants, refineries, and industrial facilities. Finally, this primer explains the interaction of the proposed new source performance standard (NSPS) with other regulations controlling GHG emissions from large stationary sources.
Kisan works as an IT specialist to support multiple departments at Duke, including the Duke Institute for Brain Sciences and the Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions. Kisan began working at Duke as an information systems specialist for Duke University Medical Center, followed by an IT project manager position with Aramark Corporation at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Originally from Kathmandu, Nepal, Kisan graduated from Kathmandu's Trivhuban University.
Areas of Expertise:
water, ecosystem services, state and local governments
Abby joined Duke's Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions in September of 2011. Prior to joining the Nicholas Institute, she worked as a research assistant in the Wisconsin Legislature, with a focus on natural resources and economic legislation. She has also worked at the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources as a water quality specialist, where she helped develop stream indicators and assisted in the triennial review of the state's water quality standards.
She earned her master's degree in limnology & marine science from the University of Wisconsin-Madison and her bachelor's degree in environmental engineering from MIT. Her master's research focused on biogeochemistry of the Wisconsin River. She has taught courses on environmental modeling, sustainability, aquatic ecology, and physics.
Although livestock management is a small contributor to overall greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in the United States, it makes up half of all U.S. agricultural emissions. Changes in livestock management can benefit air and water quality and help slow global climate change. This brief summarizes key points from the report "Near-Term Options for Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Livestock Systems in the United States: Beef, Dairy, and Swine Production Systems," which outlines strategies for managing GHG emissions from livestock systems and reviews options for quantifying and accounting for farm-scale implementation of such strategies.
Author(s):Shawn Archibeque, Karen Haugen-Kozyra, Kristen Johnson, Ermias Kebreab, Wendy Powers-Schilling, Lydia P. Olander, and Abigail Van de Bogert
Although livestock management is a small contributor to overall greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in the United States, it makes up half of all U.S. agricultural emissions. Changes in livestock management can benefit air and water quality and help slow global climate change. The objective of this report is to synthesize and communicate the fundamental information necessary for designing agricultural GHG mitigation and reporting programs. It will be of use to private or voluntary markets and registries, commodity group and supply chain initiatives, and regulatory agencies. It summarizes strategies for managing GHG emissions from livestock systems and reviews options for quantifying and accounting for farm-scale implementation of such strategies.
Author(s):Shawn Archibeque, Karen Haugen-Kozyra, Kristen Johnson, Ermias Kebreab, Wendy Powers-Schilling, Lydia P. Olander, and Abigail Van de Bogert
Tibor Vegh joined Duke's Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions Environmental Economics Program in September 2012. He serves as an Associate in Research and is a collaborator on projects related to carbon markets, bioenergy, and blue carbon economics.
Tibor earned his master's degree in forestry from Northern Arizona University in 2011. There, his research focused on identifying whether or not partial offset of ponderosa pine forest restoration treatments is possible with payments for carbon offsets. He earned his bachelor's degree at North Carolina State University in economics with a minor in mathematics. As an undergraduate researcher, he worked on modeling the effects of the North Carolina Renewable Energy Portfolio Standard on regional timber supply.
Coastal and marine ecosystems store large amounts of carbon in soil sediments and vegetation. When these systems are disturbed through conversion or degradation, this emits carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas whose growing atmospheric concentration is altering the climate system. Attention to this source of “blue carbon” emissions has only, fairly recently, been motivated by new scientific studies quantifying its magnitude. The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), as part of its mission to reduce threats to our global climate system, promotes the sustainable management, conservation, and enhancement of sinks and reservoirs of all greenhouse gases, including those in coastal marine ecosystems. Yet there are no specific mechanisms within the UNFCCC that focus on blue carbon. This paper reviews where coastal marine ecosystems and blue carbon may be addressed within existing UNFCCC mechanisms, such as those dealing with land use and reduced emissions from deforestation and degradation (REDD+), at the project and national levels.
Kim joined the Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions in June 2011. She provides grant management (new proposal processes to closeout) to the Nicholas Institute’s research staff. Previously, she worked at Duke’s Sanford School of Public Policy. She has a bachelor's degree in environmental resource management and planning from the University of West Florida.
Colette joined the Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions in July 2009 after graduating from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill with a Bachelor's degree in Peace, War, and Defense. She provides research assistance and administrative support to several directors as well as other Nicholas Institute staff.
Blue carbon has been defined as “the carbon stored, sequestered or released from coastal ecosystems of tidal marshes, mangroves and seagrass meadows.” These marine and coastal ecosystems store large amounts of carbon in the plants and the sediment below them. When these ecosystems are degraded or destroyed, significant amounts of carbon dioxide are released into the atmosphere, contributing to climate change risk. The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) has considered conserving and restoring forests an important aspect of climate change mitigation through its REDD+ (reduced emissions from deforestation and degradation) mechanism. Broadening these approaches to include other natural systems, such as blue carbon ecosystems, could help reduce emissions from the degradation and destruction of these areas as well. This policy brief examines the evolution of blue carbon in the UNFCCC process—how it entered, where it stands, and what path lies ahead.
Author(s):Brian C. Murray, Colette E. Watt, David M. Cooley, and Linwood H. Pendleton
