It’s not enough for companies to focus on their own water operations and efficiencies. To really strengthen water stewardship and sustainability, they must invest in cross-sector action in priority river basins and value chains.

In a global survey of more than 350 water stakeholders, Trellis data partner GlobeScan, in conjunction with the World Wildlife Fund, found that collective action in river basins is the most effective and impactful way for companies to achieve meaningful water stewardship outcomes. Respondents said river basin efforts were more impactful than reducing water usage in their own operations and collaborating with peers to improve water stewardship at the sector level.

What this means

The GlobeScan and WWF research uncovers a key gap between what companies currently prioritize in water stewardship and what experts consider most effective. While many businesses focus on their own operations and water efficiency, the most significant water impacts and risks for many industries lie in their value chains and the broader river basins on which they depend. Experts emphasize that companies need to shift their focus to basin- and catchment-level water issues to truly address environmental challenges, mitigate business risks, and build more resilient supply chains.

Looking ahead, that means collaborative action efforts in river basins must include all sectors and stakeholders, with increased public-private cooperation to scale impact. Local actors such as municipal and community leaders play a crucial role in building trust, identifying challenges, designing programs and implementing long-term solutions.

Based on a global survey of over 350 expert stakeholders in 63 countries, a public opinion survey of 30,000 people across 31 countries and territories, 29 in-depth interviews with experts across sectors, and research on NGO campaigning on water issues by SIGWATCH.

The post Go with the flow: Action in river basins ranked as most effective water stewardship appeared first on Trellis.

Mast Reforestation, a post-wildfire restoration company, has developed a novel carbon credit that retires more quickly than traditional reforestation credits and offers a co-benefit of replanting forests on scorched landscapes. For sustainability professionals seeking to offset their company’s hardest-to-cut carbon emissions, the company’s first tranche of carbon removal credits will become available this month on puro.earth

Mast is working with a Montana landowner to bury charred trees on 900 acres of burned forestland in an oxygen-free landfill using a technology known as biomass carbon removal and storage. It plans to replant the landscape with native seedlings produced by the nurseries it owns, Cal Forest Nurseries in Etna, California, and Silvaseed, in Roy, Washington.

“We’re taking some of those [burned] logs and burying them underground, which locks away carbon and generates a carbon credit on a shorter timeline that allows a corporation to retire it as early as next February, while also financing reforestation as part of that,” said Brady Paron, director of carbon market partnerships at Mast Reforestation. 

What buyers want

Mast fashioned its carbon credit in direct response to what buyers said they wanted, said Micah Kirscher, strategist at Redwood Communications and a Mast spokesperson: “Something with the benefits of a nature-based solution and the feel-good aspect of contributing to post-wildfire restoration, but with the tangible benefits of a carbon credit that retires more quickly and at a more affordable price than many other comparable options.”    

The company recently raised $25 million in a Series B funding round led by the venture capital firm Pulse Fund, which specializes in climate tech investments. It has also secured a pre-issuance project rating from carbon ratings agency BeZero for the Montana pilot of BBBe, meaning that there is a “moderate likelihood” that one credit will achieve one metric ton of emissions reduction. 

The project should generate about 30,000 metric tons of carbon removal credits by 2026, the company estimates, and it is seeking corporate buyers for those credits. The new funding round will enable it to generate an initial 5,000 metric tons of credits on 100 acres to prove the technology.

Mast does not plan to sell carbon credits for the reforestation part of the scheme, which it calls a “co-benefit,” Paron said, even though that’s how the company got its start: “We view the biomass burial project as an evolution in our learnings and a tool to accelerate reforestation. He calls it “a good complement” to Mast’s core work, which focuses on scaling reforestation in North America.

Regenerating burned forests

With wildfires growing in intensity, they now burn at least twice as much tree cover as they did two decades ago.  Last year, they scorched 8.9 million acres in the U.S., an area roughly equivalent in size to Vermont and Connecticut combined. 

Leaving burned trees exposed further damages the ecosystem from soil erosion and secondary mortality events, such as beetle outbreaks. Burned trees also continue to emit carbon long after flames subside and can pose a future fire risk.

In the past, forests may have been able to naturally regenerate after wildfires, but the current megafires have changed that.  “In high severity burns, management is almost always necessary to restore the natural regeneration processes,” Ricky Satomi, forestry and natural resources advisor at the University of California Cooperative Extension, said in an email.  Key native species, like conifers, that grow from seeds dropped from live cones must be replanted after severe burns.

Government funding for such replanting is shrinking as the Trump administration slashes Forest Service jobs and threatens to reclaim billions disbursed through the Inflation Reduction Act for forest management and wildfire mitigation. Financing reforestation with voluntary forest carbon credits takes a long time and is tricky because many seedlings don’t take hold.

“Tree seedlings are having a really tough time surviving in these hot, post-fire environments,” said Matt Hurteau, a biology professor and director of the Center for Fire Resilient Ecosystems and Society at the University of New Mexico. Hurteau’s research pinpoints to the square meter where in post-wildfire landscapes seedlings are most likely to survive — information that is essential to any reforestation effort.

Details to figure out

Mast’s vertical integration, plus its “ability to work on the ground with the community,” attracted the new investment, Tenzin Seldon, the founder and managing partner at Pulse Fund, told Trellis. (Other biomass burial companies are doing similar work, including InterEarth in Australia and Carbon Sequestration in Texas.)

Mast has signed a second deal in Idaho. The pilot still has key technical details that need to be worked out, including data collection to measure the emissions associated with tree burial and design features of the burial plots, such as cap materials, temperature and humidity controls and monitoring.

 “Mast will become a clear commercial choice and a clear private-public partnership choice for governments as well,” said Seldon.

The post Mast Reforestation generates carbon credits by burying trees appeared first on Trellis.

Frontier, a group of companies committing $1 billion to back early-stage carbon removal approaches, will pay $31.6 million to fund the installation of emissions capture technology at Norway’s largest waste incineration plant. 

The buyers group founded by companies including Stripe and Google has committed $550 million toward novel carbon removal projects.

The Norwegian facility at the center of the deal disclosed April 1 annually burns 350,000 metric tons of items such as food-soiled paper, cardboard and non-recyclable plastics. This material is considered residual waste that can’t be otherwise recycled or reused under the European Union’s waste management directives.

The energy generated through the incineration provides electricity and heat to the city of Oslo. The Frontier contract covers a retrofit that will capture an estimated 350,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions annually, and then transport it by ship to Europe’s Northern Lights sequestration site where it will be stored. 

The transaction covers credits for removing 100,000 metric tons between 2029 and 2030; those credits specifically cover the biogenic emissions related to the organic waste.  

Among the buyers participating in this particular deal are several Frontier founders along with Autodesk, H&M, JPMorgan Chase and Salesforce. Funding from the city of Oslo and Norway’s Longship initiative will also help finance the retrofit.

Diagram of carbon capture process.
Hafslund Celsio’s method of removing CO2 by retrofitting a waste-to-energy facility with a capture unit.
Source: Frontier

Common source of energy in Europe

“Frontier buyers are not only enabling this project to get off the ground but also validating a model that could be replicated through Europe, with the potential to remove tens of millions of CO2 from the atmosphere,” said Jannicke Gerner Bjerkås, director of carbon capture and storage and carbon markets for Hafslund Celsio, which owns the incineration plant. The company is Norway’s largest district heating provider. 

At least 500 similar facilities support district heating in cities across Europe. Waste regulations on the continent have inspired their creation, and retrofitting them could capture an estimated 400 million metric tons annually by 2050, according to Frontier estimates. 

Microsoft disclosed a 10-year deal in May 2024 covering carbon removal at a district heading system in Stockholm, Sweden. That facility burns wood waste, and the approach is known as bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS).

A number of companies in Europe are looking into carbon capture at waste-to-energy facilities, especially as the EU may start regulating those emissions more closely as part of its trading system, said Robert Höglund, CEO of consulting firm Marginal Carbon and co-founder of researcher CDR.fyi. 

“Waste to energy [carbon capture and storage] is one of few viable approaches for plastic waste that can’t be recycled,” Höglund said. “The organic fraction of the waste is what determines how much [carbon dioxide removal] is generated, that fraction may go down with better sorting, that’s also a factor that may affect the economics of a project as CDR credits may be differently priced than fossil CO2.”

The post Star-studded buyers group funds project to capture emissions from burning trash appeared first on Trellis.

Crocs is one of the few consumer products brands that proactively talks up the link between using less fossil fuels-derived plastic in products and its ability to achieve net-zero status for corporate greenhouse gas emissions. Most companies champion these goals separately.

It’s a logical connection: Croslite, a blend of ethylene-vinyl acetate and other substances, represents 80 percent of the materials that the iconic clog maker sources for the 150 million pairs of shoes it sells annually. 

Crocs is working hard to change the composition of Croslite without compromising consumer expectations for durability and comfort. Its goal is to replace 50 percent of the mix by 2030 with materials that are “bio-circular” — which, right now, means they’re made from spent cooking oils and tall oil that comes from paper milling and recycling. As of its latest disclosures, Crocs is halfway there.

By weaning off plastics over the past four years, Crocs has already reduced the life-cycle emissions associated with a pair of classic Crocs clogs by about 20 percent to 2.02 kilograms — equivalent to what’s emitted by burning two gallons of gasoline, according to the veteran sustainability professional managing this strategy. The goal is to reduce the footprint by 50 percent by 2030.

“Materials and manufacturing are the biggest levers [we have] to meet our net zero by 2040 goal and find reductions,” said Deanna Bratter, chief sustainability officer for Crocs, in the latest episode of Climate Pioneers. “We really started to focus on how we can innovate and take our materials and look at it both through an opportunity lens to reduce the impact of the material and also to reduce the carbon emissions associated with it.” 

Croc shoes on a tile floor
Crocs’ goal is to replace 50 percent of the mix by 2030 with byproducts such as spent cooking oil.
Source: Crocs

Change management for materials management

Bratter joined Crocs in April 2022 after almost 17 years with a yogurt and dairy organization that would eventually become part of Danone’s North America operations. She was instrumental in her prior employer’s successful bid to become a certified B corporation — a process that requires corporate-wide scrutiny of processes. 

That experience has been invaluable at Crocs, where Bratter is the first person to hold an official sustainability role, reporting directly to the CEO. The company set its goals before she joined; part of Bratter’s initial remit was to assess whether Crocs could “credibly and authentically” deliver on them. 

She’s done that by assigning members of her seven-personal team to work closely with counterparts across the organization.

“I really love making sure that we are touching every team in the business,” she said, “and that they have a go-to on the team to draw those connections and bring ideas and sort of implement from the strategy that we’re building for the business. It’s so important that we have a holistic way of engaging and being a partner with everyone across the organization.”

Crocs materials managers, procurement specialists and product designers are at the center of the company’s ongoing plastics transition. “The biggest changes we made were in the management of the practice,” said Bratter, who outlined a playbook of sorts for this kind of transition.

Key steps to prioritize

Find experts to co-develop metrics

Crocs uses a third-party certification from the International Sustainability & Carbon Certification initiative used to measure bio-circular claims. “A lot of folks from the materials team to the manufacturing team have to partner to make sure that documentation and that process is really organized and clean, so that we can certify and audit and everything that comes with that,” she said.     

Use existing processes where possible

The decision to source used cooking oil as a replacement was based on availability and because it was an easy replacement. “We’re able to capture that cooking oil and turn it into essentially a drop-in where we didn’t need to retool or change our production, but we’re using an input that is made from plant oils instead of made from fossil fuels,” Bratter said. 

Find shared value with suppliers, and create space for new competition

Crocs engaged supply chain partners with their own emissions reduction commitments to find common ground and explore ways to create a new production roadmap. The shoe commpany also added new collaborators that had experience with bio-circular processes, as a bid to keep costs down. As of its last environmental report, Crocs had 314 suppliers. “Many bio-circular and bio-based materials and alternatives often come at a premium,” she said.

Get product designers excited

One area of particular focus is how to use scraps of Crocs reclaimed through the company’s takeback program in new designs. The company collects shoes at 160 retail stores in the U.S. and Canada, and offers a mail-in program. The wearable ones are clean and donated so that they can make it onto someone else’s feet, while the rest are shredded. 

Increasing the amount of recycled, bio-based content in Crocs products is a vital component of meeting the bio-circular goal. The “Keep It Going” product line features designs made from 25 percent recycled materials. 

What Crocs is willing to claim about progress

Crocs uses mass balance accounting to discuss the environmental claims related to its materials changes, which has been a bone of contention for some critics. So, when Crocs reports that 25 percent of its production contains bio-based replacements for virgin plastic, that means across all of its production facilities.

The method, though approved by ISCC, is still controversial because Crocs can’t say definitively that a specific pair of shoes contains that much.  

For that reason, Crocs doesn’t include carbon labels, although it does weave messaging about its mission to reduce fossil fuels-derived materials into its marketing, noting how that doesn’t need to come with any sort of sacrifice when it comes to price and comfort.

“We’re not saying, ‘Hey consumers, if you’re interested in sustainability, buy this,’ or ‘If you can afford sustainability, buy this,’ Bratter said. “We’re saying, ‘We believe it’s all important, so we’re just making our shoes better.”

[Join over 1,500 professionals transforming how we make, sell, and circulate products at Circularity, April 29-May 1, Denver.]

The post How Crocs’ CSO uses change management to cut emissions appeared first on Trellis.

At GreenBiz 2025 in Phoenix, Arizona, the newest cohort of Emerging Leaders gathered with one clear purpose: to build connections, learn from one another and push the conversation forward. The Emerging Leaders program is more than an event; it’s an ongoing network designed to give early-career sustainability professionals access to mentorship, professional development and the tools they need to navigate the complexities of leadership in a rapidly evolving field.

What does it mean to be an emerging leader in sustainability today? For this group, it’s about translating passion into impact across a range of organizations and roles. “I use a combination of scientific acumen, policy understanding and communication skills to advance climate resilience and environmental stewardship,” Anirban Kundu said, reflecting the interdisciplinary mindset that many leaders are embracing.

One of the biggest challenges facing this cohort is navigating slow-moving organizational structures. Jøn Kent, co-founder of Sanctuary Farms and Sacred Earth, described the difficulty of “navigating silos within large organizations and translating sustainability across departments.” Similarly, Malayah Redmond noted the challenge of influencing decisions within complex hierarchies and finding ways to spark urgency around climate goals when processes can feel frustratingly slow.

Despite these structural challenges, the cohort shows remarkable adaptability. Shreya Sonar, who leads Circularity at Schneider Electric, said that shifting business mindsets is an ongoing challenge, but one she tackles by translating sustainability goals into business value propositions that resonate with leadership.

Communication emerged as a crucial skill for these leaders. Amidat Sonekan, a graduate student focused on improving global climate resilience, reflected, “I’ve learned that words matter, a lot. It’s wildly important to be intentional with language and recognize how it shapes understanding and outcomes.” Sarah Nerette echoed this sentiment, describing the importance of slowing down and ensuring the problem is fully understood before jumping to solutions.

Another recurring theme was the emotional weight of leadership. Many leaders are managing not only technical and strategic challenges but also the weight of expectations and the desire to make real change. This balancing act requires both resilience and humility. Dhruv Jhaveri said, “As a BIPOC immigrant in the sustainability field, imposter syndrome and systemic barriers often make it difficult to break through entrenched networks and have my voice heard in decision-making spaces.” For Jhaveri, leading in sustainability often means stepping into uncertainty with confidence, even when clear answers aren’t available.

Bridging generational and institutional gaps also surfaced as a challenge. The Emerging Leaders program itself fosters intergenerational conversations, helping these young leaders connect with more seasoned professionals. But translating new ideas into established systems requires diplomacy and persistence. Francesca Edralin, who works at the intersection of corporate sustainability and climate policy, describes it as balancing idealism with pragmatism, pushing for systemic change while understanding institutional constraints.

Throughout these conversations, one thing is clear: This generation of emerging leaders isn’t waiting for perfect conditions. They’re stepping into complex spaces, learning in real time, and building the future of sustainability with curiosity and determination. Their insights show us not only where the field is headed but how resilient, creative and thoughtful leadership can shape outcomes in uncertain times.

The 2025 Emerging Leaders Cohort:

  • Amidat Sonekan — Student, MBA/MS Environment and Sustainability, University of Michigan-Ann Arbor
  • Anirban Kundu — Senior ESG Consultant, Anthesis Consulting (Canada) Inc., Ph.D.
  • Dhruv Jhaveri — Senior Analyst, Environmental Resources Management (ERM)
  • Francesca Edralin — Associate Specialist, Consumer Engagement, WWF
  • Jøn Kent — Co-Founder, Sanctuary Farms
  • Laura Miller — Program Analyst, D.C. Department of Energy and Environment
  • Lucia Castellares Tello — Student, Environmental Management, Yale School of the Environment
  • Malayah Redmond — Senior Associate, Company Network, Ceres
  • Maria Corona — Co-Executive Director of CA Green Business Network
  • Rachel Haynes — Program Manager, North Carolina State University
  • Samia Aboni — Master’s in Environmental Management Candidate ’26, Duke University
  • Sarah Nerette — Sustainability Programs Manager, CELI, NSBE, Wild Virginia
  • Sherida Hinckson — President, Green Quotient Solutions
  • Shreya Sonar — Circularity Senior Program Manager, Schneider Electric
  • Sydney Williams — Student, Master’s of Environmental Management with concentrations in Energy and Data Analytics and Modeling, Duke University-The Nicholas School of Environment

The post GreenBiz 2025: Making change now appeared first on Trellis.

California Gov. Gavin Newsom thought he’d delivered a clean technology manufacturing boon to his state with a new four-year memorandum of understanding (MOU) with Alfonso Durazo Montaño, governor of Sonora, Mexico.

Then President Donald Trump announced rounds of tariffs.

To say the story is still developing is an understatement, but how it does will matter a great deal to a great many people and businesses on both sides of the border.

Here’s what we know so far.

That was then

Signed March 18, the agreement is an attempt to provide supply chain and clean energy stability for California, Mexico and their private sectors. It contains provisions that encourage collaboration on:

  • Renewable energy efficiency
  • Electric system reliability and markets
  • Electric mobility
  • Clean and renewable hydrogen
  • Supply chain development, and
  • Supporting research and development.

“The memorandum shows potential exists,” said Richard Kiy, president and CEO of Institute of the Americas. “Sonora’s goal is to be able to finance up to 4 gigawatts of renewable energy production.” Portions of those 4 gigawatts would be sent to California in an effort to shore up its electrical grid, which is more vulnerable than ever. (Mexico announced the construction of an electrical transmission line between Sonora and the Baja California Peninsula in July.)

The San Diego Chamber of Commerce described the agreement as a “collaboration to promote the energy sector and increase business and economic ties to facilitate a transition towards clean energy.”

But memoranda aren’t treaties, and thus not binding. More to the point, they are vulnerable to contravening action at the federal level. Which brings us to:

Almost two weeks after the signing of the memorandum, Trump imposed 25 percent tariffs on all imported automobiles and auto components, which is taking effect at midnight Thursday. This action follows the implementation of separate 25 percent tariffs on all steel and aluminum (including auto parts) imported to the U.S., regardless of country of origin. Further complicating matters: a 25 percent tariff on all imports from Mexico.

So, in theory, an imported auto part with steel components could potentially rack up 75 percent tariffs if coming into the U.S. from Mexico, from where California imported $14.7 billion in transportation equipment in 2023. (Sonora, for example, is home to a pair of Ford manufacturing facilities.)

But “in theory” is the operative phrase.

This is now (maybe)

This level of tariffs is unprecedented, leaving industry experts scrambling to understand the new business-as-usual.

Trade experts aren’t at all sure whether tariffs can or would be stacked. But if they are, what was once sound economic strategy for Ford — importing cars from Mexican facilities — suddenly becomes a financial problem.

More important, businesses of all sizes rely on regulatory consistency to make informed decisions today and to plan for tomorrow. And while Ford, ultimately, has the resources to navigate these uncertainties, most companies do not. Such firms should not prioritize the MOU, according to Kathleen Claussen, a professor of international economic and trade law at Georgetown University Law School.

“A company with limited resources should be focused on what’s happening at the federal level,” said Claussen. “Everyone should be focused on the White House.”

In other words, a once promising MOU may turn out to be DOA.

The post Trump’s tariffs endanger California-Mexico clean energy deal appeared first on Trellis.

As the Trump Administration initiates a massive offensive against public health and environmental precedents and priorities, Europe is also undergoing a sustainability reset. Though not as radical as the U.S. version, it too has major implications for business planning, government policy and stakeholder priorities.

Three questions are paramount: What’s driving the reset in Europe? What changes are likely to emerge? And how should businesses adapt?

Greater representation of conservative and fascist parties in individual national legislatures and the European Parliament are playing a large factor, as noted in a Trellis piece last month. Beyond politics, though, is the fact that many sustainability proposals aren’t well understood by the public or have catalyzed significant opposition from business. These include an alphabet soup of newer reporting initiatives, climate-related tax adjustments, or regulatory requirements intended to decarbonize European economies in future decades.

At the same time, a number of bedrock European industries—auto manufacturing, chemicals, Germany’s Mittelstand-sized companies—face higher business costs from regulatory compliance, changing consumer demands, trade competition (electric vehicle exports from China, for example) and new technologies such as artificial intelligence (a sector where European business has no major global assets).

Of course, the Trump administration’s attempts to pull back environmental policy commitments and investments has also slowed down important momentum across sustainability policies important to Europe. 

Three likely changes

Given these factors, what does the European sustainability reset actually look like? It’s important to note that revised sustainability requirements will not fall equally upon private businesses. As of now, three major changes seem likely:

  • Significant reduction in the number of companies required to report their negative impacts upon the environment and society under the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD). This outcome reflects exemptions for small and medium-sized enterprises and increased minimums in enterprise revenue and number of employees that, together, could reduce the number of reporting firms by 80%.
  • Scaled-back due diligence requirements to calculate human and environmental risk for all direct value chain participants through the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD).  
  • Major revisions in the Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) that will avoid added costs for material shipments between customers and suppliers across European borders.

These and other proposals will be voted upon later this year through the Omnibus Simplification Package. Untouched in this evolving compromise is the provision for enterprises to conduct double materiality assessments of their financial and environmental impacts. In early March, the EU reaffirmed its commitment to require zero emission automobiles by 2035. This, too, will likely be the subject of a future debate as the newly-elected German government formalizes its agenda. Arrayed against these salient business drivers, the sustainability reset will likely evolve in multiple phases across several decades.

The path forward

Given the multiple phases of rollouts, larger companies with operations in Europe will need to remain prepared to submit currently-required reports even if they become less voluminous.

More specific business responses could consist of the following:

  • Reassessing staffing and budgeting requirements for current and revised reporting mandates. This becomes especially important as the EU and individual European governments and many American states will choose differentiated, yet overlapping reporting frameworks. 
  • Preparing for expected deadlines even if they are delayed through the Omnibus process. Executives of several Fortune 100 companies told me they plan to continue their present planning expectations in Europe and maintain the stability and efficiencies of a globally-integrated approach across their businesses.
  • Following through on announced commitments. This includes Scope 1, 2 and 3 climate reporting, stakeholder collaborations and European DEI programs (whether called by that name or using other terminology).
  • Continuing to work closely with suppliers to navigate changing tax, environmental reporting and other disclosure requirements as well as advancing progress in the sustainability of supplier operations.
  • Deciding whether to move forward on business strategy decisions and investments including renewables, electrifying facilities and zero-emission vehicles.

Enterprises have no choice but to manage multiple uncertainties today.  An insightful perspective for navigating the currently rough waters is provided by my U.K. colleague Mike Barry, a former Marks & Spencer senior executive, who noted: “Companies always overestimate short-term risk and underestimate long-term change. Mistakenly seeing risk through the lens of one-off events and not as a ‘system’ of overlapping interconnected events.”  

Sustainability professionals must stay mindful of an essential role—to strengthen businesses’ ability to improve current living standards while delivering sustainability benefits for the present and future through democratic political systems—regardless of the reset in Europe. 

The post 3 ways Europe’s sustainability reset will affect corporate planning and policy appeared first on Trellis.

Google, Intuit, Microsoft, Patagonia, Rivian and REI are among a growing number of companies for which the capacity of a renewable electricity project isn’t the most important decision-making metric for signing a contract.

All six companies are negotiating deals aimed at bringing affordable energy to places where renewable electricity is scarce and other factors, including high poverty levels, have made it difficult for consumers to invest in energy efficiency measures such as home weatherization or updated HVAC systems.

For example, Microsoft disclosed a multi-year deal Feb. 25 to bring 100 megawatts of solar electricity to 20 communities over the next four years with an initial focus on Louisiana and Arkansas. This is the tech giant’s second transaction with Clearloop, a Nashville, Tennessee, company expanding solar power in underserved locations where projects have a higher impact on grid decarbonization and also provide a positive economic impact.

Clearloop uses a project financing approach that lets corporations purchase the environmental attribute certificates of utility-connected projects in regions where renewables penetration is low, said Clearloop Co-founder and CEO Laura Zapata. 

“If the government is not going to make these types of investments, maybe the private sector will,” she said, describing the company’s origin story. One of Clearloop’s co-founders and angel investors is former Tennessee governor Phil Bredesen, who also co-founded Silicon Ranch, the solar developer that acquired Clearloop in October 2021.

Central theme: community resilience 

Clearloop prioritizes smaller projects — typically about 5 megawatts, or enough to power 1,000 homes. A key selling point in rural communities is the ability of distributed solar systems to keep communities online during broader grid outages, Zapata said. That helps get projects approved and typically producing power in under one year. “Deploy, deploy, deploy is the name of the game right now,” she said.

Another developer winning deals with high-profile corporations is Sol Systems, an independent power producer in Washington, D.C., that manages 7 gigawatts of clean energy projects in 38 states. It has publicly disclosed deals with Google, Microsoft, Patagonia and Rivian, to name a few. 

Both Clearloop and Sol prioritize low-income communities with high irradiance. Investments often come with employment opportunities, investments in local schools and other activities deemed important by local residents. 

“You can still use these projects to implement your goals, but it’s not just about simply extracting the benefits,” said Adaora Ifebigh, senior director of community impact at Sol Systems. “If you want to be there and show that you’re going to be there, you need to think about things differently.”

Consider Sol’s relationship with Google, which in mid-March pledged another $1.6 million (doubling a previous investment). That money funds grants at rural electric cooperatives in North Carolina and South Carolina for energy efficiency upgrades and other improvements that reduce energy demand and costs.

Solar panels under a blue sky with clouds.
The White Pines solar project in Tennessee was funded with investments from Intuit and REI Cooperative.
Source: Clearloop

Demonstrable impact for low-income consumers

“[The relationship] directly reduces the energy burden on our members — particularly during extreme weather months — without the red tape that often comes with other funding sources,” said Kevin Myers, manager of marketing for the Santee Electric Cooperative in Kingstree, South Carolina. “It’s not about policy; it’s about people.”

Santee is one of several organizations that receives funding enabled by the Google deal. The co-op, which will receive $200,000 as a result of the new investment, has funded upgrades at 76 homes over the past two years, including weatherization improvements and installations of heat pumps.

The owners of these homes often don’t qualify for existing programs because they don’t have an adequate credit history or they rent the land where their home is situated — which is a deal-breaker in some locations, Myers said. “These funds can be applied directly to the [customers] who need this the absolute most,” he said.

Consider climate, conservation and community

Electric vehicle maker Rivian reviews community development possibilities as part of all its renewable energy investments. Other factors: how a project can reduce emissions on an otherwise dirty grid and whether the project will cause habitat destruction. (Check out its checklist.)

For example, Rivian teamed up with Patagonia and Sol to back a 50-megawatt project in Stokes County, North Carolina. The funding supported a local robotics program for middle-school students.

Rivian’s renewables strategy aims to offset the impact of its manufacturing and add enough clean energy capacity to the grid to support 7 billion miles of carbon-free driving. 

“We are looking for projects that will result in the greatest potential to negate fossil fuels,” said Andrew Peterman, director of advanced energy solutions at Rivian. “We really think about how we drive grid transformation that is about more than decarbonization.”

For example, Rivian backed Clearloop’s work in Tennessee because solar generation accounts for less than 1 percent of the electricity there. Rivian is working with Clearloop to add enough solar power to serve charging stations across the state, Peterman said. “There are sustainability outcomes, but it’s really about enabling the system,” he said.

Let the community lead

Software firm Intuit also collaborates with Clearloop. Together with REI, it backed a 2.8-megawatt solar installation in White Pine, Tennessee, that will power at least 400 local households and also provide zero-carbon electricity for REI’s nearby distribution center.

“We have never put a limit on projects like this, but it does come down to scope — not only just the clean energy component but also whether it creates co-benefits,” said Debbie Lizt, head of global sustainability at Intuit. “We want to use the resources that we have to have a positive impact.”

Intuit studies economic impact potential as part of its project selection criteria — in accord with its corporate mission statement to “power prosperity around the world.” It prioritizes regions where electricity additions can reduce utility costs, provide exposure to new technologies and potentially create apprenticeship opportunities. 

Unlike some other companies supporting small community solar projects, Intuit doesn’t count the renewable energy certificates they generate towards its emissions reduction goals. Rather, it donates them to the community. “This is important work to do even if it doesn’t serve our direct interests,” Lizt said.

The post For Google, Intuit, REI and others, size isn’t everything in clean energy deals appeared first on Trellis.

Advocates for carbon removal have long warned of a problem: Because a handful of buyers are responsible for the large majority of purchases, the supply side of the market is not growing fast enough to provide the gigatons of removals the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says will be needed by mid-century.

But now comes tentative evidence that major Japanese companies may help fill that gap.

Mizuho, a Japanese bank with $2 trillion in assets, announced this week it will join NextGen CDR, a company that connects large buyers with carbon removal projects. And a partner working with another major Japanese business, the industrial conglomerate Sumitomo, recently told Trellis that the company intends to purchase 500,000 high-durability credits annually — a significant buy for the nascent removals market.

Prioritizing durability

NextGen is a joint project between climate consultancy South Pole and Mitsubishi, another Japanese conglomerate. The company connects buyers with removal technologies that guarantee to store carbon for at least 1,000 years. These include biochar, direct air capture and storage of carbon from sustainably sourced biomass. NextGen targets an average price of $200 per ton, a relatively low figure in a market where credits can run to $1,000 per ton, and counts Boston Consulting Group, Swiss Re and UBS as founding buyers. Mizuho is the first new buyer to join since NextGen’s launch in 2022.

“It’s very exciting for us — and also reassuring,” said Patrick Bürgi, NextGen’s chairperson and a co-founder of South Pole, referencing recent setbacks in corporate action on climate, including the decision by some large companies to water down emission targets. Bürgi did not disclose the amount Mizuho will spend or the quantity of credits the company will acquire. Data from CDR.fyi, a firm that tracks removal purchases, shows that NextGen has purchased 212,000 credits to date.

In Sumitomo’s case, the purchases are being handled by Carbon Direct, a carbon management firm. An annual purchase of half a million tons would mark the arrival of a significant new entrant into the removals market. The leaderboard of cumulative sales compiled by CDR.fyi is topped by Microsoft (8.2 million tons), a buyers’ coalition known as Frontier (1.1 million) and Google (0.5 million). If its plans are executed, a single year of purchases would put Sumitomo in fourth place.

Demand surge

Micah Macfarlane, chief supply officer at Carbon Direct, noted that as well as seeking to offset its own emissions, Sumitomo is also interested in selling removal credits to other companies. The Japanese government is establishing a trading scheme as part of its Green Transformation (GX) initiative, a decade-long effort to decarbonize the country’s economy. Participation in the GX-ETS will transition from voluntary to mandatory next year and the roughly 750 companies covered by the scheme are responsible for more than a half of Japan’s emissions, according to an analysis by CDR.fyi. Companies in the scheme are allowed to use credits to offset up to 5 percent of annual emissions, which could generate demand for around 40 million tons of credits annually, CDR.fyi estimated.

That level of demand would outstrip current supply of removals, but Bürgi questioned the likelihood of the trading scheme alone making it happen. He pointed out that participants in the GX-ETS will only use removals to offset emissions if those credits are cheaper than mitigation efforts, which, given the price of high-durability removals, may not be the case. Even when it’s cheaper to offset than mitigate, added Bürgi, avoided-emission credits from forest protection and other projects will likely prove more cost-effective. 

The post Mizuho and Sumitomo boost market for carbon removals appeared first on Trellis.

The tech giant Meta, owner of Facebook and WhatsApp, has purchased 676,000 carbon credits as part of a project that will transform the management of 68,000 acres of previously commercial forest on Washington state’s Olympic Peninsula. The deal is the first time EFM, the forest investment company that acquired the land, has used credit sales to help fund a forest purchase. 

It also represents a significant uptick in credit use by Meta, which will receive the credits over a 10-year period. The company has retired an average 65,000 credits annually since 2021, according to Allied Offsets, a provider of carbon market data. Combined with a purchase in September of up to 2.9 million forest credits through 2038 from the forestry arm of Brazilian investment bank BTG Pactual, the company has contracts in place to allow it to retire more than 200,000 credits every year for the next decade from those two projects alone.

In addition to offsetting emissions as part of its strategy to reach net zero by 2030, Meta said it chose the project because of the broader benefits it will bring to carbon markets. “EFM’s landscape-scale conservation efforts will not only sequester carbon to help us achieve our net zero target,” said Tracy Johns, carbon removal program lead at Meta. “It will also provide lasting outcomes for the ecosystem, local economy, and Hoh, Quileute, and other communities who rely on this healthy and responsibly managed forestland.” The company declined to disclose the cost of its purchase.

No more clear-cutting

EFM’s newly acquired forest is a coastal strip of land that was owned by the forest products company Rayonier for around 80 years. In keeping with conventional management of commercial forests, the company clear-cut the land every 35 years or so and replanted with Douglas fir, western hemlock and Sitka spruce. “It would look more like a plantation,” said Bettina von Hagen, EFM’s CEO.

Thanks to the purchase, which cost EFM more than $200 million, the land will now be managed with more holistic goals, including enhancing biodiversity and storing additional carbon. That means adding western red cedar, a culturally and ecologically significant species that grows slowly and is often excluded from commercial forests; bigleaf maple, which provides food for invertebrates and thus, indirectly, salmon; and multiple understory species.

Harvesting will continue, however. Von Hagen said EFM will apply two methods that balance extraction with long-term sustainability. In a thinning operation, loggers cut around 30 percent of trees and leave what remains. Variable retention harvesting involves removing a much larger fraction — between 70 and 90 percent — while leaving enough trees to protect the soil and provide habitat for animals. The practices will allow the forest to continue to support the local timber industry even as the carbon stored on the land is increased. EFM estimates that 10 million tons of carbon dioxide is currently stored on the land and that the new management practices will increase that by 1 million tons. 

Investors want predictability

The deal that secured the forest was put together at extremely short notice: Von Hagen said data on the forest was made available just nine weeks before binding bids were due. “Until now, we have not been able to assemble the capital for large acquisitions in the short time frames that are usually provided, and have not been able to compete with buyers which were only underwriting the timber, which is a known commodity with predictable prices with which institutional investors are very familiar,” she explained. “Having a contract with a great counterparty like Meta allowed our investors to underwrite the transaction with a predictable set of carbon and timber prices, and that made all the difference.”

Schemes projects that combine commercial activities with carbon storage — which fall into a category of projects known as improved forest management (IFM) — have previously come in for criticism. To estimate the carbon stored by a project, developers forecast the harvesting that would have taken place in the absence of IFM practices. Researchers have warned that the methodologies governing IFM projects allow developers to overestimate baseline harvesting and generate unearned credits. The methodology that will be used by EFM was developed by ACR, a carbon credits standard-setter formerly known as the American Carbon Registry, and was updated in September, in part to improve the precision of baseline measurements.

The post How Meta’s latest forest credits purchase gets it closer to net zero appeared first on Trellis.