By Energy Innovation’s Modeling and Analysis Team

The free and open-source Energy Policy Simulator (EPS) computer model developed by Energy Innovation has become one of the most widely used tools to inform policymakers and regulators about which climate and energy policies will reduce greenhouse gas emissions most effectively while creating the largest economic and public health benefits.

With EPS models now available for dozens of countries and subnational areas, including 48 U.S. states, we’re often asked how the EPS works and what peer review it has undergone through its development.

The EPS is a System Dynamics computer model created in Vensim, a tool produced by Ventana Systems for the creation and simulation of System Dynamics models. The model can be run via the free Vensim Model Reader or through a web interface Energy Innovation developed. Directions on obtaining Vensim Model Reader and the EPS are available on the Download and Installation page and users can access the model online via the energypolicy.solutions website.

Users can access advanced features or modify input data by downloading the EPS and running it locally on their Mac or Windows PC. All input data is meticulously cited, publicly available, and freely accessible and editable. Users can run the model in Vensim Model Reader and instantly see how changes in input assumptions change the model’s outputs.

The EPS is an economy-wide, single region model that runs in annual time steps. It can be configured to run to 2100, though it is most often configured to run to 2050. The EPS includes bottom-up stock turnover tracking in several sectors and a profit-maximizing least-cost optimized electricity model, including 24 hours across six different time slices. It also has local cost minimization for certain sectors and technologies, for example it selects the lowest cost mix of new vehicles sold in a given year based on demand for new vehicles.

The EPS is designed to model dozens of policies affecting energy use and emissions. The model first builds a business-as-usual case based on input data and current policies. From there, the EPS allows users to model any combination of included policies and to customize the policy stringency and timelines of those policies. These policies include, for example:

Renewable portfolio standards or clean energy standards
Fuel economy standards for vehicles
Zero emissions vehicle standards and incentives
Industry methane standards
Incentives for clean energy technologies like those in the Inflation Reduction Act
Accelerated R&D advancement of various technologies

The EPS features an embedded downstream input-output model that translates changes in spending from policy to changes in economic outcomes, such as jobs, GDP, and worker wages. Changes in demand for services and goods that result from macroeconomic changes are fed back into the model on a one-year time delay, allowing the model to adjust energy demand and emissions based on the economy’s evolution.

The EPS also includes a simplified downstream health module that translates changes in health-damaging pollutants into changes in health outcomes. The health module relies on benefit-per-ton estimates from U.S. Environmental Protection Agency modeling and follows standard practices for converting changes in emissions to changes in health outcomes.

Thousands of outputs are available in the model, but some key metrics include:

Emissions of 12 different pollutants including carbon dioxide, methane, N2O, fluorinated gases, NOx, SOx, PM2.5, PM10, black carbon, organic carbon, carbon monoxide and volatile organic compounds.
Changes in spending on capital, fuel, maintenance, taxes and subsidies.
Direct, indirect, and induced impacts on jobs, GDP, and employee compensation as a whole or disaggregated into 42 sectors.
Premature mortality and 10 other avoided health-related outcomes from reduced primary and secondary particulate pollution.
Detailed electricity sector information including hourly demand and supply, generation, capacity, and retail electricity rates.
Sales and stock of different vehicles and vehicle technologies, such as battery electric, plug-in hybrid electric, hydrogen fuel cell, and gas-powered vehicles.
Energy used by different services and technologies across the economy, broken down by fuel type
Breakdowns of how each policy within a policy package contributes to total abatement and the cost-effectiveness of each policy (e.g., wedge diagrams and cost curves).
Fuel imports and exports, and associated expenditures or revenues.
Detailed accounting of energy used by 25 different industry sectors, including construction and agriculture, end use (e.g., boiler, low/medium/high temperature heat, machine drive) and fuel type.

Core methodologies and structures in the EPS have undergone extensive peer review as they were developed, and we continually seek input from outside experts to modify the methodologies and address concerns that are raised. Components of the model have been reviewed by individuals from prestigious institutions including:

American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy
Argonne National Laboratory
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
National Renewable Energy Laboratory
RMI
Stanford University
Tufts University
University of Chicago
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
World Resources Institute

The post How Energy Innovation’s Energy Policy Simulators Work And Are Developed appeared first on Energy Innovation: Policy and Technology.

An overview of how the Energy Policy Simulator works and what peer review it undergoes during model development.
The post How Energy Innovation’s Energy Policy Simulators Work And Are Developed appeared first on Energy Innovation: Policy and Technology.[#item_full_content]

Energy Innovation partners with the independent nonprofit Aspen Global Change Institute (AGCI) to provide climate and energy research updates. The research synopsis below comes from AGCI Climate Social Scientist Rebecca Rasch. A full list of AGCI’s updates is available online. 

In the year 2050, we may look back on the events of December 5, 2022, as game-changing for the clean energy landscape. This was the day that scientists at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) produced using nuclear fusion technology. Unlike nuclear fission, which splits atoms to generate energy, nuclear fusion combines, or “fuses,” atoms to generate energy.

Fusion technology likely won’t be readily available for commercialization until mid-century, and even then, some argue it may prove too expensive to ever become commercially viable. Nevertheless, the milestone at LLNL is significant given the technology’s long-recognized potential. According to the International Atomic Energy Agency, fusion, the same process that powers the sun and other stars, could produce “four million times more energy than burning oil or coal” (Barbarino 2023).

Beyond the hurdles of technological readiness and financial viability, there is a looming question of whether fusion technology would face similar hurdles as nuclear fission technology in the court of public opinion given the tumultuous history of support for nuclear energy development in the United States (Gupta et al. 2019).

What is the state of public support for nuclear power and fusion energy?

New social science research by Gupta and colleagues published in the journal Fusion Science and Technology utilizes a unique empirical lens to answer this question. The team surveyed a representative sample of U.S. households to understand current perceptions of and attitudes toward nuclear technologies, including feelings about the balance of risks and benefits, and support for or opposition to the construction of new nuclear energy power plants in the United States. They use an experimental design, randomly assigning respondents to reflect on three terms: “fusion energy,” “nuclear energy,” and “nuclear fusion.” While “fusion energy” and “nuclear fusion” are terms describing the same technology, “nuclear energy” refers to current nuclear fission technology.

By gathering public sentiment on each term, the researchers can distinguish how sentiment varies based on both the technology itself (i.e., fusion vs. fission energy technology) and feelings around the term “nuclear,” in general. The authors focus on understanding people’s emotional response by asking respondents to list three words or phrases that come to mind when they think about the given term (Figure 1). Next, they ask respondents how each word or phrase makes them feel, on a five-point scale ranging from very negative to very positive (Figure 2).

The most common terms people associated with “nuclear energy” were “dangerous,” “clean,” and “scary.” The mean response score to “nuclear energy” was 2.92 out of 5, where 3 is the midpoint, indicating neutral feelings. This result suggests that, on average, people tended to attach neutral or even slightly negative feelings to the term “nuclear.” Similarly, the most common terms associated with “nuclear fusion” were “dangerous,” “energy,” and “clean.”

The mean favorability score for “nuclear fusion” was 2.97, only slightly higher than the score for “nuclear energy.” Conversely, “fusion energy” tended to evoke more positive feelings, with a mean response score of 3.36. The terms associated with “fusion energy” were more benign, with only 2.5 percent associating fusion energy with “dangerous.”

The authors highlight the clear bias that respondents tended to hold against the term “nuclear,” especially given their lack of familiarity with fusion energy. According to this research, more than half of Americans (63 percent of respondents) are not familiar with fusion energy technology. Yet once presented with the concept of fusion energy, 58 percent of respondents said they would support the “construction and use of fusion reactors to generate electricity in the United States.” This is in contrast to the amount of support for current nuclear fission technology, which only 48 percent of those surveyed support. The researchers find that support for construction of fusion reactors is higher among those aged 18 to 34, those more familiar with the technology, and those concerned about the environment.

This generational difference in support for fusion energy is not surprising, considering the history of public support for nuclear energy development in the U.S. In the 1970s and 1980s, public support for nuclear power was significantly eroded due to accidents related to nuclear waste disposal and explosions at nuclear fission facilities, most notably the Three Mile Island nuclear plant explosion in Pennsylvania in 1979 (Gupta et al. 2019). A new generation has come of age since that time, and Gupta et al. (2024) find that those born in the 1990s and later are less likely to attach negative feelings to or oppose nuclear energy.

What drives public sentiment around nuclear power in the United States?

In a separate study published in Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Kwon and colleagues (2024) at the University of Michigan used large language models (LLMs) to classify the sentiment of approximately 1.26 million English-language nuclear power-related tweets posted from 2008 through 2023. The LLMs categorized both key themes of the tweets as well as which tweets were most associated with positive, neutral, and negative sentiment. This novel approach allowed the authors to go beyond simply identifying sentiment to provide visibility into the drivers of those emotions.

The authors chose to use Twitter/X as a data source for public sentiment over alternatives like Instagram, Facebook, or LinkedIn for several reasons, including “the platform’s concise text format and its widespread use for discussing both scientific and non-scientific topics.” The team further segmented the data by city and state for 300,000 of the 400,000 tweets originating in the U.S. to understand geographic variance in support for nuclear power.

The authors found that nuclear power-related tweets tended to fall into two distinct categories: those pertaining to nuclear energy and those pertaining to nuclear policy. Nuclear energy-related tweets referenced nuclear power generation and related processes (including nuclear waste). Below are examples of tweets that typify negative, positive, and neutral nuclear energy tweets, respectively.

“Nuclear power generates dangerous radioactive wastes, and the U.S. should stay away from this energy source.’’
“The U.S. should build more small modular reactors to ensure a clean energy transition.’’
“There are 440 nuclear power plants operating in the world.’’

Tweets classified as nuclear policy referred to geopolitics, world leaders, and/or nuclear weapons. Words and phrases in tweets classified as policy tweets included references to nuclear warheads, nuclear deal, North Korea, Iran, Benjamin Netanyahu, and Hillary Clinton.

The researchers utilized GPT-3.5 to determine that a majority of tweets (68 percent) were policy-related, and 26 percent were energy-related (Figure 3). Favorability sentiment varied considerably by topic, with most policy-related tweets classified as negative and energy-related tweets as mainly neutral. Where energy-related posts were not neutral, there was a roughly even split between positive and negative sentiments associated with energy tweets, with slightly more positive tweets. This suggests that the bulk of negative-sentiment tweets related to nuclear power is associated with geopolitical concerns, not energy development.

To understand the themes driving the sentiments associated with energy-related tweets, the authors used LLM topic models to identify frequent keywords. Based on keyword frequencies, the authors grouped tweets into six main themes: Nuclear Science, Other Energy Sources, Environment and Health, Nuclear Technology, Errors and Misuse, and General.

The authors grouped tweets that mention “fusion” and “fission” into the Nuclear Science theme. Figure 4 shows the distribution of sentiments of energy-related tweets by keyword for the Nuclear Science theme. The bulk of positive tweets in this theme contain the keywords fusion or reactor, suggesting fusion technology is partially responsible for the positive-sentiment tweets associated with nuclear energy-related tweets overall. Additionally, tweets in the Nuclear Technology theme skewed positive, further suggesting that advances in technology are driving positive sentiment tweets.

Interestingly, the distribution of sentiments of tweets mentioning fusion and fission aligns well with Gupta and colleagues’ (2024) survey results, which show similar distributions of sentiments for fusion and nuclear (i.e., fission) energy (see Figure 2). Both studies show a majority of neutral or positive sentiment for fusion, and a larger proportion of negative sentiment for fission, compared to fusion.

Concern for the environment is driving public support for nuclear power

Tweets grouped into the Environment and Health theme and that contain the keywords clean and renewable also skew positive, suggesting that positive-sentiment tweets around nuclear power are also driven by concern for the environment and an interest in clean energy development. This finding aligns well with Gupta and colleagues’ (2024) finding that those concerned about the environment are more likely to support nuclear energy development.

The notion that nuclear power is more appealing to those concerned about the environment is a distinct shift in public motivation for nuclear power generation, which historically was driven by industrialists interested in lower energy costs. This suggests an evolution of environmental concern in the past decade, where climate change mitigation efforts are taking precedence over more traditional environmental interests of biodiversity loss, environmental contamination, and degradation.

In a recent perspective piece for WIREs Energy and Environment, “Nuclear power and environmental injustice,” Höffken and Ramana (2024) argue that nuclear power is wholly incompatible with environmental justice, pointing to a legacy of nuclear reactor siting and waste disposal in socially marginalized communities. Fusion energy, which theoretically would not produce the type of radioactive waste that the fission process generates (as it does not rely on uranium or plutonium), could help address this perception of incompatibility. As fusion technology advances, it will be important to include the environmental justice community in planning and implementation to ensure transparency, procedural justice, and a more equitable distribution of environmental benefits, risks, and impacts than we have seen historically with nuclear energy development.

LLM-based analysis tracks with survey data, demonstrating the power of AI to categorize sentiment 

Gupta et al. (2024) and Kwon et al. (2024) both focus on understanding U.S. public sentiment around nuclear power. Although their methods for gathering public sentiment differ substantially, their findings converge. Based on both a representative sample of the American public and 300,000 U.S.-based tweets, the research suggests a lack of majority opposition to nuclear power, in general, and fusion technology, in particular. In the case of fusion energy, the data indicate a slight majority of support.

Featured research and references

Barbarino, Matteo. 2023. “What is Nuclear Fusion?” International Atomic Energy Agency. Retrieved July 29, 2024. https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/what-is-nuclear-fusion.

Cooke, Stephanie. 2024. “The Fantasy of Reviving Nuclear Energy.” The New York

Times Opinion. The New York Times. Retrieved July 24, 2004. https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/18/opinion/nuclear-power-fantasy-climate.html.

Gupta, Kuhika, Hank Jenkins-Smith, Joseph Ripberger, Carol Silva, Andrew Fox, and Will Livingston. 2024. “Americans’ Views of Fusion Energy: Implications for Sustainable Public Support.” Fusion Science and Technology 1–17. doi: 10.1080/15361055.2024.2328457.

Gupta, Kuhika, Matthew C. Nowlin, Joseph T. Ripberger, Hank C. Jenkins-Smith, and Carol L. Silva. 2019. “Tracking the Nuclear ‘Mood’ in the United States: Introducing a Long Term Measure of Public Opinion about Nuclear Energy Using Aggregate Survey Data.” Energy Policy 133:110888. doi: 10.1016/j.enpol.2019.110888.

Höffken, Johanna, and M. V. Ramana. 2024. “Nuclear Power and Environmental Injustice.” WIREs Energy and Environment 13(1):e498. doi: 10.1002/wene.498.

Kwon, O. Hwang, Katie Vu, Naman Bhargava, Mohammed I. Radaideh, Jacob Cooper, Veda Joynt, and Majdi I. Radaideh. 2024. “Sentiment Analysis of the United States Public Support of Nuclear Power on Social Media Using Large Language Models.” Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 200:114570. doi: 10.1016/j.rser.2024.114570.

Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. “Ignition.” Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. Retrieved August 1, 2024. https://www.llnl.gov/news/ignition.

Peters, Adele. 2022. “Nuclear fusion will be a gamechanger—in the future. Wind and solar are critical right now.” Fast Company. Retrieved August 1st, 2024. https://energyinnovation.org/article/nuclear-fusion-will-be-a-gamechanger-in-the-future-wind-and-solar-are-critical-right-now/.

Terrapower. 2024. “Wyoming.” Terrapower.com. Retrieved August 1, 2024

https://www.terrapower.com/wyoming/.

The post Will A New Climate-Conscious Generation Embrace Advances In Nuclear Technology? appeared first on Energy Innovation: Policy and Technology.

Energy Innovation partners with the independent nonprofit Aspen Global Change Institute (AGCI) to provide climate and energy research updates. The research synopsis below comes from AGCI Climate Social Scientist Rebecca Rasch. A full list of AGCI’s updates is available online.  In the…
The post Will A New Climate-Conscious Generation Embrace Advances In Nuclear Technology? appeared first on Energy Innovation: Policy and Technology.[#item_full_content]

Energy Innovation partners with the independent nonprofit Aspen Global Change Institute (AGCI) to provide climate and energy research updates. The research synopsis below comes from AGCI Climate Science Fellow Dr. Tanya Petach. A full list of AGCI’s updates is available online. 

In April 2024, residents in Bogotá, Colombia, began rationing water due to critically low water levels in the Chingaza Reservoir System. The rationing system, which impacts over 9 million people living in the capital city, involves rotating 24-hour intervals for household water deliveries, scheduled by neighborhood.

Some 2,000 miles north of Bogotá, residents of Mexico City are grappling with similar water shortages. Water cuts in Mexico City were implemented in May of this year, when the Cutzamala system of reservoirs, which supplies a substantial portion of drinking water to the city’s 22 million residents, reached historic lows. The impacts of water cuts like these often fall disproportionately on lower-income areas.

Both Bogotá and Mexico City are taking drastic actions to avoid a potential “Day Zero” scenario, wherein taps run dry—not temporarily, but in a systemic collapse—due to depleted water supplies. So why are cities increasingly facing such extreme water shortages? Recent research shines a light on the compounding effects of anthropogenic (human-caused) and climate drivers on lake storage. This research provides foundational knowledge that can inform responses to water stress in water supplies.

The stakes of shrinking lakes and reservoirs

The term “Day Zero” was coined in South Africa. From 2015 to 2017, dwindling reservoir storage for Cape Town’s water supply brought the city perilously close to this dreaded scenario. However, in 2018, Cape Town narrowly averted the crisis by severely cutting water consumption to just 50 percent of 2015 levels, coupled with the return of seasonal rains. The city’s experience drew international attention to the vulnerability of urban water systems and the imperative for proactive water conservation measures.

The water availability crises in Cape Town, Bogotá, and Mexico City are all inextricably linked to dependence on lake and reservoir water storage systems. And these municipalities are not alone in facing declining lake and reservoir storage. Globally,  the amount of water stored in lakes has drastically and steadily decreased over the last three decades. Every single year during that period, freshwater lakes around the world have collectively lost water storage equivalent to 17 times the volume of Lake Mead, the largest lake in the United States.

A recent, comprehensive study in Science, led by Fangfang Yao of the Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences (CIRES) at the University of Colorado at Boulder, examined nearly 2,000 lakes around the world and revealed that 53 percent experienced significant declines in water storage between 1992 and 2020.

While the decline of lake water storage alone is staggering, the research went a step further, attributing declines to either anthropogenic or climate-related causes. Yao’s study identifies three primary drivers of dwindling water levels: unsustainable water consumption, increasing temperatures and evaporation rates, and changes in precipitation patterns and runoff.

By distinguishing between human-caused (overuse) and climate-driven (evaporation, loss of precipitation) decline, the research provides crucial insights for policymakers, hydropower operators, and water resource managers. In cases where lake drying is predominantly driven by unsustainable water use, sustainable withdrawal rates should be prioritized, along with demand management measures and efficiency improvements. Conversely, in cases where climate change emerges as the primary culprit, adaptation strategies such as water conservation, diversification of water sources, and infrastructure resilience may take precedence. The attribution of causality in the dataset produced by Yao and co-authors may help lay a global foundation framework for identifying targeted and effective interventions for diminishing lake water storage.

Lake losses due to overuse: The Aral Sea

Along the Uzbekistan/Kazakhstan border, a vast expanse of 5.5 million hectares of desert now covers the historic lakebed of the Aral Sea. Once the fourth largest lake in the world, the Aral Sea has shrunk by a staggering 88 percent since 1920, with subsequent desertification and dust storms impacting surrounding communities. The lake’s decline has been largely attributed to human overuse, a finding supported by Yao’s attribution work. Despite multinational efforts to prevent further lake decline, water levels have not increased in recent years, prompting ongoing reforestation projects to  introduce drought- and salt-tolerant species, such as tamarisk and saxaul, to the region for dust mitigation.

While the Aral Sea has become a poster child for overuse of water in arid regions, it is far from the only example. From the Maipo River in Chile to the Colorado River in the United States, unsustainable water use continues to dry up lakes and stress water supplies. When overuse is the root cause of lake desiccation, the toolbox for solutions expands: in addition to infrastructure changes, overuse can often be addressed through behavioral changes. Yao and his coauthors highlight Lake Sevan in Armenia as an example where enforcement of water conservation and withdrawal limits has led to increases in lake storage in a previously overused basin. Examples like these may have enormous potential to guide strategies for the Aral Sea and many comparable basins.

Lake Losses due to evaporation: Lake Khyargas

Even in river basins with well-balanced water use and demand, climate-related changes in precipitation and evaporation rates can impact lake levels and water availability. In western Mongolia, a steady rise in evaporation, fueled in large part by underlying increases in temperature, has emerged as a primary cause for declining lake levels. This phenomenon is exemplified by the substantial water loss observed in the saline Lake Khyargas, but similar trends of evaporation-driven lake declines are echoed across much of central and western Mongolia.

The climate-driven increase in evaporative losses experienced in Mongolia is reflected in many arid and semi-arid regions around the globe, and recent studies indicate that global mean lake evaporation rates are expected to increase 16 percent by 2100. These exacerbating evaporative losses have sparked creative and innovative infrastructure-based solutions. A floating photovoltaic array covering the Passaúna reservoir in Brazil was found to reduce evaporation by 60 percent, and covering water bodies in thin films can dramatically reduce losses. Other innovations, including thin chemical films, plant coverings, and bubbling cold water from the depths of reservoirs to the surface, have also successfully reduced evaporative losses.

Levers for change

When observed at a global scale, the supply of freshwater is hundreds of thousands of times larger than human water demands — but on local scales, the mismatch between available water resources and needs is dramatic. And water availability issues reach beyond the physical scarcity of water resources. Local demographic and economic factors, such as income disparities and local regions of water poverty, further exacerbate the challenge. In many areas, access to water is compounded by the cost of water itself, creating an additional barrier for low-income communities and contributing to increased water insecurity. The increased incidence of drying lakes is an indicator of future shifts in the complexity of who can access water and how often.

In the face of complex water uncertainty, developing and utilizing a toolbox of adaptive management strategies is crucial. In basins around the globe, creative management strategies are being employed and implemented in myriad ways, from withdrawal limits to shading of reservoirs. These basins can serve as case studies for one another, exemplifying different response strategies and enabling basin managers to expand their toolbox of solutions.

The attribution of case-by-case causes of declining lake storage doesn’t necessarily add another tool to this toolbox, but rather increases the finesse with which these tools can be wielded. Lakes drying in response to increased evaporation require different responses than desiccation caused by human overuse. The ability to tease apart these differences (and sometimes identify cases where both occur simultaneously) can suggest a path forward to address declining lake storage.

Featured research

Duan, Z., Afzal, M. M., Liu, X., Chen, S., Du, R., Zhao, B., … & Awais, M. (2024). Effects of climate change and human activities on environment and area variations of the Aral Sea in Central Asia. International Journal of Environmental Science and Technology, 21(2), 1715-1728.

Genova, P., & Wei, Y. (2023). A socio-hydrological model for assessing water resource allocation and water environmental regulations in the Maipo River basin. Journal of Hydrology, 617, 129159.

Gleick, P. H., & Cooley, H. (2021). Freshwater scarcity. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 46(1), 319-348.

Mady, B., Lehmann, P., & Or, D. (2021). Evaporation suppression from small reservoirs using floating covers—Field study and modeling. Water Resources Research, 57(4), e2020WR028753.

Orkhonselenge, A., Komatsu, G., & Uuganzaya, M. (2018). Climate-driven changes in lake areas for the last half century in the Valley of Lakes, Govi Region, Southern Mongolia. Natural Science, 10(7), 263-277.

Santos, F. R. D., Wiecheteck, G. K., Virgens Filho, J. S. D., Carranza, G. A., Chambers, T. L., & Fekih, A. (2022). Effects of a floating photovoltaic system on the water evaporation rate in the passaúna reservoir, Brazil. Energies, 15(17), 6274.

Schmidt, J. C., Yackulic, C. B., & Kuhn, E. (2023). The Colorado River water crisis: Its origin and the future. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Water, 10(6), e1672.

Wescoat Jr, J. L., Headington, L., & Theobald, R. (2007). Water and poverty in the United States. Geoforum, 38(5), 801-814.

Yao, F., Livneh, B., Rajagopalan, B., Wang, J., Crétaux, J. F., Wada, Y., & Berge-Nguyen, M. (2023). Satellites reveal widespread decline in global lake water storage. Science, 380(6646), 743-749.

Youssef, Y. W., & Khodzinskaya, A. (2019). A review of evaporation reduction methods from water surfaces. In E3S web of conferences (Vol. 97, p. 05044). EDP Sciences.

The post How Cities Run Dry: Drivers Of Water Shortages And Policy Implications appeared first on Energy Innovation: Policy and Technology.

Energy Innovation partners with the independent nonprofit Aspen Global Change Institute (AGCI) to provide climate and energy research updates. The research synopsis below comes from AGCI Climate Science Fellow Dr. Tanya Petach. A full list of AGCI’s updates is available online.  In…
The post How Cities Run Dry: Drivers Of Water Shortages And Policy Implications appeared first on Energy Innovation: Policy and Technology.[#item_full_content]

This post is part of an ongoing “What Is” series from Energy Innovation that answers some of today’s most pressing climate policy questions. The first in this series answered the question–What is Net-Zero?.

What Is The Inflation Reduction Act?

The Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) is the most important climate legislation in United States history. President Biden’s signature climate achievement is giving Americans the choice to stop burning fossil fuels, cutting energy bills, kick-starting a domestic manufacturing boom, cleaning the air and water, and creating hundreds of thousands of good jobs.

Clean energy incentives in the IRA empower the U.S. to transition off fossil fuels through $369 billion in new spending that bolsters clean energy projects, which Goldman Sachs estimates will catalyze $2.9 trillion cumulative investment by 2032. This all happens by investing in agriculture, clean energy, manufacturing, and forest management.

These investments are paying off. Initial modeling by Energy Innovation forecast IRA provisions could create more than a million net new jobs in 2030 and increase GDP by up to $200 billion in 2030. To date, clean energy investments catalyzed by the IRA have created more than 313,000 new jobs and more than $360 billion in project announcements, primarily in rural and low-income communities. Every $1 of federal funds invested in clean energy is stimulating $5-$6 in private investment, and analysis shows more than three-quarters of all factory and mining investments since the IRA was signed is flowing into Republican congressional districts.

The IRA has helped more than double America’s greenhouse gas emissions reduction pace compared to 2020, put the country within striking distance of its national climate goals, and fueled a homegrown clean energy boom. That means Americans can breathe cleaner air today, and will experience a safer climate future tomorrow.

What Benefits Has the Inflation Reduction Act Already Created?

No matter what city or state they live in, every American wants to breathe clean air, drink clean water, have affordable energy bills, and have a good job. The IRA enables the federal government to work closely with local, state, and tribal governments to help resolve community concerns like pollution, reliable energy access, clean air and water, and provide employment.

IRA provisions help unique community needs across the U.S. by empowering states to create bespoke solutions for their citizens. These include investments to add new clean energy generation, build clean manufacturing facilities, deploy affordable clean vehicles, strengthen America’s electric grid, and make our homes more resilient against extreme weather.

The IRA is also generating consumer benefits. Supporting a cleaner grid cuts energy costs: Families that take advantage of clean energy and electric vehicle tax credits will save more than $1,000 per year. Resources for the Future reports the IRA will save American households $170-$220 annually on electricity bills, and the U.S. Treasury reports it has already saved consumers $1 billion on electric vehicle sales.

This clean energy economic boom proves combating climate change is profitable. In the last two years private companies have invested hundreds of billions into U.S. clean energy and transportation projects. Most of these projects are located in five states – Michigan, Texas, Georgia, California, and South Carolina.

Actions That Have Maximized IRA Benefits

In the two years since it was signed, U.S. Treasury data shows implementing IRA provisions has significantly benefited local economies, spurring hundreds of millions in manufacturing investments:

81 percent of clean investment dollars since the IRA passed land in counties with below-average weekly wages.
70 percent of clean investment dollars since the IRA passed are in counties where a smaller share of the population is employed.
78 percent of clean investment dollars since the IRA passed flow to counties with below-average median household incomes.
86 percent of clean investment dollars since the IRA passed are landing in counties with below-average college graduation rates.
The share of clean investment dollars going to low-income counties rose from 68 percent to 78 percent when the IRA passed.
The IRA has provided more than $720 million in support for Tribal communities as they transition to renewable energy enabling them to become more climate resilient.

IRA provisions have jump-started clean transportation as America’s vehicle fleet transitions from expensive fossil fuels to affordable electric power.

Income-eligible consumers receive a credit of up to $7,500 to purchase new electric vehicles, including light- and medium-duty trucks along with personal vehicles, and new electric vehicles are now more affordable than conventional gas cars.
Electric vehicle sales have accelerated to more than 9 percent of total U.S. vehicle sales – up from roughly 2 percent in 2020.
Automakers and battery manufacturers have announced $88 billion in new domestic factories to produce electric vehicles and their supply-chain components, enhancing our global competitiveness by building a “Battery Belt” across the Midwest and Southeast U.S.

Rebates for buildings and homes are helping U.S. households lower energy costs, improve housing affordability, cut carbon emissions, and enhance social equity.

The IRA allocated $8.8 billion in federal funding for home and building rebate programs, targeting the one in seven U.S. families who live in energy poverty.
The Home Electrification and Appliance Rebates (HEAR) program dedicates $4.5 billion to help low- and middle-income households adopt energy-efficient equipment like heat pumps and water heaters, as well as energy efficiency measures like insulation and air sealing.
The Home Efficiency Rebates (HOMES) program provides $4.3 billion for energy-saving retrofits for single-family and multi-family households, with double the incentives for low- and middle-income homes or dwelling units in multifamily buildings.
The 45L Energy Efficient Home Credit offers incentives for builders to construct U.S. Environmental Protection Agency-certified Energy Star and U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)-certified Zero Energy Ready homes, while the HEAR and HOMES programs offers dedicated incentives for contractors that do the work, provided the installation is done in a disadvantaged community.

Electricity is having an infrastructure renaissance as much of the expected IRA impact is from the electricity sector, especially the tax credits.

Depending on the project, the IRA’s clean electricity production and investment tax credits could cover more than half the cost of clean power plants.
Since August 2022 when the IRA was signed, electric utilities have announced $488 billion to build 320 gigawatts of clean energy generation across the country, which will save their customers $4.5 billion in costs.
The new 45V clean hydrogen production tax credit provides a ten-year incentive program to create a domestic clean hydrogen industry that can provide clean fuel options to reduce emissions from manufacturing and transportation.
IRA funding, combined with Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act funding, represent the largest single investment into rural electrification since the 1930s.

U.S. industrial emissions are on track to be the country’s biggest polluter within a decade, but IRA provisions are powering a Made-in-America clean industrial renaissance.

IRA funding includes a nearly $6 billion dollar investment to transform America’s industrial sector through the U.S. DOE’s Industrial Demonstrations Program. This funding will commercialize new technologies meant to cut industrial emissions.
The IRA also allocates more than $4 billion dollars to green public procurement programs for low carbon materials like asphalt, concrete, cement and glass.
The new 45X advanced manufacturing production tax credit expands domestic production of specific components for wind, solar, and batteries. It also covers the production of thermal batteries, which can eliminate emissions from industrial process heating and cut its costs by two thirds.
The new 48C project credit directly incentivizes emissions reduction by offering a 30 percent investment tax credit for projects that retrofit an industrial facility with equipment that reduces emissions by at least 20 percent. It also offers a 30 percent investment tax credit to projects that retrofit, expand, or establish new industrial facilities to manufacture clean energy technologies or critical minerals.
The IRA granted additional loan authority to DOE’s Loan Programs Office, enabling financing for early deployments of innovative industrial technologies.

The post What Is The Inflation Reduction Act? appeared first on Energy Innovation: Policy and Technology.

The Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) is the most important climate legislation in United States history giving Americans the choice to stop burning fossil fuels, cutting energy bills, kick-starting a domestic manufacturing boom, cleaning the air and water, and creating hundreds of thousands of good jobs.
The post What Is The Inflation Reduction Act? appeared first on Energy Innovation: Policy and Technology.[#item_full_content]

Energy Innovation partners with the independent nonprofit Aspen Global Change Institute (AGCI) to provide climate and energy research updates. The research synopsis below comes from Crux Alliances’s Sarah Spengeman, PhD. A full list of AGCI’s updates is available online. 

Authors of a recent study on climate change communication tested the hypothesis that people will be more likely to act when they believe a particular place that they care about and is a part of their identity (such as the Australia’s Great Barrier Reef, pictured above) is threatened by climate change.

Nearly every country in the world has committed to the Paris Agreement goal of limiting global warming to well below 2 degrees Celsius, but global greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) continue to rise. The past year has been the hottest on record, and severe heatwaves in South and Southeast Asia recently caused tens of thousands of people to suffer heat illnesses. As long as the world continues to rely on fossil fuels for energy, temperatures will continue to rise.

As global climate change accelerates, studies in the United States and Ecuador show people are experiencing a range of emotions in response to present impacts as well as to the future projections of loss. The biggest ever stand-alone survey of climate opinion, conducted by the United Nations and the University of Oxford, found more than half of people globally are more worried about climate this year than they were last year.

Scholars who study climate communications are trying to understand how best to motivate people to adopt more sustainable practices and to support government action to transition the economy to clean energy. Varying messages and modes of communication can either increase or decrease the likelihood that people will act. Motivating a larger segment of society to support climate solutions will then increase the likelihood of reducing climate catastrophe.

According to studies of human psychology, emotions such as fear, anger, hope, guilt, and sadness play an important role in shaping human behavior. Recently, a growing number of studies are examining which emotions are more likely to motivate climate policy support, and they’ve found that how we feel about climate does indeed shape whether and how we act. As rapid, large-scale action is desperately needed to halt the current crisis, this kind of research can help advocates hone their messages to reach more people.

Will different emotions produce differing policy support?

In a March 2024 research article entitled “Emotional Signatures of Climate Policy Support,” published in PLOS Climate, Teresa Myers (George Mason University), Connie Roser-Renouf (George Mason University), Anthony Leiserowitz (Yale University), and Edward Maibach (George Mason University) assess how the strength of specific emotions affects an individual’s support for different pro-climate actions. As the authors note, emotional reactions “prime” people to act because they help humans perceive how a situation is relevant to us The scholars are interested to know whether certain emotions might trigger support for particular types of policies. To find out, they examine the effect of four emotions (guilt, anger, hope, and sadness) and support for four different policy types.

The authors posit four hypotheses about how these emotions might function based on previous research findings. First, they hypothesize that because guilt arises when a person feels responsible for a negative outcome, people who feel guilty about climate change will more strongly support “personally costly policies” (e.g., a tax on gasoline). Second, they hypothesize that because anger arises when a person views someone else responsible for a negative situation, people who feel angry about climate change will more strongly support “regulatory policies” (e.g., rules to limit pollution from factories or power plants). Third, the authors hypothesize that because people feel hope when they believe a problem can be solved, people who feel hopeful about climate change will more strongly support “proactive policies” (e.g., new investments in solar). Fourth, the authors hypothesize that because sadness arises when people feel a sense of loss, people who feel sad about climate change will be more likely to support “climate justice policies” that provide restitution for losses.

In addition, the authors examine how fear affects support for each policy type, based on previous research findings that confirm fear can strengthen support for both regulatory and proactive policies.

To test their hypotheses, the researchers used data from a nationally representative, cross-sectional survey of U.S. adults designed to measure attitudes and beliefs about climate change, administered approximately every six months since 2010. Respondents were asked how strongly they felt each of the four emotions, and then presented with a range of policy-related questions to gauge support for each of the four policy types.

The authors found that feelings of guilt did indeed lead people to support personally costly actions as predicted, while feeling hopeful about climate change led people to support proactive climate policies. However, the analysis did not support their hypotheses about anger or sadness. Rather, people who reported feeling sad about climate change were more likely to support proactive policies (not climate justice), while people who felt angry were more likely to support proactive climate policies (not regulatory). The researchers also found that people who felt fear were more likely to support regulatory policies. The authors reason this may be because people view regulatory policies as a way to protect themselves from harm. Interestingly, people who felt fear, as compared to the other emotions, were more likely to support all four kinds of policies.

Can negative emotions produce positive outcomes?

Two other recent surveys further test the role of emotions in motivating pro-climate behavior—one focused on the emotions elicited by threats to the Great Barrier Reef (GBR) in Australia, and the other on how fear of climate and air pollution dangers plays a role in electric vehicle (EV) adoption in growing cities in India. Both shed light on how “negative” emotions, such as distress and fear, can transfer into action to protect the climate.

In the first study, published recently in Environmental Science and Policy, Queensland University of Technology and the University of Queensland researchers Yolanda L. Waters, Kerrie A. Wilson, and Angela J. Dean wanted to see if communicating about risks to natural wonders that are near and dear to people could inspire action to protect those places. Following “Protection Motivation Theory” (PMT), which suggests that people are motivated to act when they perceive a threat to themselves and also have the capability to mitigate it, the scholars hypothesize that people will be more likely to act when they believe a particular place that they care about and is a part of their identity (such as the GBR) is threatened by climate change.

To set the context for their study, the authors note that most Australians “feel a sense of identity and pride towards the GBR, regardless of physical proximity, and agree that ‘all Australians should be responsible’ for protecting it” (p. 3). At the same time, rising ocean temperatures due to climate change threaten the GBR. Half the reef is already dead or dying, and the IPCC projects 90 percent loss by 2030 without dramatic action to cut global GHG emissions. For these reasons, the GBR offers a “unique opportunity” to test the efficacy of climate change communication.

To test GBR-focused climate messages on climate engagement, the researchers first compared the effect of reef-focused to non-reef focused climate messages. Through an online survey, they first attempted to “activate” reef identify through messages such as “the Great Barrier Reef is a place that shapes who we are.” They then compared respondents’ self-identified likelihood to engage in personal energy reduction behaviors and public pro-climate behaviors. The researchers further assessed what specific emotions people experienced (negative: sadness, worry, or anxiety; positive: hopefulness, encouragement, and optimism) and how each emotion affected behavior.

The results confirmed that GBR- focused climate messages increase pro-climate personal behaviors such as personal energy usage—even among political conservatives. However, the GBR messages did not influence support for civic action such as advocating to elected officials. Messages that emphasized “collective efficacy”—e.g., “climate can be solved through group action”—did increase the likelihood that a person would support climate policies. Furthermore, this increased support for climate policies was only associated with negative emotions and not positive ones.

Another study that examines the role of emotions on pro-climate behavior was recently published in Cleaner and Responsible Consumption, authored by Chayasmita Deka (International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis and Indian Institute of Technology), Mrinal Kanti Dutta (Indian Institute of Technology), Masoud Yazdanpanah (University of Florida and University of Khuzestan), and Nadejda Komendantova (International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis). The research tested the effect of fear on personal climate action—defined, in this case, as a person’s intention to purchase an EV in three rapidly urbanizing cities in the Indian state of Assam.

As the researchers point out, previous studies have found that fear of environmental risks can motivate EV adoption, but research has only been conducted in Western countries and not in the “Global South.” With a majority of young people in Brazil, India, the Philippines, and Nigeria recorded as worried about climate change, the authors seek to close the gap in geographic research coverage. Studies of residents in emerging cities is particularly opportune, as such locales do not yet have high-quality, comprehensive transportation infrastructure. Additionally, the climate threat in India is severe. India is increasingly experiencing more frequent weather extremes as a result of climate change, including worsening heat waves, droughts, and floods. Vehicle emissions have also significantly contributed to major air pollution problems in India’s cities. Even so, demand for personal internal combustion vehicles (ICE) in India only continues to grow.

As in the study of the effect of the GBR on action, the researchers use PMT to test whether people’s perception of the threat of climate and air pollution, alongside  a self-perceived ability to respond to the threat, affects their intention to purchase an electric vehicle.

In this study, the authors surveyed 992 middle-class individuals between the age of 18 and 60 across three cities. The results found that general awareness of the threat of air pollution and climate change had only a small effect on a person’s intention to buy an EV. Respondents who felt personally threatened by climate change impacts were three times more likely to indicate an intention to purchase an EV than respondents who were merely aware of the climate threat.

Additionally, greater understanding of the role an EV plays in improving air quality magnified the effect on purchase intentions—regardless of the respondent’s perception of the personal cost to themself. The authors note that studies of Western consumers found that threat assessment was more important in determining behavior, while in the case of India, knowledge of the efficacy of an EV as an air pollution and climate solution was more influential. As the authors explain, this means that not all messages encouraging pro-environmental behavior will be effective across differing cultural and economic contexts.

Messaging for action

To halt accelerating climate change, more people must be concerned enough that they are prompted to act. The good news is that research on emotions and pro-climate behavior demonstrates that communicators can effectively tailor messaging to motivate people to support personal and public solutions. The first study in PLOS Climate implies that communicators advocating for a particular policy can develop messages to elicit the emotion most likely to produce greater support for that policy type. However, the study only measured strength of emotions and the associated support for policy; it did not test specific messages to see what emotions those messages could elicit. For this reason, advocates should test messages among target audiences before launching a campaign.

Notably, this study found that fear was the emotion most closely associated with support for all policy types. The two narrower studies also found negative emotions to play an important role in motivating behavior. But a few important conditions are worth emphasizing. In the GBR study, negative emotions only increased support for policy action when they were accompanied by messages about the potential to prevent harm to the reef through collective action. This could be because respondents viewed policy change as possible only when many people are civically engaged. In the study of EV adoption in India, fear of harm was also a significant motivator. However, a general awareness of the threat was not sufficient. Respondents had to feel more personally connected to impacts and also believe the proposed action would be effective in mitigating risks.

The lesson for communicators is that communicating about the dire nature of our current climate reality and the immense danger we all face if we do not act now can be effective in spurring action. However, communicators should be specific about the unique threats faced by different communities. For example, those aiming to reach coastal communities may want to emphasize health risks associated with sea level rise, while communicators in farming regions may want to emphasize threats to crops and livelihoods, and regional pests. The more one can tailor the message, the better. Additionally, as the studies imply, messages about climate threats should be paired with concrete guidance for how acting with others can prevent great harm. Though the threat is great, solving this existential climate crisis is entirely possible, and informed communications is critical to motivating action.

Featured Research

Deka, C., Dutta, M.K., Yazdanpanah, M. and Komendantova, N., 2024. When ‘fear factors’ motivate people to adopt electric vehicles in India: An empirical investigation of the protection motivation theory. Cleaner and Responsible Consumption, 13, p.100191. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clrc.2024.100191

Myers, T.A., Roser-Renouf, C., Leiserowitz, A. and Maibach, E., 2024. Emotional signatures of climate policy support. PLOS Climate, 3(3), p.e0000381. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pclm.0000381

Waters, Y.L., Wilson, K.A. and Dean, A.J., 2024. The role of iconic places, collective efficacy, and negative emotions in climate change communication. Environmental Science & Policy, 151, p.103635.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2023.103635

The post Climate Crisis and Emotional Responses: Insights for Effective Communication appeared first on Energy Innovation: Policy and Technology.

Energy Innovation partners with the independent nonprofit Aspen Global Change Institute (AGCI) to provide climate and energy research updates. The research synopsis below comes from Crux Alliances’s Sarah Spengeman, PhD. A full list of AGCI’s updates is available online.  Authors of a…
The post Climate Crisis and Emotional Responses: Insights for Effective Communication appeared first on Energy Innovation: Policy and Technology.[#item_full_content]

This post is the fourth in a series titled “Real Talk on Reliability,” which will examine the reliability needs of our grid as we move toward 100 percent clean electricity and electrify more end-uses on the path to a climate stable future. It was written by Sara Baldwin, Senior Director of the Electrification Program. Other posts in this series covered Rethinking the Reliability of the Grid, Future of Operational Grid Reliability and Grid Resource Adequacy Transition.

In Fall 2023, Georgia Power filed an updated integrated resource plan with the Georgia Public Service Commission, warning dramatic near-term load growth predictions from data centers required “immediate action” to meet capacity needs by the end of 2025. Their proposed solution set was a combination of three new natural gas power plants (with a combined capacity of up to 1,400 megawatts (MW)), several fossil fuel power purchase agreements, and a modest 150 MW residential demand response program.

But in Spring 2024, tech giant Microsoft contested Georgia Power’s claims, citing concerns the utility was over-forecasting near-term load and procuring excessive, carbon-intensive generation. Microsoft has three data center campuses under construction in Georgia and is looking to expand to at least two more. The company also aims to have 100 percent of their electricity consumption matched by zero-carbon energy purchases 100 percent of the time by 2030—a clear mismatch with Georgia Power’s fossil-centric plans.

This tension is playing out across the country, as electricity demand is increasing in the United States after more than two decades of nearly flat load growth. Numerous utilities and grid operators are revising their 2023 load forecasts and predicting a doubling or more over the next decade, relative to 2022  predictions.

Rapid growth is causing panic over potential capacity shortfalls and insufficient transmission, prompting calls to delay planned coal plant retirements and double down on new natural gas. But these fossil intensive supply side solutions are inherently slow and costly. They’re also incompatible with utility and customer climate commitments to hit net zero emissions by mid-century. Strategic supply side solutions are needed to meet growing demand, but these large investments will show up on electric customers’ bills for decades to come—they should reduce emissions in an affordable and reliable way.

Doubling down on demand side solutions is a cost-effective, least-regrets way to manage growth in the near-term, while unlocking their full potential over the long-term. They can respond to rapidly changing grid conditions and support grid reliability amidst the unpredictability of climate change. Although their decentralized and distributed nature makes them harder to plan for and manage, existing technologies and a growing ecosystem of providers are working to overcome these barriers.

If load growth is causing a crisis of confidence, utilities and grid operators should prioritize demand side solutions and work with customers to deliver valuable grid services. Similarly, policymakers and regulators should adopt policies encouraging demand side resources, increase visibility, enable data sharing, support innovative grid planning methods, and overcome misaligned incentives.

A rapidly shifting load landscape

A May 2024 Brattle Group report documents the rapidly changing landscape for utilities and grid operators, largely driven by new electricity demand from data centers, onshoring manufacturing, agricultural and industrial electrification, cryptocurrency mining, and electrification.

According to the report, in 2023 data centers alone represented 19 gigawatts (GW) of U.S. electricity peak demand, which is nearly double New York City’s 2022 peak load of 10 GW. New research from the Electric Power Research Institute forecasts data centers could consume up to 9 percent of U.S. electricity generation by 2030 – double the amount consumed today. Goldman Sachs estimates 47 GW of incremental power generation capacity will be required to support U.S. data center power demand through 2030, driving $50 billion in cumulative capital investment over the same time frame.

Not all demand sources are created equally. Some have longer lead times and steadier growth rates, like transportation electrification, making them easier to forecast and plan for. Others, like data centers or cryptocurrency mining, are large and can come online on a relatively short time span, requiring huge amounts of energy nearly instantaneously, challenging traditional grid planning and operation paradigms.

Some loads are more elastic and capable of quickly scaling back or shuttering operations in response to changing electricity prices, whereas others may be more inflexible. Electricity customers capable of reducing their impact during peak times could drastically reduce the need for new supply-side resources (thus bringing economic value to the grid and other customers). But, capitalizing on this demand flexibility potential requires adequate incentives.

In addition to the loads themselves, climate-driven extreme weather is disrupting tried-and-true approaches to managing the grid. “Everyone is clutching their pearls over data centers and crypto, but every time we have a polar vortex or a heat wave, similar load increases materialize to serve human needs like heating and cooling, but in a much shorter time span,” says electric reliability expert Alison Silverstein. “We cannot assume demand is immutable. With climate change-driven weather shifts, demand has become less predictable and at times terrifying.”

In nearly every state, summer and winter peak loads are higher, longer and harder to forecast. Given the time and money required to build new generation and transmission to meet new demand, Silverstein argues “we can’t build our way out of this.” Now is the time to activate more energy efficiency and demand side solutions, which are cheaper and faster to deploy, and can also buy us time to make prudent supply side resource adjustments.”

A symphony of demand side solutions ready to perform

Like a combination of complementary musical instruments, demand side solutions encompass a wide range of technologies and applications that have the “potential to moderate the growth of both electricity consumption and peak load,” according to Brattle. For example, distributed generation (DG) like solar, wind, and energy storage systems can be paired with smart inverters or smart appliances capable of responding to changing grid conditions; demand side management (DSM), demand response (DR), and energy efficiency (EE) programs can help consumers reduce and modulate their electricity consumption in exchange for economic benefits; and managed electric vehicle (EV) charging programs can respond to economic or grid conditions to reduce the overall impact of EVs on the grid.

Communication and software tools, like distributed energy management system (DERMS), can make dispersed resources visible to utilities and grid operators so they can plan for and manage them in ways similar to larger supply side resources. Third-party aggregators and consumer-facing program administrators also play key roles as liaisons between grid operators, utilities, and consumers, helping streamline the process of recruiting customers, managing incentives, and pooling participating customers into aggregated resource blocks that can respond to grid needs when called upon.

Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory notes recent improvements in broadband and local area communication and control systems are enabling faster coordination of demand response resources, such as commercial building HVAC or refrigerated warehouse end-uses, so that loads can be managed and dispatched as needed to support grid reliability.

DR programs deployed at scale can be highly effective at managing new load growth and serving existing load while contributing to grid reliability. These programs induce customers to reduce, increase, or shift their electricity consumption in response to economic or reliability signals. Most DR programs encourage utility customers to shift electricity consumption from hours of high demand (relative to energy supply) to hours where energy supply is plentiful (relative to demand). Future programs may signal customers to increase electricity usage when the grid has excess electricity generation from renewable resources like the wind or sun.

According to a 2019 Brattle Group study, nearly 200 GW of cost-effective load flexibility potential will exist in the U.S. by 2030, more than triple the existing demand response capability, and worth more than $15 billion annually in avoided system costs (i.e., avoided investment in new generation, reduced energy costs, deferred grid infrastructure, and the provision of ancillary services). This potential will only expand as more consumers adopt grid-responsive electric technologies and equipment.

Numerous utilities across the country and globe are relying on DR programs to tap into flexible loads on the grid, and they are increasingly valuable in the face of extreme weather conditions. For example, in Texas, following the devastating Winter Storm Uri 2021, municipally-owned utility CPS Energy launched a new winter program that enables the utility to modify consumers’ demand via their thermostats during periods of high energy use. Similarly, during a 2023 summer heat wave in Arizona, the state’s three largest utilities called on more than 100,000 customers, who get incentives for participating, to reduce their electricity use (by modifying their air conditioner temperatures using smart programmable thermostats) by a total of 276 megawatts (MW) during peak afternoon and evening hours. That amount of power is equivalent to just over half the capacity of an average-sized combined cycle natural gas plant. In the United Kingdom, electric utility Octopus Energy’s Flexible Demand trials paid around 100,000 households to shift their energy from peak times in lieu of paying a fossil fuel generator to switch on.

Depending on the program, participating customers can receive substantial economic benefits. For example, Westchester County, New York has received over $361,500 from NuEnergen, LLC for the county’s enrollment in three summer DR programs. Westchester remains on stand-by to reduce its energy usage during times when the grid is strained, and once alerted of an event, the county reduces energy usage at some of its facilities. To date, Westchester has earned over $1.5 million for participating.

Similarly successful programs target businesses and large energy users, often motivated to participate in programs that will reduce energy costs. For example, Ameren Missouri partners with Enel X to offer incentive payments for participating in a program designed “to maintain a reliable and cost-effective electric grid. Energy consumers can earn payments for committing to reduce their energy consumption temporarily in response to periods of peak demand on the grid.”  In Michigan, DTE Energy offers interruptible rates to all its commercial and industrial customers, wherein electricity is discounted 10 percent to 25 percent for customers that agree to shed a minimum of 50 kilowatts and interrupt their electricity within one hour of notification. Failure to interrupt results in a penalty.

These are just a sample of the successful demand side programs across the country. Yet, today’s DR programs stack up to a mere 60 GW of capacity—about 7 percent of national peak-coincident demand—and residential and commercial customer programs make up only 30 percent of that. Some states have less than 1 percent of peak being met with demand side solutions, with only a handful exceeding 10 percent. Extreme heat and cold events can cause residential and commercial heating and cooling loads to make up nearly half of peak demand for some states (like Texas), prompting a closer look at what can be done to mitigate this in the face of increasing climate change chaos.

Energy efficiency is another effective tool, particularly when efficiency programs are targeted to reduce customer energy usage particularly during peak hours. Efficiency measures such as replacing inefficient resistance heating and air conditioners with highly efficient heat pumps, adding attic insulation, duct sealing, and building envelope sealing can all help reduce customer electricity use on hot summer afternoons and frigid winter mornings, while improving comfort and energy savings. According to Silverstein, efficiency measures deliver benefits including better resource adequacy, lower wholesale prices, lower customer energy bills, lower grid infrastructure requirements, improve customer comfort and health, and lower carbon and pollution emissions.

ACEEE’s 2023 study, “Energy Efficiency And Demand-Response: Tools To Address Texas’ Reliability Challenges”, shows that using 10 aggressive peak-targeted energy efficiency and demand response tools in Texas could reduce both summer and winter peak demand levels by 15 GW or more, at costs far below the cost of building comparable amounts of new gas generators. Similar results are achievable in other states.

Shifting from solely supply-centric to increasingly demand-centered

Although demand side solutions have a proven track record of success, we’ve only scratched the surface. The electricity grid is still largely designed and operated to ramp supply side resources to meet shifting demand, not the other way around. And demand side solutions face challenges in their ability to scale, which prevents them from providing grid services. But times are changing, fast.

In the face of rapid growth combined with extreme and unpredictable weather, now is the time to shift away from solely supply-centric approaches to ones that activate demand side resources and flexible loads to their full potential. Looking forward, as the U.S. electric system uses increasing amounts of variable and weather-dependent resources (i.e., solar and wind) to serve demand, we must shift the system to manage demand resources to meet available supply, rather than managing supply resources to chase demand.

Many utilities and grid operators recognize the promise of demand side solutions, but most lack the tools or financial incentives to lean into them as significant, reputable resources to meet new load growth and ensure grid reliability and affordability.

For example, investor-owned utilities earn returns on large capital expenditures (i.e., new generation or grid infrastructure) and forgo shareholder profits when they rely on decentralized resources that avoid those investments. Bulk system planning and distribution planning are typically siloed processes, and few states or grid operators require coordination between the two. Wholesale market rules make it onerous for smaller aggregated demand side resources to participate in serving grid needs. Similarly, regional transmission operators lack visibility at a granular level on the distribution system, preventing them from forecasting and planning for demand side resources at scale. Scaled aggregation of multiple demand side resources into reliable grid resources that utilities and grid operators can see and count on consistently requires proactive regulation and oversight, as well as market maturity among the providers.

At the consumer level, program success hinges on people and businesses being willing and able to participate in programs, which may require adoption of new technologies, and a certain level of trust in their utilities (or retail electric providers) and aggregators. And not all customers contributing to the grid are compensated in proportion to the value they provide (which requires the adoption of forward-thinking policies, incentives, and rates).

Five approaches can overcome these challenges.

First, utilities and grid operators need clearer visibility of demand side resources. Fortunately, a myriad of options exists to help, including adopting DERMS or smart building management systems, utilizing more sophisticated models and control devices, allowing third-party aggregators, developing distribution system plans, and creating publicly available hosting capacity maps for customer-sited distributed generation and storage. A handful of states (CA, HI, MN, NV, and NY) require distribution system planning and mapping the distribution system at the circuit level, and the lessons from these states can inform others just starting down this path. States that require utilities to develop integrated resource plans (IRPs) should also require detailed distribution system plans, and those two efforts should be closely coordinated. A combination of tools can improve transparency about the state of the grid, including which technologies are being adopted and what programs might be suitable for managing load. Ideally, these tools could be combined to inform load forecasts and the development of demand-centered programs that can deliver guaranteed peak savings, alongside other reliability and benefits.

Second, enable data sharing across the transmission and distribution systems. In a 2017 report, the North American Electric Reliability Council (NERC) issued a set of data-sharing recommendations to support better integration of distributed energy resources into bulk power system planning and operations. This included a detailed list of data important to support adequate modeling and assessment of bulk power system issues (such as substation-level data with aggregated DER data, transformer ratings, relevant energy characteristics, power factor and/or reactive and real power control functionality, among others). Data underpins visibility, but both sides of the grid need to agree on which data are most important and relevant (and how that data can be shared securely). Shared models that can communicate with one another and utilize said data in the same way is also imperative. All data sharing must be done with an eye to privacy and security protections, which also requires agreements among all participating parties as to what gets shared, in what format, and who gets access.

Third, place energy customers at the center of program and rate design. According to Silverstein, activating the full potential of DR and DSM requires “respectful, negotiated limits with customers, who should be treated as partners and compensated fairly—their economic incentives should be commensurate with any perceived or actual sacrifice and with the value they deliver to the electric system.” Effective programs can also function as educational tools, empowering more electricity customers to play a more active role in supporting grid reliability. Whether through incentives or rates, rebates or discounts, programs should be designed with an eye to scaling participation and optimizing benefits for the grid and all participating customers, including residential and lower-income customers.

Fourth, adopt utility performance incentive mechanisms (PIMs) that put demand side resources on a level playing field with supply side resources. PIMs can help shift the profit-motive by aligning profits with performance on certain metrics, like successful DR or energy efficiency programs. In the era of load growth and climate change, PIMs should target measures that provide reliability and affordability benefits for all customers.

And fifth, consider new approaches aimed at attracting more flexible and grid-supportive loads. This should apply across the electricity system from the wholesale bulk grid down to the distribution system. Rate design and tariffs that encourage or require new load sources to respond to and react to grid conditions, economic signals, and reliability needs could obviate the need for more expensive alternatives down the line. For example, the Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT) is proposing the establishment of a Demand Response Monitor to assist market participants and grid operators in making judgements of near-future capacity needs. The Monitor will detect a response by selected load responses attributable to locational marginal prices, coincident peak, conservation alerts, and other ERCOT actions. Over time, ERCOT could use empirical data from the Monitor to predict demand response for other reliability applications.

Rather than automatically approving load interconnection requests, utilities could evaluate their approach to cost allocation for grid upgrades or negotiate tariffs that require customer responsiveness under certain conditions. For example, to mitigate the cost of connecting large new loads like data centers, some utilities are requesting upfront payments to cover infrastructure costs and to mitigate the burden of investments on other customers. Google and NV Energy just announced a first-of-its kind clean transition tariff (pending regulatory approval) that enables Google and other energy users to meet growing power demand cleanly and reliably. Another Google pilot will reduce data center electricity consumption when there is high stress on the local power grid. Automakers and utilities are teaming up to expand managed EV charging programs to get ahead of load management before it becomes a problem at the local or system level. In an era in which multiple new loads are competing for the same space on the grid, utilities should consider rewarding those willing to go the extra mile in being a good grid citizen.

As electricity demand grows, so too should the role of demand side solutions. A renewed focus on the load side of the equation will ensure a more cost-effective and efficient grid built to respond to rapidly changing conditions, while also benefiting and protecting customers and mitigating carbon emissions.

The post Let’s Stop Worrying Over Load Growth And Get Serious About Solutions appeared first on Energy Innovation: Policy and Technology.

This post is the fourth in a series titled “Real Talk on Reliability,” which will examine the reliability needs of our grid as we move toward 100 percent clean electricity and electrify more end-uses on the path to a climate…
The post Let’s Stop Worrying Over Load Growth And Get Serious About Solutions appeared first on Energy Innovation: Policy and Technology.[#item_full_content]

This post is part of an ongoing “What Is” series from Energy Innovation that answers some of today’s most pressing climate policy questions.

What Is: Net-Zero

“Net-zero” became a global climate imperative in 2015 when the United Nations determined that to “avoid the most catastrophic outcomes of the climate crisis, emissions must be reduced by 45 percent by 2030 in order to reach net-zero in 2050.”

Since then, more than 140 countries have set a net-zero target while 9,000 companies, 1,000 cities, 1,000 educational institutions, and 600 financial institutions have pledged to halve emissions by 2030 to meet the Paris Agreement’s target.

But what is net-zero, exactly? And how can we reach that ambitious but necessary goal?

For climate change, net-zero is like balancing a scale with greenhouse gases (GHG) as the measurement – think of it as an accounting problem, or balancing a checkbook. Reaching net-zero means whatever amount of climate pollution is emitted into the atmosphere is balanced by an equivalent amount being removed from the atmosphere by carbon sinks or carbon removal technologies.

Emissions reductions are the key to reaching net-zero targets, because removing climate pollution from the atmosphere is harder than not polluting in the first place, and technologies to prevent new emissions (e.g., building solar power rather than coal power) are more mature and cheaper to deploy than technologies to remove that pollution from the atmosphere (e.g., direct air capture) after the fact.

Solely defining climate targets via net-zero goals without specific policy details or strict measurement systems also risks accounting tricks by governments or corporations that provide cover for unabated emissions.

The idea became mainstream after the Paris Agreement’s historic signing at the COP21 UN Climate Change Conference. The Paris Agreement quantified net-zero by establishing a goal to hold “the increase in the global average temperature to well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels” and pursue efforts “to limit the temperature increase to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels.”

The world’s six largest GHG emitters –  China, the United States, India, the European Union, Russia, and Brazil – accounted for 61.6 percent of global GHG emissions in 2023. Their largest emitting economic sectors were industry, transportation, agriculture, electricity, and waste.  

Where do Net-Zero Targets Exist

U.S. net-zero targets run the gamut from the Biden administration’s goal of net-zero national emissions by 2050, to Princeton University’s goal of being a net-zero campus by 2040, to Pasadena Water and Power aiming to be net-zero by 2030.

Climate Watch’s net–zero tracker shows the ongoing progress of governmental net-zero targets worldwide. Nearly 100 countries, representing 80.7 percent of global GHG emissions, have shared their net-zero targets. And 149 countries have set goals to reduce their emissions with plans ranging from phasing out coal plants for renewable energy sources like wind and solar to electrifying transportation. Unfortunately, the UN reports these government commitments fall short of the Paris Agreement’s net-zero target.

In 2021, the Biden Administration announced its ambitious target for the U.S. to reduce emissions 50 percent from 2005 levels by 2030, reaching net-zero by 2050. The Inflation Reduction Act’s climate and clean energy provisions could cut national GHG emissions up to 41 percent by 2030, and additional policy ambition could reach the 50 percent emissions reduction target.

Many states have followed the administration’s lead by publishing their own emissions targets with notably ambitious plans coming out of Louisiana, Michigan, and Nevada. These plans reflect good state policy to cut emissions because in addition to their collective goal of reaching net-zero by 2050, they have intermediary goals to reduce emissions 28 percent by 2025, and Louisiana is aiming for a 40-50 percent reduction by 2030. California has some of the country’s most ambitious state-level net-zero goals, targeting 40 percent emissions reduction by 2030 and carbon neutrality by 2045.

Which Corporations Have Net-Zero Targets?

Anything we create or use on a large scale can be covered by a net-zero target and many companies are reducing their emissions using new technologies.

Industrial manufacturers can reduce emissions through clean energy technology. The U.S. Department of Energy’s Industrial Demonstrations Program has awarded $6 billion to 33 projects demonstrating the ability to reduce GHG from high emitting industrial sectors, and one awardee, Cleveland-Cliffs is using federal funds to replace their blast furnace steel mill with a ‘hydrogen-ready’ iron plant as part of their net-zero by 2050 plan. On a smaller scale, manufacturers like Colorado’s New Belgium Brewery are switching to industrial electric heat pumps to make steam needed for brewing beer instead of relying on gas.

These technologies also scale up. Google is targeting net-zero by 2030 and has begun cutting its emissions. The company’s ‘Accelerating Clean Energy’ program with Amazon, Duke Energy, Nucor,  and Microsoft aims to spur long-term clean energy investments and develop new electricity rate structures. Technology companies like Google are important to net-zero targets, as new data centers increase energy demand alongside the nascent U.S. manufacturing boom and increasing building and vehicle electrification. Fortunately clean energy can meet growing electricity demand without gas through strategies like building new renewables to meet new load or reusing heat produced in data centers.

Policy to Achieve Net-Zero Emissions

Smart climate policy can help reach government or private sector net-zero targets. Both states and countries around the world are working towards meeting their climate goals, including how they can best reach their net-zero targets. In China, India, and the U.S., switching from internal combustion engines that run on fossil fuels to electric vehicles and transitioning power grids to clean energy are helping cut emissions.

Industry – manufacturing everything we use from chemicals to cars – is a growing source of emissions and must be addressed to hit net-zero targets. 39 percent of global GHG emissions come from energy used for heating and cooling, one-third of which comes from the industrial sector. Industry is forecast to be the largest source of U.S. emissions within a decade, and manufacturing everything from chemicals to cars emits 77 percent of national industrial emissions. Government policy that enables industries worldwide to transition away from fossil fuels and reach zero-carbon industry can cut emissions, consumer costs, and public health impacts.

Government officials, corporations, and organizations with net-zero targets have many policy options available to reduce emissions. Several specific recommendations could make the largest

Policies that encourage faster renewable energy deployment and strengthen the grid:

Incentives for renewables
Permitting reform for clean energy
More efficient grid interconnection processes

Policies that supercharge electrification:

Electric vehicle charging infrastructure
New building standards covering electric heating and cooking
Robust domestic manufacturing for electrified technologies

Policies that halt further lock-in of fossil fuel infrastructure

Sunset clauses for existing infrastructure
Strict regulation for new infrastructure like pipelines or export terminals
Subsidy reallocations

Policies that remove carbon from the atmosphere

Forest preservation and better agricultural practices to act as carbon sinks
Carbon dioxide removal through technologies like carbon capture and sequestration, and direct air capture

The post What Is Net-Zero appeared first on Energy Innovation: Policy and Technology.

This post is part of an ongoing “What Is” series from Energy Innovation that answers some of today’s most pressing climate policy questions. What Is: Net-Zero “Net-zero” became a global climate imperative in 2015 when the United Nations determined that…
The post What Is Net-Zero appeared first on Energy Innovation: Policy and Technology.[#item_full_content]

By Devan Crane, a Program Associate for Aspen Global Change Institute.

Global supply chains are frequently disrupted by economic crises, wars, and political conflicts, but the COVID-19 pandemic caused a unique disruption felt by all. With the widespread damage to economies worldwide, food supply chains became stagnant, jeopardizing food security for many. Both urban agriculture and peri-urban agriculture, which takes place on the outskirts of cities, can contribute to regional food supply and shorten supply chains, enhancing both community control and resilience of food systems. But urban and peri-urban farmers face unique challenges in a rapidly urbanizing world. Emerging research sheds light on common challenges and solutions to preserving the resilience that urban agriculture affords our food systems.

What is urban and peri-urban agriculture?

Urban agriculture (UA) encompasses diverse practices within a city’s limits, from small apartment balcony gardens and raised grow beds in homeowners’ yards to neighborhood community gardens and walkable food forests to large-scale production plots and high-tech commercial rooftop gardens. Peri-urban agriculture (PUA) includes a similar diversity of practices, but occurs at the fringes of urban areas, where urban and rural lands blend. Peri-urban farms can be much larger than urban farms due to land use factors like zoning and land availability. 

With rapid urban expansion, farms that were once rural can be enveloped by a city’s new development. Seventy percent of the global population is expected to live in cities by 2050 (Campbell et al. 2023), and the expansion of cities will continue to push agriculture into the periphery. As cities expand, farmers will have to adapt their farms to more urbanized land use policies and growing conditions (Figure 1) or be forced to relocate.

In a 2023 review of the benefits that peri-urban agriculture can provide to urban dwellers, also known as “ecosystem services,” Mulya and colleagues note that “many cities, especially those in developing nations, have limited access to fresh water, increased waste and sanitation problems, lack access to green spaces, and have declining public health.” Beyond offering urban residents opportunities to reconnect with nature and assert control over their food systems, urban and peri-urban agriculture can also help to mitigate some of the negative health and environmental impacts associated with urban development. 

Both types of agriculture can offer many environmental and health benefits, including improving livelihoods and community connection, conserving wildlife habitats, promoting physical activity, and providing therapeutic relief. PUA and UA can also shorten food supply chains by reducing the distance between producers and consumers, and add value to waste through the use of local food scraps for on-farm compost or upcycled materials, like wood for raised beds. Well managed agricultural land has also been shown to improve soil, water, and air quality in surrounding areas, as healthy soil increases absorption area for runoff water and plants absorb CO2. 

But farming in and near cities is not without its challenges. Urban land is typically heavily polluted from vehicle outputs, road runoff, artificial light, and human-made noise. Moreover, urban land is scarce and in high demand, making it expensive, and it is often not permitted for agricultural activities.

“Necessity is the mother of invention”

A report from CGIAR Initiative on Resilient Cities showcases several examples of how peri-urban and urban agriculture have improved food system resilience in communities of Sri Lanka and Ukraine during times of instability. The report explores recent efforts to increase food system resilience, comparing them to past efforts. 

When the Soviet Union collapsed in the 1990s, for example, Cuba no longer received subsidized fuel and agricultural products from the USSR and faced a restrictive trade embargo from the US. These changes caused a sixty percent decline in available food for the people of Cuba. In response, Cuba’s national agricultural program directed municipalities and organizations to cultivate all unused land with intensive organic agriculture. While the effort was not enough to feed all of Cuba’s population, it greatly reduced food unavailability. It was an impressive development from Cuba’s national agricultural program, which was essentially non-existent before the collapse and is now a full-force production system of over 300,000 urban farms and gardens that produce about fifty percent of the island’s fresh produce. 

Sri Lanka experienced destabilized food security during the onset of the COVID pandemic, followed by a larger economic crisis that started in 2022. In response, the Colombo Municipal Council in Sri Lanka’s capital city called for the cultivation of food crops on 593 acres of public land within the city – and planted the lawn in front of Town Hall with crops. The Council developed a webpage to encourage schools and citizens to cultivate every inch of bare land, balconies, and rooftops. The central government even gave public servants Fridays off to grow crops, and the army was mobilized to produce organic fertilizer and cultivate state lands. As in Cuba, this was an impressive organizational effort for the Colombo Municipal Council, as there was no government department focused on urban agriculture before the pandemic.

Urban agriculture has become a new necessity for Ukraine’s urban residents as well. Russia’s invasion of the country collapsed supply chains and caused food price shocks around the world. Vegetable prices have risen 85 to 150 percent, eggs have doubled in price, and Ukrainians now spend 70 percent of their income on food (compared to 23 percent before the war).

In response, public and private initiatives and support from the United Nations Development Program and Canada are scaling up urban farming efforts in many Ukrainian cities. These efforts are either entirely new or built upon existing campaigns, like the zero waste and organic food movements. One initiative offered free seeds to vulnerable populations to cultivate home and balcony gardens, similar to the victory gardens of World War One and World War Two. Additional support is also being provided by way of online education on urban farming.

What challenges do urban farmers face?

These examples can serve as a blueprint for policymakers and communities looking to bolster resilience in food systems that are increasingly susceptible to shocks from extreme climate disasters, natural hazards, geopolitical strife, and long-term climate impacts on agriculture. But scaling up urban and peri-urban agriculture will require overcoming some of the unique challenges these growers experience. In a recent article published in Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems, Catherine Campbell and colleagues conducted a needs assessment of commercial-scale urban farmers in Florida.

Of the 29 urban farmers surveyed and interviewed by Campbell’s team, 90 percent owned or operated farms that had been in existence for 10 or fewer years, and 60 percent were in operation for five years or less. Eighty-three percent of their urban farms were five acres or less, while the average Florida farm is 246 acres (Census of Agriculture 2022). Vegetables were among their top three crops in gross sales, and a majority sold direct to consumers at farmers markets.

Farmers in the Campbell et al. study reported several advantages of farming in urban areas, such as providing opportunities for consumers to visit their farm and/or market stall, which can help to build deep relationships with their consumers.

Another benefit was the proximity of their farms to urban markets, which reduced travel time and cost associated with post-production transportation. Farming near large urban and peri-urban populations also made it easier for the farmers to find employees and volunteers to work on the farm.

But the study also surfaced common challenges facing urban and peri-urban farmers. Proximity to city dwellers was seen as a hindrance by some farmers. Curious neighbors can disrupt work or dislike the smells and noise that come with farm operations. Additionally, organic farmers need to know if their residential neighbors are spraying chemicals on their properties, as organic certifications often specify barrier lengths needed to protect crops from non-organic inputs.

Zoning and land-use regulations are another barrier farmers identified in both the Campbell and Mulya papers. Land use is often decided prior to land development, and city planners often don’t consider agriculture an urban activity. Conducting everyday farming activities, such as building a shed or driving a tractor, on land that is not specifically zoned for agriculture can require special fees and permits, adding time and expense to normal farm operations.
Furthermore, urban land is highly sought after by developers, as agricultural land is not valued as highly as residential land. Residentially or commercially zoned land is valued instead on its potential to be developed as a housing unit or a shopping center. Several farmers even reported being harassed by developers to sell their land for development.

Start-up capital is also limited for urban farmers. Most urban farms do not qualify for the same loans, grants, or subsidies that rural farms do, making up-front investments costly, regardless of farmers’ creditworthiness. This challenge is compounded when urban farmers don’t own their land, which was the case for over half those surveyed in Campell’s study. They have little control over future land use and are vulnerable to land use change, a barrier also mentioned by Mulya and colleagues.

How can we invest in urban and peri-urban agriculture?

Peri-urban and urban agriculture are by no means a cure-all, but they present significant opportunities to enhance food security, resilience, and sustainability in the face of global change.

When asked how barriers and challenges could be addressed, farmers mentioned that targeted government support, such as public assistance, education, grants, and subsidies would be helpful. Researchers also see a need for capacity building within governments to help maintain and develop peri-urban and urban agriculture areas and encourage policymakers to be strategic about how they think about land use change and land valuation (Mulya et al. 2023).

Whether the stresses stem from chronic urbanization pressures or acute shocks, researchers point to several avenues that can help build food system resilience:

Government Leadership: Governments play a crucial role in promoting and supporting peri-urban and urban agriculture through policies, incentives, and initiatives that prioritize food security and sustainable urban development.
Land Use Change Mitigation: Efforts should be made to mitigate land use changes that threaten peri-urban and urban farming, ensuring that agricultural land is protected and valued appropriately.
Zoning: Revisiting zoning regulations to accommodate and encourage urban agriculture can help remove barriers and create a supportive environment for farmers.
Subsidies, Grants, Financial Capital: Providing financial support, such as making subsidies and grants more inclusive, can help new and existing farmers overcome the high costs associated with urban farming, making it a more viable option.
Education: Investing in educational programs and resources focused on urban farming can help build capacity, transfer knowledge, and support the growth of the sector.
Valuation of other benefits: Recognizing and valuing the social, environmental, and therapeutic benefits of peri-urban and urban agriculture can help justify and prioritize its development.
Further Research: Continued research is needed to better understand how peri-urban and urban agriculture can contribute to food systems, improve resilience, and enhance overall sustainability.

By addressing these areas, policymakers, stakeholders, and communities can promote and strengthen peri-urban and urban agriculture, creating more resilient and sustainable food systems for the future.

Featured Research:

Setyardi Pratika Mulya, S., Hidayat Putro, H. P., & Hudalah, D. 2023. Review of peri-urban agriculture as a regional ecosystem service. Geography and Sustainability, 4(3), 244-254. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geosus.2023.06.001.

Andrew Adam-Bradford, Pay Drechsel (2023). “Urban agriculture during economic crisis: Lessons from Cuba, Sri Lanka and Ukraine.” International Water Management Institute.https://cgspace.cgiar.org/server/api/core/bitstreams/7f14f676-0639-4314-8af6-a04549a3fa7a/content.

Campbell CG, DeLong AN, Diaz JM. Commercial urban agriculture in Florida: a qualitative needs assessment. Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems. 2023;38:e4. doi:10.1017/S1742170522000370.

The post Building Food System Resilience Through Urban Agriculture appeared first on Energy Innovation: Policy and Technology.

By Devan Crane, a Program Associate for Aspen Global Change Institute. Global supply chains are frequently disrupted by economic crises, wars, and political conflicts, but the COVID-19 pandemic caused a unique disruption felt by all. With the widespread damage to…
The post Building Food System Resilience Through Urban Agriculture appeared first on Energy Innovation: Policy and Technology.[#item_full_content]