Phase 1 ReportStates, Cities, and Businesses
in the United States Are Stepping Up on Climate Action

Copyright © November 2017 Bloomberg Philanthropies.
All rights reserved.
For more information, see www.americaspledge.com.
Images courtesy of iStockphoto.com unless noted otherwise.

Phase 1 ReportStates, Cities, and Businesses
in the United States Are Stepping Up on Climate Action

Acknowledgments

This report is the product of the America’s Pledge project, whichis co-chaired by California Governor Edmund G. Brown Jr. and United
Nations Secretary-General’s Special Envoy for Cities & Climate Change
Michael R. Bloomberg. America’s Pledge is a new initiative which aims
to assess the scope and scale of climate actions being taken by U.S.
states, cities, businesses, and other non-federal actors, examine the factors
contributing to the low-carbon transition currently underway across thecountry’s most GHG-intensive economic sectors, and identify ways in whichfurther non-federal climate action can help accelerate the U.S. transition
to a low-carbon economy.
Special thanks to the World Resources Institute and Rocky Mountain
Institute—which jointly led an inclusive analytical effort supporting America’s
Pledge—and primary authors Kristin Igusky, Koben Calhoun, Kevin Kennedy,
and Caroline Ott; co-project managers Sam Adams and Paul Bodnar; as well
as Pankaj Bhatia, Paula Caballero, Greg Carlock, Karen Chen, Tyler Clevenger,
Tom Cyrs, Christina DeConcini, Rebecca Gasper, Jules Kortenhorst, andAndrew Steer, in addition to numerous others listed below who provided input
and reviews along the way. Special thanks also to CDP (formerly the Carbon
Disclosure Project) and its team—including Andrew Clapper, Sara Law, Ianvan der Vlugt, and Katie Walsh—which helped develop the methodology, andprovided data and analytic support, for compiling non-federal climate action.
We also would like to thank Nathan Hultman, Andrea Prada, and Florencia
Sanchez Zunino from the Center for Global Sustainability at the University of
Maryland for their research support.
The America’s Pledge team would also like to the thank the following
individuals and organizations, each of which provided valuable input
to this report:
Brieanne Aguila, California Air Resource Board
Kevin Barker, California Energy Commission
Aimee Barnes, Office of California Governor Edmund G. Brown Jr.
Erin Beddingfield, Institute for Market Transformation
Nicholas Bianco, World Resources Institute
Aaron Burgess, NextGen Climate
Mariel Cabral, CERES
Jamie Callahan, Office of California Governor Edmund G. Brown Jr.

4 | AMERICA’S PLEDGE

Jasmin Cantzler, Climate Analytics
Richard Caperton, Opower
Sebastian Castellanos, World Resources Institute
Edie Chang, California Air Resource Board
Lee Cochran, Bloomberg Philanthropies
John Coequyt, Sierra ClubJon Crowe, Meister Consulting
Tom Damassa, OxFam America
Michael Doust, C40
Rick Duke
Bryan Early, California Energy Commission
Todd Edwards, Mission 2020
Amanda Eichel, Global Covenant of Mayors
Cynthia Elliott, World Resources InstitutePete Erickson, Stockholm Environment Institute
Libby Ferguson, The Climate Group
Daniel Firger, Bloomberg Philanthropies
Melanie Gade, World Wildlife Fund-United States
Katherine Gustafson, World Wildlife Fund-United States
Markus Hagemann, New Climate InstituteAlex Hanafi, Environmental Defense FundMargaret Hansbrough, Institute for Market Transformation
Susan Joy Hassol, Climate Communication
Karl Hausker, World Resources InstituteTrevor Houser, Rhodium Group
Noah Kaufman, World Resources Institute
Nat Keohane, Environmental Defense Fund
Alexa Kleysteuber, California Environmental Protection Agency
Alex Kovac, World Resources InstituteGareth Lacy, Office of California Governor Edmund G. Brown Jr.
John Larsen, Rhodium Group
Kate Larsen, Rhodium Group
Alison Levine, Climate Communication
Xiangyi Li, World Resources Institute
Andrew Light, World Resources Institute
Jason Mark, Energy Foundation
Ryan Martel, CERES
Ryan McAllister, California Energy Commission
Ann McCabe, The Climate Registry
Gina McCarthy, Harvard Kennedy School Fellow,
Former EPA Administrator
Ryan McCarthy, California Air Resources Board
Nancy McFadden, Office of California Governor Edmund G. Brown Jr.
Nils Moe, Urban Sustainability Directors Network
Scott Muller, GHG Management Institute
Jeff Nesbit, Climate Nexus

Acknowledgments | 5

Bruce Nilles, Sierra Club
Bob Perciasepe, Center for Climate and Energy Solutions
Linus Platzer, World Resources InstituteCarl Pope, Inside Straight Strategies
Dan Prull, Sierra Club
Colleen Regan, Bloomberg New Energy FinanceDavid Riberio, American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy
David Rich, World Resources Institute
Graham Richard, Advanced Energy Economy
Erin Rogers, The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation
Steven Rogers, World Resources InstituteDan Saccardi, CERES
Rajinder Sahota, California Air Resources Board
Ryan Schauland, California Air Resources Board
Reed Schuler, Office of Gov. Inslee / U.S. Climate Alliance
Kelly Shultz, Bloomberg Philanthropies
Seth Schultz, C40
Kevin Steinberger, Natural Resources Defense Council
Mike Steinhoff, ICLEI
Todd Stern, Former Special Envoy for Climate Change
Elan Strait, World Wildlife Fund-United StatesDavid Waskow, World Resources InstituteBob Weisenmiller, California Energy Commission
Evan Westrup, Office of California Governor Edmund G. Brown Jr.
Kate Zyla, Georgetown Climate Center

While these experts and organizations provided valuable input, they are notresponsible for the accuracy, content, findings or recommendations presented
in this report, and the findings do not necessarily reflect their views.
A special thank you to The Bridge Studio team—Michelle Fox, Micah Farfour, andLorena Fox—for the layout, design, maps and illustrations found in the report.
Finally, the America’s Pledge team would like to thank the signatories to the“We Are Still In” declaration, whose actions and ambition provide the bedrockof this report.
Funding for this project was provided by Bloomberg Philanthropies.
Suggested Citation: America’s Pledge, “America’s Pledge Phase 1 Report: States,
Cities, and Businesses in the United States Are Stepping Up on Climate Action,”
November 2017.

CONTENTS
Key Takeaways

9

Executive Summary

13

Context

13

Scope and Scale of U.S. Non-Federal Action on Climate Change

14

Decarbonization of the U.S. Economy

15

Implications for Emissions Pathways; Next Steps for America’s Pledge

16

Introduction

25

Chapter 1: Scale of Non-Federal Action

29

Support for the Paris Agreement

29

GHG Emission Reduction Targets

30

Case Studies: North Carolina, Minneapolis, Mars, and Loyola Chicago University

32

Chapter 2: Broader Role of Non-Federal Action
in Driving Down U.S. GHG Emissions

37

Relationship Between Federal and Non-Federal Climate Action

38

States: By the Numbers

39

Cities: By the Numbers

46

Businesses: By the Numbers

50

Case Studies: California, Milwaukee, Ingersoll Rand, and Target

57

Chapter 3: The Changing U.S. Economy: Market Trends, Barriers,and Opportunities for Non-Federal Entities to Step Up

63

Power Sector

66

Building Efficiency

73

Transport

75

Industry

79

Hydrofluorocarbons

80

Methane81

Carbon Pricing

83

Case Studies: Austin and San Diego, New York City, Tesla, and Citi

85

Conclusion: Next Steps for Fulfilling America’s Pledge

91

Future Analysis: America’s Pledge Phase 2

92

Future Action: Accelerating Progress Towards Deep Decarbonization

93

Appendix A

95

Appendix B

103

Endnotes115

8 | AMERICA’S PLEDGE

Key Takeaways | 9

Key Takeaways

As part of the Paris Agreement—the unprecedented global consensus among
the world’s nations to address climate change—the United States made apledge to reduce its share of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Then, in 2017,
the Trump Administration announced its intent to pull the U.S. out of the Paris
Agreement and to roll back the Clean Power Plan and many other practicalefforts to reduce pollution in our communities, effectively walking away from
America’s climate pledge to the world.
In response, U.S. non-federal actors (sometimes referred to internationallyas “non-state” or “sub-national” actors) such as states, cities, and businesses
have emerged as the new face of American leadership on climate change,
and are stepping up with commitments to reduce GHG emissions.
How will this affect emissions trends in the U.S. and our ability to deliver on
America’s pledge under the Paris Agreement? What is the full range of actions
being taken across American society, and what more can we do?
California Governor Edmund G. (Jerry) Brown and United Nations Special
Envoy for Cities & Climate Change Michael R. Bloomberg launched theAmerica’s Pledge initiative to answer these questions. As this Phase 1 Reportdemonstrates:
1. Despite federal efforts to roll back policies and programs, climate
action is robust and accelerating across an increasing swath ofAmerica. States, cities, and businesses constituting more than half of
the U.S. economy have mobilized behind the U.S. pledge under theParis Agreement. If these institutions were a separate country, theywould make up the third largest economy in the world, larger thanJapan or Germany.
2.An even larger subset of American states, cities, and businesses
are taking concrete actions that reduce GHG emissions. They areembracing zero-emission vehicles (ZEVs), building efficiency upgrades,
renewable energy generation, and a host of other low-carbon
technologies. The potential effect of increasing the reach and ambitionof these non-federal climate actions has not been adequately analyzed
and taken into account in the Paris Agreement framework.

10 | AMERICA’S PLEDGE

3. T
 he low-carbon transition is taking off in several key sectors. Cleaner
energy and electric transportation are emerging as not just emissions
leaders, but cost leaders, as well. The cost of solar power and vehicle
batteries have both dropped by about 80 percent since 2010. In
August 2017, the Department of Energy announced that its “SunShot”
target—to make solar power cost effective with conventional forms ofenergy—had been met three years early. Similarly, ZEVs are widely
anticipated to be less expensive than conventional vehicles in the
coming years.
4. Falling clean technology prices, emerging innovations, and actions
by states, cities, and businesses have helped reduce U.S. net
greenhouse gas emissions by 11.5 percent between 2005 and 2015,
while the economy grew by 15 percent over that period. In the U.S.,
decarbonization and GDP growth can go hand in hand.
5. Given the stated policies of the present U.S. administration, currently
committed non-federal efforts are not sufficient to meet the U.S.
commitment under the Paris Agreement to reduce emissions 2628 percent below 2005 levels. Over the next year, the America’s
Pledge initiative will analyze the potential range of incremental, notyet committed, actions by states, cities, and businesses, and comparethat potential against this 26-28 percent short-term goal for 2025. But
we cannot underscore strongly enough the critical nature of federal
engagement to achieve the deep decarbonization goals the U.S. must
undertake after 2025.
Across the U.S., governors, mayors, and business leaders are acting to fill the
climate action void created by current federal climate policies. With public
support, and effective collaboration strategies, they will drive U.S. climate
action forward, from the bottom up. These efforts, however, must accelerate.
Adoption of ZEVs, improvements in the energy performance of buildings,
increased use of renewable energy and fuels, significant improvements in the
carbon intensity of manufacturing, and deep cuts in emissions of greenhousegases other than carbon dioxide (CO2) like hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) andmethane must be pursued aggressively. Further action is also needed torestore our forests and agricultural sector to help remove and store carbon
from the atmosphere.
This Phase 1 Report maps current non-federal climate policies and actions
and identifies promising areas to step up near-term action. Our Phase 2
Report will aggregate and quantify the full range of potential U.S. non-federal
action, including how these actions affect our ability to reach the U.S. emission
target set for the Paris Agreement.

Key Takeaways | 11

12 | AMERICA’S PLEDGE

Executive Summary | 13

Executive Summary

Context
In December 2015, 195 countries reached an unprecedented consensus ona global policy framework known as the Paris Agreement. The agreement
aims to limit global warming to well below 2 degrees Celsius, and perhaps to
1.5 degrees Celsius, which scientists agree represent dangerous thresholds
for our planet. Almost all the parties to the agreement set individual national
goals or targets for curbing their emissions by 2030 or sooner, known as
Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs). The U.S. pledged to reduce its
emissions by 26-28 percent below 2005 levels by 2025. At the same time,
actors such as states, tribal nations, cities, businesses, and universities fromaround the world brought forward thousands of their own commitments andcontributions to the fight against climate change.
Strong leadership by the Obama Administration was essential to reaching theParis deal, and recent actions by the Trump Administration have left people athome and abroad scrambling to understand what this means for U.S. climate
leadership and emissions. Achieving the first NDC set by the U.S. was nevergoing to be easy, and non-federal commitments have grown in importancesince the 2016 national election.
In the absence of federal leadership, how much progress will the U.S.
make towards the pledge it made for the Paris Agreement? And what does
American climate leadership look like going forward, especially in the critical
period leading up to 2020, when the Paris Agreement calls for deeper
emissions cuts and accelerated action?
Progress towards the U.S. pledge in the next few years will largely dependon the ambition and follow through of non-federal actors and on related
trends in the overall U.S. economy. While the current administration has
created a leadership void, recent decisions by the President have helped
galvanize non-federal leaders to step up and fill it. Just three days after Trump
announced his decision to withdraw the U.S. from the Paris Agreement, an
unprecedented coalition mobilized to take climate action. More than 1,200
U.S. states, tribal nations, cities, companies, and universities declared “We Are
Still In,” pledging their support for the objectives of the Paris Agreement. As of
the start of October 2017, this network of non-federal U.S. leaders has swelled
and now includes more than 2,300 states, tribal nations, counties, cities,

14 | AMERICA’S PLEDGE

businesses, nonprofits, universities, and colleges. Meanwhile, other coalitions
formed before and at the time of the Trump announcement have also beenenergized to push forward urgently. These efforts constitute a new era ofAmerican climate action.
States, tribal nations, cities, businesses, and others must now carry the torchof climate leadership, and it is important that they have a roadmap and thetools at their disposal to do their part to help drive down U.S. emissions.

Scope and Scale of U.S. Non-Federal Action
on Climate Change
The role of governors, mayors, and business leaders in shaping the U.S.
climate agenda has grown in recent years, albeit in parallel to federal action
during the Obama Administration. Building on a long history of cooperative
federalism—whereby energy, transportation, and land use decisions are
made at the local level—dozens of coalitions have formed to galvanize andsupport states, tribal nations, cities, and companies to formulate and executeambitious climate targets. Examples include the Under2 Coalition for states,
cities, and regions; the Global Covenant of Mayors for cities; and We Mean
Business for companies. In addition, several coalitions have emerged withthe explicit goal of supporting the objectives of the Paris Agreement. The
U.S. Climate Mayors was established upon adoption of the Agreement in
December 2015, and the U.S. Climate Alliance as well as We Are Still In
formed in direct response to President Trump’s announced intention towithdraw from the Paris Agreement (see Figure ES-1 on page 18).
Put in the context of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate
Change (UNFCCC), the combined Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of U.S.
states and cities that have stated they remain committed to action in line withthe emissions reductions goals of Paris Agreement would be larger than 195
out of 197 Parties to the Framework Convention—larger than the economiesof either Japan or Germany.
Just as important as their publicly stated support for the Paris Agreement are
the policies and actions to which states, tribal nations, cities, and businesses
have committed, and are already implementing. As of October 1, 2017, a totalof 20 U.S. states and 110 U.S. cities have enacted quantified GHG reduction
targets (see Figure ES-2 on page 20). Some of these targets (such as thoseof larger states like California and New York) are as ambitious as the mostambitious NDCs submitted by parties to the Paris Agreement. These targets
are an important step, and like country NDCs, it will be important to increase
both ambition and follow through to meet the goals of the Paris Agreement.
In addition, more than 1,300 businesses with U.S. operations, representingExecutive Summary | 15

$25 trillion in market capitalization and accounting for 0.9 gigatons (Gt)carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) of GHG emissions per year have voluntarily
adopted GHG targets. Many other states, cities, and businesses have enacted
other policies and actions to promote renewable energy, energy efficiency,
low-carbon mobility, and other climate actions (see Figure ES-3 on page 22).

Decarbonization of the U.S. Economy
Driven by a variety of factors, including action by states, cities, businesses,
and others, economic growth and GHG emissions in the U.S. are decoupling.
Between 2005 and 2015, the U.S. economy grew by 15 percent while net
GHG emissions declined by 11.5 percent. This decoupling is significant,and key technology and economic trends have the potential to continue todrive decarbonization. However, the transition is far from complete, and thecurrent administration’s efforts to undo climate action and remove support
for renewable energy will likely slow it. Existing and enhanced mobilizationand collaboration by states, tribal nations, cities, businesses, and other nonfederal actors are essential to ensure that the American economy continues
to decarbonize at an accelerating rate, rather than allowing the low-carbon
transition to stall.
The transition towards a low-carbon future is most advanced and pronounced
in the electricity sector. Shifts in generation from coal to cleaner-burning
natural gas and zero-carbon renewable sources like solar and wind haveresulted from a complex interaction of factors including:•••the development of low-cost gas drilling technologies;
state-level renewable energy policies;
public mobilization against the pollution and health damages
imposed by coal-fired power plants;••

decreasing costs of renewables;
regulatory requirements for environmental controls
for coal plants;•••

low electricity demand growth;
retirement of aging coal plants; andcorporate decisions to procure renewable power
through power purchase agreements, green tariffs,
or other market mechanisms.

Regulatory innovation and renewable portfolio standards set by states andtribal nations, renewable energy targets set by cities, and renewable energy
procurement by corporations have been among many driving forces behind
this transition, and such actions have the potential to maintain and evenaccelerate the pace of change in the years ahead.

16 | AMERICA’S PLEDGE

The power of this trend is suggested by U.S. investor Warren Buffett, who
is shifting his attention to renewable energy investment opportunities. This
spring, Buffett told his shareholders “we have a big appetite for wind andsolar” but that “if you’re tied to coal, then you’ve got problems.”1
The transportation sector shows early signals of a transformation. Fueleconomy standards have made new cars and trucks more efficient andautomakers have established ambitious plans for electrification of their
future fleets. Ten states have ZEV programs in place to encourage sales ofEVs. Recent and projected declines in battery prices should accelerate theadoption of EVs. Coupled with the continued decarbonization of the power
sector, transportation electrification has the potential to catalyze further
climate progress and tipping points in market trends over the coming years.
However, while the stage is being set for a possible transformation of this
sector, emissions have been on an upswing in the last few years, due toan increase in total vehicle miles traveled (VMT), and have now surpassed
electricity sector emissions as the largest sectoral source of GHGs in the
United States.
In other sectors of the economy, the transition is just beginning, although
there are early signs that indicate growing potential in some areas suchas forestry, land use, and methane emissions from oil and natural gas
infrastructure. At the same time, the federal administration is considering
actions, such as providing increased support for baseload coal plants andimposing tariffs on solar panels, that could slow the transition in key sectors.

Implications for Emissions Pathways;
Next Steps for America’s Pledge
Under the Paris Agreement, the United States pledged to reduce its
economy-wide emissions by 26 to 28 percent below 2005 levels by 2025.
While the Obama Administration laid a strong foundation for acting on thatcommitment, it made clear in its November 2016 report, United States MidCentury Strategy for Deep Decarbonization, that further policy measures at alllevels of government would be needed to deliver on America’s pledge under
the Paris Agreement. For the next three years, that policy leadership will likely
not come from the executive branch of the federal government. What does
this imply?
A variety of factors will help maintain downward pressure on economy-wide
U.S. emissions in the critical 2017-2020 period, including planned state, city,and corporate actions, falling clean technology prices, emerging innovationsin technology and business models, the decarbonization trends in theeconomy described above, and growing public and private sector demand
for action from across a wide swath of U.S. society. Yet despite these positive

Executive Summary | 17

trends, the need to maintain momentum in the U.S. toward its 2025 andlonger-term climate targets calls for non-federal climate leadership to expand
and accelerate. Additional policy interventions must be developed quickly
through greater ambition and follow-through by non-federal actors like those
discussed in this report.
Maintaining momentum will require non-federal leaders to convert existingcommitments into action, while also expanding and accelerating action,
including taking advantage of a series of opportunities laid out in this report.
These include spurring the adoption of EVs through ZEV mandates andEV purchase consortiums, significantly enhancing the performance of ourbuildings, advancing renewable energy through mandates and incentives,and aggressively phasing out and addressing non-CO2 pollutants,
particularly methane.
Demonstrating that the clean energy economy builds more equitableprosperity and creates jobs will help increase confidence across the political
spectrum that climate action is good for the economy, motivate non-federal
players to embrace more ambitious interventions, and thereby lay thefoundation for future re-engagement by the federal government on climate
policy after 2020.
For those seeking a picture of climate action in the U.S. and what it adds up
to, this Phase 1 Report presents an initial orientation. It is a snapshot of thescope and scale of non-federal action already underway. It also examines
trends affecting the low-carbon transformation of the U.S. economy anddiscusses the potential for the market dynamics that have been key toreducing emissions over the last decade to continue.
Going forward, the America’s Pledge project will aggregate and quantify
non-federal commitments and project how these and other factors are likely
to shape the future of U.S. GHG emissions outcomes. This research, which
will be compiled in a Phase 2 Report to be published in 2018, will provide
roadmaps and recommendations which non-federal leaders can use to craft
policies, take actions, measure performance, and report on progress.
For now, our key takeaway is this: a powerful community of U.S. governors,
mayors, business leaders, university presidents, and other influential nonfederal leaders stand behind the Paris Agreement and in solidarity withother countries, not just in principle but in action and commitments. Nonfederal climate action, together with existing market trends, can help the U.S.
continue to make progress on our pledge under the Paris Agreement, thustransitioning the U.S. and global economy to a low-carbon future.

Coalitions
18 | AMERICA’S PLEDGE

FIGURE ES-1A
Networks Supporting the Paris Agreement Across the United States

Hawaii

AlaskaStates (15)

Puerto Rico

Cities (455)Businesses (1,747)

Higher learning (325)

Note: Information represented on the map was based on available data as of October 1, 2017.
The coalitions represented are dynamic and the data will change over time.

Executive Summary | 19

FIGURE ES-1B
Gross Domestic Product of Largest Countries and of U.S. States and Cities Supporting the Paris Agreement

Trillion $USD

20

15

10

5

0
UNITED STATES$18.6 trillion

CHINA$11.2 trillion

U.S. NON-FEDERAL
ACTORS$10.1 trillionJAPAN$4.9 trillion

GERMANY$3.5 trillion

FIGURE ES-1C
Population, Gross Domestic Product, and Emissions of States and Cities Supporting
the Paris Agreement Compared to U.S. Totals

POPULATION (2016)
159 Million
49% of all Americans

GROSS DOMESTIC PRODUCT (2016)$10.1 Trillion
54% of total U.S. GDP

GHG EMISSIONS (2016)
2.3 GT
35% of U.S. GHG Emissions

GHG Targets
20 | AMERICA’S PLEDGE

FIGURE ES-2A
Number of States, Cities, and Businesses with GHG Reduction Targets

20
STATES

110
CITIES

1,300+
BUSINESSES••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

Executive Summary | 21

FIGURE ES-2B
Emissions of Largest Countries and of U.S. States and Cities with Existing Greenhouse Gas Targets

20

Gigatons

15

10

5

0
CHINA
11.7 Gt

UNITED STATES
6.3 GtINDIA
2.9 GtU.S. NON-FEDERAL
ACTORS
2.7 GtRUSSIA
2.2 Gt

FIGURE ES-2C
Population, Gross Domestic Product, and Emissions of States and Cities
with Existing Greenhouse Gas Targets Compared to U.S. Totals

POPULATION (2016)
182 Million
56% of all Americans

GROSS DOMESTIC PRODUCT (2016)$11.2 Trillion
60% of total U.S. GDP

GHG EMISSIONS (2016)
2.7 GT
40% of U.S. GHG Emissions

22 | AMERICA’S PLEDGE

FIGURE ES-3
Examples of Climate-Friendly Policies Adopted by U.S. States, Cities, and Businesses
to Address Major Emissions SourcesStates

Source: Center for Climate and Energy Solutions, PACE Nation, National Conference of State Legislatures, ACEEE, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
U.S. DOE, Appliance Standards Awareness Project, Open EI, ReFED, World Resources Institute, State of New York, California Air Resources Board,
University of Minnesota, Land Trust Alliance, U.S. Forest Service.						Executive Summary | 23

CitiesNote: ACEEE assessed the central city of 51 metropolitan statistical areas (MSAs). They started with the nation’s 50 most populous MSAs, but thenexcluded San Juan, Puerto Rico. They then also included Fort Worth and El Paso, which had been included in their original 2013 City Scorecard. The
building and transport efficiency measures included are just a subset of all actions ACEEE examined in its annual scorecard to illustrate the different types
to measures cities have adopted to address energy use and GHG emissions in these sectors.
Source: ACEEE, Sierra Club, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Waste360.

Businesses
Internal carbon price96

Science-based GHG reduction target

56

Companies with renewable targets

240

100% renewable energy target

32

Corporate EE improvements through Better Buildings Challenge

213

Industrial EE improvements through Better Plants Program

189

Joining EPA’s Natural Gas Star program

99

Joining EPA’s Methane Challenge

55
20

Taking actions that reduce food waste 50%
Supermarkets committing to reduce HFC emissions and use

43

0

100

200

300

400

500

NUMBER OF COMPANIESGHG Target/Cap

Renewable/CCS/Nuclear

Note: The number of companies with renewable targets only includes Fortune 500 companies due to data availability. The list of actions and number ofactors is not meant to be comprehensive, only illustrative of the types of actions some companies are taking to address major GHG emission sources. In
2014, there were about 5.8 million small businesses with at least one employee and 19,000 firms with more than 500 employees.
Source: Science Based Targets, Carbon Disclosure Project, World Wildlife Fund, Calvert Investments, Ceres, U.S. Department of Energy, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Department of Agriculture.			

GHG Target/Cap
Renewable/CCS/Nuclear
Methane24 | AMERICA’S PLEDGE

Introduction | 25

Introduction

The multilateral process that created the Paris Agreement was, by its nature,a negotiation among nation-states. U.S. federal leadership was essential inthat process, made possible by the strong domestic and international climate
agenda of President Barack Obama’s Administration—particularly during his
second term. The Obama Administration laid a strong foundation of federal
policy to put the United States on the path to reducing net GHG emissions
by 26 to 28 percent from 2005 levels by 2025. Meanwhile, two other related
forces continued to accelerate: climate leadership outside the federal realm,
and a broad set of market and technological changes. As federal policy goes
backward, this America’s Pledge Phase 1 Report examines the extent towhich these other forces can help keep the U.S. on track towards its Paris
Agreement emissions reductions commitment.
Businesses, investors, cities, counties, states, tribal nations, colleges,
universities, and nonprofits have rapidly expanded their actions to cut GHG
emissions and prepare for the impacts of climate change. States have led
in establishing the first renewable portfolio standards and cap-and-trade
programs. In the clean technology sector, cities and businesses have beena proving ground for clean energy innovations such as electric vehicles(EVs). Non-federal actors have been early leaders in reshaping markets, as
demonstrated by state and city municipal green building programs and thecorporate procurement of large-scale renewables. Indeed, U.S. states, cities,
and businesses were actively engaged alongside the national government on
the global mobilization that led to the success of the Paris Agreement in 2015.
On July 12, 2017, following President Trump’s decision to withdraw the U.S.
from the Paris Agreement, Governor Jerry Brown and former Mayor Michael
Bloomberg launched the America’s Pledge project. This initiative aims
to compile and quantify the actions that U.S. cities, tribal nations, states,
businesses, universities, and other institutions are taking to drive down their
GHG emissions, consistent with the goals of the Paris Agreement. With thisPhase 1 Report, we aim to:
1. Assess the scope and scale of non-federal action already underway,
including both commitments recently made for continued climate
action, and the range of policies and actions that have already been
implemented by states, cities, businesses, universities, and other nonfederal actors;

26 | AMERICA’S PLEDGE

2. Examine the factors contributing to the low-carbon transition currently
underway across the country’s most GHG-intensive economic
sectors; and3. Identify ways in which non-federal action can help address barriers andcreate the conditions for strengthening and accelerating this transition.
This report also presents a series of case studies highlighting the actions
that states, cities, businesses, and universities have taken to drive down theiremissions. Many of these case studies feature We Are Still In signatories who
have pledged their support for the objectives of the Paris Agreement.
This preliminary assessment of non-federal actions sets the stage for asubsequent quantified analysis of how such actions could affect future U.S.
GHG emissions that will be presented in a Phase 2 Report.

Introduction | 27

28 | AMERICA’S PLEDGE

Scale of Non-federal Action and Greenhouse Gas Targets | 29

Chapter 1:
Scale of Non-Federal Action

Despite current efforts at the federal level to roll back climate policy, climate
action is robust and accelerating across the U.S. economy. As of October 1,
2017, states and cities representing more than half the U.S. economy havedeclared their support for the Paris Agreement. If these actors were a country,
its economy would be the third largest in the world and its emissions would
rank fourth largest among Parties to the UNFCCC. In addition, more than 1,300
businesses operating in the U.S., valued at $25 trillion, and more than 500
universities, have voluntarily adopted GHG reduction targets.
This chapter explores the scope and scale of non-federal climate action,highlighting actors that have made two types of commitments: 1) joining
a platform established explicitly to support the Paris Agreement, and 2)
adopting quantifiable GHG emission reduction targets. Some of these targets(such as those of California and New York) are as ambitious as the mostambitious NDCs. Recognizing that this chapter focuses on just two types ofcommitments, Chapter 2 examines a broader set of climate-related actions
that have been implemented by non-federal actors that have contributed tothe decline in U.S. emissions. The methods used for the analyses presented
in Chapter 1 are provided in Appendix A on page 95.

Support for the Paris Agreement
Non-federal actors encompassing a sizeable share of the U.S. population,
economy, and emissions have formed various networks established explicitly
to support the Paris Agreement. Both the U.S. Climate Alliance (a group of U.S.
states) and We Are Still In (a declaration signed by states, tribal nations, cities,businesses, and universities) were established in June 2017 in the wake ofPresident Trump’s announced intention to withdraw from the Paris Agreement.
The U.S. Climate Mayors (a network of cities) was established upon adoptionof the Paris Agreement and expanded rapidly after President Trump’s
withdrawal announcement (see Figure ES-1 on page 18).

30 | AMERICA’S PLEDGE

We Are Still In comprises leaders from America’s state houses, city halls,
boardrooms, and college campuses that have declared their support for
the Paris Agreement. With an initial 1,219 signatories at its launch, We Are
Still In has, as of October 1, 2017, more than doubled to 2,320 signatories
in states, tribal nations, and cities accounting for a population totaling 131
million or 40 percent of Americans, and GDP totaling $8.5 trillion or 45
percent of the U.S. economy in 2016.
The U.S. Climate Alliance—comprising 14 states and Puerto Rico,representing 118 million people (36 percent of the U.S. population), andGDP of more than $7 trillion (40 percent of U.S. GDP)—commits states tomeeting their share of the U.S. nationally determined contribution under
the Paris Agreement (a 26 to 28 percent reduction in GHG emissions
below 2005 levels by 2025).
U.S. Climate Mayors—comprising 383 cities with a total population of 74
million (23 percent of the U.S. population)—has committed to upholding
the goals enshrined in the Paris Agreement and intensifying efforts tomeet climate goals. Notably, almost half of these cities are in states thathave not joined the U.S. Climate Alliance described above.
In addition to these three networks formed explicitly to support the Paris
Agreement, many more coalitions have adopted similar objectives, including
the Mayors Climate Protection Center—a coalition of 1,060 mayors vowing
to reduce emissions below 1990 levels—and the Global Covenant of Mayors
for Climate & Energy, an international alliance of cities and local governmentswith more than 140 U.S. members supporting voluntary action to combat
climate change.

GHG Emission Reduction Targets
In addition to recent declarations of support for the Paris Agreement from new
networks and members of existing organizations such as the U.S. Conferenceof Mayors, National League of Cities, and Global Covenant of Mayors, nonfederal actors have for years set their own quantified GHG emission reduction
targets. Some of these actors have set high ambition targets that, if achieved,
would help meet their share of both near-term (2025) and longer-term deep
decarbonization targets for mid-century. Like national NDCs, though, overall
these targets represent a mix of ambition and it will be important to accelerateaction and ensure follow through in order to meet the goals of theParis Agreement.
As of October 1, 2017, a total of 20 U.S. states and 110 U.S. cities have enacted
GHG targets (see Figure ES-2 on page 20). In addition, 1,361 businesses

Scale of Non-federal Action and Greenhouse Gas Targets | 31with U.S. operations, representing $25 trillion in market capitalization andaccounting for 14 percent of U.S. emissions (0.9 Gt CO2e) in 2016, and 587
U.S. universities with total enrollment of 5.2 million students (25 percentof the U.S. college and university student population), have voluntarily
adopted targets.
Networks and coalitions are also helping these non-federal leaders set longrange targets. For example, nine U.S. states, 12 U.S. cities, and one U.S. county
have signed on to the Under2 MOU, which commits members to reduce GHG
emissions 80 to 95 percent below 1990 levels by 2050, or to limit emissions
to 2 metric tons of CO2e per capita annually. The Science-Based Targets
Initiative, a group of businesses that have adopted targets in line with thelevel of decarbonization required to keep global temperature increase below
2 degrees Celsius, now includes a total 56 U.S. businesses.
It is important to note that these targets, while numerous, vary in terms of levelof ambition and therefore magnitude of expected emission reductions. Manyare voluntary and could be dropped with little consequence, and others wereadopted under previous political leadership, and may already be irrelevant.
Whereas this initial analysis takes an inclusive approach, counting any
actor that has joined a network or platform and/or registered a GHG target,
future analyses in the Phase 2 America’s Pledge report will look to existing
methodologies (such as the Non-State and Non-federal Action Guidancedeveloped through the Initiative for Climate Action Transparency and theGreenhouse Gas Protocol Mitigation Goal Standard and Policy and Action
Standard) for assessing the impact of various actions on GHG emissions,
including those that we highlight in Chapter 2.

32 | AMERICA’S PLEDGE

STILL IN

North Carolina
Notes
a	

Clean Energy by the Numbers, NC
Sustainable Energy Association, 2017.

b	

Amazon Wind Farm US East completed
in North Carolina, Electric Light & Power,
PowerGrid International, February 9,
2017.

c

	US Action on Climate Change isIrreversible, We Are Still In, 2017.

North Carolina is addressing climate change and taking steps to increaseclean energy. These efforts build on past actions, such as the 2002 bipartisan
Clean Smokestacks Act that slashed power plant emissions and the 2007
Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Portfolio Standard that set a national
example for promoting clean energy, improving air quality, and creating jobs.
North Carolina now boasts the second-most installed solar capacity in thenation and has approximately 7,000 MW of cumulative renewable energy
capacity. By 2016, clean energy jobs in the state exceeded 34,000.a
Technology companies with clean-energy commitments such as Google,
Apple, and Facebook have located energy-intensive data centers in the stateand support policies that favor renewable energy. Amazon installed the state’s
first commercial-scale wind farm in 2016, injecting an annual $1.1 million into
the local economy.b
The Tar Heel State continues to advance policies that promote renewableenergy and address climate change. In July 2017, Governor Roy Cooper
signed legislation that will grow the state’s clean energy sector over the next
five years and asserted his opposition to offshore oil and gas exploration anddrilling. In June, Cooper declared North Carolina’s participation in the We
Are Still In campaign, citing the importance of state leadership in ensuring ahealthy environment.cScale of Non-federal Action and Greenhouse Gas Targets | 33

STILL IN

Minneapolis
In Minneapolis, Minnesota, local leaders have set ambitious goals to curb
the city’s GHG emissions by 15 percent by 2015, 30 percent by 2025, and80 percent or more by 2050 relative to 2006. So far the city is meeting—and exceeding—those goals. According to a June 2017 report, Minneapolis
decreased its 2015 emissions by nearly 18 percent, beating its first target.a
To achieve its 2025 reduction goals, the city aims to reduce energy use by
17 percent, generate 10 percent of its electricity from renewable sources,
double transit ridership, and reduce waste, among other efforts. In 2013,
Minneapolis passed an ordinance requiring commercial buildings larger than
50,000 square feet to report their energy and water consumption. A year
later, it became the first U.S. city to establish a public-private clean energy
partnership with utility companies.
Today, Minneapolis is working to acquire 100 percent of electricity for city
operations from renewable sources. The city is now ranked 11th most energyefficient in the nation.b And Minneapolis’ progress is contributing to a surging
clean energy industry in Minnesota: The state has added 2,893 clean-energy
jobs in the last year, growing 5.3 percent—3.8 times faster than overall job
growth.cNotesa	2016 Clean Energy Partnership Report,
Minneapolis Clean Energy Partnership,
2017.

b	

The City Energy Efficiency Scorecard,
American Council for an Energy-Efficient
Economy, 2016.

c	

New Report: Minnesota’s Clean Energy
Industry Growing Rapidly with More than
57,000 Total Jobs, Clean Energy Economy
MN, September 7, 2017.

34 | AMERICA’S PLEDGE

STILL IN

Image Source: Mars Inc.

Mars
Notes
a	

Sustainable In A Generation, Mars.

b	

Oscar Williams-Grut, “We’re trying to go
all in”: Chocolate giant Mars pledges$1 billion to fight climate change,
September 6, 2017.

c	Anmar Frangoul, Mars to invest around$1 billion in sustainability plan, CNBC,
September 6, 2017.

Mars, a global food company, is driving the conversation about how
companies can respond to climate change. With the crops it needs at risk, thecompany announced an ambitious Sustainable in a Generation Plan, which
includes the target of eliminating GHG emissions from direct operations by
2040, and reducing them across the entire value chain by 27 percent by
2025 and 67 percent by 2050.a The food, beverage and pet-food company
has earmarked almost $1 billion for its plan and is calling on other major
companies to join in.bMars has set up industry coalitions for sustainability, responsible sourcing
programs, and funds to support smallholder farming. It is working to boost theincome and wellbeing of 1,000,000 workers and to end deforestation in selectsupply chains; to encourage sustainable land use and water stewardship; andto reduce its landfill waste to zero (a goal achieved in 2015). The company isalso investing in renewable energy sources. It supported one of the world’s
biggest wind farms in Texas, with 118 turbines, which created hundreds of
local jobs. Mars has contracted for 100 percent renewable energy in 2018 for
operations in 11 countries including the US, UK, France, Mexico, and Brazil.
Mars CEO Grant F. Reid says this environmentally sensitive approach will help
Mars secure “a competitive advantage” for generations to come.cScale of Non-federal Action and Greenhouse Gas Targets | 35

STILL IN

Loyola Chicago University
Loyola Chicago University, a signatory of the Climate Leadership Network at
Second Nature, is committed to addressing climate change in its educational
curriculum, operations, and community engagement strategies. The school’s
climate action plan lays out a path for achieving carbon-neutrality by 2025,
including reducing energy use, increasing clean energy, and implementing
climate-ready infrastructure projects.a

Notes
a	

A Just Future: A Climate Action Plan for
Loyola University Chicago 2015–2025,
Loyola University Chicago, September
2015.

b	

Sustainability Across Curriculum, Loyola
University Chicago, 2017.

c	

Loyola Chicago is working to integrate sustainability in the campus life andacross the curriculum.b The university has reduced its total carbon emissions
by 38% per square foot of facility since 2008. The campuses also now house
11 LEED certified buildings,c two geothermal installations, and 55,000 square
feet of green roofs.d Campus improvements also involve increasing central
systems’ efficiency; installing retrofits like upgraded insulation and lighting;
implementing passive ventilation and stormwater management; and reducing
energy demand. Targeted procurement policies aim to permanently reduce
emissions. Beyond campus, Loyola Chicago is active in advocating for statewide clean-energy policies and helps other universities participate in cleanenergy and emissions-reduction programs.
Loyola Chicago’s engagement has earned accolades, such as inclusion
in Sierra Club’s “America’s Greenest Colleges: Top 10,”e a Second Nature
Climate Leadership Award,f and a Gold rating from the Association for the
Advancement of Sustainability in Higher Education.g

LEED Certified Buildings, Loyola
University Chicago, 2017.

d	Sustainability on Campus, Loyola
University Chicago, 2017.

e	America’s Greenest Colleges: The Top
10, Sierra Club, 2017.

f	

Loyola University Chicago: 2017 –Winner, Second Nature, 2017.

g	

Loyola Earns AASHE Gold Rating, Loyola
University Chicago, 2017.

36 | AMERICA’S PLEDGE

Broader Role of Non-Federal Action in Driving Down Greenhouse Gas Emissions | 37

Chapter 2:
Broader Role of Non-Federal
Action in Driving Down U.S.
GHG Emissions

The previous chapter limited its scope to states, cities, businesses, andothers that have pledged to support the Paris Agreement or set GHG
reduction targets. In this chapter, we broaden the lens to explore otherclimate-friendly actions—policies and efforts undertaken explicitly for the
purposes of achieving GHG reductions as well as other actions that indirectly
lower emissions through promoting a cleaner, more efficient economy—andillustrate the scope of their adoption.
This is important because many climate friendly actions have other benefits
and may be taken for other reasons, for instance reduced health impacts from
pollution abatement, reduced energy costs, and competitive local economies.
EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt and Energy Secretary Rick Perry previously
held public office in two states experiencing substantial growth in renewableenergy. In Oklahoma, Pruitt’s home state, wind already provides a greater
proportion of electricity generation than coal;2 and by next year, wind willbe the largest source of power in Texas,3 where Perry served as Governor.
In the last year, 8 of the 10 fastest growing solar markets voted for Trump,
led by Mississippi and Alabama.4 These shifts didn’t happen because of an
explicit climate protection agenda—it was simply that wind or solar became aprofitable investment in those states.
This matters. In the U.S., cities, states, businesses, the federal government,
and other actors share responsibility for the nation’s economic development,
energy production and use of natural resources that affect U.S. GHG
emissions.5 As a result, federal energy and environmental policies, nonfederal policies and actions, and business decisions, as well as market trends(including the 2008 recession) and technological advances, are all factors
contributing to recent GHG emission reductions. Perhaps more importantly,
they are also all determinants of future emissions trajectories.

38 | AMERICA’S PLEDGE

1-2

Looking forward, non-federal action can help address the largest existing
GHG emissions sources (Figure 2-1). These include electricity generation(which still relies mostly on coal and natural gas), transportation (which
consumes more petroleum than any other sector), residential, commercial,and industrial energy use (which rely heavily on natural gas), methane
sources (methane is 36 times more potent than CO2) and leakage of HFCs
(which are up to 12,000 times more potent than CO2). Action is also needed to
manage U.S. lands so they once again are long-term carbon sinks, including
by improving the health of the nation’s forests, and improving the ability ofother natural and working lands, such as farm and range lands, to sequester
carbon.

FIGURE 2-1
U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions by Source (2015)

29% Electricity Generation

26% Transportation

12% Industrial Energy Use

11% Other

10% Methane Sources

9% Commercial and
Residential Building Energy Use

3% HFC Emission Sources

Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2015				

Relationship Between Federal
and Non-Federal Climate Action
While the U.S. federal government has primary policy responsibility in someareas, states and cities have explicit authority to act on their own in others.
In the electric power sector, for instance, the federal government oversees
the interstate transmission system and can provide incentives such as tax
credits for wind and solar generation that have accelerated the clean energy

Broader Role of Non-Federal Action in Driving Down Greenhouse Gas Emissions | 39

transition. Yet state governments are the primary regulators of U.S. energy
markets, and hold authority over a raft of policies and measures that havefurther driven this transition—such as carbon-pricing systems, renewable
portfolio standards (RPS), and energy efficiency targets. State-level public
utility commissions (PUCs) directly regulate utilities and can levy funds
for further renewable energy investment. In the transportation sector, thefederal government has played a critical role in establishing national vehicle
emissions standards. Yet such standards were informed by those initiallyadopted at the state level, and California has unique authority to promulgate
standards more stringent than those at the federal level. Other states are also
permitted to opt in to the California standards.
Importantly, non-federal policies cannot entirely supplant federal climate
action. Federal investment by the DOE in research and development (R&D),
for example, has resulted in revolutionary shifts in battery storage and gridtechnology. This form of R&D investment represents a long-term contribution
to reducing emissions that state budgets may be unable to reproduce atsimilar scale, and which businesses are unable to invest in on their own.
The federal government is also uniquely positioned to reform nationalfarm subsidy policy to eliminate perverse incentives to climate-destructive
agricultural practices.
These caveats aside, states, cities, businesses, and other non-federal
actors have significant ability to reduce emissions through opportunities
for incentives, regulation, conservation, efficiency, and investment at all
jurisdictional levels and across a wide variety of sectors. The following
sections illustrate the range of non-federal actions that have been taken,
grouped by major emission sources and sectors. Note that the policies andactions highlighted below are not intended to be exhaustive, and in thisPhase 1 Report we do not seek to measure their aggregate effect on GHG
emissions. The methods used for the analyses presented in Chapter 2 areprovided in Appendix B on page 103.

States: By the Numbers
States have a long history of serving as proving grounds for policies that
support clean energy, energy efficiency, and pollution reduction. Supreme
Court Justice Louis Brandeis noted in 1932 that “It is one of the happy
incidents of the federal system, that a single courageous state may, if its
citizens choose, serve as a laboratory and try novel social and economic
experiments without risk to the rest of the country.”6
Iowa adopted the nation’s first renewable portfolio standard (RPS) in 1983
and Texas adopted the first energy efficiency resource standard (EERS) in
1999. Now, a majority of states have targets or goals for renewable energy

40 | AMERICA’S PLEDGE(38 states) and energy efficiency (28 states). This is partly due to the broad
authority the Constitution grants states to regulate their energy sources andemissions.7
Given states’ authority to enact energy and climate regulation, we examined
what types of measures, if any, are being adopted that aim to help address
the largest GHG emission sources. For each major sector or emission source,
we consulted several different sources that track energy and climate policy
adoption by state, including the National Conference of State Legislatures,federal agencies, and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) like the Centerfor Climate and Energy Solutions and American Council for an Energy-Efficient
Economy. From this research, we selected 30 policies that showcase therange of actions that states are taking, aiming to identify at least one actionthat addresses each of the major emission sources that has been adopted byat least one state.
Figure 2-2 lists these 30 actions by sector and emissions source. This list
represents just a subset of the actions states are taking to reduce theiremissions either directly or indirectly. Some actions—like financial incentives—
may not directly result in GHG emission reductions. Therefore, the count ofpolicies does not equate to the potential of these actions to reduce GHG
emissions.

Carbon Pricing
Ten states have adopted legally binding carbon pricing regulations. California
was the first state in the country to adopt an economy-wide cap-and-trade
program to reduce GHG emissions. The program was implemented in 2012
to help achieve California's emissions reductions target as mandated under
the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, also known as AB 32.8
Under AB 32, California is required to reduce its GHG emissions to 1990
levels by 2020, and the state is currently on track to hit this target. The capand-trade program is designed to work alongside a variety of complementarypolicies and action plans across the California economy.9 Additionally, thestate clarified the role of the cap-and-trade program through 2030 pursuant toAB 398, to help meet the requirement to reduce emissions 40 percent below
1990 levels per the mandate in SB 32.10
Working together, nine other Northeastern states have implemented a
CO2 cap-and-trade program called the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative(RGGI), to create a market-based system that sets a cap on emissions fromthe electric sector that declines by 2.5 percent per year through 2020.11
Since 2005, RGGI, comprising of Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland,
Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Rhode Island, and Vermont, hasreduced power sector CO2 emissions more than 45 percent while the region’s
per-capita GDP continued to grow.12 RGGI estimates that in 2015 alone, thereinvestments made with auction proceeds will return $2.31 billion in lifetime
energy bill savings to the region’s households and businesses.

Broader Role of Non-Federal Action in Driving Down Greenhouse Gas Emissions | 41

FIGURE 2-2
Examples of Climate-Friendly Policies Adopted by U.S. States to Address Major Emissions Sources

Source: Center for Climate and Energy Solutions, PACE Nation, National Conference of State Legislatures, ACEEE, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
U.S. DOE, Appliance Standards Awareness Project, Open EI, ReFED, World Resources Institute, State of New York, California Air Resources Board,
University of Minnesota, Land Trust Alliance, U.S. Forest Service.						Electricity Generation
Renewable energy targets are among the most frequently adopted climatefriendly actions taken by U.S. states, with 29 states representing 56 percent
of retail electricity sales in the country adopting mandatory renewable
portfolio standards (RPS), and 9 others setting voluntary renewable energy
goals. As of 2014, 23 states had achieved 100 percent of compliance with
their RPS. Today, all but two states are on track to meet their targets. In fact,
several states have increased or extended their current policies in 2016 or
early 2017, after the 2016 election, including:13

42 | AMERICA’S PLEDGE•

Massachusetts created requirements for off-shore wind (1,600
MW by 2027) and a new solar procurement program (1,600 MW);•

Maryland increased and accelerated its RPS to 25 percent by
2020;

•
•

Michigan increased and extended its RPS to 15 percent by 2021;
New York increased and extended its RPS to 50 percent by
2030, and expanded coverage statewide;•

Oregon increased and extended its RPS to 50 percent by 2040
for large investor-owned utilities; and•Rhode Island increased and extended its RPS to 38.5 percent by
2035.

While state legislatures can pass laws requiring that a certain amount ofelectricity be generated by renewable or other zero carbon energy sources,
it is often up to a state’s public utilities commission (PUC) to approve howutilities plan to meet the state’s target. For example, even though Hawaii
increased and extended the state’s RPS to 100 percent by 2045 in 2015,
it wasn’t until July 2017 that the state’s PUC approved Hawaiian ElectricCompany’s proposed implementation plan.
Eighteen states also offer financial incentives for other zero carbon energy
technologies, like carbon capture and storage, and nuclear power.14 For
example, New York is providing zero-emission credits to compensate nuclear
power plants for their ability to generate carbon-free electricity, somethingthat wholesale power markets currently do not provide.15

Transport
California has led the way on GHG standards for motor vehicles. Because of
California’s historical challenges with air pollution, the Clean Air Act allows thestate to set its own air emissions standards for motor vehicles, provided they
are more stringent than federal standards and the state receives a waiverfrom the U.S. EPA.16 Other states then have the option to adopt California’s
more stringent standards. In 2010, the California Air Resources Board (CARB)
worked with the EPA and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
to develop a national GHG and fuel economy standards program, whichharmonized federal standards and California’s emissions requirements formodel years 2012 through 2025.17 Both California and the EPA, through peer
review processes, completed separate midterm evaluations of this programin January 2017, affirming that the existing standards should remain in place.18
The Trump Administration is reconsidering that decision.19 If the EPA decides
to roll back federal regulations, California would defend its existing standards
based on the waiver EPA granted in 2009.
Thirteen states have adopted California’s advanced clean cars standards20—
together, they represent almost 35 percent of the U.S. motor vehicle
market21—and more could join. The auto industry has sought changes to relax

Broader Role of Non-Federal Action in Driving Down Greenhouse Gas Emissions | 43

the 2022-2025 emission and fuel economy standards set by the Obama
Administration. However, if the federal standards are relaxed it would createa fragmented motor vehicle compliance market in which it would have to
produce one type of vehicle for California and its partners and another for theother states.
More than 30 states have adopted strategies to improve access to“multimodal” freight transport (moving goods using a sequence of atleast two modes of transport, such as truck to rail), which can help reducebottlenecks and emissions in the transport of goods. The federal Fixing
America’s Surface Transportation (FAST) Act requires all states to develop
and finalize freight plans by December 2017. Among other factors, theplans must consider investments in multimodal projects. According to theAmerican Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE), 31 states havealready addressed multimodal freight strategies in their freight plans.22 Only
one state (California) has taken the next step in strengthening its freight planby adopting energy efficiency performance metrics or freight-specific GHG
reduction goals.
Half of U.S. state governments have policies requiring state vehicle
fleets to become more efficient. This includes mandating fuel economy
improvements greater than what is required through the existing federal
standards, petroleum reduction targets, fleet-wide GHG emission reduction
targets, and procurement requirements for hybrid-electric or all-electricvehicles.23
To get even more highly efficient vehicles on the road, ten states (California,
Connecticut, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York,
Oregon, Rhode Island, and Vermont) have adopted Zero Emission
Vehicle (ZEV) targets,24 which require an increasing percentage of an
automaker’s sales in the state to be ZEVs. Eight of these states have signed amemorandum of understanding, committing to having at least 3.3 million ZEVs
operating on their roadways by 2025.25 Zero-emission vehicles, including
electric and hydrogen vehicles, reduce tailpipe GHG emissions compared
to conventional gasoline and diesel cars and trucks, though the life-cycle
GHG effects depend on the use of low-carbon sources of electricity and/orhydrogen.26

Residential, Commercial, & Industrial Energy Use
States have been taking additional actions to improve building efficiency.
For example, 11 states have adopted at least one appliance or equipment
energy efficiency standard for products not currently covered by standards
set by the federal government.27 In fact, appliance energy efficiency
standards have long been adopted first by states. After several states adopt
a code, they typically work with manufacturers and other stakeholders to44 | AMERICA’S PLEDGE

develop a consensus recommendation to inform a national standard set by
Congress or the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). Additionally, 43 states haveadopted energy codes for either residential or commercial buildings (or both).
However, fewer states have adopted the most recent national model energy
code, with only five states doing so for commercial buildings, and only 12
states doing so for residential buildings.28
Twenty states have Energy Efficiency Resource Standards (EERS) in
place, which require utilities to reduce electricity or natural gas sales byimplementing customer energy efficiency measures. An additional eight states
have non-binding goals. Together, these states cover roughly 70 percent ofelectricity retail sales in the U.S. According to ACEEE, these states achieved
25.4 terawatt hours (TWh) of net incremental savings in 2016 (0.68 percent of2016 retail sales, enough to power 2.4 million American homes for one year,
on average).29
Thirty-eight states have incentives in place to help commercial andindustrial facilities install combined heat and power systems. Thesesystems are more than 80 percent efficient, compared to conventional
technologies that are about 50 percent efficient.30 Nearly all (45) states haveinterconnection standards for distributed generation sources like combined
heat and power (CHP), while 33 states offer tax or production incentives
and 19 offer grants or rebates.31 Despite these incentives, CHP technologies
remain underutilized, in part because they contradict the business model ofmost electric utilities (selling more electricity) and because existing policies
and utility regulations are not designed to allow utilities to monetize CHP
benefits (such as increased reliability and reduced emissions).32

Methane and HFC Leakage
States are also helping to lead the nation in addressing emissions from nonCO2 emission sources, such as oil and gas systems, landfills, agriculture, andleakage of HFCs. For examples of some of these policies, see the California
Case Study on its Short-Lived Climate Pollutant Strategy on page 57.

Summary of States' Actions
While the 30 actions highlighted in Figure 2-2 are just a subset of all thatstates are doing, our initial analysis illustrates the wide range of climatefriendly actions available to states that can help reduce GHG emissions.
However, comprehensive adoption of these regulations, incentives, and othermeasures is not widespread. Looking at which of these 30 climate-friendly
actions has been adopted by each state, it is clear that some states are doing
more than others (Figure 2-3). This suggests that even those states that are
taking ambitious action in some areas can step up their ambition in others.

Broader Role of Non-Federal Action in Driving Down Greenhouse Gas Emissions | 45

FIGURE 2-3
Climate Friendly Actions by U.S States: Types and Numbers
TOTAL ACTIONS CONSIDERED (30)
Alabama
AlaskaArizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
FloridaGeorgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
KansasKentuckyLouisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
MichiganMinnesota
Mississippi
MissouriMontana
Nebraska
NevadaNew Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
OregonPennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

NUMBER OF CLIMATE-FRIENDLY ACTIONS
GHG Target/Cap

Renewable/CCS/Nuclear

Transport

Energy Efficiency

Methane

HFCs

Forestry & Land Use

Source: Center for Climate and Energy Solutions, PACE Nation, National Conference of State Legislatures, ACEEE, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, U.S. DOE, Appliance Standards Awareness Project, Open EI, ReFED, World Resources Institute, State of New York,
California Air Resources Board, University of Minnesota, Land Trust Alliance, U.S. Forest Service.

GHG Target/Cap
Renewable/CCS/Nuclear
Transport
Energy Efficiency
Methane
HFCs
Forestry & Land Use

46 | AMERICA’S PLEDGE

Cities: By the Numbers
U.S. cities have also acted as leaders for new GHG reduction policies andtechnologies, although city authority and capacity to take on certain actions
vary greatly across the country. Authority depends on state, county, and local
division of responsibilities, revenue generation, founding charter scope andmandate, structure and composition of the office or governing body. For
example, New York City’s mayor has significant control over what actions thecity takes up across a wide range of policies, in addition to a large budget. On
the other hand, decision making power for many other cities resides in thecity council. Depending on the city’s charter and state laws, they may review
and approve the annual budget, establish short- and long-term objectives
and priorities, pass ordinances and resolutions, and regulate land use
through zoning laws, among other responsibilities.33 Similarly, cities in Florida
have more freedom to demonstrate climate leadership because of Florida’s“home rule” constitutional protection of city autonomy, while next door in
Georgia, equally motivated mayors have far less flexibility under that state’sconstitution.
To examine what types of actions cities are adopting, we used ACEEE’s mostrecent biennial city scorecard (reflecting existing policy data as of January
31, 2017) as a starting point. ACEEE’s analysis tracks the adoption, stringency,
and ambition of a wide range of energy efficiency measures that some of
the largest 51 cities are taking (based on population of the metropolitan
statistical area).34 These cities alone make up nearly 15 percent of thenation’s population while the metropolitan areas in which they are locatedcontain just over half of the U.S. population.35 We included 18 actions from
ACEEE’s analysis with the aim to illustrate the different types of actions thatcities are taking to help reduce GHG emissions, increase building efficiency,
and move people and goods around more effectively. Initial research found
two additional ambitious actions that cities are taking to promote renewableenergy and reduce methane emissions through waste reduction targets, butwhich ACEEE had not examined.
These 20 actions are listed in Figure 2-4 and illustrate just a handful of someof the climate-friendly actions that the largest cities in the United States aretaking across different sectors. Just like the actions we examined for states,
our tally of actions adopted does not equate directly to GHG emission
reductions.
Setting a community-wide GHG emissions reduction target is one of themost popular actions. While not all cities have formally adopted such a target,
the majority (39) of the largest U.S. cities are in the process of developing
one. According to ACEEE, 29 of these cities have a codified GHG emission
reduction target. Fifteen cities are on track to meet their nearest term goal,36
illustrating the importance of follow-through and ensuring that sufficient
policies are adopted to enable GHG reduction goals to be achieved.

Broader Role of Non-Federal Action in Driving Down Greenhouse Gas Emissions | 47

FIGURE 2-4
Examples of Climate-Friendly Policies Adopted by 51 of the Largest U.S. Cities
to Address Major Emission Sources

Note: ACEEE assessed the central city of 51 metropolitan statistical areas (MSAs). They started with the nation’s 50 most populous MSAs, but thenexcluded San Juan, Puerto Rico. They then also included Fort Worth and El Paso, which had been included in their original 2013 City Scorecard. The
building and transport efficiency measures included are just a subset of all actions ACEEE examined in its annual scorecard to illustrate the different types
to measures cities have adopted to address energy use and GHG emissions in these sectors.
Source: ACEEE, Sierra Club, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Waste360.

Electricity Generation
Cities of all sizes are committing to 100 percent clean energy. Forty-threecities have committed to 100 percent clean energy goals already throughthe Sierra Club’s Ready for 100 campaign. Five cities—Aspen, Colorado;
Burlington, Vermont; Greensburg, Kansas; Kodiak Island, Alaska; and RockPort, Missouri—have already achieved this target.37 Salt Lake City, the largest
city in and capitol of Utah, a traditionally Republican state, has not only set
a 100 percent renewable energy goal, but has entered into an agreementwith the state’s largest private utility to provide that clean power by 2032.38 In
June, the U.S. Conference of Mayors, representing the 1,200 largest cities in
the U.S. and covering 42 percent of electricity use, unanimously endorsed agoal of achieving 100 percent renewable energy by 2035.39

Residential and Commercial Buildings
Cities have long been leaders in addressing building energy use. In
September 2017, New York City announced it would become the first48 | AMERICA’S PLEDGE

city with mandated fossil fuel limits for all buildings larger than 25,000
square feet. These standards will trigger the replacement of boilers andhot water heaters and building efficiency upgrades in the worst-performing
14,500 buildings, which together produce 24 percent of the city’s total GHG
emissions.40
Furthermore, thirty-five of the largest 51 cities are developing or havealready adopted an energy reduction goal. The same number of cities has
also committed to procuring only efficient products when purchasing new
equipment.

Transport
Close to 40 of the largest 51 cities support car and bike sharing services,which can help reduce single-occupancy vehicle use and associated vehicle
miles traveled.41 A similar number of the largest 51 cities are developing asustainable transportation plan or incorporating strategies within a broader
climate action or sustainability plan. Strategies often include improving local
transit systems, improving location efficiency, or increasing the availability
and safety of options such as biking and walking to reduce vehicle miles
traveled.42 Going a step further, 16 of the cities identified by ACEEE havespecific vehicle miles traveled reduction targets.43 These types of policies
are being adopted by cities of all sizes; the National Complete Streets
Coalition estimates that more than 1,000 cities and counties have adopted
policies that aim to improve the safety of their street networks and reduce
congestion.44
Taking a different tack, cities are also leveraging their market power by
aggregating demand for low-carbon technologies through coordinatedprocurement efforts. Thirty U.S. cities, led by Los Angeles, have committed$10 billion to begin implementing a plan to purchase 114,000 EVs for theirmunicipal fleets45—a number roughly equivalent to all the EVs sold in the firsteight months of 2017.46

MethaneSome cities are adopting zero waste targets, which typically aim to reach90 percent or more diversion from landfilling and combustion by a specificyear through waste reduction, recycling, composting, waste-to-energy, andother measures.47 At least 11 large U.S. cities have zero-waste targets,often with objectives that extend beyond reducing waste. For example,
Minneapolis, Minnesota developed its zero-waste goal to not only divert
waste from landfills and reduce garbage truck usage, but also to “reducegreenhouse gases, provide greater rate equity for customers, and othersimilar objectives.”48 Dallas, Texas sees its waste reduction plan as one of thefirst steps towards spurring economic growth, by recovering valuable raw
materials and clean energy from discarded materials.49

Broader Role of Non-Federal Action in Driving Down Greenhouse Gas Emissions | 49

FIGURE 2-5
Climate-Friendly Actions Adopted by the Largest 51 U.S. Cities: Types and Numbers
TOTAL ACTIONS EXAMINED (20)Atlanta
AustinBaltimore
Birmingham
BostonCharlotte
ChicagoCincinnati
Cleveland
Columbus
DallasDenverDetroitEl PasoFort WorthHartford
HoustonIndianapolis
Jacksonville
Kansas City
Las Vegas
Los Angeles
Louisville
Memphis
Miami
Milwaukee
Minneapolis
Nashville
New Orleans
New York City
Oklahoma City
OrlandoPhiladelphia
Phoenix
Pittsburgh
Portland
Providence
Raleigh
Richmond
Riverside
Sacramento
Salt Lake CitySan Antonio
San Diego
San Francisco
San Jose
SeattleSt. Louis
Tampa
Virginia Beach
Washington, D.C.

0

5

10

15

20

NUMBER OF CLIMATE-FRIENDLY ACTIONSCommunity GHG Target

100% Renewable Energy

Transport

Energy Efficiency

Methane (waste)

Note: ACEEE assessed the central city of 51 metropolitan statistical areas (MSAs), starting with the nation’s 50 most populous MSAs, excluding San Juan,
Puerto Rico. They then also included Fort Worth and El Paso, which had been included in their original 2013 City Scorecard. The building and transport
efficiency measures included are just a subset of all actions ACEEE examined in its annual scorecard to illustrate the range of measures cities haveadopted to address energy use and GHG emissions in these sectors.
Source: ACEEE, Sierra Club, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Waste360.

Community GHG Target
100% Renewable Energy
Transport
Energy Efficiency
Methane (waste)50 | AMERICA’S PLEDGE

Forestry and Carbon Sinks
Forests and soils are a critical factor contributing to the U.S. climate footprint.
While in some developing economies like Brazil and Indonesia, deforestation
can be a major source of net GHG emissions, in the United Statesafforestation in recent years has meant that the land use sector has served asa net sink, producing “negative emissions.” This simply means that U.S. soils
and forests are sequestering CO2 into solid soil and biomass carbon. There ishuge untapped potential for the U.S. to do even more to sequester carbon inits trees and soils—and some of it is in cities.50
Forty of the largest 51 cities have adopted an urban tree canopy covergoal or urban temperature-reduction target.51 In addition to sequestering
carbon, urban forests and tree cover can help reduce energy use to coolbuildings and reduce water runoff.52 In fact, more than 3,400 communities arecommitted to implementing basic urban forestry standards through TreeCity USA, including maintaining a tree board or department, and having acommunity tree ordinance.53

Summary of Cities' Actions
As illustrated in Figure 2-5, every one of the largest 51 cities has adopted
at least one of the 20 climate-friendly actions we examined. Even thoughthese cities have made progress in adopting new regulations, incentives, andother measures, comprehensive climate action is far from widespread. Thissuggests that cities of all sizes have an opportunity to take stronger action in
the years ahead.
Regional cooperation is also going to be essential, as it is often underappreciated when considering city authority and climate action. Large
metropolitan areas can have millions of residents, with only a fraction
living within the administrative boundary of the city. Transboundary issues
like growth and sprawl, regional transport planning, and other sharedinfrastructure investments, require a strong coalition of local governments thatcan work together effectively.

Businesses: By the Numbers
U.S. businesses are at the forefront of developing next generation appliances,equipment, vehicles, and other products that will help all sectors of theeconomy become more efficient and less carbon intensive. Some companies
are also reducing the GHG emissions associated with their own operationsand value chains.
Below we highlight just a handful of climate friendly actions undertaken bybusinesses in the United States. Some of these examples also highlight theimportance of federal and state programs, and incentives for encouraging
climate friendly actions in businesses.

Broader Role of Non-Federal Action in Driving Down Greenhouse Gas Emissions | 51

The U.S. DOE’s Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy (ARPA-E)
program has provided energy researchers and businesses with $1.5 billion
towards funding, technical assistance, and market readiness since 2009.54
For example, through ARPA-E, Kohana Technologies is developing a windturbine control system with advanced blades that can help grid operators
better manage electricity generated during peak usage, potentially allowing
for longer blades and an attendant increase in energy production.55 ARPA-E
has also funded transportation efficiency projects, including the creation of an
EV battery by Cadenza Innovation with greater energy density at a lower costcompared to conventional batteries.56
As illustrated in Figure 2-6, a large number of businesses are taking a wide
range of other climate friendly actions across different sectors, sometimes
with help from DOE, EPA, and other federal programs. However, thisrepresents just a small fraction of businesses in the United States. In 2014,
there were about 5.8 million small businesses with at least one employee and19,000 firms with more than 500 employees.57 The climate-friendly actions
we list below are not meant to be comprehensive. Instead, we collected
information from the Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP), various NGOs, andfederal agencies with the aim of providing examples of corporate action that
address each of the major GHG emission sources.

FIGURE 2-6
Examples of Climate-Friendly Policies Adopted by Businesses Headquartered in the U.S.
to Address Major Emission Sources

Internal carbon price96

Science-based GHG reduction target

56

Companies with renewable targets

240

100% renewable energy target

32

Corporate EE improvements through Better Buildings Challenge

213

Industrial EE improvements through Better Plants Program

189

Joining EPA’s Natural Gas Star program

99

Joining EPA’s Methane Challenge

55
20

Taking actions that reduce food waste 50%
Supermarkets committing to reduce HFC emissions and use

43

0

100

200

300

400

500

NUMBER OF COMPANIESGHG Target/Cap

Renewable/CCS/Nuclear

Note: The number of companies with renewable targets only includes Fortune 500 companies due to data availability. The list of actions and number ofactors is not meant to be comprehensive, only illustrative of the types of actions some companies are taking to address major GHG emission sources. In
2014, there were about 5.8 million small businesses with at least one employee and 19,000 firms with more than 500 employees. Source: Science
Based Targets, Carbon Disclosure Project, World Wildlife Fund, Calvert Investments, Ceres, U.S. Department of Energy, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, U.S. Department of Agriculture.			

GHG Target/Cap
Renewable/CCS/Nuclear
MethaneHFCs

52 | AMERICA’S PLEDGE

GHG Emission Reduction Targets
and Carbon Pricing
Companies can set a science-based target to commit to reducing GHG
emissions in line with the goal of limiting global temperature increase to well
below 2 degrees Celsius.58 The Science-Based Targets initiative requires
companies to include at least 95 percent of company-wide emissions
associated with direct energy use (scope 1) and electricity consumption (scope2).59 Additionally, targets must be based on emission reductions achieved
through direct action within their own boundaries or their value chains, as
opposed to purchasing carbon offsets. As of October 2017, 21 U.S. businesses
have set science-based targets and 35 additional U.S. companies havecommitted to taking science-based climate action. Among the companies
in the U.S. that have set science-based targets are Mars, Adobe Systems,
General Mills, Pfizer, and Walmart, reflecting a range of different sectors thatare taking climate action.60
A growing group of businesses are implementing an internal price on
carbon.61 Internal carbon pricing can be done in different ways, but on themost basic level it is a financial tool that reflects the social, environmental,
and economic costs of climate change in financial decisions.62 In an October
2017 report, CDP found that 96 U.S. businesses use internal carbon prices,while 142 U.S. businesses plan to implement internal carbon pricing by 2019.63
However, only two U.S. companies have signed on to align with the UN Global
Compact’s Business Leadership Criteria on Carbon Pricing through We Mean
Business, a coalition working to catalyze climate action through businessleadership.64 To align with the Business Leadership Criteria on Carbon Pricing,businesses must set an internal carbon price high enough to materially affectinvestment decisions to drive down GHG emissions, publicly advocate for theimportance of carbon pricing, and communicate progress over time in public
corporate reports.65

Electricity Generation
One of the most significant actions that corporations have been taking is thepurchase of renewable energy based on long-term procurement agreementswith developers and utilities through power purchase agreements, green
power purchases, green tariffs, and outright project ownership. Throughthese types of projects, large businesses can drive market development of
new renewables.66 Over the past 5 years, businesses have signed roughly
9 gigawatts (GWs) of renewable energy deals.67 This amounts to roughly 20
percent of all utility-scale wind and solar capacity additions (as opposed toresidential or commercial additions) between 2013 and July 2017.68 Theselarge-scale voluntary purchases of renewable electricity are explicitly surplus
to regulatory requirements,69 and are being driven by corporations including
Amazon, Microsoft, 3M, General Motors, Mars, and Anheuser-Busch InBev(Figure 2-7).70 Such purchases will likely continue as solar and wind become
even more cost-effective.

Broader Role of Non-Federal Action in Driving Down Greenhouse Gas Emissions | 53

One of the biggest changes in renewable power markets is the rise ofindividual businesses as purchasers. In 2013 only 5 percent of renewable
contracts were signed with big users, like companies, universities, and themilitary.71 Last year nearly 40 percent of wind contracts were with such big
users including businesses like Wal-Mart and GM.72
Corporate renewable energy commitments can have powerful ripple effects
throughout the electrical supply chain. In coal-dependent West Virginia, thestate’s biggest public utility, Appalachian Power, recently told the state’s
governor, that it won’t build any more coal power because its biggest
customers, businesses like Steel Dynamics and Marathon Peroleu, havesignaled that they don’t want it. Instead, they are asking about how to get 100
percent renewable electricity.73
A number of public and private sector partners are working together tohelp facilitate large-scale renewable energy deals. One such initiative, theRenewable Energy Buyers Alliance (REBA) is a collaboration among theWorld Resources Institute, Rocky Mountain Institute, World Wildlife Fund, andBusiness for Social Responsibility. REBA aims to achieve an additional 60 GW
in purchased renewable capacity in the U.S. by 2025 (from a 2015 baseline).
Collectively, REBA works with more than 100 large energy buyers that
represent large demand for renewable energy. REBA’s network is expanding
to include universities, hospitals, local agencies, and other large energy
buyers.

FIGURE 2-7
Cumulative Publicly Announced Corporate Renewable Deals (2012-2017)

10
9.0

8
GIGAWATTS

6.9

6

5.3

4
2.0

2
0.8

0

0.07

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

Note: 2017 data through September.
Source: Business Renewables Center.

10
9.0

54 | AMERICA’S PLEDGE

Sixty-two Fortune 500 companies with U.S.-based operations have set
renewable energy targets.74 Autodesk, Starbucks, TD Bank Group, and VoyaInternational have already achieved their 100 percent renewable energy
targets, while Google expects to reach theirs in 2017. Those businesses
achieved their targets by contracting with suppliers, purchasing unbundled
renewable energy certificates (RECs), installing solar photovoltaic (PV), andself-generation.75 Companies such as Apple, Walmart, Amazon, Google,
and IKEA are installing solar panels and wind turbines to produce their own
energy.76

Transport
One of the most popular climate friendly actions that U.S. businesses aretaking is to improve supply chain transportation efficiency. Through EPA’s
Smart Way program, more than 3,500 U.S. companies (including UPS, Nike,
CSX, and Target) have saved $27.8 billion in fuel costs and achieved 94
million metric tons of CO2 reductions since 2004.77 This public-private initiative
includes a diverse group of partners, including truck, rail and barge carriers,
and the retailers, manufacturers, and logistics managers who rely on them.78
Participating companies voluntarily commit to improve their fuel efficiency andreduce their environmental impacts from freight transport. However, the futureof federal public-private partnerships like Smart Way may be at risk under the
Trump Administration.
The Climate Group, an international NGO that works with businesses andgovernments to reduce GHG emissions, launched a new business campaign
focused on the uptake of EVs and infrastructure called EV100. Members of
the initiative pledge to convert their large vehicle fleets to EVs by 2030.79
While the international initiative was just announced at NY Climate Week
in September 2017, two U.S. companies (HP, Inc., and PG&E) have alreadybecome members.80
Additionally, U.S. car manufacturers have recently committed to increased
EV production. For example, General Motors is now working towards anall-electric, zero tail-pipe emissions future with 20 new EV models available
globally by the early 2020’s81 and Ford announced its intention to accelerate
global development of EVs, promising that it will add an all-electric SUV with arange of 300 miles by 2020.82

Commercial and Industrial Energy Use
Through the U.S. Department of Energy’s (DOE) Better Buildings Challenge,
200 companies, representing more than 13 percent of total U.S.
commercial building space, have voluntarily committed to reduce theirbuilding energy use by 20 percent over the next ten years (see Figure2-8). This network of companies shares solutions, develops high-impact
technical and market solutions for improving efficiency, and receives
technical assistance from DOE experts.83 The real estate community is also

Broader Role of Non-Federal Action in Driving Down Greenhouse Gas Emissions | 55

working to reduce energy consumption in buildings—through, for example,
reporting environmental, social, and governance data to the Global Real
Estate Sustainability Benchmark (GRESB) organization to validate, score, andbenchmark their progress. Since 2010, more than 200 real estate developers,
realty advisors, and other companies in North America have participated,giving investors and participants insights on the performance of their building
assets and portfolios.84

FIGURE 2-8
Number of Companies That Have Set Energy Efficiency Targets Through DOE

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

NUMBER OF COMPANIES

Commercial

Data Centers

Financial Services

Multi-family Housing

Utility

Industry

Note: Nearly 70 universities, cities, and states have also signed up for the Better Buildings Challenge. Industrial companies are part of the Better Plants
program; all others are part of the Better Buildings program.
Source: U.S. Department of Energy. Better Buildings, Better Plants Solutions Center.		

Additionally, nearly 200 companies representing almost 2,600 facilities
in all 50 states, Washington D.C., and Puerto Rico are reducing theenergy intensity of their industrial facilities through DOE’s Better Plants
program (see Figure 2-8). This represents about 12 percent of the total
U.S. manufacturing energy footprint, with 14 partners in the Fortune 100. By
adopting a variety of strategies and other innovative approaches, thesecompanies have committed to decreasing their energy intensity by 25
percent over 10 years and have already reported 600 trillion Btu of cumulative
energy savings and $3.1 billion in reduced energy costs.85

MethaneNearly 100 U.S. based companies have joined EPA’s Natural Gas Star
program, agreeing to implement methane reducing technologies andpractices throughout natural gas production, processing, transmission,and distribution, and to document their emission reductions.86 The EPA’s
Methane Challenge Program allows U.S. oil and gas companies to go evenfurther and to make specific and transparent commitments to reducing
methane.87 These include committing to using demonstrated emissionsreducing technologies, adopting best management practices, and/or joining
the ONE Future Emissions Intensity Commitment to reduce their methane
emission rate to one percent. There are currently 55 companies participatingin the Methane Challenge Program, with National Grid, Kinder Morgan,Southwestern Energy Company, and Southern Company Gas reporting ONE
Future goals to the EPA.88

56 | AMERICA’S PLEDGE

Through the EPA and the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Food Loss andWaste 2030 Champions program, 20 companies—including General Mills,
Walmart, Unilever, and Wegmans—have committed to reduce food loss
and waste in their own operations in the U.S. by at least 50 percent by
2030.89 Furthermore, businesses like Tesla, Sierra Nevada Brewing Company,
and Kellogg’s have achieved their zero-waste goals at one or more of theirfacilities according to the Green Business Certification Inc.’s TRUE (Total
Resource Use and Efficiency) waste certification system.90

Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs)
Through EPA’s GreenChill program, 43 supermarkets have committed
to reducing their HFC emissions, with 533 individual stores becoming
certified under this program since 2008. Because some alternatives offer
performance benefits compared with the higher-GWP HFCs they replace,
many consumers achieved energy and financial savings at the same time.91
GreenChill partners, on average, reduce emissions by almost 10 percent
within their first year of membership.92 And the number of supermarkets
getting certified as using at least 65 percent less refrigerant than the average
supermarket has increased steadily over the last ten years. Coca-Cola,
Pepsico, Red Bull, and Unilever have installed more than 5.5 million units
using HFC-free refrigerants, with nearly 400,000 of those installed in the
U.S.93

Summary of Businesses' Actions
Clearly, a number of non-federal actions are supported by programs run byfederal agencies. However, while these programs are currently funded, it
is important to note that continued funding decisions are controlled by the
U.S. Congress and may shift according to the priorities of a particular party or
administration.

Broader Role of Non-Federal Action in Driving Down Greenhouse Gas Emissions | 57

STILL IN

California
California has adopted the strongest targets of any U.S. state for reducing
emissions from climate pollutants other than CO2, often called “super pollutants”
or “short-lived climate pollutants” (SLCP).a Through its SLCP Reduction Strategy,
the state aims to cut emissions from HFCs and methane by at least 40 percent
below 2013 levels by 2030, and non-forest black carbon emissions by at least 50
percent below 2013 levels by 2030.b
The SLCP Strategy includes various approaches for putting organic waste
products to use, including through electrical generation, transportation fuel,pipeline-injected renewable natural gas, and composting. California seeks to
reduce disposal of organic waste by 75 percent by 2025, and requires recovery
of 20 percent of edible food in the organic waste stream to feed people in need.
California also aims to reduce fugitive methane emissions from existing oil andgas systems by 40 percent below 2013 levels in 2025 and 45 percent by 2030.
The state will continue its research to improve emission monitoring and to identify“hotspots” responsible for the largest share of emissions.
Finally, California is planning to outpace the HFC emissions reductions expectedunder the Kigali Amendment to the Montreal Protocol by adopting additional
regulations and incentivizing available low-global warming potential (GWP)
refrigerants where available. This builds on an existing refrigerant management
program, which goes a step further than EPA’s standards by requiring that all
HFC leaks be repaired. This leadership is particularly important in the next five
years, because HFCs, unlike methane, are not short-lived; some will remain in theatmosphere for more than one thousand years.

Notesa	Reducing Short-Lived Climate
Pollutants in California, California Air
Resources Board, 2017.
b	Short-lived Climate Pollutant
Reduction Strategy, California Air
Resources Board, March 2017.

58 | AMERICA’S PLEDGE

STILL IN

Milwaukee
Notes
a	

American Forests Names the 10 Best
U.S. Cities for Urban Forests, CISION
PRWeb, February 5, 2013.

b	

i-Tree Ecosystem Analysis – Milwaukee,
Urban Forest Effects and Values,
September 2008.

In Milwaukee, Wisconsin, intensive focus on urban forestry and land use ishelping the city lead on pollution reduction, stormwater management, nativeplant health, and green infrastructure development. In 2013, the conservation
organization Urban Forests named Milwaukee one of the top 10 U.S. cities
for urban forests.a Its 200,000 street trees function as a natural carbon sinkand provide other environmental services. The urban forest helps remove
569 metric tons of pollution each year, particularly ozone, a service with anassociated value of at least $5.6 million. It stores 380,000 metric tons ofcarbon (estimated value: more than $29.8 million), and sequesters another
14,100 metric tons (more than $1.1 million).b
Milwaukee’s Forestry Section conducts an intensive, six-month employee
training program on topics like tree climbing, dendrology, and tree pruning.
With this well-trained team in place, 98 percent of all felled street trees are
replaced. The city has focused on creating bioswales in roadway medians
and replacing ornamental trees with 4,500 larger shade trees, which areplaced closely together on medians to create denser canopy. The canopy isvalued by the community and its shade is estimated to save more than $1.3
million annually in energy-related costs for residential buildings.

Broader Role of Non-Federal Action in Driving Down Greenhouse Gas Emissions | 59

STILL IN

Ingersoll Rand
In 2014, Ingersoll Rand (NYSE: IR), a world leader in creating comfortable,
sustainable and efficient environments, committed to reducing thegreenhouse gas refrigerant footprint of its products by 50% by 2020 and of its
own business operations by 35% by 2020.a This commitment also included a$500 million investment in product-related research and development.

Notes
a	

Ingersoll Rand to Cut Greenhouse Gas
Emissions in Half by 2020; Invests$500 Million in Energy Efficiency toAddress Climate Change, Ingersoll
Rand, September 22, 2014.

b	

A year later, the company announced the EcoWise™ portfolio of products
designed to lower environmental impact with next generation, low global
warming potential refrigerants and high efficiency operation.b And since 2013,
Ingersoll Rand’s ecological focus has allowed it to prevent the release ofabout 6.7 million metric tons of carbon emissions. By 2030, the company’s
carbon footprint is expected to shrink by 50 million metric tons.a, cIngersoll Rand’s sustainability efforts also include the “Green Team”
certification program, which was active in all manufacturing locations by
2013. These teams engaged more than 4,000 employees and saved thecompany more than $200,000 in operational costs. In 2016, the Green Teams
helped the company divert 2.4 million pounds of waste from landfills, reducecarbon emissions by 2,064 metric tons, and save 2.2 million gallons of water.d
Ingersoll Rand’s Center for Energy Efficiency and Sustainability continues tofind ways to innovate.e

Ingersoll Rand Marks Climate
Commitment Achievement At WhiteHouse HFC Reduction Roundtable,
TheStreet, October 15, 2015.

c	

Our Climate Commitment, Ingersoll
Rand.

d	

Community Relations, Ingersoll Rand.

e	Center for Energy & Sustainability:
Shaping the Future, Ingersoll Rand.

60 | AMERICA’S PLEDGE

STILL IN

TargetNotesaSustainable Operations, Target.

b	Solar Means Business: Tracking Solar
Adoption by America’sc	

Top Companies, Solar Energy Industries
Association, 2016.

d	Power Up: Check Out Target’s New
Wind Energy Partnership in Texas,
Target, July 21, 2016.

Target is racing toward a low carbon future by setting a goal of a 25%
reduction in GHG emissions by 2025.a The company has earned ENERGYSTAR certification for 1,409 of its more than 1,800 stores and aims for 80%
by 2020. With solar arrays installed at 350 locations, the retailer was named
SEIA’s 2016 top corporate solar installer in the U.S. In 2016,b Target enteredinto a partnership to purchase enough wind power to offset 100% of theenergy used at 60 of its Texas stores.c By 2020, the company aims to installsolar rooftop panels on 500 buildings and expand its investment in off-site
renewable energy.

e	Target Unveils Eight New Climate
Pledge Commitments, Target, October
29, 2015.

f	2016 Target Corporate Social
Responsibility Report, Target, 2016.

Target is creating efficient buildings, using resources responsibly, eliminating
waste, and minimizing its carbon footprint. The company pledged to introducehydrofluorocarbon-free refrigerants in its food distribution centers (FDCs) andstand-alone refrigerated display cases by 2020.d Today, all five of its FDCs
are using HFC-free refrigerants for cold storage areas and more than 1,000
stores are using HFC-free refrigerants in stand-alone cases.e These units
are as much as 50% more efficient than the ones they replaced, and theyalso eliminate greenhouse gases vastly more powerful than carbon dioxide.
Additionally, Target is eliminating the use of HFC’s in their market area byusing CO2 and lower GWP HFO refrigerants in its stores.

Broader Role of Non-Federal Action in Driving Down Greenhouse Gas Emissions | 61

62 | AMERICA’S PLEDGE

The Changing U.S. Economy | 63

The actions described in Chapter 2 are taking place in the context of achanging U.S. economy. The United States has seen a steady decline in the
carbon intensity of its economy since the 1970s (Figure 3-1). More recently,
U.S. net GHG emissions have decreased by just over 11 percent since 2005.94
The driving forces of this decline include advances in technology, changing
markets, federal policies, and non-federal actions such as those outlined in
Chapter 2 of this report.

FIGURE 3-1
Changes in Carbon Intensity and CO2 Emissions in the U.S.

7000

900
800

6000

700
5000

600
500

4000

400

3000

300

2000

200
1000

100

0

0
1975

1980

1985

1990

1995

2000

2005

2010

2015

Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration, Monthly Energy Review; U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis, National Economic Accounts: Current Dollar
and “Real” GDP.		

Million metric tons energy CO2Metric ton CO2 per dollar (2009) GDP

3-1

Chapter 3:
The Changing U.S. Economy:
Market Trends, Barriers, andOpportunities for Non-federal
Actors to Step Up

64 | AMERICA’S PLEDGE

Much of this change to date is embedded in the U.S. economy in ways thatreversals in federal policy are unlikely to impact. What hangs in the balance isthe degree to which decarbonization of the economy continues, how rapidly
it will accelerate, and what role non-federal action will play in its continuanceand acceleration in the years ahead.
Improved building codes mean that new buildings are more efficient,providing incremental but durable changes to the overall building stock. New
renewable power projects will remain operating for decades, with near-zero
marginal costs, while coal power plants that have been retired are unlikely tobe brought back on line. Even coal plants that have merely been scheduled
for retirement within a few years are almost certain to be shut down, becauseof lack of maintenance and the cost-competitiveness of natural gas andrenewables. Increased fuel efficiency standards for cars and trucks over thelast decade have increased the average efficiency of vehicles on the road,which is unlikely to be reversed. The decarbonization already built into theeconomy is thus likely to endure. While changes in federal policy may slow orstop progress in these areas, they are not likely to turn back the clock.
These trends tell only part of the story as we look at the potential for the
U.S. to achieve deep emission reductions in the decades ahead. A fullunderstanding of the extent of these changes requires a better accounting
not just of the changes to date, but also the rate of growth and potentialchanges in that rate of growth. This accounting must consider both thepotential acceleration of these trends, as has been seen in the solar and windindustries, and the potential headwinds from market barriers and a federal
administration acting to reverse U.S. climate policies.
The mainstream view of energy system transformation, as reflected in industry
publications and analyses, is that current shifts will follow paths similar to
those of the more resource-intensive energy systems of the past. However,recent experience shows that clean energy markets and technologies canhave quicker implementation paths if they reach critical thresholds, and thencan continue to grow at accelerating rates. This type of pattern has been seen
in technologies both inside and outside the energy context, for example withthe rapid evolution of cell phones and the recent spread of smart phones. An
energy example can be seen in solar photovoltaics (PV), as indicated in Figure
3-2, when comparing the actual growth in U.S. PV against annual Energy
Information Administration (EIA) projections.95
The prospects for decarbonization can vary widely depending on whether
we look at current economics or track trends over time. Measuring today’s
average costs often yields startlingly different results than the best technicalprojections of tomorrow’s costs. For example, Lazard’s current levelized cost
analysis for lithium-ion battery storage is $399/ kilowatt hour (kWh).96 But theRoyal Society of Chemistry concluded that once one terawatt hour (TWh) ofsuch capacity was installed, prices would fall to the $175/kWh range.97

The Changing U.S. Economy | 65

FIGURE 3-2
Projected and Actual Annual U.S. Utility-Scale Solar PV Additions 2007-2030

70

AEO 2016

CAPACITY (GW)

60
50
40
AEO 2017 (No CPP)30
20
AEO 2015

Actual10

AEO 2014
AEO 2013
AEO 2012
AEO 2007–2011

0
2007

2012

2017

2022

2027

2030

Note: This figure illustrates U.S. Energy Information Administration’s (EIA) Reference Case projection for each publication year noted, except
for AEO 2017. According to EIA, the Reference Case reflects “trend improvement in known technologies, along with a view of economic anddemographic trends” and reflects “current laws and regulations affecting the energy sector.” Because of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision tostay the Clean Power Plan in 2016, and the Trump Administration’s recent proposal to repeal these power plant standards, we included EIA’s
AEO 2017 side case that assumed the Clean Power Plan was no longer in place to better reflect the status of existing energy policies.
Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration, “Annual Energy Outlook,” 2007-2017, https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/70

AEO 2016

60

CAPACITY (GW)

Solar provides another illustration. Not just in the U.S., as shown in Figure50
3-2 above,but globally, analysts have consistently underestimated the future
deployment of solar panels, even when forecasting only a year or two in
40 A report from the Mercator Institute in Germany found that typicaladvance.
“integrated assessment models” repeatedly under-predicted the growthof the30solar market. Those used by the International Energy Agency (IEA),
for example, have been off by 16-30 percent.98 The researchers concluded
that models routinely failed to take into account the impact of public policy,
20
including policy by states and cities; the speed of technological advance; andActualthe impact of public attitudes on corporate decisions.
10

While progress has been made and the outlook is promising, several
0
challenges
may inhibit deeper GHG emissions reductions across the U.S.
economyand slow thetransition in specificis particularly
2007
2012
2017 sectors. This
2022
2027
apparent at the federal level with the potential for significant shifts in program
funding and technical support from federal agencies and national labs.99

AEO 2017 (No CPP)

AEO 2015
AEO 2014
AEO 2013
AEO 2012
AEO 2007–20112030

66 | AMERICA’S PLEDGE

In the discussion below, we examine how economic trends have played out
across major sectors and for key non-CO2 gases, reflecting both progress
to date and some remaining barriers. Throughout this discussion, we pay
attention to ways that non-federal action can play a meaningful role in
reducing emissions, helping address barriers, and enabling accelerationof the transition to a low-carbon economy. We have also highlighted“opportunities to step up”—examples of areas where concerted non-federal
action may be well positioned to overcome barriers and support accelerationof the trend toward a low-carbon future.

Power Sector
Power sector emissions have fallen rapidly for the last decade, outpacing
progress in all other major economic sectors.
For decades, electricity generation was America’s leading source of
GHG emissions, but the U.S. power sector is undergoing a significant
transformation. Several factors are contributing to this trend: electricity
used per unit of GDP has declined because of efficiency improvements
and changes in the structure of the economy. Falling natural gas prices,
aging power plants, and stringent pollution control requirements have also
contributed to a significant decline in coal's share of generation. Community
efforts such as the Sierra Club’s Beyond Coal campaign have also played arole in that decline. Meanwhile, renewable generation has been growing due
in part to state policy mandates, corporate procurement, federal tax credits
and falling technology costs for solar and wind.
As a result, power sector emissions are at their lowest level in decades. In
the last decade alone (2005 to 2016), CO2 emissions from the utility sector
fell by 24 percent.100 This rate of sectoral decarbonization has almost no large
economy precedent. How did it happen?
Analysts have differed widely in how they interpret the causes of the rapid
decline in GHG emissions from the U.S. utility sector. In 2015, emissions wereroughly 40 percent lower than the EIA had projected just a decade earlier.101 A
Carnegie Mellon University study attributes over 50 percent of the reductions
in emissions intensity over that period to the switch between coal and naturalgas.102 Other studies focusing on total emissions reductions, such as the Sierra
Club’s Beyond Coal campaign, ascribe more impact to lower than expected
electricity demand and renewables. This discrepancy is understandable
given how multiple factors have combined over many years to contribute to
U.S. power sector decarbonization. At one level, the shift in the compositionof generation by source is straightforward. According to a 2014 EIA analysis

The Changing U.S. Economy | 67

FIGURE 3-3
Power Sector Avoided CO2 Emissions‘BAU’ – Demand growthand CO2 intensity at 2005
levels (2959 MMT)

2900

(Million Metric Tons)

ELECTRIC SECTOR CO 2 EMISSIONS

3100

2700

Avoided CO2 throughreduced demand(523 MMT)

2005 Electric Sector
CO2 (2417 MMT)

2500
2300

Avoided CO2 throughcoal-to-gas fuelswitching (394 MMT)

2100
Avoided CO2 from new
non-carbon generation(285 MMT)

1900

2016 Estimate Electric
Sector CO2 (1761 MMT)

1700
1990

1995

2000

2005

2010

2015 2016estimate

Source: Sierra Club Beyond Coal Campaign(Million Metric Tons)

ELECTRIC SECTOR CO2 EMISSIONS

updated in 2017 by the Sierra Club, if 2005 trends had continued, by 2016 the
U.S. power sector would have emitted 3,000 MMT of CO2e; in fact, it emitted
only 1,800 MMT (Figure 3-3).103 Of these avoided emissions, roughly 500 MMT
3100 the result of lower-than-expected demand.104 Since 2005,
were primarily
electricity demand has essentially remained flat while the carbon intensity of2900
electricity
generation has decreased.105 Of the avoided emissions remaining,
the Sierra Club found that just 400 MMT of avoided emissions, or 33 percent,came fromfuel switching between coal and natural gas, while 300 MMT were2700
attributable to the deployment of renewables.106 2005 Electric Sector‘BAU’ – Demand growth andCO2 intensity at 2005 levels(2959 MMT)

Avoided CO2 throughreduced demand (523 MMT)

CO2 (2417 MMT)

2500

These numbers tell us how the U.S. power sector has begun the process ofdecarbonization. Understanding why this transformation is occurring is harder2300
to tease out. Below, in chronological order, are eleven key factors. Notably,
non-federal actors have a prominent role in almost all of these:

Avoided CO2 throughcoal-to-gas fuel switching(394 MMT)

2100

1. Starting in the late 1970’s, utilities postponed and delayed cleaning up
1900plant pollution—sulfur, particulate matter, ozone and mercury
power
in particular. In the 2000s, EPA began revising national air quality
standards
for particulate matter (2006, 2012), ground-level ozone
1700
1990

1995

2000

2005

2010

Avoided CO2 from new
non-carbon generation(285 MMT)
2016 Est Electric Sector CO2(1761 MMT)

2015 2016est

68 | AMERICA’S PLEDGE(2008, 2015), sulfur dioxide (2010), nitrogen dioxide (2010), and lead(2008).107 In December 2011, EPA finalized the first standards for toxic
air pollutants like mercury.108 Power plant owners had a choice: either
install or upgrade their pollution control equipment, or retire.
2. Major utility companies planned to replace the oldest and most out-ofcompliance plants with newer units starting in the early 2000s. Older,less efficient natural gas plants accounted for 64 percent of the power
plant retirements between 2000-2010.109 By the end of 2012, almost
10 percent of the existing coal-fired capacity was slated for retirement,with 20 percent still deciding whether to retrofit to comply with the
EPA Mercury and Air Toxics Standards.110 Around the same time, shale
gas arrived. Shale gas accounted for 1.6 percent of total natural gas
production in 2000,111 but with productivity skyrocketing between
2007 and 2011,112 it suddenly offered utilities, customers and investors
an alternative to replace older, coal- or less efficient natural gas-fired
units.
3. M eanwhile, demand didn’t grow as some in the power generation
business had expected. The U.S. economy shifted towards lower
energy intensity sectors; technology slashed power demand withinmany sectors across the U.S. economy.113
4. The Sierra Club’s Beyond Coal campaign and allies shifted theirfocus to retiring existing plants.114 This put the question of whether
to pursue coal or clean power on the front burner for governors,
utility regulators, cities, investors and industrial customers. Many
concluded that coal-fired electricity generation was no longer
necessary or desirable.
5. Most states adopted renewable electricity portfolio standards, energy
efficiency rules, or both.115 Investors, incentivized in part by tax credits,rushed in, scaling up U.S. wind and solar capacity.116
6. Significant new Chinese investment in solar manufacturing, together
with European commitments to renewables including solar and wind,
rapidly drove down the global cost of renewable power. Since 2008,
land-based wind, utility scale solar, and electric vehicle battery costs
fell by 41 percent, 64 percent and 73 percent, respectively.117 Despite
political rhetoric to the contrary, U.S. states like Iowa, Kansas, andOklahoma became renewable energy powerhouses.118
7. Competitive markets in states like Texas allowed gas and renewables
to undercut coal on price.119 Because renewable power bids into thewholesale market with zero marginal costs, coal was forced to the endof the bid stack. As coal plants operated fewer and fewer hours, theireconomics collapsed.

The Changing U.S. Economy | 69

8. Regulatory challenges to the least viable old coal plants resulted indiminishing economic competitiveness for coal-fired generation as
states, regulators, utility and customers looked for more affordable
options.
9. First to go were, predictably, older, smaller and less efficient coal
units. But in their wake were some of the most modern coal plants
with the best pollution controls and highest heat rates.120 As electricity
prices declined thanks to cheap natural gas and renewable energy,
the prohibitive cost of operating scrubbers and selective catalytic
reduction units at these plants made coal power too expensive inmuch of the wholesale U.S. power system.121
10. By late 2017, half the U.S. coal plants that had been operating in 2010
were retired or had publicly committed to retire by a specified futuredate. Just the retirements as of mid-2017 amounted to 50 gigawatts ofcoal capacity (16 percent of the 2010 total).122 Over the same period,
coal’s share of total U.S. power generation fell from approximately 50
percent to just 30 percent.
11. Renewables gained momentum as their prices fell and more coal plant
retirements created space in the market. In fact, more than 60 percentof new utility-scale generation capacity came from wind and solar in
2016.123
So the reasons are complex, but the outcome is clear; the U.S. power sector
is decarbonizing.
The Trump Administration has suspended, and may well succeed in undoing,
the Obama Administration's Clean Power Plan (CPP), which was designed
to cut GHG emissions from existing power sector sources by 32 percent by
2030. But just as the EPA announced its proposal to repeal the rule, a study
by the Rhodium Group revealed that the U.S. was likely to meet the CPP
emissions reduction target anyway.124
The shift away from coal is likely to continue, with recent projections showing
continued retirements of coal plants (Figure 3-4). The pace of coal retirements
has not slowed under the Trump Administration. From January 2010 until
January 2017, one coal plant announced its retirement every 16 days. But
since Trump took office, the pace of coal retirements has accelerated, to one
announcement every 10 days.125 This shift is driven largely by market forces
and will likely continue regardless of federal efforts to dismantle existing clean
energy policies.126 The U.S. coal fleet is aging and many plants can no longer
compete with relatively cheap natural gas.127 At the same time, wind and solar
costs are rapidly falling and are cost-competitive with new coal generation in
many markets across the country (Figure 3-5).128 The Department of Energy’s

70 | AMERICA’S PLEDGE

SunShot Initiative, which aimed by 2020 to make grid-connected solar costcompetitive with other forms of energy, announced in August that it achieved
this target for utility-scale solar PV three years earlier than expected.129
Despite the Trump Administration’s stated intent to “bring back coal,” 130 themarket is moving on. For example, CSX, a freight railroad company with roots
in Appalachian coal, recently told investors that it will not be purchasing any
new coal train locomotives. 131 Hunter Harrison, CEO of CSX, was quoted in the
Financial Times as saying, “Fossil fuels are dead. That’s a long-term view. It’s
not going to happen overnight. It’s not going to be in two or three years. But
it’s going away, in my view.”132 Underscoring this point, after the Department of
the Interior (DOI) lifted the moratorium on federal coal leasing in March 2017,
which reinstated 44 federal coal leases, eight leases were suspended by theirowners and five were cancelled outright. DOI has received only one newlease application.133

34

Looking forward, achieving significantly higher penetrations of renewableenergy generation in the coming years will require addressing their variability
and intermittency through storage, demand response, improved forecasting
accuracy and other measures. Non-federal players, including state utility
commissions, utilities, and others can work to improve the flexibility of theelectric distribution system, and can work on regional approaches to improve

FIGURE: 3-4
U.S. Power Sector Historical and Projected Capacity Additions and Retirements

ADDITIONSPROJECTIONSHISTORICAL

60

Coal
Gas
Oil
Nuclear
Hydro
Geothermal
Biomass
Onshore Wind

50
40
30
20
10

RETIREMENTS

0

Utility-scale PV
Small-scale PV
Solar Thermal
Other
Small-scale Batteries
Utility-scale Batteries
Demand Response

-10
-20
-30
-40
-50
1990

1995

2000

2005

2010

2015

2020

2025

2030

Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration (historical); Bloomberg New Energy Finance (projections)

2035

2040

The Changing U.S. Economy | 71

FIGURE: 3-5
Relative Cost in U.S. of Renewables and Fossil Fuel Capacity
Cost of new renewables vs.
marginal cost of existing fossil fuel plants

120

120

100

100
$ M W H (real 2016)$ M W H (real 2016)

New-build levelized costs of electricity(renewables vs. fossil fuels)

80
60
40

80
60
40

20

20

0

0

2017 2020

2025

2030
Coal

2035

2040

CCGT

2017 2020
Onshore Wind

2025

Utility-scale PV

Source: Bloomberg New Energy Finance, New Energy Outlook 2017

the transmissions system. Additionally, the location of untapped wind andsolar resources does not always match up with the businesses or cities
that would like to take advantage of these clean sources, requiring newtransmission lines. Texas has been a leader in developing transmission toconnect wind resources to urban areas where the electricity is needed.134
Furthermore, falling power prices (due in part to cheap natural gas andrenewable energy) and flat electricity demand are making nuclear plants insome markets less economic to operate, calling into question the role of asignificant source of zero-carbon generation over the long-term.135
Flexible resources like demand response and batteries are also projected
to play a role in the future, and can help integrate intermittent renewable
resources into the system. Battery technology is expected to follow a similar
trajectory as solar and wind, with energy density continuously improving136
and average costs coming down from approximately $1,000 per kWh in 2010
to under $300 per kWh by 2016, and projected to fall to $73 per kWh by
2030..137

2030

2035

2040

72 | AMERICA’S PLEDGE

Opportunity to Step Up
States, cities, and businesses accelerate renewable energy
growth. While a lot of non-federal actions have already occurredto support renewable energy, there is potential for more ambitious
actions to further drive market growth. A major challenge inmany locations is that monopoly utilities, many still reliant uponlegacy fossil fuel generation, have significant influence over statelegislatures and regulators, and those that might seek cheaper,cleaner renewable power are hampered in doing so. But even
where cities or counties have choice about the carbon intensityof their power, they need to collaborate to exercise this choice.
Cities with municipal utilities like Georgetown, Texas have the mostauthority and are going 100 percent renewable.i Seven states,
including California, Illinois, Ohio and Massachusetts, allow cities
to seek their own electricity provider through “community choiceaggregation.” But it is a large organizational task for a city or county
to become a choice aggregator—and incumbent utilities often
create significant roadblocks. A major opportunity exists to help
bring cities wanting cheaper and cleaner renewable power together
with generators seeking customers to accelerate the utility sector’s
decarbonization, and grid developers hoping to connect the two.
Where community aggregation is not permitted, cities andbusinesses, if they collaborate, can still change the electrical sector.
Salt Lake City, for example, has no formal control over its electricity
sources—but is working with its private utility in its move to 100
percent renewable energy.138i	For example, Georgetown Utility
Services, which provides power toover 24,000 customers, is planning toswitch to 100 percent renewable energy
by 2018 through a contract with NRG
Energy and EDF Renewable Energy
for power from solar and wind plants
located in Texas. Source: “Renewable
Energy FAQs,” Georgetown Utility
Services, https://gus.georgetown.org/
renewable-energy-faqs/.

More states, cities, and businesses can commit to generating, or
procuring, 100 percent renewable energy. At the same time, states,
cities, and businesses will need to work with utilities and stateagencies to avoid issues of added grid volatility and curtailment.
Grid operators and states that invest in transmission infrastructureand grid expansion as well as battery storage can thus enable
renewable energy commitments to be realized effectively, driving
a more comprehensive transformation in U.S. energy markets andallowing for the establishment of even more ambitious targets.

Through this transition, the U.S. power grid system has the potential to
become cleaner, nimbler, more localized, more resilient, more equitable, andmore efficient—saving consumers and businesses money on their energy bills
each month, and billions of dollars in avoided infrastructure and generation
investment costs.

The Changing U.S. Economy | 73

Building Efficiency
About 40 percent of the nation’s total energy and more than 70 percent of its
electricity was used in residential and commercial buildings as of 2016.139 Overthe past 40 years, there has been a significant shift towards high-performancebuildings as the standard for new construction and innovative energy
efficiency programs have been developed to address existing building
energy use.
Building energy codes in the U.S. are set in a patchwork fashion, withindependent, private bodies setting model codes, and states or cities thendeciding which of these to adopt (or exceed). Non-federal actors can also
participate in the code-setting process through participating in stakeholder
engagement, submitting proposals, providing comments, and attending
hearings.140 Cities in particular have enormous influence over thesecodes, since in most states they must enforce them, and the code setting
bodies have very strong city representation.141 In recent years, significant
improvements have been made in the model codes by organizing urban
delegations to the code congresses; however, as noted, most cities have yet
to adopt the full range of these improvements. Residential code reforms were

FIGURE 3-6
U.S. Building Energy Use Projections from 2006-2017
55

AEO 2007

50(Quadrillion BTUs)

BUILDING ENERGY USE36

AEO 2009

45

AEO 2012
AEO 2013
AEO 2015
AEO 2017 (No CPP)

40

35
2005

2010

2015

2020

2025

2030

Note: This figure illustrates U.S. Energy Information Administration’s (EIA) Reference Case projection for each publication year noted, except
for AEO 2017. According to EIA, the Reference Case reflects “trend improvement in known technologies, along with a view of economic anddemographic trends” and reflects “current laws and regulations affecting the energy sector.” Because of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision tostay the Clean Power Plan in 2016, and the Trump Administration’s recent proposal to repeal these power plant standards, we included EIA’s
AEO 2017 side case that assumed the Clean Power Plan was no longer in place to better reflect the status of existing energy policies.
Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration, “Annual Energy Outlook,” 2007-2017, https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/		74 | AMERICA’S PLEDGE

specified in the U.S. NDC, but never proposed by the Obama Administration,
since there is currently no federal authority here. California’s climate program
requires a doubling of building energy efficiency,142 and New York City
recently mandated ambitious building efficiency improvements. 143
Since 1980, best-in-class energy efficiency building codes have resulted ina 40 percent reduction in energy usage for those residential buildings they
cover and 50 percent reduction in energy usage for covered commercial
buildings.144 Green building programs and certifications, including LEED,ENERGY STAR, and Better Buildings, are creating demand for improvements
to buildings beyond code compliance. Appliance and equipment efficiency
have also improved significantly over the past 40 years.145 We can see theeffects of these changes in building efficiency in EIA projections of building
energy consumption in 2025, which declined by more than 12 quadrillion
Btu between analyses from 2007 and 2017 (Figure 3-6). This is yet anotherexample of the difference that a dynamic understanding of trends andprojections makes on estimates of future climate pollution. Lawrence Berkeley
National Laboratory estimated that by 2025 improved building codes could
save 80 TWh of electricity, and 200 trillion Btu of natural gas, representing
3 percent of current residential and commercial electricity and natural gas
consumption.146
Looking ahead, advances in technology are projected to drastically cut costs
for more energy efficient products—sometimes drastically, as in the case of
LED lighting—allowing for more widespread adoption of efficient appliancesand equipment. For example, a 2015 study by the Department of Energy
suggests that implementation of all cost-effective efficiency measures by2030 would result in 23 percent savings in building energy consumption
relative to business-as-usual.147 At the same time, there is an opportunity toelectrify many end-uses that currently run on natural gas. Doing so will help
reduce emissions over the long-term, especially as we see a corresponding
improvement in the carbon intensity of U.S. electricity generation.148
Despite progress, barriers persist. The market is not fully capturing costeffective energy efficiency opportunities as a result of capital constraints,
split incentives (such as the differing motivations of owners versus renters),
access to information, and aversion to modifying traditional construction
practices.149 In addition, local jurisdictions often lack the resources to fully
enforce the applicable building codes. While much has been done to addressthese challenges, particularly for new buildings, they remain a consistent
impediment to sufficiently addressing emissions from the existing building
stock. Only an estimated three percent of the U.S. building stock is new or
renovated annually,150 which drastically reduces the impact of solutions toaddressing building energy efficiency that focus solely on new and renovatedbuildings. Looking ahead, investment in the existing building stock must
accelerate; at the same time, increasing electrification in the building sector
may be needed to achieve long-term emissions goals.

The Changing U.S. Economy | 75

Opportunity to Step Up
States, cities, and private sector real estate and development
partners work together to adopt and enforce ambitious building
energy codes.These code reforms should be designed to optimize
both new and existing building efficiency and environmental
performance. This includes encouraging maximum electrification inorder to phase out use of natural gas and fuel oil in buildings andappliances, water use reductions, or the use of low-GWP foams andrefrigerants. Until these new building codes are in place, states andcities can adopt building energy codes that go beyond the mostrecent energy codes and create finance mechanisms and funding
models to incentivize deep retrofits or retro commissioning ofexisting buildings. Additionally, the real estate sector can work withgovernment partners to promote the value of energy efficiency tohome and businesses buyers and sellers.

Transport
Transport, at 26 percent of total U.S. GHG emissions in 2015, is a significant
and growing carbon pollution source.151 In fact, according to the most recent
EIA data, CO2 emissions from the transport sector exceeded CO2 emissions
from the U.S. power sector in 2016.152 Beyond continued progress on vehicle
efficiency, for both light-duty and heavy-duty vehicles, the global movement
towards electrification of the sector along with private sector innovation may
unlock new opportunities to shift away from the dominance of fossil fuels intransportation energy. This in turn could establish the foundation for the rapid
decarbonization of the transport system—a transition which is being initiatedby non-federal actors, but will also require federal re-engagement to tackle
sectors like shipping and aviation that fall primarily under federal jurisdiction.
The rapid growth of zero emission and hybrid EV sales has the potential todramatically alter the emissions intensity of light-duty vehicles in the U.S.
and globally. Plug-in vehicles (including both electric and plug-in hybrid)currently represent only one percent of the total market, albeit as high as five
percent in California.153 EV sales are projected to accelerate in the coming
years (Figure 3-7), in large part as a result of the continued rapid decline inlithium-ion battery costs, projected to reach $73/kWh by 2030, a 93 percent
decrease from 2010 costs.154 ZEVs are expected to become cost-competitive
with conventional vehicles by 2026.155 General Motors, in announcing that it
would add 20 new electric models by 2020, also noted that “General Motors
believes in an all-electric future.” Ford promptly announced that would bring
13 new electric models to market.156

76 | AMERICA’S PLEDGE

Some businesses are also developing passenger vehicles powered byhydrogen, although this early commercialization is focused primarily in
California. Toyota released its fuel cell Mirai during the summer of 2015 in
California. It has a range of more than 300 miles and can be refueled infive minutes (compared to EVs, which take anywhere from 30 minutes tohours). It is also close to half the price of Tesla’s Model S. To help accelerate
investment in hydrogen vehicles, Toyota is offering its 5,680 fuel-cell patents
to competitors for free until 2020.157 Toyota also recently announced plansto release a smaller version of the Mirai in 2019 that is 20 percent cheaper.158
And, in September 2017, Mercedes-Benz announced it will be releasing aplug-in SUV (GLC F-CELL) that utilizes both an electric battery along with ahydrogen fuel cell in the U.S. by the end of 2019.159
Most current projections nevertheless put ZEVs at around 10 percent orless of annual vehicle sales by 2025,160 suggesting that battery and othertechnology and fuel cost declines alone will not be enough to transform thelight-duty vehicle market as quickly as needed.

37
FIGURE 3-7

PLUG-IN ELECTRIC VEHICLE SALES

U.S. Plug-in Electric Vehicle Sales Forecast

1,400,000

AEO 2017
Navigant (Base, estimated)

1,200,000

EEI/IEI Forecast

1,000,000

Barclays 2017 (Base)

800,000
600,000
400,000
Actual PEV Sales

200,000

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

0

Source: The Edison Foundation Institute for Electric Innovation and Edison Electric Institute.

1,400,000

AEO 2017
Navigant (Base, estimated)

The Changing U.S. Economy | 77

Among the other critical ingredients is the creation of early adopter markets,
such as in California, which can rapidly lower ZEV manufacturing costs
associated with scale. As previously noted, cities are starting to play a majorrole, as illustrated by the 30 U.S. cities which recently committed $10 billion topurchase over 110,00 electric vehicles for their municipal fleets.161
Another barrier that non-federal actors can help scale is charging andhydrogen fueling infrastructure. The most ambitious investment in getting
America’s highways ZEV-ready is coming not from the coasts, but from seven
Rocky Mountain and largely republican governors, who have launched a5,000 mile Canada-to-Mexico EV superhighway, arguing that the 20,000 EVs
registered in their states already warrant getting ready for the ZEV future.162
While ZEVs are significantly more efficient than fossil-fueled alternatives, torealize their full GHG emissions reduction potential, the electricity generation
capacity and/or hydrogen fuel production process must be transitioned to
low-carbon sources in parallel.
This report focuses on U.S. non-federal actors and market forces. But the
U.S. is not an island. If solar panels—or EV batteries—get cheaper becauseof global policy, technology or investment decisions—they will get cheaper in
the US as well. It was not American investment that drove the precipitous dropin the price of solar panels—it was German, Spanish, and Chinese policy andmarkets that created affordable roof-top solar in Arizona.163
Likewise, GM and Ford are not releasing dozens of new electric models
only because of U.S. demand—whether driven by Washington D.C., states orcities. They are responding to global forces. With the largest (China), fourthlargest (Germany) and sixth largest (India) vehicle manufacturing nations164
announcing they are going to phase out the internal combustion engine, andwith other countries like Britain and France joining in,165 the auto industry can
see their future is in EVs manufactured at scale.
Medium- and heavy-duty vehicles are also a large source of transport
emissions; according to the EPA, they were responsible for more than 23
percent of total transportation emissions in 2015.166 What’s more, freight
emissions are likely to increase going forward; the U.S. Department ofTransportation estimates that shipping (measured by freight-tons moved) willgrow by 40 percent by 2045.167 This is largely due to increased activity in thefreight sector and attendant increases in energy consumption since 1970 (witha dip in 2008 due to the recession) without a corresponding improvement inenergy efficiency.168
However, the private sector has recently made advances in technology that
improve trucking efficiency. This is particularly true in long-haul trucking, which
accounted for 23 percent of total transportation energy usage in 2014.169 For
example, North American Council for Freight Efficiency (NACFE) member

78 | AMERICA’S PLEDGE

companies improved their fleets’ performance to 7.11 miles per gallon (mpg)
on average in 2016, compared to the national average of 5.89 mpg. In the‘Run on Less’ roadshow organized by NACFE and the Carbon War Room,trucks operating in real-world conditions averaged more than 10 mpg.170 These
improvements are the result of a combination of federal and state programs
and advances in available technologies, and are an indication of the potential
for further efficiency improvements.

Opportunity to Step Up
More states, cities, and businesses adopt the full range of lightmedium- and heavy-duty vehicle emission reduction policies.
Transitioning to zero-emission vehicles represents an important
GHG emission reduction strategy in the transportation sector, due
to the lower GHG intensity of electricity (on average) compared topetroleum powered vehicles.171 Stronger ZEV mandates, incentives,
and R&D support for both passenger vehicles and medium- andheavy-duty busses and trucks will likely be needed at the statelevel. At the same time, state programs that support the rapid
development of EV recharging and hydrogen refueling stations willbe critical to the transformation of these sectors.
The Clean Air Act allows states to opt in to California’s
independently managed vehicle emission programs, creating an
opportunity for climate ambitious state governments to go further
in embracing a wide range of policies California has adopted—
particularly its Low Carbon Fuel Standard and Zero Emission Vehicle
Mandate. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory has estimatedthat if the ZEV mandate currently adopted by ten states was
adopted by all 50 states, it would translate to 16 million EVs on theroad in 2025, 6 percent of the projected fleet—and would save 50
MMT of CO2e in 2025.172
Even if a much smaller number of states adopted more ambitious
policies, they could help shift the national vehicle market. Stateswith current ZEV policies in place, for instance, represent nearly
one-third of the motor vehicle market. Securing even morerobust policies for ZEVs in that much of the market would lay
the groundwork for deeper transportation electrification anddecarbonization after 2020.
While cities lack the authority to require such mandates, they canencourage growth in the ZEV market share through joint purchaseprograms for their fleets, offering incentives for ZEV adoption bytaxi and ride-sharing industries, and financing or requiring the
deployment of charging infrastructure. Businesses and universities,
particularly large fleet operators, can purchase ZEVs and/or adopt

The Changing U.S. Economy | 79

highly efficient trucking technologies, while public utilities can offer
significant incentive programs and assist in deploying charging
infrastructure. Multiple cities, universities, and businesses partnering
together to procure ZEV fleets could send a strong demand signal
to vehicle manufacturers and encourage the development of evenmore ZEV options and technologies at greater scale and lower cost.

Industry
The diversity of the industrial sector presents both opportunities andchallenges in finding a path toward a lower carbon future. With projected
growth in the industrial sector, the challenge will be to offset that growth withaccelerated efficiency improvements, fuel switching, low carbon process
substitutes, electrification, and carbon capture. While the United States saw
a significant decrease in industrial activity during the 2008 economic crisis,
EIA projects that industrial sector demand (as measured in value of shipments
in 2009 dollars) will grow 25 percent by 2025 compared to 2015 levels.
Because of this, industrial sector GHG emissions are expected to increase 1.2
percent annually over the same time period.173
Of course, the total amount of energy consumed, and CO2 emitted fromindustry as a result of the expected increase in demand could be higher
or lower than these projections. This will depend on whether the sectortransitions to lower carbon fuels and adopts more efficient processes.
However, there are numerous barriers to the decarbonization of the U.S.
industrial sector. Some are technical—much of the climate pollution in this
sector is process emissions from the production of cement or steel—sosubstituting lower carbon fuels in these instances does not solve the problemof carbon in the raw material.
Other barriers are political and economic. Cities and states compete fiercely
for manufacturing plants, and are reluctant to set higher emission standards
than their neighbors. And much of U.S. manufacturing is exposed to fierce
competition from other countries, many with lower environmental standards.
While industrial emissions have received less attention from policymakers
than electricity or transportation, California broke new ground this year
when it passed “Buy Clean” legislation—the first anywhere requiring public
sector procurement for projects like highways and bridges to source
building materials like structural steel, rebar, and insulation that meet low
carbon intensity standards.174 Moreover, increasing proliferation of advanced
manufacturing practices, like automation, information and communication
technologies, and materials re-use/recycling, presents an opportunity for nonfederal engagement with the goal of not only continuing to lower emissions
intensity, but of reversing projected industrial CO2 emissions growth.

80 | AMERICA’S PLEDGE

Investment in the transformation of the industrial sector is lacking. Manyutilities focus on residential and commercial opportunities rather thanindustrial ones. While industrial electricity demand accounted for 32 percent
of total demand in 2016, utility spending on industrial efficiency programs
was only 5 percent of total spending.175 What’s more, efficiency gains and fuelswitching can only take the industrial sector so far towards decarbonizing.
The International Energy Agency notes the important role that carbon captureand storage (CCS) can play in reducing those GHG emissions that otherapproaches cannot tackle, although such technologies are not yet proven atcommercial scale.176

Opportunity to Step Up
Manufacturing industries work with state agencies and utilities
to boost efficiency and distributed generation. The U.S. industrial
sector is one of the most complex and difficult sectors todecarbonize. Energy efficiency offers one approach for the sector
that can enhance the competitiveness of industries that lower
emissions. In 2010, McKinsey and Company Analytics estimatedpotential U.S. industry sector energy efficiency savings of 18 percent
by 2020. The analysts projected that harvesting these gains would
require an estimated $113 billion investment, but that the benefit/
cost ratio would be 4:1.177 Collaboration to harvest these efficiency
gains is a major opportunity for states, cities, and businesses
to work together to develop next generation approaches toincreasing energy efficiency and reducing emissions. Working
together, key stakeholders can identify the right combination offinancing, regulation, and other support mechanisms that will enable
U.S. industries to electrify, upgrade facilities with more efficientequipment, source renewable energy, and use lower carbon
fuel sources and/or feedstocks. A potential early cooperation
opportunity might be for other states to adopt California’s
pioneering “Buy Clean” approach to ensure that their public-sector
infrastructure is built with low carbon intensity steel and insulation.

Hydrofluorocarbons
Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) are a small but rapidly growing component of U.S.
(and global) GHG emissions. These gases, commonly used as refrigerants,
foam-blowing agents, and aerosol propellants, are potent GHGs. The HFCs
that have the highest global warming potential (GWP) trap thousands oftimes the amount of heat as CO2 per ton emitted. Their use is on the risedue to the phase-out by 2030 of their ozone-depleting predecessors,hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs), under the Montreal Protocol. In 2016,
a decade-long effort to amend the Protocol to phase down HFCs came tofruition when the Kigali Amendment was adopted.178 Successful transition

The Changing U.S. Economy | 81

away from the HFCs specified by the Kigali Amendment will result in the
avoidance of 80 billion metric tons of CO2 equivalent by 2050 and some
0.5°C of warming by the end of the century.179
The Kigali Amendment was possible largely because manufacturers like
Honeywell, DuPont, and Arkema were already producing alternatives to
HFCs with low or zero GWP. They include “natural refrigerants” like CO2 andhydrocarbons, as well as synthetic alternatives with far lower GWP than the
HFCs typically used today. The shift away from HFCs is already underway withmany businesses transitioning to less HFC-reliant systems.180

Opportunity to Step Up
States, cities, and businesses create public private partnerships
and/or incentive programs to accelerate the phase down of HFC
use and emissions. States can adopt new legislation to ban sales
on high-GWP refrigerants in new equipment where lower-GWP
alternatives are available. States can also work with businesses todevelop refrigerant recycling and management programs that go
beyond current federal requirements and require leaks detected
at any level to be repaired. Such state initiatives do not have to beuniversally adopted to dramatically speed up the phase down of
HFCs. Once a sufficient share of the cooling or refrigeration market
is met with climate friendly refrigerants, the rest of the market will
shift to avoid manufacturing and supply chain fragmentation. And
the number of auto, air conditioning or refrigeration manufacturers
who must collaborate is relatively small. Ultimately, states, cities,
and businesses have the opportunity to work together to ensurethat new, affordable technologies are available to meet increasing
demand. Such collaboration can include R&D support to businesses
developing these technologies, internal commitments to low-GWP
equipment procurement, and grant or rebate programs for lowGWP products for homes, businesses, or plants. Lawrence Berkeley
National Laboratory estimated the benefits of such a faster shift to
low-GWP refrigerants could save 80 MMT of CO2e by 2025.181

MethaneMethane is a potent short-lived climate pollutant, with major sources including
the oil and gas industry, landfills, wastewater treatment, manure management,
and cattle. Methane is the primary component of natural gas, so controlling
methane emissions often brings net economic benefit if the methane iscaptured and used for fuel. States, cities, and businesses have been leading
the way in developing policies with the potential for creating a win-win
situation for climate and corporate bottom lines.

82 | AMERICA’S PLEDGE

Oil and natural gas systems
In the oil and gas industry, cost-effective technological solutions are available
to address major sources of methane emissions from natural gas production,
processing, and distribution. While these solutions would help businesses
prevent lost product, not all businesses proactively control these leaks.
This suggests that, even though states, cities, and companies are alreadycollaborating to address oil and natural gas leaks from existing infrastructure,additional opportunities are available. One example is the reluctance of manystate regulatory agencies to allow natural gas distribution companies to spend
the necessary funds to identify and repair methane leaks. These methaneleaks are charged to customers, and if sufficiently large, pose serious safety
hazards, but avoiding rate increases typically takes priority, making it difficult
for utilities to invest in upgrades.182
Approaches for addressing this problem include piloting advanced sensing
technologies and practices (e.g., leak detection and repair methods
developed by the Environmental Defense Fund and Google Earth Outreachin partnership with gas distribution utilities).183 Special focus should be inurban areas, where less progress has been made to address methane leaks
in natural gas distribution equipment systems, especially in Northeastern andMidwestern cities with older, leakier pipes.

Landfills, wastewater treatment plants, and manure
management
Methane emissions can be captured from landfills, wastewater treatment
plants, and agricultural sources. Renewable natural gas (RNG) can beproduced from raw biogas generated by these sources. Relatively few
projects currently produce RNG for fuel, but the RNG market has significant
potential for growth with the resource base already available from food waste,
landfills, farms, and wastewater treatment plants. Plentiful waste resources
are currently available where biogas is already being produced or could
potentially be produced and collected.184
While biogas generated from anaerobic decomposition of organic wastematerials is still a small market, cities and towns are leading in ensuring thatas it comes to market, it finds buyers. Los Angeles for example, has signed
contracts with Clean Energy Fuels to power its natural gas buses with CEF’s
biofuels feedstocks originating from the city’s garbage.185
Keeping food waste out of landfills can also help reduce methane emissions.
An estimated 52 million tons of food is sent to landfills annually, accountingfor 21 percent of landfill volume.186 The multi-stakeholder nonprofit ReFED
recently estimated that if fully implemented, food waste solutions could
generate $10 billion of economic value, save 1.8 billion meals, save 1.6 trillion
gallons of water, generate $1.9 billion business profit potential, and reduce 18
MMT CO2e annually.187

The Changing U.S. Economy | 83

Opportunity to Step Up
States and cities work with businesses to capture more methane at
landfills and dairy farms. While methane is already being captured
at nearly 250 livestock farms and 650 landfills, EPA estimates that
there are about 400 landfills that are suitable for waste from landfill
to gas projects188 and 8,000 additional dairy and hog farms thatare technically able to implement biogas recovery systems.189 At
the same time, California’s state policy calls for a diversion of 75
percent of waste from landfills by 2020, a goal other states or cities
could emulate.
Collaborative public private partnerships could be a key tomotivating more cities and states to follow California’s lead, so
businesses can play a major role here as well. Specifically, major
distributors and retailers of food and dairy products could green
their supply chains by assisting dairies and other producers to
reduce their methane footprints, or by supporting cities and states
to reduce food waste and divert remaining organic waste streams
from landfills to climate friendly disposal technologies like anaerobic
digestion and composting.
Relatively few projects currently produce RNG for fuel, giving nonfederal actors the opportunity to take advantage of this market
potential. To do this, more states can provide grants or rebates
for landfill gas to energy projects and work with municipal andprivate landfill owners to reduce other barriers to implementation.
At the same time, scaling the adoption of zero waste goals at thestate, city, and corporate level can help reduce the amount ofwaste sent to landfills to begin with. States can also support theuptake of anaerobic digesters in the dairy industry through financial
assistance for digester installation as well as incentivizing researchand development of other methods to reduce methane emissions
from livestock.

Carbon Pricing
In addition to the sector and source specific discussions above, a key elementof climate policy is putting a price on carbon to send a clear economic signal
to reduce emissions. While a national, economy-wide cap-and-trade systemor carbon tax would provide a consistent, national price signal, states havealready blazed the trail in establishing cap-and-trade systems. As discussed
above, California has created an economy-wide cap-and-trade program andis linked with the Canadian provinces of Quebec and Ontario, while nine
northeastern states have joined the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI)
cap-and-trade program to cut emissions from the generation of electricity. If
more states were to step up on carbon pricing, more of the country would be84 | AMERICA’S PLEDGE

covered by a carbon price that would internalize the costs of carbon pollution,and these programs could potentially link or converge over time.

Opportunity to Step Up
States join together and adopt robust carbon pricing policies.
While states can adopt their own policies, they can also join
existing markets, such California’s market with Quebec andOntario, or RGGI. Existing carbon markets can also expand beyond
currently covered sectors to include emissions from transportation,
currently in place or not, more businesses can adopt their own
internal carbon pricing plans to help manage climate risk in theiroperations and push for further consistency across non-federal
carbon pricing programs.

The Changing U.S. Economy | 85

STILL IN

Austin and San Diego
Austin, Texas, and San Diego, California, boast some of the most ambitious
renewable and clean energy goals in the nation. In August 2017, the Austin
City Council voted to get the city running on 65 percent renewable energy
by 2027, an increase from the previous goal, set in 2014, to implement 55
percent renewables by 2025.a In 2015, San Diego, the country’s eighth-largest
city, became the biggest to aim for 100 percent renewable electricity.b The
target is included in the city’s Climate Action Plan, which vows to reduce GHG
emissions by half by 2035 and by 80 percent by 2050.c

Notes

The cities anticipate economic and community benefits from their assertive
action on environmental goals. A study by nonprofit and university
researchers shows that Austin’s “clean technology” industry contributes $2.5
billion to Austin’s regional GDP, is responsible for 20,000 area jobs, and is
projected to grow by 11 percent by 2020, fueling continued economic growthand creating even more jobs.d In San Diego, the city council identified several
co-benefits of increasing energy sustainability, including cementing the city’s
leadership role in clean technology industries, promoting active transportation
and rapid transit systems, and increasing demand for workers in high-growth“green” industries.c

e	

a	

Robert Walton, “Austin Energy targets
65% renewables by 2027,” Utility Dive,
August 21, 2017.

b	Matt Richtel, “San Diego Vows to Move
Entirely to Renewable Energy in 20
Years,” The New York Times, December
15, 2015.

c	“Climate Action Plan,” City of San Diego,
2015.
Kathleen Baireuther, Ryan Field, Brian
Kelsey, Mitch Jacobson, John King, andHelen Brauner, “Economic Impact of the
Cleantech Sector In The Austin-Round
Rock-San Marcos MSA,” CleanTX, Civic
Analytics, Austin Technology Incubator,
2015.

86 | AMERICA’S PLEDGE

STILL IN

Photo by: Julienne Schaer

New York City
Notes
a	

Brady Dennis and Kayla Epstein,“New York’s buildings emit most of its
greenhouse gases. The mayor has aplan to change that.” The Washington
Post, September 13, 2017.

b	

“Mayor de Blasio: NYC Will Be First
City to Mandate that Existing Buildings
Dramatically Cut Greenhouse Gas
Emissions,” Office of the Mayor, City of
New York, September 14, 2017.

New York City will be the first city to set greenhouse gas emissions standards
for existing buildings, a path-breaking move that positions the Big Apple as anational climate leader.a All buildings larger than 25,000 square feet will now
be held to fossil fuel caps, with violators facing financial penalties and denialof permits for major renovations. Almost a quarter of the city’s GHG emissions
come from approximately 14,500 buildings, which can burn up to four times
more fossil fuel than more energy-efficient ones. Retrofitting these buildings
with upgraded insulation, windows, heating and cooling systems, and otherequipment could create as many as 17,000 new “green” jobs.bc	

“Cities adopt the Paris Climate
Agreement Goals,” Climate Mayors, 2017.

In June, New York City reaffirmed its commitment to the Paris Agreement,with Mayor Bill de Blasio joining the 383-member group of Climate Mayors.c
Building on New York City’s “80x50” plan to reduce emissions by 80 percent
over 2005 levels by 2050, the city in September finalized and released theworld’s first city plan to limit emissions in line with the Paris Agreement’s
1.5 degree Celsius target. City officials anticipate that upgrading the city’s
most inefficient buildings will alone contribute to that goal by reducing total
greenhouse emissions by 7 percent over 2005 levels by 2035.

The Changing U.S. Economy | 87

STILL IN

Tesla
Tesla’s mission is to accelerate the world’s transition to sustainableenergy. The company produces the safest vehicles on the road, solar panels
and roof tiles, and the most advanced storage technology in the world. Tesla’s
Gigafactory 1 in Nevada will rival the battery-production power of the entire
globe and contributes to the over 30,000 US jobs Tesla has already created.a
Tesla has outspent the rest of the auto industry combined on charging
infrastructure, with over 1,000 Supercharger Stations and more than 6,500
individual chargers. By making significant advances in battery technology
and manufacturing, Tesla has realized reductions in battery costs of over
77% in less than 10 years. Tesla is also the largest rooftop installer in the US
and when fully operational, Gigafactory 2 in Buffalo will be the largest solar
manufacturing facility in the western hemisphere.

NotesaTesla Gigafactory, Tesla.

88 | AMERICA’S PLEDGE

Citi
Notes
a	

A Commitment to Sustainability, Citigroup
Inc., 2017.

Citi has been outspoken in its support for the U.S. to remain in the Paris
Agreement, having established a long track record of financing low-carbon
projects while also reducing the climate impact of its own operations.a Citi
continues to make progress on its ten-year $100 Billion Environmental
Finance Goal, with $53.3 billion in financing committed in the first three anda half years. Key milestones have included its support of Deepwater Wind’s
30MW Block Island Wind Farm, the first offshore wind farm in the U.S., andunderwriting the first-ever asset-backed green bond for the auto industry for
Toyota Motor Credit Corporation.
Citi continues to leverage products and expertise to support sustainableinfrastructure and cities, including underwriting municipal bonds to support
an array of improvements in sustainable transportation and water programs.
Through a partnership with the World Resources Institute Ross Center and
C40 Cities, the Citi Foundation supports the Financing Sustainable Cities
Initiative, focused on identifying new finance strategies that accelerate
sustainable urban solutions and climate resilience.
For its own operations, Citi has 2020 targets to reduce energy and water
use by 30%, and waste to landfill by 60% against a 2005 baseline. This
September, Citi committed to powering its global operations with 100%
renewable energy by 2020, a goal which Citi intends to fulfill by leveraging
the expertise of its businesses and clients.

The Changing U.S. Economy | 89

90 | AMERICA’S PLEDGE

Conclusion | 91

Conclusion:
Next Steps for Fulfilling
America’s Pledge

In November 2016 the Obama Administration released the United States MidCentury Strategy for Deep Decarbonization report. Reflecting on the major
progress of the preceding years, the report noted that the United States hadlaid “the foundation to reach its 2025 target (26-28 percent reductions by2025).”190 However, U.S. domestic and foreign policy developments in 2017
have threatened to crack that foundation, and it is natural for the rest of theworld to wonder whether America’s pledge on climate action can be fulfilled.
As this Phase 1 Report has sought to demonstrate, commitment to climate
action is growing across an increasing swath of America. States, cities, andbusinesses constituting more than half of the U.S. economy have mobilized
behind the U.S. pledge under the Paris Agreement. An even larger subset ofAmerican cities, states and companies are taking concrete actions that reduce
GHG emissions. They are embracing ZEVs, building efficiency upgrades,
renewable energy use, and a host of other low-carbon technologies.
At the same time, the low-carbon transition is taking off in several key market
sectors. Falling clean technology prices, emerging innovations, and actions
by states, cities, and businesses have helped reduce U.S. net GHG emissions
by 11.5 percent between 2005 and 2015 while the economy grew by 15
percent over that period. However, currently committed non-federal efforts
are not sufficient on their own to meet the U.S. commitment under the Paris
Agreement to reduce emissions 26-28 percent below 2005 levels. While
there is still a long way to go, non-federal actors can utilize the authority
they have to take on additional climate-friendly measures. Doing so will
help maintain momentum toward meeting America’s pledge under the Paris
Agreement.

92 | AMERICA’S PLEDGE

Future Analysis: America’s Pledge Phase 2
Building on the actions and market trends identified in this report, theAmerica’s Pledge initiative will develop a more comprehensive analysis
focusing on bottom-up non-federal contributions to 2025 U.S. emissions
outcomes, to be published in a Phase 2 Report in 2018. This analysis willassess the role that non-federal action can play in helping to achieve
America’s pledge under the Paris Agreement, including the environmental
and economic implications of current actions, pledges of future action by nonfederal actors, and the implications of more ambition from multiple sectors
and jurisdictions across the U.S. economy. We will aim to present this workin ways that help non-federal actors understand the impacts of their actions
to date and their options and best opportunities for further climate action,
in hopes of catalyzing further ambition and accelerated, near-term GHG
emissions abatement.
In approaching this work, America’s Pledge will explicitly address a numberof challenges. First is the uncertainty regarding major macroeconomic
trends (such as GDP growth) and energy market trends (such as the priceof natural gas, which fluctuates almost entirely independently of climate
policy decisions). Carbon sequestration by forests and other land uses
introduces another large element of uncertainty. The Rhodium Groupconsidered these uncertainties in their Taking Stock report. It concluded that,
before considering policy changes, U.S. 2025 net GHG emissions could be
anywhere from 13 to 23 percent below 2005 levels, with the wide variability
largely reflecting the uncertainty around emissions trajectories in the naturaland working lands sector.191
Interest in understanding how non-federal actors can meaningfully contributeto climate action is neither unique to the U.S. nor new to this initiative. In
approaching our work in 2018, America’s Pledge will work in partnership withboth U.S. and international institutions to develop a consistent methodology
for aggregating, quantifying and reporting non-national climate actions. For
this work, we intend to look to existing standards (such as the Greenhouse
Gas Protocol’s Policy and Action Standard),192 new guidance that is being
developed (for example, through the global Initiative for Climate Action
Transparency),193 and similar efforts to track non-federal efforts globally (suchas the Non-State Actors Zone for Climate Action, or NAZCA).194

Conclusion | 93

Future Action: Accelerating Progress Towards
Deep Decarbonization
President Trump’s decision to withdraw from the Paris Agreement has
galvanized a wide range of international and domestic non-national leaders
who are eager to achieve emissions reductions targets, develop more
ambitious climate plans to accelerate action, and keep the world on track to
avoiding dangerous and irreversible climate change.
While non-federal policies cannot entirely replace federal climate action,states, cities, businesses, and others can use their explicit authority to
act on their own in many areas. Existing non-federal policies and actions
have already helped to shape market trends, accelerate technologicaldevelopments, and contribute to the decarbonization of the U.S. economy.
And now states, cities, businesses, and other non-federal actors aredemonstrating a willingness to do more. In the U.S., non-federal actors arecontinually stepping up to the task, making significant commitments to reduce
GHG emissions, and implementing actions tailored to their unique capabilities
and circumstances.
In the course of our work over 2018, the America’s Pledge initiative will workwith a variety of partners not only to quantify the potential of U.S. non-federal
action toward further climate progress, but also to provide a menu of options(a “roadmap”) for how strategic, coordinated and sustained non-federal action
can help keep the U.S. on track to achieve deep decarbonization in line withour country’s current pledge under the Paris Agreement.
The number of states, cities, businesses and other non-federal actors thathave committed to delivering on the Paris Agreement signals the continued
momentum of the low-carbon transition in the U.S., building on what has
already happened over the last decade. Strengthening and accelerating thatmomentum will be an essential basis for the re-engagement of the federal
government on climate and clean energy policy in the future.

94 | AMERICA’S PLEDGE

Appendix A | 95

Appendix A
Data And Methodology: Networks Supporting
the Paris Agreement and Non-Federal Entitites
with GHG Targets

This appendix describes the methodology and provides the numeric
results underlying Figures ES-1 and ES-2, which depict the population, GDP,and emissions of 1) networks of non-federal entities supporting the Paris
Agreement, and 2) non-federal entities with GHG targets. Unless otherwise
noted, these figures contain no missing values. This data was collectedby CDP (formerly Carbon Disclosure Project), and the methodology wasdeveloped jointly by CDP, RMI, and WRI for America’s Pledge.

Support for the Paris Agreement
This portion of the analysis documents the scope of coalitions formed
explicitly to support the objectives of the Paris Agreement. While several
coalitions undertake activities in line with the targets and objectives of theParis Agreement, three coalitions have formed explicitly to demonstratenon-federal commitment to the Agreement. Two of these coalitions—We Are
Still In and The Climate Alliance—were formed immediately following theannouncement of President Trump’s intent to withdraw from the Agreement.
The third—U.S. Climate Mayors—was formed upon the adoption of theAgreement in December 2015 (see Tables A-1 and A-2 on page 96).

96 | AMERICA’S PLEDGE

TABLE A-1
U.S. Non-Federal Networks Supporting the Paris Agreement

Numberof Entities

2

GDP & Percent
of U.S. Total (2016)

Current GHG Emissions& Percent of U.S. Total(2016)

2,3201

131 million

40%$8.5 trillion

45%

1.8 Gt CO2e

27%

U.S. Climate
Alliance

14 states
plus Puerto
Rico

118 million

36%$7.6 trillion

40%

1.5 Gt CO2e

23%

U.S. Climate
Mayors383 cities

74 million

23%$5.0 trillion

27%

1.0 Gt CO2e15%

Total States& Cities2

470 cities
and states(including
Puerto Rico)

159 million

49%$10.1 trillion

54%

2.3 Gt CO2e

35%

We AreStill In

1

Population & Percent
of U.S. Total (2016)

9 states, 239 cities and counties, 1747 businesses, and 325 universities
This row shows the number, population, GDP, and emissions of states and cities that are part of at least one coalition. Each entity is counted only once,and coalition cities within coalition states or coalition counties are subtracted to account for double counting. This row does not equal the sum of the first
three rows.

TABLE A-2
Types of Entities Included in Each Cell of Table A-1

We AreStill In

Number of Entities

Population, GDP
and GHG Emissions

States, cities, businesses anduniversities

States and cities(corrected for double counting
as described below)

States plus Puerto Rico

States plus Puerto Rico

CitiesCitiesU.S. Climate
Alliance
U.S. Climate
MayorsTotal States& Cities

States plus Puerto Ricoand cities

States plus Puerto Rico andcities (corrected for double
counting as described below)

U.S. Totals for Calculating
Percentages

For population and GDP:
Total for all 50 states,
District of Columbia
and Puerto Rico
For GHG emissions:
Total for all 50 states,
District of Columbia
and territories

Appendix A | 97

Number of Entities: Sum of the number of entities in each coalition as of
October 1, 2017. In the remainder of the discussion of the methodology for
networks supporting the Paris Agreement, “states” includes Puerto Rico. “Total
States & Cities” aggregates the number of states and cities that are part ofleast one coalition. This number is not corrected for double counting – forexample, both Duluth (a WASI city) and Minnesota (a U.S. Climate Alliancestate) are included in the total.
Sources: We Are Still In, U.S. Climate Alliance, U.S. Climate Mayors.

Population: Sum of 2016 U.S. Census data for entities in each coalition.
Percent of U.S. total calculated based on total U.S. population (including theDistrict of Columbia and all territories) in 2016. The following adjustments weremade to avoid double counting:
WASI population includes states and cities only, and does not include
population of WASI cities within WASI states, or WASI cities within acounty that has also joined WASI.
“Total States & Cities” aggregates the population of states and cities thatare part of least one coalition, adjusting for double counting by excluding
totals for cities located in states in either WASI or the U.S. Climate
Alliance. For example, because Minnesota is in the U.S. Climate Alliance,
Duluth’s population is not added to the total.
Source: U.S. Census 2016, U.S. Census Cities 2016.

GDP: For states, sum of 2016 Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) data, andfor cities, sum of estimates based on BEA 2016 data. Cities GDP estimatedfor all cities with population above 10,000 by multiplying the GDP of thecorresponding metropolitan statistical area (MSA) by the ratio of city
population to MSA population. This provides a reasonable approximationof city-level GDP, and is more appropriate to use than GDP for the full MSA.
Percent of U.S. total calculated based on total U.S. GDP (including the Districtof Columbia and all territories) in 2016. The following adjustments were madeto avoid double counting:
WASI GDP includes states and cities only, and does not include the GDP
of WASI cities within WASI states, or WASI cities within a county that has
also joined WASI.
“Total States & Cities” aggregates the GDP of states and cities that arepart of least one coalition, adjusting for double counting by excluding
totals for cities located in counties or states in either WASI or the U.S.

98 | AMERICA’S PLEDGE

Climate Alliance. For example, because Minnesota is in the U.S. Climate
Alliance, Duluth’s estimated GDP is not added to the total.

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis “Gross Domestic Product byMetropolitan Area, 2016”.

Emissions: Sum of 2016 gross emissions where available and estimated 2016
gross emissions for entities in each coalition. Percent of U.S. total calculated
based on EPA U.S. gross emissions (including the District of Columbia and all
territories) in 2015 (most recent available year).
State emissions were estimated based on the World Resources Institute’s
CAIT Climate Data Explorer 2014 data, which were adjusted to 2016 figures bymeasuring year-on-year sectoral changes at the national level (based on EPA
Inventory of U.S. GHG Emissions and Sinks data for non-electricity sectors and
EIA Monthly Energy Review data for the electricity sector) and extrapolating to
the state level.
City emissions data are for 2016 and were sourced first from CDP 2016
and 2017 cities questionnaires, and second from the carbonn registry foremissions reported from 2010–2017 where CDP data were unavailable.
Where reported data were unavailable, estimates for city emissions were
calculated by multiplying the adjusted WRI CAIT state emissions data by theratio of city to state population.
The following adjustments were made to avoid double counting:
WASI emissions includes states and cities only, and subtracts WASI cities
within WASI states or counties to correct for double counting.
“Total States & Cities” aggregates the total emissions of states and cities
that are part of least one coalition, adjusting for double counting by
excluding totals for cities located in counties or states in either WASI or
the U.S. Climate Alliance. For example, because Minnesota is in the U.S.
Climate Alliance, Duluth’s estimated emissions are not added to the total.
Sources: CDP Cities Questionnaire 2016 and 2017; carbonn “Reporting Entities”, 2010-2017; World
Resources Institute CAIT Climate Data Explorer; U.S. EPA “Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions
and Sinks: 1990-2015,” April 2017; U.S. EIA, “Monthly Energy Review,” September 2017.

Appendix A | 99

GHG Emission Reduction Targets
This portion of the analysis documents the number of non-federal entities thathave enacted GHG targets. These targets, while numerous, vary in terms oflevel of ambition and therefore magnitude of expected emission reductions.
Many are voluntary and could be dropped with little consequence, and others
adopted under previous political administrations may already be inactive.
In this initial analysis, we have taken an inclusive approach by including allentities that have registered a GHG target. Future analyses from America’s
Pledge will rely on best practice for quantifying the potential impact of thesetargets. Specifically, future analyses will look to existing methodologies (suchas the Non-State and Non-federal Action Guidance developed through theInitiative for Climate Action Transparency, and the Greenhouse Gas Protocol
Mitigation Goal Standard and Policy and Action Standard) for assessing theimpact of various actions on GHG emissions.

TABLE A-3
U.S. Non-Federal Entities with GHG Targets

Number of
Entities

Population andPercent of U.S.
Population (2016)

GDP and Percent
of U.S. GDP(2016)

Global Market Emissions andCapitalization Percent of U.S.
emissions (2016)

States20

165
million51%$10
trillion

54%-

2.3 GtCO2e

35%

Cities110

51
million16%$3.6
trillion

19%-0.59 Gt
CO2e

9%Businesses

1361

-

-

-

-

$25 trillion

1.0 GtCO2e

14%

Universities

587

5.1
million

-

-

-

-

27
milliontCO2e-

Total States& Cities

130

182
million56%$11.2
trillion60%-

2.6 Gt39%

100 | AMERICA’S PLEDGE

Number of Entities: For states, count of entities that have publicly announced
or recorded a GHG emissions target through CDP, C2ES, or Under2MOU. For
cities, count of entities that have recorded or announced a GHG emissions
target through CDP, Under2MOU, carbonn, or ACEEE. For businesses, countof entities that have reported both emissions in the U.S. and a climate action
through CDP, Science-Based Targets Initiative, or CDP’s Power Forward 3.0
report. For universities, count of universities that have announced or recordeda GHG emissions target through Second Nature. “Total States & Cities”
aggregates the number of states and cities that have adopted a GHG target.
Sources: CDP Cities Questionnaire 2016 and 2017; Center for Climate and Energy Solutions, “Greenhouse
Gas Emissions Targets,” September 2016; “Under 2 Coalition” 2017; carbonn “Reporting Entities” 20102017; American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy “State and Local Policy Database” 2017; Science
Based Targets “Companies Taking Action” 2017; CDP Power Forward 3.0; Second Nature Climate
Leadership Commitments 2016.

Population: For cities and states, same method and sources as used to
calculate population for networks supporting the Paris Agreement. For
universities, population data were based on enrollment data from Second
Nature’s Climate Leadership Commitments reporting for 2016.
“Total States & Cities” aggregates the population of states and cities thathave adopted a GHG target, adjusting for double counting by excluding
cities with targets located in a state that also has a target.
Sources: U.S. Census 2016, U.S. Census Cities 2016, Second Nature Climate Leadership Commitments
2016.

GDP: For states, same method and sources as used to calculate GDP for
networks supporting the Paris Agreement. For cities, sum of estimated GDP
for cities with a population greater than 10,000 (107 of 110 cities) based on thesame method and sources as used to calculate GDP for networks supporting
the Paris Agreement.
“Total States & Cities” aggregates the GDP of states and cities that haveadopted a GHG target, adjusting for double counting by excluding cities
with targets located in a state that also has a target.
Sources: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis “Gross Domestic Product byMetropolitan Area, 2016”.

Market Capitalization: Sum of the most recent market capitalization figuresavailable through Bloomberg Terminal for all businesses reporting emissions
in the U.S. This figure captures 907 of 1361 actors, with most of the missing

Appendix A | 101

values from private or subsidiary companies. These figures are not localized
and represent the total market capitalization of companies’ global operations.
Source: Bloomberg, Q1 2016 – Q3 2017.

Emissions: For states and cities, same method and sources as used to
calculate emissions for networks supporting the Paris Agreement. Note thatin the report, combined state and city emissions are shown as 2.7 Gt or 40
percent of U.S. emissions; the 2.6 Gt and 39 percent figures in this appendix
reflect corrections after the report went to print and are the most up-to-date
data. For businesses, emissions include scope 1 emissions for the U.S. only,
based on 2016 and 2017 CDP response data. Business emissions figures areincluded for 1141 of 1361 companies. Note that the report references businessemissions of 0.9 Gt, which reflects emissions for U.S. based companies only.
For universities, emissions data are based on Second Nature reporting.
“Total States & Cities” aggregates the population of states and cities thathave adopted a GHG target, adjusting for double counting by excluding
cities with targets located in a state that also has a target.
Sources: CDP Cities Questionnaire 2016 and 2017; carbonn “Reporting Entities”, 2010-2017; World
Resources Institute CAIT Climate Data Explorer; U.S. EPA “Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions
and Sinks: 1990-2015,” April 2017; U.S. EIA, “Monthly Energy Review,” September 2017; Second Nature
Climate Leadership Commitments 2016.

102 | AMERICA’S PLEDGE

Appendix B | 103

Appendix B
Broader Role of Non-Federal Action
In Driving Down U.S. GHG Emissions:
Methodology and Limitations

As noted in Chapter 2, a number of states, cities, and businesses havealready adopted a wide range of actions to help achieve their GHG targets.
Many others are taking actions that can also help reduce GHG emissions,even if they are not always enacted with climate change in mind. This chapter
aimed to highlight climate-friendly actions—policies and actions taken
explicitly for the purposes of achieving GHG reductions as well as actions
that indirectly lower emissions through promoting a cleaner, more efficienteconomy—and illustrate the scope of their adoption.
To do this, we examined what types of measures, if any, are being adopted
by states, cities, and businesses that help address the largest GHG emission
sources: electricity generation; transportation; industrial, commercial, andresidential energy use; methane sources; and hydrofluorocarbon (HFC)leakage (see Figure B-1 on page 104). We also examined actions being takenthat can help increase the carbon sink, such as improving forest health.
For this initial America’s Pledge report, our aim was to provide an initial senseof the range of climate-friendly actions that states, cities, and businesses havealready started to take. Because these lists of actions are intended to illustrate
the range of non-federal activities under way, and we have not conductedanalysis of the effectiveness of the actions, inclusion of actions in our list
should not be deemed as an endorsement.

104 | AMERICA’S PLEDGE

FIGURE B-1
U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions by Source (2015)

29% Electricity Generation

26% Transportation

12% Industrial Energy Use

11% Other

10% Methane Sources

9% Commercial and
Residential Building Energy Use

3% HFC Emission Sources

Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2015				

For each major sector or emission source, we consulted several different
sources that track energy and climate policy adoption for non-federal entities.
These sources include federal agencies, non-governmental organizations(NGOs), and state, city, and business-specific agencies or organizations. It is
important to note the limitations of this analysis. Specifically, we did not
aim to:Identify all actions that are being taken. The policies and actions
highlighted are not intended to be exhaustive. The list for each nonfederal entity represents just a subset of all climate-friendly actions thatare underway.
Identify the actions that have the largest GHG emission reduction
potential. The number of non-federal entities adopting of each policy
we examined does not necessarily equate to GHG emission reductions.
For example, a city may adopt a GHG emission reduction target, but that
does not necessarily mean it will be achieved over the stated time period.

Appendix B | 105

Also, a state may offer financial incentives for the purchase of zeroemission vehicles, but that does not necessarily mean that they will bepurchased by households and businesses that are in the market for new
vehicles.
Differentiate between commitments and actions. The examples
of climate-friendly actions that we include in this analysis does notnecessarily distinguish between legally binding targets (i.e. approved by astate legislature or city council) and non-binding “goals,” unless explicitly
stated.
Identify actions that could be inhibiting climate action. This analysis
does not assess “unfriendly climate actions” that states, cities, andbusinesses have adopted that may result in increasing GHG emissions.
In the next phase of America’s Pledge through 2018, we plan to build on
this list, aggregate the GHG impact of these actions (where possible), andmodel the potential for increased ambition. Note, it is possible that this future
analysis finds that many of these policies overlap and/or interact in a way that
do not lead to unique GHG emission reductions.
Below, we outline some more specific limitations and assumptions andlimitations around our current analysis for states, cities, and companies, alongwith the data sources we used to collect the adoption status for each nonfederal entity.

StatesFor states, we aimed to identify at least one action for each of the major
emission sources that has been adopted by at least one state. Our initialresearch resulted in a selection of 30 policies that showcase the range ofactions that states are taking, as summarized below. We acknowledge this list
is limited, and intend to conduct a more thorough literature review and expert
consultation to identify additional actions that states are taking, or could taketo scale their ambition.

Sources for Climate-Friendly State Actions
GHG Target / Cap
GHG Emission Targets: Center for Climate and Energy Solutions,“Climate Programs and Policy Maps,” https://www.c2es.org/us-states-regions#states106 | AMERICA’S PLEDGE

Carbon pricing: Center for Climate and Energy Solutions, “Climate Programs and Policy Maps,” https://www.c2es.org/us-states-regions#states

Renewable / CCS / Nuclear
Renewable energy portfolio standards or goals: Center for Climate andEnergy Solutions, “Climate Programs and Policy Maps,” https://www.c2es.
org/us-states-regions#states
Property Assessed Clean Energy: PACE Nation, “PACE Programs,” http://pacenation.us/pace-programs/
Financial incentives for CCS: Center for Climate and Energy Solutions,“CCS financial incentives,” https://www.c2es.org/us-states-regions/policy-maps/ccs-financial-incentives
Zero-emission credits for nuclear: National Conference of State Legislatures, “State Action In Support Of Nuclear Generation,” http://www.ncsl.
org/research/energy/state-action-in-support-of-nuclear-generation.aspx

Transport
Efficient vehicle requirement for public fleet procurement: American
Council for an Energy Efficient Economy, “State Efficiency Scorecard
2017,” http://aceee.org/state-policy/scorecard
Integrating transportation & land-use in comprehensive plans: American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy, “State Efficiency Scorecard
2017,” http://aceee.org/state-policy/scorecard
Dedicated funding streams for public transit: American Council for an
Energy Efficient Economy, “State Efficiency Scorecard 2017,” http://aceee.
org/state-policy/scorecard
Adopting legislation in line with Complete Streets objectives: American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy, “State Efficiency Scorecard
2017,” http://aceee.org/state-policy/scorecard
Financial incentives for high efficiency vehicles: American Council for an
Energy Efficient Economy, “State Efficiency Scorecard 2017,” http://aceee.
org/state-policy/scorecard
California’s vehicle emission standards: Center for Climate and Energy
Solutions, “ZEV Program,” https://www.c2es.org/us-states-regions/policy-maps/zev-programAppendix B | 107

Freight plan with multimodal freight strategies: American Council for an
Energy Efficient Economy, “State Efficiency Scorecard 2017,” http://aceee.
org/state-policy/scorecard
Zero Emission Vehicle mandate: Center for Climate and Energy Solutions, “ZEV Program,” https://www.c2es.org/us-states-regions/policy-maps/zev-program
Low carbon fuel standard: Center for Climate and Energy Solutions,“Low Carbon Fuel Standard,” https://www.c2es.org/us-states-regions/policy-maps/low-carbon-fuel-standard
Freight-specific energy efficiency performance metrics: American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy, “State Efficiency Scorecard 2017,”
http://aceee.org/state-policy/scorecard

Energy Efficiency
Combined heat and power financing and incentives: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “dCHPP (CHP Policies and Incentives Database),”https://www.epa.gov/chp/dchpp-chp-policies-and-incentives-database
Energy efficiency resource standard or goals: Center for Climate andEnergy Solutions, “Climate Programs and Policy Maps,” https://www.c2es.
org/us-states-regions#states
Most recent building energy codes: U.S. Department of Energy, “Statusof State Energy Code Adoption,” https://www.energycodes.gov/status-state-energy-code-adoption
Appliance and equipment energy efficiency standards: ApplianceStandards Awareness Project, “State Adoption of Energy Efficiency Standards,” https://appliance-standards.org/states#states-table

MethaneLandfill gas energy project bond, grant, loan, or rebate programs: Open
EI, “List of Landfill Gas Incentives,” https://openei.org/wiki/List_of_Landfill_Gas_Incentives
Rules and incentives to reduce food waste: ReFED, “U.S. Food Waste
Policy Finder,” http://www.refed.com/tools/food-waste-policy-finder/
Coal mine methane standards: National Conference of State Legislatures, “State Methane Policies,” http://www.ncsl.org/research/environment-and-natural-resources/state-methane-policies.aspx

108 | AMERICA’S PLEDGE

Methane standards for existing oil and natural gas facilities: World
Resources Institute, “Reducing Methane Emissions from Natural Gas Development: Strategies for State-level Policymakers,” https://www.wri.org/
sites/default/files/reducing-methane-us-working-paper.pdf
Setting methane emission reduction targets: State of New York, “Methane Reduction Plan,” http://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/administration_pdf/
mrpfinal.pdf; California Air Resources Board, “Short-Lived Climate Pollutant Strategy,” https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/shortlived/meetings/03142017/
final_slcp_report.pdf

HFCs
HFC management program requiring all leaks to be repaired: California Air Resources Board, “Short-Lived Climate Pollutant Strategy,” https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/shortlived/meetings/03142017/final_slcp_report.pdf

Forestry & Land Use
Property tax programs to support sustainable forests: University of Minnesota, “State Property Tax Programs in the United States: A Review and
Evaluation of Incentives for Promoting Ecosystem Services from Private
Forestland” https://www.forestry.umn.edu/sites/forestry.umn.edu/files/
staff_paper_242_kilgore_ellefson_funk_frey_12-12-2016.pdf
Conservation easement tax credits: Land Trust Alliance, “Income Tax Incentives for Land Conservation,” https://www.landtrustalliance.org/topics/
taxes/income-tax-incentives-land-conservation
Cost-sharing programs to improve forest systems: U.S. Department ofAgriculture, “Forest Incentive Programs Available from State Sources,”
https://www.srs.fs.usda.gov/econ/data/forestincentives/state.htm
Wildfire protection incentives: U.S. Department of Agriculture, “Forest
Incentive Programs Available from State Sources,” https://www.srs.fs.usda.
gov/econ/data/forestincentives/state.htm

CitiesTo examine what types of actions cities are adopting to help address GHG
emissions, we used ACEEE’s most recent biennial city scorecard, whichreflects existing policy data as of January 31, 2017, as a starting point. ACEEE’s
analysis tracks the adoption, stringency, and ambition of a wide range ofenergy efficiency measures that some of the largest 51 cities (based on
metropolitan statistical area) are taking. ACEEE assessed the central city ofAppendix B | 109

each of the nation’s 50 most populous metropolitan statistical areas (MSAs),
excluding San Juan, Puerto Rico and including Fort Worth and El Paso, whichwere including in their original 2013 City Scorecard.
We included 18 actions from ACEEE’s analysis with the aim to illustrate thedifferent types of actions that cities are taking to help reduce GHG emissions,increase building efficiency, and move people and goods around more
effectively.
Because we wanted to include examples of what cities are doing to address
other major sources of U.S. GHG emissions (like electricity generation,
methane, and HFCs), we conducted an initial literature review and found two
additional ambitious actions that we included in this report: committing to 100
percent renewable energy and reducing methane emissions through waste
reduction targets.
We acknowledge that the actions that these 51 largest cities are taking may
not be completely representative of all the states and geographies in the
United States. As such, we intend to conduct a more thorough literature
review and expert consultation in the next phase of the America’s Pledge
initiative to identify additional actions that cities of all sizes are taking, or could
take, to address GHG emission.

Sources for Climate-Friendly City Actions
GHG Target / Cap
Climate change goal formally adopted or in process: American Council
for an Energy Efficient Economy, “City Energy Efficiency Scorecard 2017,”
http://aceee.org/sites/default/files/publications/researchreports/u1705.pdf

Renewable / CCS/ nuclear
Committed to 100% renewable energy: Sierra Club, “Ready for 100,”
http://www.sierraclub.org/ready-for-100/cities-ready-for-100

Transport
Car sharing program: American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy,“City Energy Efficiency Scorecard 2017,” http://aceee.org/sites/default/
files/publications/researchreports/u1705.pdf
Bike sharing program: American Council for an Energy Efficient
Economy, “City Energy Efficiency Scorecard 2017,” http://aceee.org/sites/
default/files/publications/researchreports/u1705.pdf

110 | AMERICA’S PLEDGE

Sustainable transportation plan: American Council for an Energy Efficient
Economy, “City Energy Efficiency Scorecard 2017,” http://aceee.org/sites/
default/files/publications/researchreports/u1705.pdf
Fuel efficiency requirement for public fleets: American Council for an
Energy Efficient Economy, “City Energy Efficiency Scorecard 2017,” http://
aceee.org/sites/default/files/publications/researchreports/u1705.pdf
Codified VMT/transportation-related GHG targets: American Council
for an Energy Efficient Economy, “City Energy Efficiency Scorecard 2017,”
http://aceee.org/sites/default/files/publications/researchreports/u1705.pdf
Codified travel mode target: American Council for an Energy Efficient
Economy, “City Energy Efficiency Scorecard 2017,” http://aceee.org/sites/
default/files/publications/researchreports/u1705.pdf
Electric vehicle infrastructure incentives: American Council for an
Energy Efficient Economy, “City Energy Efficiency Scorecard 2017,” http://
aceee.org/sites/default/files/publications/researchreports/u1705.pdf
Vehicle purchase incentives: American Council for an Energy Efficient
Economy, “City Energy Efficiency Scorecard 2017,” http://aceee.org/sites/
default/files/publications/researchreports/u1705.pdf
No minimum parking requirements for new developments: American
Council for an Energy Efficient Economy, “City Energy Efficiency
Scorecard 2017,” http://aceee.org/sites/default/files/publications/researchreports/u1705.pdf
Efficient freight strategy: American Council for an Energy Efficient
Economy, “City Energy Efficiency Scorecard 2017,” http://aceee.org/sites/
default/files/publications/researchreports/u1705.pdf
Adopted applications or services that help coordinate freighttransportation: American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy, “City
Energy Efficiency Scorecard 2017,” http://aceee.org/sites/default/files/
publications/researchreports/u1705.pdf

Energy Efficiency
Energy efficient procurement policy: American Council for an Energy
Efficient Economy, “City Energy Efficiency Scorecard 2017,” http://aceee.
org/sites/default/files/publications/researchreports/u1705.pdf

Appendix B | 111

Energy savings goal formally adopted or in process: American Council
for an Energy Efficient Economy, “City Energy Efficiency Scorecard 2017,”
http://aceee.org/sites/default/files/publications/researchreports/u1705.pdf
Adopted most stringent energy codes available, or more stringent:American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy, “City Energy Efficiency Scorecard 2017,” http://aceee.org/sites/default/files/publications/researchreports/u1705.pdf
Green building requirements for some private buildings: American
Council for an Energy Efficient Economy, “City Energy Efficiency Scorecard 2017,” http://aceee.org/sites/default/files/publications/researchreports/u1705.pdf
Required building retrofit or retrocomissioning for residential and/orcommercial buildings: American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy,“City Energy Efficiency Scorecard 2017,” http://aceee.org/sites/default/
files/publications/researchreports/u1705.pdf

MethaneZero-waste goal: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “Transforming
Waste Tool,” https://www.epa.gov/transforming-waste-tool/community-implementation-examples-and-resources-1-50; Waste 360, “10 Major U.S.
Cities With Zero Waste Goals,” http://www.waste360.com/node/16646/
gallery?slide=5; Portland Planning and Sustainability,” Garbage, Recycling
and Composting,” https://www.portlandoregon.gov/bps/41461?

Forestry & Land Use
Urban heat island goals: American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy, “City Energy Efficiency Scorecard 2017,” http://aceee.org/sites/default/
files/publications/researchreports/u1705.pdf

Companies
The climate-friendly actions we list below, along with the number of U.S.based businesses taking each action, is not meant to be comprehensive.
Instead, we collected information from the Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP),
various NGOs, and federal agencies with the aim of providing examples ofcorporate action that address each of the major GHG emission sources.
However, the line between corporate GHG emissions in and out of the UnitedStates by U.S.-based companies is not always clear and we do not take into

112 | AMERICA’S PLEDGE

account companies based outside the U.S. that may have a large presence
here. As such, just like for states and cities, we are aiming to expand andrefine this list as we move to the next phase of America’s Pledge.

Sources for Climate-Friendly Corporate Actions
GHG Target / Carbon Price
Internal carbon price: Carbon Disclosure Project, “Putting a price on carbon: Integrating climate risk into business planning,” October 2017, https://b8f65cb373b1b7b15feb-c70d8ead6ced550b4d987d7c03fcdd1d.ssl.cf3.
rackcdn.com/cms/reports/documents/000/002/738/original/Putting-aprice-on-carbon-CDP-Report-2017.pdf?1507739326.
Science-based GHG reduction target: Science Based Targets, “Companies Taking Action,” http://sciencebasedtargets.org/companies-taking-action/

Renewable
Fortune 500 companies with renewable targets: Andrew Clapper,
Camilla Lyngsby, Ian van der Vlugt, Stu Dalhelm, Stefano Maffina, Markus
Walther, Peyton Fleming, Ryan Martel, Katina Tsongas, Carina Wallack, etal., Power Forward 3.0, April 2017, accessed September 29, 2017, https://c402277.ssl.cf1.rackcdn.com/publications/1049/files/original/Power_
Forward_3.0_-_April_2017_-_Digital_Second_Final.pdf?1493325339.
100% renewable energy target: The Climate Group and CDP,
“Accelerating Change: how corporate users are transforming therenewable energy market,” accessed September 29, 2017, http://media.
virbcdn.com/files/a9/55845b630b54f906-RE100AnnualReport2017.pdf.

Energy Efficiency
Corporate energy efficiency improvements through Better Buildings
Challenge: U.S. Department of Energy,“Better Buildings Challenge: Partner Lists,” accessed September 29, 2017, https://betterbuildingssolutioncenter.energy.gov/challenge/partner-list
Industrial energy efficiency improvements through Better Plants
Program: U.S. Department of Energy,“Better Buildings, Better Plants:
Partner List,” accessed September 29, 2017, https://betterbuildingssolutioncenter.energy.gov/better-plants/partner-list

Appendix B | 113

Methane
Joining EPA’s Natural Gas Star program to reduce methane leakage:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “Natural Gas STAR Program,”
accessed September 29, 2017, https://www.epa.gov/natural-gas-star-program/natural-gas-star-program#domestic
Joining EPA’s Methane Challenge to implement best management
practices within five years: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,”Natural Gas Star Program: Methane Challenge Program,” Last modified July 20, 2017, Accessed Sept. 29, 2017, https://www.epa.gov/natural-gas-star-program/methane-challenge-program
Taking actions that reduce food waste 50%: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “United States Food Loss and Waste 2030 Champions,”
https://www.epa.gov/sustainable-management-food/united-states-foodloss-and-waste-2030-champions#about

HFCs
Supermarkets committing to reduce HFC emissions and use: U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, “GreenChill Partnership,” last modified
September 29, 2017, https://www.epa.gov/greenchill114 | AMERICA’S PLEDGE

Endnotes | 115

Endnotes

1

C NBC, “Warren Buffet Says He’s Got a Big Appetite for
a Solar or Wind Project,” May 5, 2017, https://www.cnbc.
com/2017/05/06/warren-buffett-says-hes-got-a-bigappetite-for-a-solar-or-wind-project.html

2U .S. Energy Information Administration, Detailed State
Data, “Net Generation by State by Type of Producer by
Energy Source,” https://www.eia.gov/electricity/data/state/3J oshua Rhodes, “Wind capacity is estimated to overtake
coal capacity in ERCOT given recent retirement
announcements and planned additions,” The University ofTexas at Austin Energy Institute, October 13, 2017, https://energy.utexas.edu/news/wind-capacity-coal-capacityercot-20184	Nichola Groom, “The U.S. solar industry’s new growth
region: Trump Country” Reuters, October 12, 2017,
accessed on October 26, 2017. https://www.reuters.
com/article/us-usa-solar-trumpcountry-insight/the-us-solar-industrys-new-growth-region-trump-countryidUSKBN1CH1HG
5“ Second Biennial Report of the United States of America,”
U.S. Department of State, 2016, accessed October 15,
2017, https://unfccc.int/files/national_reports/biennial_
reports_and_iar/submitted_biennial_reports/application/
pdf/2016_second_biennial_report_of_the_united_states_.
pdf.

6

B
 eth Noveck, “Open Government Laboratories of
Democracy,” The White House, November 2009,
accessed October 15, 2017, https://obamawhitehouse.
archives.gov/blog/2009/11/19/open-governmentlaboratories-democracy.

7N icholas Bianco, Franz T. Litz, Kristin Igusky, and Rebecca
Gasper, “Can The U.S. Get There From Here? Using
Existing Federal Laws and State Action to Reduce
Greenhouse Gas Emissions,” World Resources Institute,
February 2013, https://www.wri.org/sites/default/files/pdf/
can_us_get_there_from_here_full_report.pdf.

8

A.B. 32, Chapter 488, (Cal. 2006), accessed September
29, 2017, http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/05-06/bill/asm/
ab_0001-0050/ab_32_bill_20060927_chaptered.pdf.

9

“Economic Sectors Portal,” California Air Resources Board,
August 17, 2016, accessed October 15, 2017, https://www.
arb.ca.gov/cc/ghgsectors/ghgsectors.htm.

10

A.B. 398, Chapter 135, (Cal. 2017), accessed October 23,
2017, https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.
xhtml?bill_id=201720180AB398.

11

“Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative,” Regional
Greenhouse Gas Initiative, last modified September 28,
2017, accessed October 15, 2017, http://rggi.org/.

12

“The Investment of RGGI Proceeds in 2015,” Regional
Greenhouse Gas Initiative, October 2017, accessed
October 15, 2017, https://www.rggi.org/docs/
ProceedsReport/RGGI_Proceeds_Report_2015.pdf.

13

Glen Barbose, “U.S. Renewables Portfolio Standards
2017 Annual Status Report,” Lawrence Berkley National
Laboratory, July 2017, accessed October 15, 2017, https://
emp.lbl.gov/sites/default/files/2017-annual-rps-summaryreport.pdf; “Press Release: Governor Ige Signs Bill Setting
100 Percent Renewable Energy Goal In Power Sector,”
David Y. Ige, June 8, 2015, accessed October 15, 2017,
http://governor.hawaii.gov/newsroom/press-releasegovernor-ige-signs-bill-setting-100-percent-renewableenergy-goal-in-power-sector/.

14

Daniel Shea and Kristy Hartman, “State Action In Support
Of Nuclear Generation,” National Conference of State
Legislatures, January 26, 2017, accessed October 15, http://
www.ncsl.org/research/energy/state-action-in-supportof-nuclear-generation.aspx; “Financial Incentives for
CCS,” Center for Climate and Energy Solutions, May 2017,
accessed October 15, 2017, https://www.c2es.org/us-statesregions/policy-maps/ccs-financial-incentives.

116 | AMERICA’S PLEDGE

15D oug Vine, “New York State Response To Economic
Challenges Of The Existing Nuclear Fleet,” Center for
Climate and Energy Solutions, July 2017, accessed October
15, 2017, https://www.c2es.org/docUploads/new-york-stateresponse-economic-challenges-existing-nuclear-fleet.pdf.

16“ Federal Vehicle Standards,” Center for Climate andEnergy Solutions, accessed October 15, 2017, https://www.
c2es.org/federal/executive/vehicle-standards.

17“ Regulations for Greenhouse Gas Emissions from
Passenger Cars and Trucks,” U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, last modified November 17, 2016, accessed
October 6, 2017, https://www.epa.gov/regulationsemissions-vehicles-and-engines/regulations-greenhousegas-emissions-passenger-cars-and#regulations.

18“ The Advanced Clean Cars Program,” California Air
Resources Board,” last modified January 18, 2017, accessed
October 15, 2017, https://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/acc/
acc-mtr.htm; “Midterm Evaluation of Light-Duty Vehicle
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards for Model Years
2022-2025,” U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, lastmodified August 31, 2017, accessed October 15, 2017,https://www.epa.gov/regulations-emissions-vehicles-andengines/midterm-evaluation-light-duty-vehicle-greenhousegas#proposed=determination.

19

S onari Glinton, “Trump Administration Takes Key Step To
Rolling Back Auto Fuel Standards,” National Public Radio,
August 14, 2017, accessed September 29, 2017, http://www.
npr.org/2017/08/14/543474251/trump-administration-takeskey-step-to-rolling-back-auto-fuel-standards.

20“ Transportation Sector: ZEV Program,” Center for Climate
and Energy Solutions, last modified June 2013, accessed
September 29, 2017, https://www.c2es.org/us-statesregions/policy-maps/zev-program.

21“ NADA Data 2016: Annual Financial Profile Of America’s
Franchised New-Car Dealerships,” National Automobile
Dealers Association, 2016, accessed on October 22, 2017,https://www.nada.org/2016NADAdata/.

22

23

24

W
 eston Berg, Seth Nowak, Meegan Kelly, Shruti
Vaidyanathan, Mary Shoemaker, Anna Chittum, Marianne
DiMascio, and Chetana Kallakur, The 2016 State Energy
Efficiency Scorecard (American Council for an EnergyEfficient Economy: September 2016), accessed September
29, 2017, http://aceee.org/sites/default/files/publications/researchreports/u1606.pdf.
W eston Berg, Seth Nowak, Meegan Kelly, Shruti
Vaidyanathan, Mary Shoemaker, Anna Chittum, Marianne
DiMascio, and Chetana Kallakur, The 2016 State Energy
Efficiency Scorecard (American Council for an EnergyEfficient Economy: September 2016), accessed September
29, 2017, http://aceee.org/sites/default/files/publications/researchreports/u1606.pdf.
“ Transportation Sector: ZEV Program,” Center for Climate
and Energy Solutions, last modified June 2013, accessed
September 29, 2017, https://www.c2es.org/us-statesregions/policy-maps/zev-program.

25“About the ZEV Task Force,” Multi-State ZEV Task Force,
accessed September 29, 2017, https://www.zevstates.us/
about-us/.

26

A
 rgonne National Laboratory found that assuming the2014 electricity grid fuel mix, battery-electric vehicles in
the United States have lower lifecycle GHG emissions
than conventional vehicles. Source: Argonne National
Laboratory, “Cradle-to-Grave Lifecycle Analysis of U.S.
Light-Duty Vehicle-Fuel Pathways: A Greenhouse Gas
Emissions and Economic Assessment of Current (2015)
and Future (2025-2030) Technologies,” June 2016, https://greet.es.anl.gov/publication-c2g-2016-report27

“State Standards,” Appliance Standards Awareness Project,
accessed September 29, 2017, https://appliance-standards.
org/states.

28

“Building Energy Codes Program,” U.S. Department ofEnergy, last modified August 2, 2017, accessed September
29, 2017, https://www.energycodes.gov/status-stateenergy-code-adoption.

29

Weston Berg, Seth Nowak, Meegan Kelly, Shruti
Vaidyanathan, Mary Shoemaker, Anna Chittum, Marianne
DiMascio, and Chetana Kallakur, “The 2016 State
Energy Efficiency Scorecard,” (American Council for an
Energy-Efficient Economy,: September 2016,), accessed
September 29, 2017, http://aceee.org/sites/default/files/
publications/researchreports/u1606.pdf; .“How muchelectricity does an American home use?” U.S. Energy
Information Administration, last modified October 16, 2016,
accessed October 15, 2017, https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/
faq.php?id=97&t=3.

30

“Combined Heat and Power (CHP) Partnership: What Is
CHP?,” U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, last modified
October 31,2016, accessed September 29, 2017, https://www.epa.gov/chp/what-chp.

31

“Combined Heat and Power (CHP) Partnership:dCHPP (CHP Policies and Incentives Database),” U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, last modified April 4,
2017, accessed September 29, 2017, https://www.epa.gov/
chp/dchpp-chp-policies-and-incentives-database.

32

“Is CHP part of your vision for the modern grid? Let’s
discuss,” American Council for an Energy-Efficient
Economy, May 25, 2017, accessed October 15, 2017, http://
aceee.org/blog/2017/05/chp-part-your-vision-modern-gridlet.

33

“City Councils,” National League of Cities, accessed
October 7, 2017, http://www.nlc.org/city-councils.

34

“The City Energy Efficiency Scorecard,” American Council
for an Energy-Efficient Economy, last modified May 8, 2017,
accessed September 27, 2017, http://aceee.org/localpolicy/city-scorecard.

35

“The City Energy Efficiency Scorecard,” American Council
for an Energy-Efficient Economy, last modified May 8, 2017,
accessed September 27, 2017, http://aceee.org/localpolicy/city-scorecard.

36

“The City Energy Efficiency Scorecard,” American Council
for an Energy-Efficient Economy, last modified May 8, 2017,
accessed September 27, 2017, http://aceee.org/localpolicy/city-scorecard.

37

“Is Your City #ReadyFor100?” Sierra Club, accessed
September 29, 2017, http://www.sierraclub.org/readyfor-100/cities-ready-for-100.

38

“Clean Energy Implementation Plan,” Salt Lake City
Sustainability Department, accessed October 23, 2017,
http://www.slcgreen.com/rmp-implementation-plan.

39

“2017 Adopted Resolutions,” The U.S. Conferenceof Mayors, Accessed October 25, 2017, http://
legacy.usmayors.org/resolutions/85th_Conference/
proposedcommittee.asp?committee=Energy; Richard
Nunno, “Fact Sheet - The U.S. Climate Alliance and Related
Actions,” Environmental and Energy Study Institute, August
14, 2017, http://www.eesi.org/papers/view/fact-sheet-theu.s.-climate-alliance-and-related-actions

40

“Mayor de Blasio: NYC Will Be First City to Mandate that
Existing Buildings Dramatically Cut Greenhouse Gas
Emissions,” New York City, September 14, 2017, accessed
September 29, 2017, http://www1.nyc.gov/office-of-themayor/news/587-17/mayor-de-blasio-nyc-will-be-first-citymandate-existing-buildings-dramatically-cut#/0.

Endnotes | 117

41

42

43

44

45

D
 avid Ribeiro, Tyler Bailey, Ariel Drehobl, Jen King, Stefen
Samarripas, Mary Shoemaker, Shruti Vaidyanathan, et al.,“The 2017 City Energy Efficiency Scorecard,” American
Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, May 2017,
accessed September 29, 2017, http://aceee.org/sites/
default/files/publications/researchreports/u1705.pdf; Elliot
Martin and Susan Shaheen. “The Impacts of Car2go on
Vehicle Ownership, Modal Shift, Vehicle Miles Traveled,and Greenhouse Gas Emissions: An Analysis of Five North
American Cities,” UC Berkeley Transportation Sustainability
Research Center, July 2016, accessed October 15, 2017,
http://innovativemobility.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/
Impactsofcar2go_FiveCities_2016.pdf; “A Compendiumof Sustainable Community Transportation Strategies,”
CALSTART, May 2009, accessed October 15, 2017,
http://www.calstart.org/Libraries/First_Mile_Documents/
Compendium_of_Sustainable_Community_Transportation_
Strategies.sflb.ashx.
D avid Ribeiro, Tyler Bailey, Ariel Drehobl, Jen King, Stefen
Samarripas, Mary Shoemaker, Shruti Vaidyanathan, et al.,“The 2017 City Energy Efficiency Scorecard,” American
Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, May 2017,
accessed September 29, 2017, http://aceee.org/sites/
default/files/publications/researchreports/u1705.pdf.
D avid Ribeiro, Tyler Bailey, Ariel Drehobl, Jen King, Stefen
Samarripas, Mary Shoemaker, Shruti Vaidyanathan, et al.,“The 2017 City Energy Efficiency Scorecard,” American
Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, May 2017,
accessed September 29, 2017, http://aceee.org/sites/
default/files/publications/researchreports/u1705.pdf.
“ Complete Streets Policies Nationwide,” Smart Growth
America, accessed September 29, 2017, https://
smartgrowthamerica.org/program/national-completestreets-coalition/policy-development/policy-atlas/.
R yan Kilpatrick, “Cities Across the U.S. Will Splurge on
Electric Vehicles After Automakers Said There Wasn’t
Enough Demand,” Fortune, March 15, 2017, accessed
September 29, 2017, http://fortune.com/2017/03/15/electricvehicles-cities-demand/.

52

David Nowak, Susan Stein, Paula Randler, Eric Greenfield,
Sara Comas, Mary Carr, and Ralph Alig, “Sustaining
America’s Urban Trees and Forests,” U.S. Forest Service,
June 2010, accessed September 29, 2017, https://www.
fs.fed.us/openspace/fote/reports/nrs-62_sustaining_americas_urban.pdf.

53

“What is Tree City USA?” Arbor Day Foundation, accessed
September 29, 2017, https://www.arborday.org/programs/
treecityusa/about.cfm.

54

“ARPA-E: About,”, U.S. Department of Energy, accessed
October 16, 2017, https://arpa-e.energy.gov/?q=arpa-e-sitepage/about.

55

“ARPA-E: Dynamically Adjustable Wind Turbine Blades,”U.S. Department of Energy, accessed October 16,
2017, https://arpa-e.energy.gov/?q=slick-sheet-project/dynamically-adjustable-wind-turbine-blades.

56

“ARPA-E: Low-Cost Electric Vehicle Battery Architecture,”
U.S. Department of Energy, accessed October 16, 2017,https://arpa-e.energy.gov/?q=slick-sheet-project/low-costelectric-vehicle-battery-architecture.

57

“Frequently Asked Questions about Small Businesses,”
U.S. Small Business Administration, August 2017, accessed
October 16, 2017, https://www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/
advocacy/SB-FAQ-2017-WEB.pdf.

58

“Methods,” Science-Based Target Initiative, accessed
October 16, 2017, http://sciencebasedtargets.org/methods/.

59

“SBTi Criteria and Recommendations: Version 2.0,”
Science-Based Target Initiative, February 2017, accessed
October 16, 2017, http://sciencebasedtargets.org/wpcontent/uploads/2017/02/SBTi-criteria.pdf.

60

“Companies taking action,” Science Based Targets
Initiative, accessed October 16, 2017, http://
sciencebasedtargets.org/companies-taking-action/.

61

“Carbon Pricing,” We Mean Business, accessed October
16, 2017, https://www.wemeanbusinesscoalition.org/
commitment/put-a-price-on-carbon/#.

62

“Executive Guide to Carbon Pricing Leadership: A
Caring for Climate Report,” United Nations Global
Compact, 2015, accessed October 16, 2017, https://www.
unglobalcompact.org/docs/issues_doc/Environment/
climate/CarbonPricingExecutiveGuide.pdf.

63

“Putting a price on carbon: Integrating climate risk
into business planning,” CDP, October 2017, accessed
October 16, 2017, https://b8f65cb373b1b7b15febc70d8ead6ced550b4d987d7c03fcdd1d.ssl.cf3.rackcdn.
com/cms/reports/documents/000/002/738/original/Puttinga-price-on-carbon-CDP-Report-2017.pdf?1507739326.

46“ Light Duty Electric Drive Vehicles Monthly Sales Updates,”
Argonne National Laboratory, August 2017, accessed
September 29, 2017, https://www.anl.gov/energy-systems/
project/light-duty-electric-drive-vehicles-monthly-salesupdates.

47“ Managing and Transforming Waste Streams—A Tool for
Communities,” U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
modified October 4, 2017, accessed October 7, 2017,https://www.epa.gov/transforming-waste-tool/communityimplementation-examples-and-resources-1-50#2.

48“ Zero Waste Plan,” City of Minneapolis, September 2017,
accessed October 15, 2017, https://www.scribd.com/
document/358292142/Zero-Waste-Draft-Plan.

64

“Carbon Pricing,” We Mean Business, accessed October
16, 2017, https://www.wemeanbusinesscoalition.org/
commitment/put-a-price-on-carbon/#.

49“ Local Solid Waste Management Plan,” City of Dallas,
February 2013, accessed October 15, 2017, http://
dallascityhall.com/departments/sanitation/DCH%20
Documents/pdf/DallasLocalSWMP_Vol-I-II.pdf.

65

“Put a price on carbon: What you can do,” Caring for
Climate, accessed October 16, 2017, http://caringforclimate.
org/workstreams/carbon-pricing/.

50

T he White House, “United States Mid-Century Strategy
for Deep Decarbonization,” November 2016, https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/docs/
mid_century_strategy_report-final.pdf

66

John Powers & Amy Haddon, “The Role of RECs andAdditionality in Green Power Markets,” Renewable Choice
Energy, July 2017, accessed October 16, 2017, https://www.renewablechoice.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/
Additionality-White-Paper.pdf.

51

D avid Ribeiro, Tyler Bailey, Ariel Drehobl, Jen King, Stefen
Samarripas, Mary Shoemaker, Shruti Vaidyanathan, et al.,“The 2017 City Energy Efficiency Scorecard,” American
Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, May 2017,
accessed September 29, 2017, http://aceee.org/sites/
default/files/publications/researchreports/u1705.pdf.

67

“BRC Deal Tracker: Corporate Renewable Deals,” Business
Renewables Center, accessed September 29, 2017, http://businessrenewables.org/corporate-transactions/.

68

“Preliminary Monthly Electric Generator Inventory,” U.S.
Department of Energy, September 26, 2017, accessed
October 15, 2017, https://www.eia.gov/electricity/data/
eia860M/.

118 | AMERICA’S PLEDGE

69

70

71

72

73

74

75

T
 odd Jones “Two Markets, Overlapping Goals: Exploring
the Intersection of RPS and Voluntary Markets for
Renewable Energy in the U.S.,” Center for Resource
Solutions, prepared for The RPS Collaborative, July 2017,
accessed October 23, 2017, https://resource-solutions.org/
wp-content/uploads/2017/08/RPS-and-Voluntary-Markets.
pdf.
“ BRC Deal Tracker: Corporate Renewable Deals,” Business
Renewables Center, accessed September 29, 2017, http://businessrenewables.org/corporate-transactions/.
N ichola Groom, “America’s hungriest wind and solar
power users: big companies,” Reuters, June 21, 2017,
accessed September 29, 2017, https://www.reuters.com/
article/us-usa-companies-renewables-analysis/americashungriest-wind-and-solar-power-users-big-companiesidUSKBN19C0E0.
N ichola Groom, “America’s hungriest wind and solar
power users: big companies,” Reuters, June 21, 2017,
accessed September 29, 2017, https://www.reuters.com/
article/us-usa-companies-renewables-analysis/americashungriest-wind-and-solar-power-users-big-companiesidUSKBN19C0E0.
D iane Cardwell and Clifford Krauss, “Coal Country’s Power
Plants Are Turning Away From Coal,” The New York Times,
May 26, 2017 accessed September 29, 2017, https://www.
nytimes.com/2017/05/26/business/energy-environment/
coal-power-renewable-energy.html; Michael J. Coren,“West Virginia’s biggest utility just told the governor
burning more coal is ‘not going to happen,’” Quartz Media
LLC, April 27, 2017, accessed September 29, 2017, https://qz.com/970595/w-virginias-biggest-utility-appalachianpower-just-told-the-states-governor-jim-justice-thatburning-more-coal-is-not-going-happen-becausecustomers-dont-want-it/.
A ndrew Clapper, Camilla Lyngsby, Ian van der Vlugt,
Stu Dalhelm, Stefano Maffina, Markus Walther, Peyton
Fleming, et al., Power Forward 3.0, April 2017, accessed
September 29, 2017, https://c402277.ssl.cf1.rackcdn.com/
publications/1049/files/original/Power_Forward_3.0_-_
April_2017_-_Digital_Second_Final.pdf?1493325339.
“Accelerating Change: how corporate users aretransforming the renewable energy market,” The
Climate Group, 2017, accessed September 29, 2017,
http://media.virbcdn.com/files/a9/55845b630b54f906RE100AnnualReport2017.pdf.

theclimategroup.org/news/multinationals-launch-globalprogram-speed-switch-electric-vehicles.
80“EV100 Members,” The Climate Group, accessed
September 29, 2017, https://www.theclimategroup.org/
ev100-members.

81

Alex Davies, “General Motors in Going All Electric,” Wired,October 2, 2017, accessed October 15, 2017, https://www.
wired.com/story/general-motors-electric-cars-plan-gm/.

82

Cadie Thompson, “Ford’s first electric SUV could havean edge on Tesla’s Model Y,” Business Insider, May 18,
accessed October 15, 2017, http://www.businessinsider.
com/ford-electric-suv-will-rival-tesla-model-y-2017-5.

83

“Better Buildings, Better Plants: Partner List,” U.S.
Department of Energy, accessed September 29, 2017,https://betterbuildingssolutioncenter.energy.gov/betterplants/partner-list.

84

“The Global ESG Benchmark for Real Assets,” Global Real
Estate Sustainability Benchmark, accessed October 17,
2017, https://gresb.com/.

85

“Successful Strategies: Driving Innovation & Results,” U.S.
Department of Energy, 2017, accessed September 29, 2017,https://betterbuildingsinitiative.energy.gov/sites/default/
files/attachments/Better_Buildings_Progress_Report_2017.
pdf.

86

“Natural Gas STAR Program,” U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, modified September 29, 2017, accessed
September 29, 2017, https://www.epa.gov/natural-gas-starprogram/natural-gas-star-program#domestic.

87

“Natural Gas Star Program: Methane Challenge Program,”
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, last modified July20, 2017, accessed September 29, 2017, https://www.epa.
gov/natural-gas-star-program/methane-challenge-program.

88

“Methane Challenge Program Partners,” U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, last modified May 23, 2017, accessed
September 29, 2017, https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/
files/2016-05/documents/mc_partner_commitments.pdf.

89

“United States Food Loss and Waste 2030 Champions,”
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, last modified August
10, 2017, accessed September 29, 2017, https://www.epa.
gov/sustainable-management-food/united-states-food-lossand-waste-2030-champions#about.

90

“TRUE projects,” Green Business Certification, Inc.,
accessed October 15, 2017, https://true.gbci.org/projects.

76

D iane Cardwell, “Apple Becomes a Green Energy Supplier,With Itself as Customer,” The New York Times, August 23,
2016, accessed September 29, 2017, https://www.nytimes.
com/2016/08/24/business/energy-environment/as-energyuse-rises-corporations-turn-to-their-own-green-utilitysources.html?mcubz=1.

91

Nicholas Bianco, Kristin Igusky, Rebecca Gasper, Michael
Obeiter, Sarah Forbes, and Nate Aden, “Seeing is
Believing: Creating a New Climate Economy in the UnitedStates,” World Resources Institute, October 2014, accessed
October 15, 2017, http://www.wri.org/sites/default/files/
seeingisbelieving_working_paper.pdf.

77“ SmartWay Program Highlights,” U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, April 2017, accessed September 29,
2017, https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2017-04/
documents/420f17012.pdf.

92

“GreenChill Partnership,” U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, September 29, 2017, accessed October 2017,https://www.epa.gov/greenchill.

78“ Vision 2020: A New Era of Freight Sustainability,” U.S
Environmental Protection Agency, July 2015, accessed
September 29, 2017, https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/
files/2016-05/documents/smartway_2020_vision_report.
pdf.

93

“Global Distribution of Natural Refrigerant Units,”
Refrigerants, Naturally!, accessed September 29, 2017,
http://www.refrigerantsnaturally.com/reductions-andbenefits/.

94

“Annual Energy Outlook 2017,” U.S. Energy Information
Administration, January 5, 2017, accessed September
29, 2017, https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/; “Electricity:
Form EIA-860 detailed data,” U.S. Energy Information
Administration, August 15, 2017, accessed September 29,
2017, https://www.eia.gov/electricity/data/eia860/.

79“ Multinationals Launch Global Program to Speed Up Switch
to Electric Vehicles,” The Climate Group, September
19, 2017, accessed September 29, 2017, https://www.

Endnotes | 11995“Annual Energy Outlook 2017,” U.S. Energy Information
Administration, January 5, 2017, accessed September
29, 2017, https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/; “Electricity:
Form EIA-860 detailed data,” U.S. Energy Information
Administration, August 15, 2017, accessed September 29,
2017, https://www.eia.gov/electricity/data/eia860/.

96“ Levelized Cost of Energy Analysis 10.0,” Lazard, December
15, 2016, accessed October 15, 2017, https://www.lazard.
com/perspective/levelized-cost-of-energy-analysis-100/.

97

O
 . Schmidt, A. Hawkes, A. Gambhir, and I. Staffell,“The future cost of electrical energy storage based on
experience rates,” Nature Energy, 17110 (2017), https://www.
nature.com/articles/nenergy2017110.

98

99

F
 elix Creutzig, Peter Agoston, Jan Christoph Goldschmidt,
Gunnar Luderer, Gregory Nemet, and Robert C. Pietzcker,“The underestimated potential of solar energy to mitigate
climate change,” Nature Energy, 17140 (2017), https://www.
nature.com/articles/nenergy2017140.
G avin Blade, “House approves minibus spending billwith deep cuts to DOE funds,” Utility Dive, July 28, 2017,
http://www.utilitydive.com/news/house-approves-minibusspending-bill-with-deep-cuts-to-doe-funds/448155/.

100 	U.S. Energy Information Administration, Monthly Energy
Review, “Table 12.6 Carbon Dioxide Emissions From Energy
Consumption: Electric Power Sector,” September 28, 2017,https://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/monthly/pdf/sec12_9.
pdf
101“Annual Energy Outlook 2005,” U.S. EIA, accessed October25, 2017, https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/archive/aeo05/
emission.html

102	Greg Schivley and Haibo Zhai, “Power Sector Carbon Index
dropped 24% from 2005-2016,” Carnegie Mellon University,
Scott Institute for Energy Innovation, March 28, 2017,
accessed October 23, 2017, https://emissionsindex.org/
articles/index-2005-to-2016.
103	“Lower electricity-related CO2 emissions reflect lower
carbon intensity and electricity use,” U.S. EIA, October 23,
2014, accessed October 25, 2017, https://www.eia.gov/
todayinenergy/detail.php?id=18511; “Paris Bound: New
Analysis Shows Maintaining the Pace of Coal Retirements
and Faster Clean Energy Growth Will Yield Another Half
Billion Tons of Carbon Reduction,” Sierra Club, September
15, 2017, accessed October 25, 2017, http://sierraclub.
org/compass/2017/09/paris-bound-new-analysis-showsmaintaining-pace-coal-retirements-and-faster-clean104“ Lower electricity-related CO2 emissions reflect lower
carbon intensity and electricity use,” U.S. EIA, October 23,
2014, accessed October 25, 2017, https://www.eia.gov/
todayinenergy/detail.php?id=18511; “Paris Bound: New
Analysis Shows Maintaining the Pace of Coal Retirements
and Faster Clean Energy Growth Will Yield Another Half
Billion Tons of Carbon Reduction,” Sierra Club, September
15, 2017, accessed October 25, 2017, http://sierraclub.
org/compass/2017/09/paris-bound-new-analysis-showsmaintaining-pace-coal-retirements-and-faster-clean

and Faster Clean Energy Growth Will Yield Another Half
Billion Tons of Carbon Reduction,” Sierra Club, September
15, 2017, accessed October 25, 2017, http://sierraclub.
org/compass/2017/09/paris-bound-new-analysis-showsmaintaining-pace-coal-retirements-and-faster-clean107	“Air Pollution: Current and Future Challenges,” U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, last modified January
19, 2017, accessed October 23, 2017, https://www.epa.gov/
clean-air-act-overview/air-pollution-current-and-futurechallenges.
108	“Basic Information about Mercury and Air Toxics Standards,”
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, last modified
January 19, 2017, accessed October 23, 2017, https://www.
epa.gov/mats/basic-information-about-mercury-and-airtoxics-standards.
109	“Most generator retirements over the past decade wereolder natural gas-fired units,” U.S. Energy Information
Administration, December 13, 2011, accessed October23, 2017, https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.
php?id=4290.
110	Michael Leff, “Coal-fired power plant operators consider
emissions compliance strategies,” U.S. Energy Information
Administration, March 28, 2014, accessed October 23, 2017,https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=15611.
111	Zhongmin Wang and Alan Krupnick, “A Retrospective
Review of Shale Gas Development in the United States:
What Led to the Boom?” Resources for the Future, April
2013, accessed October 23, 2017, http://www.rff.org/files/
sharepoint/WorkImages/Download/RFF-DP-13-12.pdf.
112

Richard Middleton, Rajan Gupta, Jeffrey Hyman, andHari Viswanathan, “The shale gas revolution: Barriers,
sustainability, and emerging opportunities,” Applied Energy,
199 (2017), http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/
S0306261917304312.

113

“Staff Report to the Secretary on Electricity Markets andReliability,” U.S. Department of Energy, August 2017,
accessed October 23, 2017, https://energy.gov/sites/prod/
files/2017/08/f36/Staff%20Report%20on%20Electricity%20
Markets%20and%20Reliability_0.pdf.

114

America is Halfway to Moving Beyond Coal,” Sierra Club,
October 13, 2017, accessed October 23, 2017, http://www.
sierraclub.org/press-releases/2017/10/america-halfwaymoving-beyond-coal.

115

“Database of State Incentives for Renewables & Efficiency,”
U.S. Department of Energy and N.C. Clean Energy
Technology Center, last modified October 16, 2017,
accessed October 23, 2017, http://www.dsireusa.org/.

116

“The Economic Record of the Obama Administration:
Addressing Climate Change,” Executive Office of the
President of the United States, September 2016, accessed
October 23, 2017, https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/
sites/default/files/page/files/20160921_record_climate_energy_cea.pdf.

117

“Revolution…Now: The Future Arrives for Five Clean
Energy Technologies—2016 Update,” U.S. Departmentof Energy, September 2016, accessed October 23,
2017, https://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2016/09/f33/
Revolutiona%CC%82%E2%82%ACNow%202016%20
Report_2.pdf.

118

“2017 U.S. Energy and Employment Report,” U.S.
Department of Energy, January 2017, accessed October23, 2017, https://energy.gov/downloads/2017-us-energyand-employment-report.

105	“Sustainable Energy in America Fact Book 2017,” BusinessCouncil on Sustainable Energy & Bloomberg New Energy
Finance, 2017, accessed October 25, 2017, http://www.bcse.
org/sustainableenergyfactbook/#106	“Lower electricity-related CO2 emissions reflect lower
carbon intensity and electricity use,” U.S. EIA, October 23,
2014, accessed October 25, 2017, https://www.eia.gov/
todayinenergy/detail.php?id=18511; “Paris Bound: New
Analysis Shows Maintaining the Pace of Coal Retirements

120 | AMERICA’S PLEDGE

119

120

121

122

123

S
 amuel Newell, Kathleen Spees, Johannes Pfeifenberger,
Robert Mudge, Michael DeLucia, and Robert Carlton,“ERCOT Investment Incentives and Resource
Adequacy,” The Brattle Group, June 1, 2012, accessed
October 23, 2017, http://www.ercot.com/content/news/
presentations/2013/Brattle%20ERCOT%20Resource%20
Adequacy%20Review%20-%202012-06-01.pdf.
F or example, in March 2017 Dayton Power & Light Co.
announced it will retire both the J.M. Stuart Station andKillen Station, two coal-fired power plants in Ohio thatcombined generate 2,093 megawatts of power. Bothplants were controlled for nitrogen oxides through installed
selective catalytic reduction controls and for sulfur dioxidethrough flue gas desulfurization controls. See “It’s Official:
Two Ohio DP&L Plants to Close,” Dayton Business Journal,
March 20, 2017, accessed October 25, 2017, https://www.
bizjournals.com/dayton/news/2017/03/20/its-official-twoohio-dp-l-coal-plants-to-close.html.
J oel Jean, David C. Borrelli, and Tony Wu, “Mapping
the Economics of U.S. Coal Power and the Rise ofRenewables,” MIT Energy Initiative, March 2016, accessed
October 23, 2017, https://energy.mit.edu/wp-content/
uploads/2016/03/MITEI-WP-2016-01.pdf.
A ccording to preliminary data from the U.S. Energy
Information Administration, there were 819 coal-fired
generators operating in 2010, with 431 generators retiring
between 2011 and July, 2017. Source: “Preliminary Monthly
Electric Generator Inventory,” September 26, 2017, https://www.eia.gov/electricity/data/eia860m/.
C ara Marcy, “Renewable generation capacity expectedto account for most 2016 capacity additions,” U.S. Energy
Information Administration, January 10, 2017, accessed
October 15, 2017, https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.
php?id=29492#.

124

J ohn Larsen and Whitney Herndon, “What the CPP Would
Have Done,” Rhodium Group, October 9, 2017, accessed
October 15, 2017, http://rhg.com/notes/what-the-cpp-wouldhave-done.

125T hese data are based on a comprehensive database of
U.S. coal plant retirement announcements maintained by
the Sierra Club Beyond Coal campaign.

126“ New Energy Outlook,” Bloomberg New Energy Finance,
June 2017, https://about.bnef.com/new-energy-outlook/.

127“ Coal-Fired Electricity Generation in the United Statesand Future Outlook,” M.J. Bradley & Associates, August28, 2017, http://www.mjbradley.com/sites/default/files/
MJBAcoalretirementissuebrief.pdf

128“ Most coal plants in the United States were built before
1990,” U.S. Energy Information Administration: Today in
Energy, April 17, 2017, accessed October 23, https://www.
eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=30812; Devashree
Saha and Sifan Liu, “Coal plant retirements will continue
despite Trump’s EPA pick,” December 19, 2016, accessed
October 23, 2017, Brookings, https://www.brookings.edu/
blog/the-avenue/2016/12/19/coal-plant-retirements-willcontinue-despite-trumps-epa-pick/; “Seeing is Believing:
Creating a New Climate Economy in the United States,”
World Resources Institute, October 2014, accessed
October 23, http://www.wri.org/publication/seeingbelieving-creating-new-climate-economy-united-states.

129" 2020 Utility-Scale Solar Goal Achieved," U.S. Departmentof Energy, September 12, 2017, https://energy.gov/eere/sunshot/articles/2020-utility-scale-solar-goal-achieved.

130“ Remarks by President Trump at Signing of Executive
Order to Create Energy Independence,” The White House,

Office of the Press Secretary, March 28, 2017, accessed
October 15, 2017, https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-pressoffice/2017/03/28/remarks-president-trump-signingexecutive-order-create-energy.
131Gregory Meyer, “Coal has no future, says US railroad boss,”
Financial Times, July 19, 2017, accessed October 15, 2017,https://www.ft.com/content/888b05c4-6c95-11e7-bfeb33fe0c5b7eaa?mhq5j=e5.

132

Gregory Meyer, “Coal has no future, says US railroad boss,”
Financial Times, July 19, 2017, accessed October 15, 2017,https://www.ft.com/content/888b05c4-6c95-11e7-bfeb33fe0c5b7eaa?mhq5j=e5.

133

Adam Federman, “Trump says he ended the ‘war’ oncoal companies. But it’s too late to save them,” The
Washington Post, October 13, 2017, accessed October 15,
2017, https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/trumpsays-he-ended-the-war-on-coal-companies-but-its-toolate-to-save-them/2017/10/13/52a8f660-a920-11e7-850e2bdd1236be5d_story.html?utm_term=.b07819d20cfe

134

A.C. Orrell, J.S. Homer, S.R. Bender, and M.R. Weimar,“Energy Policy Case Study- Texas: Wind, Markets, and Grid
Modernization,” Pacific Northwest National Laboratory,
September 2016, accessed October 23, 2017, http://www.
pnnl.gov/main/publications/external/technical_reports/
PNNL-25822.pdf.

135

Jim Polson, “Infamous Three Mile Island Is Latest Casualtyof Shale Boom,” Bloomberg, May 30, 2017, accessed
October 15, 2017, https://www.bloomberg.com/news/
articles/2017-05-30/exelon-to-close-three-mile-islandnuclear-plant-in-2019

136

“Levelized Cost of Energy Analysis 10.0,” Lazard, December
15, 2016, accessed October 15, 2017, https://www.lazard.
com/perspective/levelized-cost-of-energy-analysis-100/.

137

Claire Curry, “Lithium-ion Battery Costs and Market:
Squeezed margins seek technology improvement & new
business models,” Bloomberg New Energy Finance, July
5, 2017, accessed October 15, 2017, https://about.bnef.com/
blog/lithium-ion-battery-costs-squeezed-margins-newbusiness-models/.

138

“Clean Energy Implementation Plan,” Salt Lake City
Sustainability Department, accessed October 23, 2017,
http://www.slcgreen.com/rmp-implementation-plan.

139

“Monthly Energy Review - Table 2.1: Energy Consumption
by Sector,” U.S. Energy Information Administration,
September 2016, accessed October 15, 2017, http://www.
eia.gov/totalenergy/data/monthly/pdf/sec2_3.pdf.

140

“How are Building Energy Codes Developed?” U.S.
Department of Energy, August 8, 2016, https://energy.gov/
eere/buildings/articles/how-are-building-energy-codesdeveloped

141

"Committees and Councils," International Code Council,
Accessed October 28, 2017, https://www.iccsafe.org/codestech-support/codes/committees-and-councils/.

142

“Clean Energy & Energy Efficiency,” California Climate
Investments, accessed October 23, 2017, http://www.
caclimateinvestments.ca.gov/energy-efficiency-cleanenergy/.

143

“Mayor de Blasio: NYC Will Be First City to Mandatethat Existing Buildings Dramatically Cut Greenhouse
Gas Emissions,” City of New York, September 14, 2017,
accessed October 23, 2017, http://www1.nyc.gov/office-ofthe-mayor/news/587-17/mayor-de-blasio-nyc-will-be-firstcity-mandate-existing-buildings-dramatically-cut#/0.

Endnotes | 121

144

145

146

147

148

S
 teve Nadel, Neal Elliott, and Therese Langer, “Energy
Efficiency in the United States: 35 Years and Counting,”
American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy,
June 2015, accessed October 15, 2017, http://www.
ourenergypolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/e1502.
pdf.
“ The History of Energy Efficiency,” Alliance to Save Energy,
January 2013, accessed October 23, 2017, http://www.
ase.org/sites/ase.org/files/resources/Media%20browser/
ee_commission_history_report_2-1-13.pdf.
C urrent electricity and natural gas consumption estimates
for the residential and commercial sectors based on:
U.S. Energy Information Administration, “Monthly Energy
Review,” September 28, 2017, https://www.eia.gov/
totalenergy/data/monthly/; Jeffery Greenblatt and Max Wei,
Assessment of the climate commitments and additional
mitigation policies of the United States, “Supplementary
Table 9. Estimated energy savings due to new residential
and commercial building codes for selected years,”
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, September 14,
2016, https://images.nature.com/full/nature-assets/nclimate/journal/v6/n12/extref/nclimate3125-s1.pdf“ Quadrennial Technology Review - Chapter 5: Increasing
Efficiency of Building Systems and Technologies,” U.S.
Department of Energy, September 2015, accessed October23, 2017, https://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2017/03/f34/qtr2015-chapter5.pdf.
D aniel Steinberg, Dave Bielen, Josh Eichman, Kelly Eurek,
Jeff Logan, Trieu Mai, Colin McMillan, et al., “Electrification& Decarbonization: Exploring U.S. Energy Use andGreenhouse Gas Emissions in Scenarios with Widespread
Electrification and Power Sector Decarbonization,” National
Renewable Energy Laboratory, July 2017, accessed
October 15, 2017, https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy17osti/68214.
pdf.

www.cncda.org/CMS/Pubs/CA%20Auto%20Outlook%20
1Q%202017.pdf.
154

“Electric Vehicle Outlook 2017,” Bloomberg New Energy
Finance, 2017, accessed October 15, 2017, https://about.
bnef.com/electric-vehicle-outlook/.

155

“Electric Vehicle Outlook 2017,” Bloomberg New Energy
Finance, 2017, accessed October 15, 2017, https://about.
bnef.com/electric-vehicle-outlook/.

156

Bill Vlasic and Neal E. Boudette, “G.M. and Ford Lay Out
Plans to Expand Electric Models,” The New York Times,
October 2, 2017, accessed October 15, 2017, https://www.
nytimes.com/2017/10/02/business/general-motors-electriccars.html.

157

Joann Muller, “With Hydrogen, Toyota Aims To Reclaim
The Green Image Stolen By Tesla,” Forbes, May 11, 2016,
accessed October 15, 2017, http://www.forbes.com/sites/
joannmuller/2016/05/11/with-hydrogen-toyota-aims-toreclaim-the-green-image-stolen-by-tesla/2/#66bf95c4ea3a.

158

John Voelcker, “Smaller, cheaper Toyota Mirai fuel-cell
car coming in 2019, company says,” Green Car Reports,
May 9, 2016, accessed October 15, 2017, http://www.
greencarreports.com/news/1103847_smaller-cheapertoyota-mirai-fuel-cell-car-coming-in-2019-company-says.

159

“GLC F-CELL goes into preproduction: world’s first electricvehicle with fuel-cell/battery powertrain,” Mercedes BenzMedia Newsroom USA, September 12, 2017, accessed
October 15, 2017, https://media.mbusa.com/releases/
release-80848dccd3f3680a764667ad5318497e-glc-f-cellgoes-into-preproduction-worlds-first-electric-vehicle-withfuel-cellbattery-powertrain#.

160

Adam Cooper and Kellen Schefter, “Plug-in Electric
Vehicle Sales Forecast Through 2025 and the Charging
Infrastructure Required,” The Edison Foundation Institutefor Electric Innovation and Edison Electric Institute,June 2017, accessed October 15, 2017, http://www.
edisonfoundation.net/iei/publications/Documents/
IEI_EEI%20PEV%20Sales%20and%20Infrastructure%20
thru%202025_FINAL%20(2).pdf; Jeffrey Rissman, “The
Future Of Electric Vehicles In The U.S.,” Energy Innovation,
September 2017, accessed October 15, 2017, http://
energyinnovation.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/201709-13-Future-of-EVs-Research-Note_FINAL.pdf.

149

N icholas Bianco, Kristin Igusky, Rebecca Gasper, Michael
Obeiter, Sarah Forbes, and Nate Aden, “Seeing is
Believing: Creating a New Climate Economy in the UnitedStates,” World Resources Institute, October 2014, accessed
October 23, 2017, http://www.wri.org/publication/seeingbelieving-creating-new-climate-economy-united-states.

150

Z achary Hart, “The Benefits of Benchmarking Building
Performance,” Institute for Market Transformation,
December 2015, accessed October 23, 2017, http://
www.imt.org/uploads/resources/files/PCC_Benefits_of_
Benchmarking.pdf.

161“ Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks:
1990-2015,” U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, April
15, 2017, accessed October 15, 2017, https://www.epa.gov/
ghgemissions/inventory-us-greenhouse-gas-emissionsand-sinks-1990-2015.

Ryan Kilpatrick, “Cities Across the U.S. Will Splurge on
Electric Vehicles After Automakers Said There Wasn’t
Enough Demand,” Fortune, March 15, 2017, accessed
September 29, 2017, http://fortune.com/2017/03/15/electricvehicles-cities-demand/.

162

“Governors Of Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New
Mexico, Utah And Wyoming Sign MOU To Plan Regional
Electric Vehicle Corridor For The West,” State of Colorado,
October 4, 2017, accessed October 15, 2017, https://www.
colorado.gov/governor/news/governors-colorado-idahomontana-nevada-new-mexico-utah-and-wyoming-signmou-plan-regionalAccessed October 2017.

163

Robinson Meyer, “How Solar and Wind Got So Cheap,
So Fast,” The Atlantic, December 2, 2015, accessed
October 15, 2017, https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2015/12/how-solar-and-wind-got-so-cheap-sofast/418257/.

164“2016 Production Statistics,” International Organization ofMotor Vehicle Manufacturers, accessed October 23, 2017,
http://www.oica.net/category/production-statistics/2016statistics/.

151

152

“ Monthly Energy Review,” U.S. Energy Information
Administration, September 28, 2017, accessed October 23,
2017, https://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/monthly/.

153“ Light Duty Electric Drive Vehicles Monthly Sales Updates,”
Argonne National Laboratory, August 2017, accessed
September 29, 2017, https://www.anl.gov/energy-systems/
project/light-duty-electric-drive-vehicles-monthly-salesupdates; “Electric Vehicle Outlook 2017,” Bloomberg New
Energy Finance, 2017, accessed October 15, 2017, https://about.bnef.com/electric-vehicle-outlook/; “California Auto
Outlook Volume 13, Number 2,” California New Car Dealers
Association, May 2017, accessed October 15, 2017, http://122 | AMERICA’S PLEDGE

165

D
 avid Roberts, “The world’s largest car market justannounced an imminent end to gas and diesel
cars,” Vox Media, September 13, 2017, accessed
October 23, 2017, https://www.vox.com/energy-andenvironment/2017/9/13/16293258/ev-revolution.

166“ Fast Facts on Transportation GHG Emissions,” U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, September 26,
2017, accessed October 15, 2017, https://www.epa.gov/
greenvehicles/fast-facts-transportation-greenhouse-gasemissions.

167

168

169

“ DOT Releases 30-Year Freight Projections,” U.S.
Department of Transportation, March 3, 2016, accessed
October 15, 2017, https://www.transportation.gov/briefingroom/dot-releases-30-year-freight-projections.
D .B. Belzer, S.R. Bender, and K.A. Cort, “A Comprehensive
System of Energy Intensity Indicators for the U.S.:
Methods, Data and Key Trends,” Pacific Northwest National
Laboratory, June 2017, accessed October 15, 2017, http://
www.pnnl.gov/main/publications/external/technical_
reports/pnnl-22267Rev2.pdf.
“ Transportation Energy Data Book: Edition 35,” Table 2-8
Transportation Energy Use by Mode, 2013–2014, October
31, 2016, http://cta.ornl.gov/data/tedb35/Edition35_
Chapter02.pdf

170S iddiq Khan, “In Run on Less roadshow, trucks topped 10
mpg in real-world driving,” American Council for an EnergyEfficient Economy, September 29, 2017, accessed October
17, 2017, http://aceee.org/blog/2017/09/run-less-roadshowtrucks-topped-10.

171

A rgonne National Laboratory found that assuming the2014 electricity grid fuel mix, battery-electric vehicles in
the United States have lower lifecycle GHG emissions
than conventional vehicles. Source: Argonne National
Laboratory, “Cradle-to-Grave Lifecycle Analysis of U.S.
Light-Duty Vehicle-Fuel Pathways: A Greenhouse Gas
Emissions and Economic Assessment of Current (2015)
and Future (2025-2030) Technologies,” June 2016, https://greet.es.anl.gov/publication-c2g-2016-report

172

173

J effery Greenblatt and Max Wei, “Assessment of
the climate commitments and additional mitigation
policies of the United States: Supplementary Table 9 Estimated energy savings due to new residential andcommercial building codes for selected years,” Lawrence
Berkeley National Laboratory, Nature Climate Change
Supplementary Information, September 14, 2016, accessed
October 15, 2017, https://images.nature.com/full/natureassets/nclimate/journal/v6/n12/extref/nclimate3125-s1.pdf.
“ Monthly Energy Review,” U.S. Energy Information
Administration, September 28, 2017, accessed October23, 2017, https://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/monthly/;“Annual Energy Outlook 2017,” U.S. Energy Information
Administration, January 5, 2017, accessed September 29,
2017, https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/

174

A
 .B. 262, Chapter 816, (Cal. 2017), accessed October 23,
2017, https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.
xhtml?bill_id=201720180AB262.

175“ Electric power sales, revenue, and energy efficiency
Form EIA-861 detailed data files,” U.S. Energy Information
Administration, August 14, 2017, accessed September 29,
2017, https://www.eia.gov/electricity/data/eia861/.

176“ Industrial applications of CCS,” International Energy
Agency, 2016, accessed September 29, 2017, https://www.
iea.org/topics/ccs/subtopics/industrialapplicationsofccs/.

177

Jon Creyts, Hannah Choi Granade, and Kenneth J.
Ostrowski, “US energy savings: Opportunities andchallenges,” McKinsey & Company, January 2010, accessed
October 23, 2017, https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/
electric-power-and-natural-gas/our-insights/us-energysavings-opportunities-and-challenges.

178

“The Kigali Amendment to the Montreal Protocol: Another
Global Commitment to Stop Climate Change,” United
Nations Environment Programme, December 2016,
accessed September 29, 2017, http://www.unep.org/africa/
news/kigali-amendment-montreal-protocol-another-globalcommitment-stop-climate-change.

179

“FACT SHEET: Nearly 200 Countries Reach a Global Dealto Phase Down Potent Greenhouse Gases and Avoid Up
to 0.5°C of Warming,” The White House, October 15, 2016,
accessed October 2, 2017, https://obamawhitehouse.
archives.gov/the-press-office/2016/10/15/fact-sheet-nearly200-countries-reach-global-deal-phase-down-potent.

180

“2016 Global Responsibility Report: Reducing energy
intensity and emissions,” Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 2017,
accessed September 29, 2017, https://corporate.walmart.
com/2016grr/enhancing-sustainability/reducing-energyintensity-and-emissions.

181

Jeffery Greenblatt and Max Wei, “Assessment of theclimate commitments and additional mitigation policiesof the United States,” Nature Climate Change, 1090-1093(2016), accessed October 15, 2017, http://www.nature.com/
nclimate/journal/v6/n12/full/nclimate3125.html?WT.feed_
name=subjects_climate-change-policy.

182

“Why are natural gas leaks a problem?” Environmental
Defense Fund, accessed October 23, 2017, https://www.
edf.org/climate/methanemaps/leaks-problem; Judith Mernit,“With New Tools, A Focus On Urban Methane Leaks,” Yale
School of Forestry, April 4, 2016, accessed October 23,
2017, http://e360.yale.edu/features/with_new_tools_focus_
on_urban_methane_leaks.

183

“Collaboration with PSE&G: Data helps prioritize gas line
replacement,” Environmental Defense Fund, accessed
September 29, 2017, https://www.edf.org/climate/methanemaps/pseg-collaboration; “Air pollution mapping
enters a new tech era: EDF and Google revolutionize how
climate-harming gas leaks are measured,” Environmental
Defense Fund, accessed September 29, 2017, https://www.
edf.org/climate/methanemaps/partnership.

184

“Biofuels and Bioproducts from Wet and Gaseous Waste
Streams: Challenges and Opportunities,” 2017, Allegheny
Science & Technology (AS&T) developed for the U.S.
Department of Energy, https://energy.gov/sites/prod/
files/2017/01/f34/biofuels_and_bioproducts_from_wet_
and_gaseous_waste_streams_full_report_2.pdf.

185

“LA Metro Awards Multi-Year Contract For Clean Energy’s
Redeem™ Renewable Natural Gas To Fuel Nation’s Largest
CNG Bus Fleet,” Clean Energy Fuels Corp., May 26,
2017, https://www.cleanenergyfuels.com/press-room/lametro-awards-multi-year-contract-clean-energys-redeemrenewable-natural-gas-fuel-nations-largest-cng-bus-fleet/186

“27 Solutions to Food Waste—Emissions Reduced,” ReFed,2017, accessed September 29, 2017, http://www.refed.
com/?sort=emissions-reduced.

187

“An Economic Analysis of Food Waste Solutions,” ReFed,2017, accessed September 29, 2017, http://www.refed.com/
analysis?sort=economic-value-per-ton.

188

“Project and Landfill Data by State,” U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, last modified September 17, 2017,
accessed October 15, 2017, https://www.epa.gov/lmop/
project-and-landfill-data-state.

Endnotes | 123

189“AgSTAR Data and Trends,” U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, last modified August 18, 2016, accessed September
29, 2017, https://www.epa.gov/agstar/agstar-data-and-trends.

190

T he White House, “United States Mid-Century Strategy
for Deep Decarbonization,” November 2016, https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/docs/
mid_century_strategy_report-final.pdf

191	Kate Larsen, John Larsen, Whitney Herndon, ShashankMohan, and Trevor Houser. “Taking Stock 2017: Adjusting
Expectations for US GHG Emissions.” Rhodium Group. May,
24 2017, http://rhg.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/RHG_
ENR_Taking_Stock_24May2017.pdf.
192	David Rich, Pankaj Bhatia, Jared Finnegan, Kelly Levin and
Apurba Mitra. “Policy and Action Standard: An Accounting
and Reporting Standard for Estimating the Greenhouse
Gas Effects of Policies and Actions.” World Resources
Institute, Greenhouse Gas Protocol. 2014. http://www.wri.org/
publication/policy-and-action-standard.
193	Initiative for Climate Action Transparency. “Transformational
Change Guidance: Guidance for Assessing theTransformational Impacts of Policies and Actions. First Draft,
26 July 2016.
194	Non-State Actor Zone for Climate Action, http://climateaction.
unfccc.int/about.

U.S. states, cities, and businesses, haveemerged as the new face of American
leadership on climate change, and are
stepping up with commitments to reducegreenhouse gas emissions to help meet
America's climate pledge to the world.