New Articles

Helping the World is Good for Business

emissions

Helping the World is Good for Business

There aren’t many times in any industry when going the extra mile to do the right thing is actually really good for business too. But it does happen.

Skeptical? You’re not alone. After two years of juggling, pivoting, problem solving, reimagining and then doing it again – all of which have drained energies and operational budgets – any transportation logistics executive in charge of budgeting, could be forgiven for taking a hard line on non-essential expenditures.

Proactively protecting the environment? That’s a must-do for every industry, but it’s low on a priority list that has been exclusively focused on finding and retaining carrier capacity and keeping the flow of goods moving across the country and around the world.


 

As we all continually re-examine ways to cut costs and realize even greater operational efficiencies, improving environmental protocols – and reducing C02 emissions specifically – presents a rare win-win dynamic in which operations leaders can preemptively align around incoming regulations, optimize network efficiencies and reduce C02, an increasingly problematic contributor to greenhouse gasses (GHG’s) and overall environmental impact. If all of that sounds a little like having your cake and eating it, you’re not wrong. Let’s dig in, get some broader perspective and take a closer look at the issues and strategic steps to lowering emissions and raising profits.

The Global Perspective: efforts to reduce emissions

Protecting the environment seemed more an extreme activist position a few decades ago but it’s rightly now a global perspective – and with good reason. The Paris Accord – an agreement by countries around the world to reach net zero carbon emissions by 2050 – mandates a target of no more than a 1.5 degree Celsius change in global temperature beyond pre-industrial levels. According to Stanford University, as of March 2021, 64 countries signed the agreement but the race is on. While pandemic lockdowns and other confinement measures cut global emissions by 2.6 billion tons of CO2, about seven percent below pre 2019 levels, experts say that level of control cannot be maintained and the world is on track to increase global temperature by 3-5 degrees Celsius by the end of the century: a world-changing problem.

The good news is that change is being affected at the global, national, corporate and individual levels. Or at least initiatives are in place to fast track new behaviors. At the international level, 27 countries have implemented a carbon tax, imposing fees on industries for carbon emissions in an effort to incentivize a switch to improved practices and both green technologies and power sources. Pro-tax countries include Argentina, Canada, Chile, China, Colombia, Denmark, the European Union (27 countries), Japan, Kazakhstan, Korea, Mexico, New Zealand, Norway, Singapore, South Africa, Sweden, the United Kingdom, and Ukraine. Others considering joining include Brazil, Brunei, Indonesia, Pakistan, Russia, Serbia, Thailand, Turkey, and Vietnam. In addition, 64 carbon pricing initiatives are currently in force across the globe on various regional, national, and subnational levels, with three more scheduled for implementation, according to The World Bank. Together, these initiatives have been estimated to cover 21.5% of the global greenhouse gas emissions in 2021.

A gradual shift to renewable energy worldwide is also underway with solar-generated power leading the way. While coal and gas still account for around 60% of the world’s energy, renewable forms of energy production are growing fast. According to Earth.org, worldwide solar power production has grown 25% year-on-year with overall renewable energy now accounting for 29% of the global power supply and the first countries, like Iceland, being close to 100% renewable-energy-powered. This pace of change will pick up, but it’s also going to require the major industries that generate large amounts of C02  – for example manufacturing and livestock-based meat production – as well as other private sector companies and every team within them – to affect change from the top down and bottom up. While the earth’s agriculture goliaths tackle damaging methane gas emissions (9.6% of all U.S. greenhouse gas emissions), a society-wide movement is beginning, with the adoption of consumer and coming commercial electric vehicles, single use plastics, ride sharing and plant-based food production.

The C-Suite Perspective: targeting the supply chain and improving visibility

While all of that is tremendously encouraging and needed, corporate America and its global counterparts are being asked to do more. Forbes reports leaders now recognize the need for their companies and organizations to drive more proactive environmental change through C02-limiting practices across the organization but particularly in relation to the supply chain. According to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), company supply chains now account for a staggering 90% of an organization’s greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.

While changes to other emissions-reducing strategies, including business travel practices, electric vehicles and renewable energy use, all help corporations lower their carbon footprint, tackling supply chain emissions from manufacturing to the transportation, handling and management of goods is the single greatest impact generator for many businesses. Kevin Sneader, global managing partner, McKinsey & Company hits the nail squarely on the head about exactly what’s needed to affect this level of network-wide change:

“While there wasn’t much debate about the science [of necessary reduction of C02 emissions], executives and investors were concerned about the lack of reliable data on the efforts companies and society are making, not to mention their impact. Greater clarity is required in order to speed development of new standards to help markets act more efficiently and reward progress.”

The answer lies, as with many operational efficiencies initiatives, in clear access to data across your supply chain operation. How much C02 is being emitted at any given time? What are the major causes, modes or geographies and other contributing variables? Only by tracking this data, by embedding an enterprise-wide approach to ongoing C02 monitoring, can we build effective strategies to manage and reduce emissions and realize greater efficiencies at the same time. This is especially critical post global pandemic as many industries re-set and examine better practices to mitigate risk and manage challenges.

Creating Sustainability Practices in Transportation Logistics

When it comes to creating sustainable practices in logistics transportation, the great news is that the train has already left the station. Meaning shippers are already organically looking for better ways to improve execution and lower costs. And typically those changes – optimizing network and mode, carrier/LSP selection via advanced routing as well as packaging strategies to reduce dimensional weight and trim cost – will all contribute to emissions reduction. The challenge, of course, comes in how to measure any impact from these actions as part of an overall carbon reduction program.

How do we begin thinking about C02 monitoring and measurement? How do we acquire quantitative proof of progress or KPI’s that can demonstrate we’re delivering against our footprint- reduction goals? Measurement needs to include everything from the role warehouse management, packaging, product sourcing all play in emissions as well as, of course, the movement of inbound materials or inventory delivery and outbound transportation of goods across mode, region and geography.

Tracking CO2: Supporting a Broader Sustainability Initiative

As we set about to review sustainable practices within an operation, it’s a good idea to adopt a broader view of sustainability. Yes, transportation will be a major driver of C02 emissions and require monitoring, but let’s review other contributing factors too. Do your carriers across your network practice emissions-reduction strategies? Things like load consolidation, which will typically lower cost per unit weight, reduce your number of shipments, reduce fuel needs and lead to an overall reduction of C02. If they’re not using basic emissions-reduction practices or considering doing so, it may be time to find new carriers.

Unfortunately, there is no global standard to measure CO2 in relation to transportation logistics which makes comparison across the industry extremely difficult at present. In the United States, the EPA’s Smartway program is attempting to standardize CO2 coefficients but not all companies have adopted a single source of CO2, nor a common definition as it relates to transportation logistics. Until this happens, the best course of action is internal measurement: consistently monitoring and measuring across your operation and benchmarking emissions- reduction against your own goals and initiatives to affect them. Only by doing this and having the data-driven proof points can we set new goals as well as broader sustainability targets that can all be reported to customers, partners, investors and other stakeholders.

It’s All About Data: FAP’s Role in CO2 Measurement

Visibility is the key to delivering on your targets for sustainability and emission reduction, and that can only come from data collection, curation and analysis. Two fundamental components for measuring CO2 emissions in transportation logistics are weight and distance. How large and heavy are my goods? How far and by which means do they need to travel, what’s the fuel required and how efficient is consumption? A good quality Freight Audit and Payment (FAP) system tracks weight and lane, which can help calculate distance, plus additional variables, making it a foundational step and required tool for any CO2 measurement and reduction effort.

While there is no single source or method to deriving CO2 yet, distance, weight, and mode of transportation are all key fundamental elements that support the calculation of CO2 related to transportation logistics. The bottom line is that by combining these input values with CO2 coefficients, it’s possible to calculate the CO2 associated with any shipment, regardless of mode of transport and geographic region.

A natural place to begin is where carbon emissions reduction has a material impact (transportation logistics) and where transportation spend management data is available (historical record of shipping activity with specific distance, weight, mode of transport available).   Dashboards and trends along with KPIs for both cost to serve metrics (cost per unit, cost per shipment, cost per unit weight) and carbon emissions (CO2 by lane, by LSP) create awareness and can be used to establish baselines and alignment for both carbon reduction and transportation spend optimization. This same dashboard can be used by logistics, procurement, operations management, and executives to align on, and report, progress at all levels of the organization at any given time.

Getting the Most from Your KPI’s

According to Forrester, 59% of all companies worldwide now follow data-driven strategies and that number is growing as even small-to-medium sized organizations realize the benefits of data analysis. As you build your sustainability protocols and measurement practices to get the most from your KPI’s, two things are important.

Continuous Process Improvement

Set goals and use appropriate KPI’s and influencers (cost per unit of distance, CO2 per unit of distance) which will deliver ongoing process improvements: proper supplier and LSP management across your operation as well as more informed decision making for everything from mode of transportation and packaging choice all the way to corporation level decisions around emissions control strategies.

Optimized Strategies

Build carbon emission reduction strategies into your overall optimization strategies. They’re one and the same. Putting in place operational changes to improve efficiencies will reduce emissions. Setting emissions reduction goals will necessitate changes that improve efficiency. And consistent, standardized and high quality data is essential for both.

Do both of these things: continually drive improvement across every process and embrace data- driven decision making to optimize strategies, and you’ll put in place the steps and tools to not just lower C02 emissions, but related operational costs too.

___________________________________________________________________

Steve Beda is executive vice president of customer solutions for Trax Technologies, the global leader in Transportation Spend Management solutions. Trax elevates traditional Freight Audit and Payment with a combination of industry leading cloud-based technology solutions and expert services to help enterprises with the world’s more complex supply chains better manage and control their global transportation costs and drive enterprise-wide efficiency and value. For more information, visit www.traxtech.com.  

renewable energy

States That Produce the Most Renewable Energy

Since President Joe Biden and a new Congress took office earlier this year, federal policymakers have been working to speed up the U.S. transition to clean and renewable energy sources. One of Biden’s first actions in office was to rejoin the Paris Climate Accord, the 2016 agreement in which countries pledged to significantly reduce their CO2 emissions. The Biden Administration followed this up with aggressive carbon reduction targets and the American Jobs Plan proposal, which includes provisions to modernize the power grid, incentivize clean energy generation, and create more jobs in the energy sector. Much of Biden’s agenda builds on prior proposals like the Green New Deal, which would achieve emissions reductions and create jobs through investments in clean energy production and energy-efficient infrastructure upgrades.

 


The transition to renewables has taken on greater urgency in recent years with the worsening effects of climate change. Carbon emissions from non-renewable sources like coal, oil, and natural gas are one of the primary factors contributing to the warming of the atmosphere, and climate experts project that to limit warming, renewable energy must supply 70 to 85% of electricity by midcentury.

Renewable energy still represents less than a quarter of total annual electricity generation in the U.S., but the good news is that renewable energy has been responsible for a steadily increasing share of electricity generation over the past decade. Most of the upward trajectory comes from exponential growth in the production of solar and wind power. In 1990, solar power generated only 367,087 megawatt-hours of electricity, while wind power was responsible for 2,788,600 megawatt-hours. Since then, technological improvements and public investment in wind and solar helped lower costs and make them viable competitors to non-renewable sources. By 2020, solar production had reached 89,198,715 megawatt-hours, while wind produced 337,938,049 megawatt-hours of electricity.

But this evolution is uneven across the U.S., a product of differences in states’ economies, public policy toward renewables, and perhaps most importantly, geographic features. Even among states that lead in renewable energy production, these factors contribute to different mixes of renewable sources. For instance, Texas—the nation’s top producer of renewable energy—generates most of its renewable electricity from wind turbines. Runner-up Washington and fourth-place Oregon take advantage of large rivers in the Pacific Northwest to generate more hydroelectric power than any other state. And California, which is third in total renewable production, has been a long-time leader in solar energy thanks in part to an abundance of direct sunlight.

Meanwhile, states that lag behind in renewable generation include several states without the size or geographic features to scale up production, like Delaware, Rhode Island, and Connecticut, along with states whose economies are more traditionally dependent on fossil fuels, like Mississippi and Alaska.

To determine the states producing the most renewable energy, researchers at Commodity.com used data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration to calculate the percentage of total electricity generated from renewable sources. Renewable energy sources include wind, solar, geothermal, biomass, and hydroelectric. In the event of a tie, the state with the greater five-year growth in renewable electricity production, between 2015 and 2020, was ranked higher.

Here are the states that produce the most renewable energy.

State
Rank
Percentage of electricity generated from renewables
5-year change in renewable electricity production
Total electricity generated from renewables (MWh)
Largest renewable energy source
Vermont    1     99.9% +9.0% 2,155,177 Hydroelectric Conventional
South Dakota    2     80.5% +55.0% 11,388,457 Hydroelectric Conventional
Maine    3     76.7% -1.7% 7,674,956 Hydroelectric Conventional
Idaho    4     76.1% +15.0% 13,456,149 Hydroelectric Conventional
Washington    5     75.0% +5.6% 87,109,288 Hydroelectric Conventional
Oregon    6     67.5% +9.5% 42,928,468 Hydroelectric Conventional
Iowa    7     59.4% +85.6% 35,437,099 Wind
Montana    8     59.4% +16.8% 13,872,119 Hydroelectric Conventional
Kansas    9     44.2% +117.6% 24,117,519 Wind
California    10     42.6% +38.9% 82,239,832 Solar Thermal and Photovoltaic
Oklahoma    11     39.7% +91.9% 32,687,539 Wind
North Dakota    12     38.1% +87.0% 16,084,768 Wind
Colorado    13     30.9% +77.4% 16,724,964 Wind
Alaska    14     30.8% +8.3% 1,931,545 Hydroelectric Conventional
Nebraska    15     28.9% +115.7% 10,648,740 Wind
United States    –     19.5% +43.9% 783,003,365 Wind

 

For more information, a detailed methodology, and complete results, you can find the original report on Commodity.com’s website: https://commodity.com/blog/states-renewable-energy/

fossil fuels

U.S. States Most Dependent on Fossil Fuels

With the effects of global climate change becoming increasingly apparent, policymakers across the U.S. are moving to reduce the nation’s reliance on carbon-based fossil fuels.

At the beginning of his term, President Joe Biden rejoined the Paris Climate Accord, and in April, the Biden Administration announced aggressive new greenhouse gas reduction goals, including an overall aim to reduce U.S. greenhouse gas pollution to half of 2005 levels by 2030. Meanwhile, nearly 40 states have adopted renewable portfolio standards to facilitate a transition away from fossil fuels for energy production to renewables.

Despite these efforts, however, fossil fuel consumption remains deeply entrenched in the U.S. economy, and it could take years to transition away from fossil fuels as the country’s primary energy source.

Petroleum remains the leading source of energy in the U.S., accounting for approximately one-third of energy consumed. Energy consumption from natural gas expanded over the last decade as the rise of hydraulic fracturing made it less costly to extract. Most of that growth has come at the expense of coal, which represented 22.7% of the energy consumed in 2008 but just 13.1% a decade later. And while nuclear has held steady and renewables have continued to grow with improved technology and greater scale, fossil fuels still represent more than 80% of total energy consumption in the U.S. each year.

One example of the difficulties of shifting away from fossil fuels is consumers’ relationship to gasoline and car travel. Recently, gasoline prices have been on the rise again: prices dropped sharply in 2020, as many travelers and commuters stayed off the roads during the COVID-19 pandemic. Now, with many public health restrictions being relaxed as cases decline and more people get vaccinated, prices have topped $3 per gallon nationally for the first time since 2014. But despite what the laws of supply and demand might suggest, rising prices do not strongly affect driver behavior: research shows they tend to purchase the same amount of gasoline regardless of how much it costs. Instead, breaking drivers’ reliance on fossil fuels will depend on auto manufacturers providing more hybrid and electric options, whether by choice or by policy, like California’s zero-emission vehicle regulations.

State-level data reinforces that there is a long way to go before the transition away from fossil fuels is complete. Every single U.S. state derives at least 50% of its energy from fossil fuels, and a total of nine states derive more than 90% of their energy from fossil fuels. Among the most dependent are small states like Delaware and Rhode Island, which import most of their energy from elsewhere, and states with rich stores of fossil fuels, like Alaska, West Virginia, and Kentucky. At the other end of the spectrum are states like Washington, Oregon, and New Hampshire, which rely more on nuclear and renewables like hydroelectric power and derive less than 60% of their energy from fossil fuels.

To find the states most dependent on fossil fuels, researchers at Commodity.com used data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration to calculate the percentage of total primary energy consumption from coal, natural gas, and petroleum in 2018 (the most recent available data). Researchers also calculated the percentage of total primary energy consumption derived from renewable sources, as well as the largest fossil fuel source.

Here are the states most dependent on fossil fuels.

State Rank Percentage of energy derived from fossil fuels Percentage of energy derived from renewables Total energy consumed from fossil fuels (trillion BTU) Total energy consumed from renewables (trillion BTU) Largest fossil fuel source

 

Delaware     1     96.4% 3.6% 213.1 8.0 Petroleum
Alaska     2     95.9% 4.1% 584.8 25.0 Natural Gas
West Virginia     3     95.4% 4.6% 1,103.3 53.7 Coal
Rhode Island     4     95.0% 5.0% 189.1 10.0 Natural Gas
Kentucky     5     94.1% 5.9% 1,616.5 102.1 Coal
Wyoming     6     93.5% 6.5% 793.2 54.9 Coal
Indiana     7     93.4% 6.6% 2,617.2 185.9 Coal
Utah     8     93.1% 6.9% 830.0 61.3 Petroleum
Louisiana     9     92.1% 3.7% 3,895.5 155.0 Petroleum
Texas     10     89.9% 7.1% 12,752.3 1,009.0 Petroleum
Ohio     11     89.7% 4.7% 3,040.2 158.6 Natural Gas
Hawaii     12     89.4% 10.6% 261.8 31.1 Petroleum
Colorado     13     88.8% 11.2% 1,305.1 164.6 Natural Gas
Mississippi     14     88.2% 6.1% 1,116.6 76.8 Natural Gas
Missouri     15     88.0% 5.9% 1,608.7 108.5 Coal
United States     –     80.5% 11.2% 81,238.0 11,281.6 Petroleum

 

For more information, a detailed methodology, and complete results, you can find the original report on Commodity.com’s website: https://commodity.com/blog/states-fossil-fuels/

solar energy

States Producing the Most Solar Energy

In the first few months of his administration, one of President Joe Biden’s top policy priorities has been addressing the threat of climate change—while also improving infrastructure and creating jobs to generate economic growth. Biden has stated a goal of reaching 100% pollution-free electricity by 2035, which means dramatically scaling up renewable energy production in the U.S. To that end, Biden’s proposed American Jobs Plan would include extensive tax credits, grants, and other investments in clean energy.

One of the potential beneficiaries of this focus is the solar power industry, which is seeing rapid growth as the costs associated with solar decline. For many years, solar power was too expensive to be adopted at scale as a major source of energy production, but this has changed in recent years.

One of the biggest reasons for the decline in costs has been technological innovation. Solar technology has become more reliable and more efficient over time, which lowers the cost of generating energy. As those costs decrease, adoption becomes more common, which allows solar cell manufacturers to achieve economies of scale and lower prices even further.

Government support has also been a major factor: billions in federal investment for renewables during the Great Recession helped spur the technological advances seen in the last decade, and the federal government—along with many states and localities—has long offered tax breaks and other incentives to subsidize household solar adoption.

These factors reached an inflection point in the mid-2000s, and solar production in the U.S. has been growing exponentially ever since. In 2006, solar generated around 507,000 megawatt-hours of energy and represented .01% of U.S. energy generated by the electric power industry. By 2019, solar thermal and photovoltaic accounted for 71,936,822 megawatt-hours—around 140 times more than in 2006—to represent 1.74% of the total.

Solar is still a relatively small part of the U.S.’s overall energy mix but will become an increasingly significant source as solar production continues to accelerate—particularly if the Biden Administration’s climate policies and clean energy investments come to pass. For now, however, renewables overall (17.7% of total electricity generation) still lag behind natural gas (38.4%), coal (23.4%), and nuclear (19.6%). Within the renewable category, solar (9.9% of renewable production) trails wind (40.6%) and hydroelectric (39.5%).

Despite its small but growing role in overall U.S. energy production, solar is a major part of the energy mix in a number of states. The undisputed leader of these states is California, which leads all others both by total solar energy production and the share of electricity derived from solar. California’s total solar energy production is nearly four times that of the runner-up state, North Carolina. Many of the market factors that have made solar more popular nationwide hold in California, too, but the Golden State also has geographic features and a political climate that have made it a solar leader.

In terms of geography, California is one of the U.S. states with the highest levels of insolation, or exposure to the sun. Insolation is a factor for many other leading states for solar production, including Sun Belt locations like Texas, Southwestern states Nevada and Arizona, and Southeastern states North Carolina, Georgia, and Florida. Politically, California’s policymakers have created an environment that all but guarantees heavy reliance on solar energy. For instance, California has one of the most ambitious renewable portfolio standards of any U.S. state, with a goal of generating 60% of energy from renewables by 2030 and 100% of energy from renewables by 2045. Additionally, in 2020, the state began requiring most new homes to include rooftop solar panels.

To find the states where solar production is highest, researchers at Commodity.com used data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration’s Electricity Power Data. States were ranked by annual solar production for electric power (in megawatt-hours) for 2019. The researchers also calculated the year-over-year change in total solar energy production from 2018–2019, as well as what percentage of total energy production and renewable energy production solar accounts for.

Here are the states producing the most solar energy.

State

 

Rank

 

Annual solar energy production (Megawatt-hours)

 

Change in solar energy production (YoY)

 

Solar share of total energy production

 

Solar share of total renewable energy production

 

California    1    28,331,513 +5.0% 14.0% 29.1%
North Carolina    2    7,451,338 +21.9% 5.7% 44.6%
Arizona    3    5,278,019 +2.7% 4.6% 43.0%
Nevada    4    4,810,511 +1.9% 12.1% 42.4%
Texas    5    4,365,125 +36.2% 0.9% 4.8%
Florida    6    3,901,445 +61.7% 1.6% 45.6%
Utah    7    2,186,424 -1.7% 5.6% 51.3%
Georgia    8    2,160,770 +8.3% 1.7% 18.8%
New Mexico    9    1,365,900 +1.3% 3.9% 16.1%
Minnesota    10    1,248,833 +19.8% 2.1% 8.6%
Colorado    11    1,218,220 +14.7% 2.2% 8.7%
New Jersey    12    1,164,721 +17.6% 1.6% 57.9%
Massachusetts    13    1,163,776 +19.0% 5.4% 34.7%
Virginia    14    949,111 +24.4% 1.0% 15.3%
South Carolina    15    858,546 +68.2% 0.9% 14.3%
United States    –    71,936,822 +12.7% 1.7% 9.9%

 

For more information, a detailed methodology, and complete results, you can find the original report on Commodity.com’s website: https://commodity.com/blog/states-solar-energy/