Please admit California’s Pajaro Valley to the storehouse of evidence that charging a fee to use scarce resources can stretch those resources, to the benefit of all.
Never heard of Pajaro Valley? Me neither, until I came across NY Times climate reporter Coral Davenport’s compelling end-of-year story, Strawberry Case Study: What if Farmers Had to Pay for Water? Turns out I once hitch-hiked there en route to the spectacular Big Sur coast south of Monterey. But the payoff today is in the story’s subhead: With aquifers nationwide in dangerous decline, one part of California has tried essentially taxing groundwater. New research shows it’s working.
California’s Pajaro Valley, at center of this Google Map, hugs the Pacific Coast midway between Santa Cruz and Monterey and straddles the two counties named for those cities.
What’s working? A charge for groundwater extracted to grow strawberries, raspberries, brussels sprouts, lettuce and kale, administered by the state-chartered Pajaro Valley Water Management Agency to prevent saltwater from the adjacent Pacific Ocean from intruding into underground aquifers. The fee, which began several decades ago at a nominal $30 per acre-foot of water to recover PVWMA’s water-metering costs, now runs as high as $400, according to Davenport.
Lest that rise seem meteoric, and today’s price appear punitive, consider that currently the agency’s total annual water fees, $12 million, equate to barely 1 percent of annual Pajaro Valley crop revenues of $12 million. What’s more, an acre-foot — the standard volumetric for water supply — is enormous: enough to provide 3 million tall glasses of water, by my calculations. Even the projected 2025 price of $500 per acre-foot translates to a mere one-sixtieth of a cent per glass.
To be sure, that calculation is merely illustrative; water for drinking and water for growing crops are two different things. But consider what Pajaro Valley growers get from paying for water.
First, their payments are helping assure increased supplies of crop-worthy water. Revenue from the water fees enabled PVWMA to undertake a $6 million project that captures excess rainwater from a creek near the ocean and injects it into underground wells to be used for irrigation, and a $20 million water recycling plant that cleans 5 million gallons of sewage a day and pipes it to farm fields. Next up, Davenport tells us, is an $80 million system to capture and store more rainwater for irrigation. By replenishing and “stretching’ supplies of groundwater, these investments help ensure that brackish water from the ocean doesn’t seep into Pajaro Valley wells.
Just as importantly, the growers receive a potent incentive to use available water supplies more efficiently. “Gone were the days of sprinklers that drenched fields indiscriminately,” Davenport writes. “To save money, many Pajaro farmers invested in precision irrigation technology to distribute carefully measured water exactly where it was needed.” (See text box.) Though the article doesn’t mention it, these investments by dozens of individual growers might not have materialized had not all growers been subject to the same incentives to conserve as well.
Economics
Undergirding Davenport’s upbeat reporting is a 2023 working paper, The Dynamic Impacts of Pricing Groundwater, by three economists at U-C Berkeley’s Dept. of Agricultural and Resource Economics. In academic parlance, “dynamic” doesn’t connote a Marvel superhero, it refers to changes over time. By examining changes in water usage over time, the authors conclude that each “21% price increase led to a … 22% reduction in average annual groundwater extraction” by Pajaro Valley growers.
The implied price-elasticity is roughly negative 1.3. (The paper helpfully reports that “The reduction in annual water use doubles between the first year and the fifth year after the tax, with the implied price elasticity of demand ranging from negative 0.86 to negative 1.97.) This empirically-derived price sensitivity is far greater than the price elasticities assumed in CTC’s carbon-tax model, befitting not only the greater salience of water use for growers vis-a-vis energy use for consumers and even most businesses, but the greater agency of Pajaro Valley growers who, Davenport’s reporting suggests, over time have increasingly bought into PVWMA’s groundwater fee in both theory and execution.
After reading Davenport’s article I reached out to hydrologist, climatologist and water sustainability expert Peter Gleick, whose latest book, The Three Ages of Water: Prehistoric Past, Imperiled Present, and a Hope for the Future, was published last year by Hachette / Public Affairs. Peter praised the article while preferring to denote the PVWMA groundwater charge “not [as a] tax but a fee or simply a price for a commodity.” He added, “When we pay for something, we’re more conscious of how we use it. When something is free, we’re more likely to misuse and abuse it. That’s certainly been the case historically for California groundwater.”
Carbon Taxes?
A number of posts in this space have touted — we might say “flogged” — other instances of resource or externality pricing, as possible templates for large-scale carbon pricing. In 2016 we wrote about Berkeley’s soda tax, actually a tax on the sugar content of soft drinks, and summarized research showing that sales of sugar-sweetened beverages fell 21% in that city while rising 4% in “control groups,” i.e., neighboring municipalities where soft drinks continued untaxed. Last year we explained why Congestion pricing, coming soon to New York City, could bode well for carbon-taxing — a message we previously broadcast several times in 2019 as the enabling legislation was being enacted in Albany, in March and in April.
We also dug deep in 2017, writing about an incipient NYC nickel fee on carryout bags dispensed at supermarkets, grocery and convenience stores. (The fee was a month away from taking effect, and though we haven’t yet seen before/after comparisons, anecdotal evidence suggests that trees in New York City are today far less encumbered by what we referred to then as “gossamer debris stuck, like tumors, to our half-a-million street trees.”) We can also go back half a century, to 1972, when NYC environmental officials conjured a “dirty oil surcharge” that forced petroleum suppliers to cough up a fee for each barrel of high-sulfur oil they brought into the city, a remarkably successful (but little known) instance of externality pricing that I memorialized in a 2009 post for Grist, Pollution Taxes Work.
Needless to say, none of these fees — not the soda tax, not congestion charging, not the carryout bag fee, and not the dirty oil surcharge — has paved the way for full-on carbon pricing. While each of them has been or will be a resounding success, their scale is far too local and the stakes far too small to translate automatically to national or even state-level carbon pricing. The same will hold for California’s Pajaro Valley groundwater fee. Indeed, California water districts are wrestling today with the hard work of fulfilling a state mandate requiring every part of the state to devise a plan to conserve groundwater.
Happily, Davenport notes that PVWMA officials and even some growers are advising their statewide counterparts to emulate their approach, including “local control” rather than state or even county governance. Less happily, she reports that the Westlands Water District, which serves the state’s giant Central Valley breadbasket, is pushing a plan “that would allow growers to pay for credits to use groundwater above a certain allocation.” The growers “could buy and sell the credits, starting at about $200 a credit,” Davenport notes. While this scheme certainly improves on the status quo of charging little or nothing for groundwater use, it’s complicated and drenched in market ideology, much as carbon cap-and-trade systems needlessly encumber what could and should be straightforward carbon pricing.
Let’s not end on that dour note, however. These instances of resource charging — whether to stretch a limited resource or to internalize pollution or other externality costs — make it easier to build support for enacting new ones. Davenport’s story — here’s the link again — is both brilliant reporting and cause for optimism.
We close with a snap of the story opening and photo as they appeared on the front page of today’s (Jan. 4, 2024) Times, above the fold. Below it are calculations in which we derived figures in the first part of this post.
Calculation #1: Glasses of water in an acre-foot.
- One acre = 43,560 ft^2, so one acre-foot = 43,560 ft^3.
- One ft^3 (cubic foot) contains 957.5 fluid oz. (per inchcalculator.com; that figure jibes with the 62.4 lb weight of one cubic foot of water).
- A tall water glass contains 14 fluid oz. Thus, one ft^3 of water can fill 957.5/14 = 68.4 tall glasses.
- One acre-foot then contains enough water to fill 43,560 x 68.4 = 2.98 million tall glasses, which we round to 3 million.
Calculation #2: Groundwater-use price-elasticity inferred from empirical finding that a 21 percent price increase evokes a 22 percent decrease in usage.
- It is tempting to reduce this roughly 1-to-1 relationship to a (negative) 1.0 price-elasticity. However, that would ignore the law of diminishing returns and, mathematically, the convex relationship between changes in price and changes in usage.
- The price-elasticity is derived by solving for e in the equation, (1 + 0.21)^e = (1 minus 0.22).
- Using base-10 logarithms, we have: e times log 1.21 = log 0.78, which (omitting one or two steps) leads to e = negative 1.3.
Key takeaways
- SBTi is the default reference point for corporate climate action: 51% of Fortune Global 500 companies now hold net-zero targets, up from 8% in 2020, and over 11,000 organizations worldwide have SBTi-validated targets.
- Net Zero Standard V2 redefines climate leadership as reducing emissions and mitigating ongoing emissions, not reduction alone.
- The new standard adds flexibility through five-year cycles, a “best efforts” standard, and an Asset Transition Method for companies whose path to net-zero doesn’t fit a straight-line trajectory.
- Voluntary carbon credits are formally recognized for the first time, with reduction and removal credits accepted from 2027, and removals required from 2035.
- Companies with 2030 targets keep using V1 for their current cycle and move to V2 in 2028; companies without targets can start using V2 on February 1, 2027.
Why every business needs to understand the SBTi Net-Zero Standard revision
The Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi) has become the default reference point for credible corporate climate action. Net-zero targets are now held by 51% of Fortune Global 500 (FG500) companies, up dramatically from just 8% in 2020, and more than 11,000 organizations worldwide have set SBTi-validated targets.
However, SBTi’s influence extends well beyond the companies formally participating in the program. Every business in the value chain of an SBTi participant will have to reduce its own carbon emissions, and businesses that aren’t SBTi participants themselves still look to the program for guidance on climate action.
In short, SBTi gives every business a credible blueprint for climate action, and companies that follow its principles can pursue climate action with confidence, whether or not they’re formally part of the program.
How will the Net Zero Standard revision affect business climate action?
SBTi participation is expected to grow. Despite strong target-setting participation among the F500, only 17% of companies use the SBTi Net Zero Standard V1 beyond target setting, largely because its rules have been seen as too rigid to apply in practice. Much of the Net Zero Standard revision has focused on creating more flexibility to enable higher participation. Medium and small businesses will also increasingly feel pressure for climate action, since SBTi mandates that its participants reduce carbon emissions across their value chains.
Net Zero Standard V2 also redefines climate leadership: leading climate action now means reducing emissions and mitigating ongoing emissions. Reducing your own emissions while ignoring the emissions you continue to release along the way is no longer considered leadership. Supporting voluntary carbon projects with high-integrity carbon credits is now backed by the leading authority on corporate climate action.
What lessons shaped the Net Zero Standard V2 revision?
The revision reflects a few learnings about what actually drives climate progress, and how SBTi built those lessons into the new standard.
| Net Zero Standard V1 Learnings | Net Zero Standard V2 Implementation |
|---|---|
| Making real short-term progress is more important and more difficult than making big long-term promises | Focus on short-term climate progress |
| Every company has a different path to net zero that doesn’t always fit generalized net-zero rules | Create asset transition plans based on each company’s unique asset lifecycles and capital planning |
| We need to mitigate our ongoing emissions to keep global carbon emissions in check | Reduce global carbon emissions by financing voluntary carbon projects with high-integrity carbon credits |
What are the key changes between the old and new Net Zero Standard?
Both versions of the standard are grounded in net-zero by 2050. However, the old standard treated climate leadership as simply reducing emissions, expected a long-term commitment to net zero, based emission reduction targets on generalized net-zero goals, revoked status from companies that fell behind on targets, and ignored voluntary carbon projects entirely.
The new standard treats climate leadership as reducing emissions and mitigating ongoing emissions. It shifts the focus to short-term progress through five-year cycles, and it bases emission reduction targets on both the net-zero goal and a company’s own asset decarbonization plan. A new Asset Transition Method lets companies set decarbonization targets through asset plans with committed, verifiable steps; an ambitious but achievable path based on a company’s starting point, financial resources, and technology, with multiple pathways to reflect the unique opportunities and constraints of different industries and companies.
Crucially, the new standard moves to a “best efforts” basis that creates real flexibility on progress against targets. Businesses that miss their targets can keep their status if they’ve used “every lever” within their control, and minimum progress rules will be set out in the SBTi Assurance Manual.
Finally, the new standard formally uses voluntary carbon projects to mitigate ongoing emissions. From 2027 through 2034, this mitigation is recognized, and both carbon reduction and removal credits are accepted. From 2035 forward, mitigation with carbon removal credits becomes required, with durability matching between the removal and the emission it offsets.
| Old Net Zero Standard | New Net Zero Standard |
|---|---|
| Grounded in net-zero by 2050 | Grounded in net-zero by 2050 |
| Climate leadership is reducing emissions | Climate leadership is reducing emissions and mitigating ongoing emissions |
| Make a long-term commitment to net-zero | Focus on short-term progress in 5-year cycles |
| Emission reduction targets are based on net-zero goal |
|
| Businesses who fall behind targets lose status |
|
| Ignores voluntary carbon projects |
|
When does the new Net Zero Standard take effect?
Companies with existing 2030 targets should continue using the old Net Zero Standard for their current cycle, and start using the new Net Zero Standard in 2028 to set targets for the next cycle (2030–2035).
Companies that don’t yet have targets can use the new Net Zero Standard starting February 1, 2027.
What are SBTi’s Category A and Category B companies?
The new Net Zero Standard splits companies into two categories, with different requirements attached to each.
Category A covers large companies from all countries and medium-sized companies from high-income countries. A company from any country qualifies if it meets at least one of: net turnover of €450 million or more, or 1,000 or more full-time employees. A company from a high-income country qualifies if its Scope 1 and 2 emissions are 10,000 tCO2e or more, or if it meets at least two of: balance sheet of €25 million or more, net turnover of €50 million or more, or 250 or more full-time employees.
Category B covers small companies from all countries and medium-sized companies from lower-income countries.
How do Scope 1 targets work under Net Zero Standard V2?
Scope 1 targets aim to transition companies to net-zero direct emissions by 2050 or sooner, and companies can choose from three approaches.
- Absolute emissions reduction follows a straight-line emissions trajectory from the target base year to the net-zero year.
- Emissions intensity reduction lets companies follow sector-specific pathways designed to reflect the reduction opportunities available in sectors like steel, cement, or chemicals.
- Asset transition is designed for companies whose capital stock turnover doesn’t follow a linear or sector pathway. These companies design a transition plan to operate existing assets efficiently and replace them with low-carbon assets, using predetermined milestones.
How do Scope 2 targets work under Net Zero Standard V2?
Scope 2 targets address emissions from purchased electricity through three pathways:
- Reducing electricity consumption,
- Reducing grid consumption by installing onsite or direct-line offsite clean energy generation, and
- Cleaning up the regional grid using market-based tools like PPAs, RECs, and GOs that drive clean energy development.
V2 introduces a dual Scope 2 framework requiring two separate targets, with an overall goal of 100% low-carbon electricity by 2040.
The location-based target addresses the carbon intensity of a company’s physical power use, and requires companies to show that their grid consumption is falling and/or that their physical grid use is getting cleaner; in other words, that their market-based solutions are actually making the grid cleaner.
The market-based (or zero-carbon electricity) target tracks a company’s use of low-carbon power generation contracts and Energy Attribute Certificates. It requires geographical matching of these certificates with electricity consumption based on deliverability regions (grid regions); annual matching is allowed, though hourly matching is encouraged. Category A companies with large electricity loads must report the percentage of their Scope 2 electricity consumption matched with low-carbon attributes on an hourly basis, and there’s an optional recognition framework for companies that meet hourly matching thresholds.
How do Scope 3 targets work under Net Zero Standard V2?
Scope 3 targets share the same 2050-or-sooner net-zero goal, but companies set near-term targets only for material emissions sources in their value chain and areas where they have real influence. Long-term Scope 3 targets are generally not required.
Limited, justified exclusions are allowed for near-term targets, including categories that individually account for less than 5% of total Scope 3 emissions, and activities where a company lacks practical influence, like leased assets it doesn’t operationally control, or the processing of sold products. Optional exclusions are also available in specific categories.
Companies can choose from three approaches to near-term Scope 3 targets:
- An overarching emissions reduction target, which follows a linear contraction of emissions from the base year to residual emissions of 10% or less by 2050 or sooner;
- An overarching supplier/customer alignment target, benchmarked against a growing share of tier 1 suppliers and customers reaching net-zero by 2050 or sooner; or
- A category- or activity-specific target, tailored for companies with concentrated emissions in particular Scope 3 categories or high-emitting activities.
What is “ongoing emissions mitigation” under the new SBTi standard?
This is one of the most significant additions in Net Zero Standard V2. Accelerated climate contributions are needed to help the world achieve climate objectives, limit temperature overshoot, mitigate transition risks, and support the scale-up of climate solutions, and V2 formally recognizes that. Ongoing emissions mitigation runs as a parallel track to companies also reducing their own emissions.
The framework is initially voluntary, with recognition available at three contribution levels to encourage early action.
- Engaged companies address more than 1% of total Scope 1, 2, and 3 emissions.
- Advanced companies address more than 10% of total Scope 1, 2, and 3 emissions, including 100% of Scope 1 and 2 emissions.
- Leadership companies address 100% of total Scope 1, 2, and 3 emissions with a contribution budget of $80/tCO2e.
Carbon credits used for this purpose have to meet certain quality standards. They must be ex-post (issued after the mitigation has actually occurred), independently third-party-assured, emissions reductions or removals, measured in tCO2e, that occur within five years prior to the reporting year. They must be sourced from outside the company’s own value chain. Further minimum criteria will be set to align with high-integrity frameworks, with additional details on the recognition program expected in the second half of 2026.
Starting in 2035, carbon removals become mandatory for Category A companies. From that point, the carbon removal coverage requirement rises linearly from 1% of Scope 1–3 emissions to 100% by a company’s net-zero year. Within that, 10% of long-lived GHG emissions must specifically be covered by durable removals, also rising linearly to 100% by the net-zero year.
How must companies neutralize residual emissions?
At a company’s net-zero target year and thereafter, it must reduce its Scope 1, 2, and 3 emissions to zero or to residual levels, and neutralize all residual emissions using eligible carbon removals. Those removals have to meet two conditions: they must occur within the same reporting period as the residual emissions they’re neutralizing, and long-lived GHGs must be neutralized with long-lived removals, matching the durability of the removal to the atmospheric lifetime of the emission being addressed.
What is the SBTi implementation hierarchy?
Net Zero Standard V2 also lays out how companies should prioritize their actions for credible target delivery, in three tiers.
- Direct actions, at the activity level, are actions that reduce emissions at the source within a company’s own operations and value chain; things like efficiency improvements, fuel switching, and engaging suppliers and customers to reduce their emissions.
- Actions within shared systems, or activity pools that reduce the emissions of shared systems like electricity or gas grids. This includes market instruments that convey low-carbon attributes, such as PPAs, RECs, and GOs, all of which must meet minimum integrity criteria that SBTi will elaborate on in future guidance.
- Sector-level actions relate to the same type of activity occurring in a relevant geography or system, in a way that meaningfully reduces the emissions a company is responsible for.
How Terrapass helps businesses meet the new SBTi standard
As the rules around carbon credits become more rigorous, the quality of the credits behind them matters more than ever. Terrapass has expanded our global network of carbon projects: more project types, locations, prices, ICVCM CCPs, and UN SDGs, spanning super-pollutant destruction, nature-based solutions, and durable removals. We offer Green-e® Climate Certification and we only source from third-party-verified projects on ICVCM-Eligible registries.
We also help clients with impact beyond carbon: EACs, RECs, and GOs including Green-e® Certified credits that support leading renewable energy projects; water credits that support water restoration projects; and custom environmental product needs like RNG and SAF. Wherever your organization is on its sustainability journey, we help clients around the world address climate risk, advance their environmental and social goals, and get the most out of their sustainability budgets.
FAQ: SBTi Net-Zero Standard revision
What is the SBTi Net-Zero Standard?
It’s the framework the Science Based Targets initiative publishes for companies that want validated, credible net-zero targets tied to limiting global warming.
What is changing in the SBTi Net Zero Standard V2 revision?
The biggest changes are more flexibility (five-year cycles and a “best efforts” standard), a new Asset Transition Method for companies whose emissions don’t follow a straight-line path, and formal recognition of voluntary carbon credits for mitigating ongoing emissions.
When do companies need to switch to the new SBTi standard?
If your company already has 2030 targets, you keep using V1 for your current cycle and move to V2 in 2028. If you don’t have targets yet, you can start using V2 as of February 1, 2027.
Can companies use carbon credits to meet SBTi targets?
They can. Under V2, high-integrity carbon reduction and removal credits count toward mitigating ongoing emissions from 2027 through 2034. Starting in 2035, only removal credits count, and they need to be durability-matched to the emissions they offset.
What’s the difference between Category A and Category B companies under SBTi?
Category A is large companies everywhere plus medium-sized companies in high-income countries, based on thresholds like revenue, headcount, or emissions. Category B is small companies everywhere and medium-sized companies in lower-income countries.
What happens if a company misses its SBTi target?
Under the old standard, falling behind could cost a company its SBTi status. Under V2’s “best efforts” approach, a company can hold onto its status as long as it’s used every lever within its control, with minimum progress rules coming in the SBTi Assurance Manual.
Sources: This post is based on Terrapass’s internal analysis of the SBTi Corporate Net-Zero Standard V2.0. Facts and figures were checked against SBTi’s official V2.0 announcement, SBTi’s Corporate Net-Zero Standard V2.0 — Chapter 6: Ongoing Emissions Responsibility, Trellis’s coverage of the standard, Trellis’s reporting on Ongoing Emissions Recognition costs, Sylvera’s analysis of what comes next, Anthesis Group’s Fortune 500 net-zero commitments research, and Climate Impact Partners’ seventh annual FG500 analysis, as reported by CarbonUnits.com.
The post SBTi Net-Zero Standard V2: What the Revision Means for Every Business appeared first on Terrapass.
For most businesses, the emissions that matter most sit outside their own walls. Scope 3 emissions, everything generated across your value chain, from the suppliers who make your inputs to the customers who use your products, typically make up the majority of a company’s total carbon footprint. Under the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD), those value-chain emissions now have to be measured and disclosed with a rigour that spend-based estimates alone struggle to satisfy. This guide sets out how to improve Scope 3 data accuracy for CSRD: the calculation methods open to you, how to move from estimates to verified supplier data, and how to govern that data so it holds up to audit.
A carbon credit is a commitment that extends well into the future. The tonne of CO₂ compensated for today from a nature-based carbon project must remain out of the atmosphere for good, which means the forest behind the credit has to remain standing long after the transaction is complete. For any buyer, this raises a defining question: What ensures that the forest endures?
-
Greenhouse Gases12 months ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Climate Change12 months ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Greenhouse Gases2 years ago嘉宾来稿：满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Climate Change2 years ago嘉宾来稿：满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Climate Change2 years ago
Bill Discounting Climate Change in Florida’s Energy Policy Awaits DeSantis’ Approval
-
Renewable Energy9 months agoSending Progressive Philanthropist George Soros to Prison?
-
Carbon Footprint2 years agoUS SEC’s Climate Disclosure Rules Spur Renewed Interest in Carbon Credits
-
Greenhouse Gases1 year ago
嘉宾来稿：探究火山喷发如何影响气候预测