ESG & Industry Updates

As we have been discussing, the US National Blueprint for Transportation Decarbonization breaks the Transportation sector into seven categories, each of which has its own targets for emission reduction/elimination, and strategies for how those declines in emissions will be achieved. The next category addressed in the Blueprint by emissions % is Off-Road Vehicles and Mobile Equipment.

The Off-Road Vehicles and Mobil Equipment segment includes a LOT, from heavy mine drilling equipment and excavators to dirt bikes and lawn mowers. The off-road segment is accountable for approximately 10% of emissions, but where 79% of the segment uses diesel, the changes that would be applicable to the medium and heavy duty (on road) sector would carry over fairly cleanly to the off-road sector, which is why they make sense to address in tandem. We saw a similar approach to this with the transition to ultra low sulfur diesel – the initial priority was on road vehicles, as they are more uniform in fuel technology requirements and also contribute more on emissions. Once the tech is there for on-road, its fairly simple to adopt it down into the off-road sector for diesel fueled equipment.

However, the caveat to the “ease” of transferring the technology is that unlike on road equipment, most off road equipment is multi functional – i.e. a combine harvester both needs to be propelled forward, and work at threshing or harvesting the area it works through simultaneously. That is a lot more difficult equation to account for in terms of optimizing power in a sustainable way than say accounting for a simple weight times distance on-road vehicle requirement. It is likely that the solution on heavier off-road equipment will involve some hybridization to offset emissions, more so than other segments will ultimately see in the final picture.

There is however, a lot of variance within the off road segment and some portions of the market will be a lot less demanding in terms of ability to pivot toward more renewable power. The segment breaks out as follows in order of energy use:

• Construction & Mining Equipment – 36%
• Industrial Equipment – 23%
• Agricultural Equipment – 21%
• Lawn & Garden Equipment – 15%
• Recreational Vehicles – 4%

The smallest two segments (lawn & garden equipment, and recreational vehicles) should be the easiest to pivot, at least in theory, as they are more easily moved to EV power. We are already seeing this in the consumer level equipment for lawn care, etc. The hurdles for larger scale adoption on landscaping equipment is mainly power and length of run issues with electric power. Equipment needs to be reliable through the entire job. The hurdle on the recreational vehicle segment is largely performance and preference related. Like it or not, an electric dirt bike isn’t very appealing, and an electric snow mobile seems like a non starter given both the conditions the battery would be anticipated to perform in, as well as the potential for being stranded in the event of a drained battery.

The stated goals of the Blueprint on this segment are:

“Increase Targeted research and innovation efforts” – this involves both understanding the depth and breadth of off road equipment and its functional goals, and developing targets for battery and fuel cell technology based on understanding more about the performance levels required.

“Implement Policy and Regulations” – as mentioned earlier, off-road regulations and standards generally seem to mirror the standards on on-road vehicles to a large degree. It’s likely safe to assume that what we start to see come out regarding trucks and busses will eventually be applicable to your off road equipment in terms of fuel and emissions requirements.

“Invest in strategic demonstration” for this segment, this portion of the plan is essentially a doubling down on the focus in the on road vehicle portion, which is to say it focuses heavily on infrastructure for EV charging and availability of technology to coincide with regulatory requirements. It goes without saying that clearly the infrastructure for on road EV would be essentially useless for most off-road applications, given sheer geographic factors. Clearly then, they are also looking at options outside what we typically picture as the EV charging network options, but it isn’t clear yet what that might look like. There is an acknowledgement in the blueprint that hydrogen fuel and renewable diesel options may be necessary for the foreseeable future because of the logistical difficulties with both continuously operational off road equipment, and the tendency of much of the sector to be remote, rural, and/or difficult to access.

There is less clarity in this section of the blueprint, as it hasn’t been a major focus of the push to EV and renewable energy as much in recent years as have on road vehicles. We will have to keep watch on this in terms of presumably forthcoming EPA guidance and proposed regulations on the off road equipment markets.

As we have been discussing, the US National Blueprint for Transportation Decarbonization breaks the Transportation sector into seven categories, each of which has its own targets for emission reduction/elimination, and strategies for how those declines in emissions will be achieved. The second segment by emission % is Medium- and Heavy-Duty Vehicles.

For the purposes of the Decarbonization Blueprint, “Medium and Heavy Duty On-Road Trucks and Buses” includes everything from heavy-duty pickup trucks to long haul semi’s (and everything in between). MHDV make up approximately 5% of vehicles, but they are responsible for 21% of transportation emissions. A further 50% of those emissions are from heavy duty trucks that make up about 10% of the total MHDV category. So when we are talking about this category’s emissions, most of the effective action that can be taken should be focused on a small segment of the total. The other simultaneous focus for MHDV category is the social and environmental justice issue. Where the emissions from light duty vehicles are more ubiquitous, the emissions from MHDV are often concentrated in major urban areas and along disadvantaged corridors within the country.

In terms of the numbers, 81% of the MHDV segment is diesel powered, and unlike light duty vehicles, there is not really a clear ability to easily pivot to EV or hydrogen options (outside of potentially in some of the lighter vehicles that run smaller ranges without heavy freight – like postal trucks). So the suite of zero emission options for the MHDV segment will necessarily be more varied than LDV or other segments where there is less variation in use and function for the vehicles in question. That means a LOT of research & development. Additionally, turnover and replacement timelines for heavy duty vehicles are substantially longer than those for light vehicles, so all the proposed new changes would end up slow rolling out on newer vehicles over time. This is where renewable diesel options will likely become a key factor in pushing MHDV toward hitting emissions goals.

In November of 2022, the US joined the “Global Memorandum of Understanding on Zero Emission Medium- and Heavy-Duty Vehicles” introduced at COP26 which agrees that we will be on a path to 100% new zero-emission MHDV by 2040 at the latest, with a target of 30% by 2030. In January 2023, the EPA announced their “Final Rule and Related Materials for Control of Air Pollution from New Motor Vehicles: Heavy Duty Engine and Vehicle Standards” that sets new emission standards for HD vehicles in line with the Decarbonization plan (you can read that EPA rule here: Control of Air Pollution From New Motor Vehicles: Heavy-Duty Engine and Vehicle Standards )

All of this to say that despite the lack of current technology with which to make the changes required to hit emissions targets, it appears all the rules and regulations coming out across Federal Agencies are intending to follow through on the goals set. This portion of the policy obviously carries serious implications for trucking and transportation companies across the board in terms of their equipment purchasing, maintenance of current options, etc. This is definitely a portion of the plan that is still very much unsettled in terms of immediate and longer range impacts. We will keep a close eye on developments and continue to keep you informed of major changes that impact the industry.

The US National Blueprint for Transportation Decarbonization splits the Transportation sector into seven categories of focus: Light-Duty Vehicles, Medium- and Heavy-Duty Vehicles, Off-Road, Rail, Maritime, Aviation, and Pipelines. We will discuss the major items involved in each of these, from largest % of carbon share to least, starting with Light Duty Vehicles.

Light-Duty Vehicles produce 49% of current transportation emissions (of note, for the purposes of the Blueprint “current” refers to 2019 levels due to the pandemic and related shutdowns making 2020 & 2021 data unreliable/useless).

The United States has over 280 million light duty vehicles on the road and these vehicles:

• Account for 75% of passenger transport miles,
• Account for 50% of total transportation energy use and emissions
• Consume over 120 billion gallons of gasoline annually
• Emit over 1,000 MMT CO2 annually

As we are all aware, Light Duty Vehicles (LDV) in the US have been subject to increasingly strict emissions requirements over the past few decades, and we have seen a massive increase in the availability of electric vehicles (EV) as well. To put specific numbers on it, in the past 15 years, LDVs have seen a 30% improvement in fuel economy (some of the ultimate impact of this however was mitigated by the trend toward larger, more fuel intensive passenger vehicles during that time period). EV have seen an explosion in popularity, it used to be you’d see a Prius or Volt here or there, now you would be hard pressed to drive to Boston without getting stuck behind a Tesla or two. Again, in terms of specific numbers, EV sales reached over half a million vehicles sold, bringing the total to 4.5% of market share in 2021 (18% in California!).

One of the major focuses of the blueprint in the LDV sector is the promotion of EV and zero emission vehicles, with an obvious preference for EV adoption. In tandem with EV adoption, there is a necessary push for charging infrastructure to make them a more feasible option for consumers. The goal is to have 50% new light duty EV sales by 2030, which would be a major step down the road to the ultimate goal of 100% EV adoption.

There is also an included focus on “Funding Research and Innovation” in this section of the Blueprint, which largely functions as an acknowledgement that we aren’t quite there on battery life and battery cost. Part of the legislative language in the Bipartisan Infrastructure Bill (BIL) and Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) included large investments toward the development of a reliable EV manufacturing supply chain. The legislation also references research and development aimed at achieving price parity between EV and traditional combustion engine vehicles to make them more accessible to the average consumer in terms of price, practicality, and maintenance costs over time. Studies indicate that battery cost has dropped 90% from 2010 to 2020, and projections indicate that when the price reaches $100/kwh the MSRP on EV will hit parity with combustion engine vehicles. The legislation mentioned above intends to fund the research on battery technology to make those price levels reality.

So that is the overview, the major takeaways being that the major goals for this section are:

• “Achieve 50% of new vehicle sales being zero-emission by 2030, supporting a pathway for full adoption, and ensure that new internal combustion engines are as efficient as possible.”
• “Deploy 500,000 EV chargers by 2030”
• “Ensure 100% of Federal Fleet procurement be zero-emission by 2027”

Obviously, for the purposes of energy suppliers, particularly at the consumer level, the growth of EV adoption implies a longer-term shift in the mix of gasoline demand and delivery, especially to stations and municipalities. Actual changes in market share of EV and zero-emission vehicles is something to watch.

Next up, medium- and heavy-duty trucks and buses.

Stay Tuned!

Last week President Biden signed into law the “Inflation Reduction Act”, which is essentially a slimmed down adjunct bill to the “Build Back Better Act”. As the name implies, ,the goal would be to combat the crippling inflation facing the country currently – although most analysis by both CBO and federal groups has not concluded that would be the case in the long term. We shall see.

In the meantime, we pulled together some of the major industry-relevant items to keep an eye on

Federal analysis of the Inflation Reduction Act projects that the law will help cut United States emissions to 40% lower than 2005 levels by 2030. This aligns with the longer term goal of a net zero emission economy by 2050.

$370 billion dollars of the $740 billion dollars contained in the Inflation Reduction Act are directed toward addressing climate change, (including the potential cost of tax credits)

Among the points focused on are:

• Removing the per-manufacturer cap on tax credits per unit sold of Electric Vehicles, which is meant to stimulate growth in EV sales and usage. However, there is also a provision that EV batteries have to be sourced 40% from domestic sources, which will be a major hurdle for some companies.
• $60 billion in production tax credits for companies involved in domestic clean energy production, including multiple incentives for nuclear production to the tune of $30 billion
• EPA granted the authority to fine oil & gas companies for emitting excessive methane emissions. This is a first of its kind provision that would kick off in 2024 and fine $900 per metric ton initially, and increase annually thereafter.
• $9 billion dollars toward promotion of consumer adoption of renewable energy for residential use in the form of solar, heat pumps and electric systems instead of natural gas.
• $60 billion for Environmental Justice programs, in the form of both renewable energy conversions and pollution, drought, and flooding remediation for impacted communities.
• $51 billion for renewable energy production
• $51 billion for clean energy investment
• $3.2 billion for carbon capture technology
• $27 billion for Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund (a financing agent for startups focused on decarbonization, essentially)

Of note is that most of the federal analysis seems to conclude that the emission reductions projected would require a heavy reliance on Carbon Capture & Store technology, which at the moment is a complicated and cost prohibitive solution in many situations.

As with any massive piece of legislation, its hard to predict how different provisions will impact industry segments until the rubber hits the road as they say. Definitely something to keep an eye on as it unfolds.

Stay Tuned!

This past Friday, November 5^th, the House passed a $1.2 trillion dollar infrastructure bill after weeks of legislative infighting, primarily between progressive Democratic members and their more centrist colleagues, in addition to the given squabbling across party lines. 

At the end of the day, 13 Republicans supported the measure where 6 Democrats did not. Simply put, the moderate republicans & democrats a la Joe Manchin ultimately voted “yea” where “the Squad” went “nay”.

Some of the more ambitious social spending related items were ultimately trimmed from the original proposal, including parental leave, $100 billion for workforce development, $400 billion to bolstering care for disabled and elderly Americans via expanded access to long term care services, $18 billion for VA Hospital modernization, and items regarding home health care worker pay levels.

Also conspicuously absent on the other side of the ledger – the proposed increase in corporate tax rate (from 21 to 28%) was scrapped, as were multiple tax hikes proposed to pay for some measures. Presumably, the social spending items that were ultimately trimmed from the Infrastructure package will be added to the separate 1.75 trillion Climate & Social spending bill (the so called “Human Infrastructure” bill) up next.

What’s still included?

• $110 billion for roads, bridges, and major infrastructure projects.
• $11 billion for Transportation safety, including crash mitigation for cyclists.
• $1 billion to reconnect communities divided by prior infrastructure projects, particularly in minority neighborhoods disproportionately impacted.
• $39 billion to modernize public transport systems
• $66 billion on rail infrastructure additionally, to reduce the Amtrak backlog and modernize the Northeast corridor.
• $65 billion in Broadband Infrastructure expansion & improvement
• $17 billion to Port infrastructure
• $25 billion to Airports
• $7.5 billion for zero & low emission busses and ferries
• $7.5 billion for building out EV charger network
• $21 to environmental remediation of Superfund sites, abandoned mines, and orphaned gas wells.
• $55 billion to upgrade water infrastructure, including removing lead piping.
• $65 billion to rebuild the electric grid

As mentioned previously, the passage of the infrastructure package from the view of those who work in utility contracting, electrical contracting, and other related union jobs (particularly in the Northeast) will be a huge boon to their members in terms of providing multiple long term projects, and thus multiple long term well-paying jobs.

One major variable to keep an eye on will be how much ongoing frustration and shortages along all facets of the supply chain, from manufacturing to delivery, may serve to push timelines on projects and ultimately slow progress forward on the outlined goals of the bill.

Stay tuned!

The Biden Administration has announced new methane regulations from the COP26 Climate Summit in Glasgow, Scotland this week. Estimates are that the new regulations will affect  up to 75% of the methane emissions in the United States. Regulations will apply largely to the Oil & Gas industry, specifically addressing “flaring” (purposeful venting) during production and leaks across the system infrastructure.

Methane is responsible for up to 30% of global warming, according to the UN Environment Program, and is estimated to be 25 times more potent than Carbon Dioxide. In recent years this had led to more focus on methane (versus Carbon) emissions, as because of the potency, decreases in methane are much more likely to have a faster and more meaningful impact on slowing Climate Change.

If this sounds familiar, it’s likely because in 2014 the Obama Administration announced similar Methane regulation controls (you can get a refresher here: Methane & Consumers Giving Nat Gas Headaches ) Those rules were enacted in 2016 and subsequently relaxed by the Trump Admin, before being reinstated by the Biden Admin. Hard to keep track of.

The oil & gas industry is responsible for an estimated 30% of methane emissions domestically, and the new rules are expected to reduce emissions from equipment, production sites, and covered areas by up to 75%. In tandem with the expanded EPA regulations, the DOT’s Pipeline & Hazmat Safety Administration is implementing the PIPES act which upgrades and expands existing pipeline setups to cut methane leakage. Other targets of emission reduction are landfills, and enhancing the abandoned mine & well closure program – orphaned mines have been an oft ignored thorn in the side of the federal government & EPA for decades, abandoned mines often leak methane and other gasses, or pollute their areas (For a refresher on that, check this article out: Accidents Happen: EPA Spill Highlights Difficulty of Mine Decontamination)

In an odd continuation of an ongoing trend, the new methane regulations will be “voluntary, incentive-based” changes in the Agricultural sector. This would seem to clash with the global concern over agriculture produced emissions, particularly those from concentrated feed lot (CAFO) based livestock production. The agricultural sector produces emissions comparable with the entire transportation sector (including airplanes) globally (14-18% for both), and agricultural emissions have increased approximately 12% since 1990, which is in contrast to the focus on emission reduction we have seen implemented (in a mandatory fashion) in other sectors. In terms of emissions, the US Agricultural sector produced approximately 698 million metric tons of CO2 equivalent in 2018, a staggering 36.2% of which was in the form of methane.

One of the items regarding agricultural emission control in the White House Proposal is investment in methane reducing practices like “alternative manure management systems”. Presumably (hopefully) this would be an investment in technology like the anaerobic digester technology we have seen make an appearance in MA, where dairy farmers have been diverting manure & food waste to be upcycled into energy. (More on that here: Mass Dairy Farmers Use Food Waste & Manure to Generate Renewable Energy)

So while we will have to wait to see how the new proposals take shape in actual regulation and enforcement, it’s worth noting that according to reports, the American Petroleum Institute (API) appears to support the proposal, with a response indicating they were “committed” to “continued progress” on methane emission reduction. 2020 methane emissions by oil & gas were down 10 percent versus 2019, but that was as a result of a collapse in production, not because of corrective action. The IEA estimates that 10% of methane could be reduced “at no perceptible cost” and where the US (along with Russia) is one of the world’s largest emitters, the new Biden regulations are an attempt to remedy that and push forward progress on a broader Climate agenda.

Stay Tuned!

The Biden Administration's 1 trillion dollar Infrastructure Package, the "Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act" passed the Senate on Tuesday, with a voting margin of 69-30, meaning the passage was far more bipartisan than we are used to seeing as of late.

The  bill now heads to the House, where it faces a potentially more difficult road to passage, surprisingly not along the usual party lines as much as from a progressive faction in the House that has vowed  they would not vote on Infrastructure until a separate 3.5 trillion dollar social policy bill (the so called "Human Infrastructure" package) is passed. The second bill is expected to be a party line vote, occuring today or tomorrow, and it is unclear how long the standoff may be in the House regarding if the Transportation Package is passed ahead of the second bill as a standalone, or not. A lot of the answer to this likely hedges on whether the second bill is attempted to be pushed over as a budget resolution (which would allow passage sans Republican votes). 

The Transportation Infrastructure bill that is pending in the House, although at a whopping 1 trillion dollars, started back several months ago as a 2.3 trillion dollar plan.  Major concessions obviously were made to drop the totals, but here are some of the major categories the final bill is anticipated to include:

• Infrastructure:  $110 billion in new funding for physical infrastructure - including repair to roads and bridges, and a focus on both repairing and shoring up the infrastructure in areas vulnerable to climate change related damage.  
  
  
• Clean Energy: $73 billion to modernize the electrical grid (including transmission lines) and expand clean energy sources. New transmission lines will accomodate renewable energy sources like wind, solar, and geothermal into the grid, and higher voltage lines will allow vulnerable areas to better withstand climate related impacts to electricity access, like those we saw in Texas this past winter. 
  
  
• Lead Pipe Replacement: $15 billion for lead pipe replacement. This one is sort of oddly lowballed in the context of both the anticipated cost itself ($45-60 billion) and the size of the bill itself. Millions of homes and hundreds of municipalities in America are still serviced with lead pipes, and as the Flint Water Crisis illustrated in 2014, damage to the pipes that results in leaching of lead into the water supply can have devastating effects. 
  
  
• Public Transportation:  investment in rail transportation, including modernizing the Northeast corridor for Amtrak and expanding lines outside the Mid Atlantic region. Public bus and subway systems will also receive funding toward replacing aging equipment and infrastructure, as well as expanding routes with the goal of making public transportation more easily accessible to... well, the public. Currently only urban centers in some states have reliable public options and this portion of the bill is seen as a step towards expanding that access out to more rural communities. 

We'll have to wait til full passage to get into the nitty gritty and really see the end facts and figures on the bill's components, but outside of the political pundit commentary, at the very least people seem to agree that as far as regular citizens are concerned the key focus of the bill is the jobs expected to be created to handle repairing, building, and expanding infrastructure, as well as those that will be required to manufacture, manage, and coordinate those efforts. 

In the Northeast region in particular, the updating and expansion of Amtrak and public passenger rail, bridge repair, and investment toward shoring up areas vulnerable to climate related flooding and erosion is heralded by local unions as a boon to their members, particularly coming on the heels of quarantine's severe impact on construction and trade sectors. 

As mentioned, everything essentially now rests on the House and how they choose to approach passage of the Transportation bill - with or without the Human Infrastructure Bill attached. 

Stay Tuned!

This Wednesday, the Biden Administration unveiled a 2 trillion dollar transportation, infrastructure and economic recovery package. The goal of the bill is to create jobs, fix/upgrade US infrastructure, and combat climate change as the country attempts to recover from the COVID induced economic slump.

The bill is extremely large and multifaceted, so we are going to try and give a super brief summary of the major takeaways and points here as best we can with the disclaimer that because the bill hasn't passed yet, different points are subject to change as it moves through the legislative process.

In terms of the scope of the bill, it is anticipated to cost $2 trillion dollars over 8 years. The spending will be funded over 15 years by increasing the corporate tax rate from 21% to 28% and "discouraging offshoring" to tax havens (although specifics on the measures being taken to prevent offshoring have not yet been released). The corporate tax rate was lowered to the current 21% in 2017 by Republicans from its prior rate of 35% - so this increase, if passed, would still keep the corporate rate substantially below its prior level. Despite the fact that it will still be lower than 2016, this portion of the bill is expected to face stiff partisan opposition. It's unclear what provisions may change (if any) based on if funding sources need to be adjusted, so that is something to keep an eye on as the bill progresses. 

Projects focused on in the package on the transportation/infrastructure side include repair/replace of 20,000 miles of roads/highways, repair of 10,000 bridges, the addition of 500,000 Electric Vehicle charging stations, universal broadband, and the replacement of all lead pipes in drinking water systems nationwide. Those portions of the bill comprise about 900 million dollars, give or take (approximately 620 million for roads & bridges, 300 million for water & electric infrastructure). Additionally, there is a focus on expanding rail transport, notably in the Northeast. 

Another 580 billion dollars of the bill is directed to "American manufacturing, research and development, and job training efforts". Presumably the job training efforts include retraining of workers for "green jobs" as the bill includes climate related provisions congruent with Biden's so called "Build Back America Better" agenda, including the EV charger expansion we mentioned, rebates for consumers to encourage EV purchases, moving 20% of school busses to electric, and a provision to replace 50,000 diesel public transportation vehicles. 

Outside of strictly transportation/infrastructure, the bill also includes spending for building & retrofitting affordable housing, providing direct aid to the elderly & disabled, and modernization efforts for water ports and airports. 

As mentioned, the bill is extremely large and covers a lot of areas - definitely something to watch as it progresses through the legislative process and we find out what does or does not get included in the passage - there's something in there that impacts almost everyone, but hopefully this quick overview was helpful in outlining some of the major points relevant to our readers. 

The new Administration is off to a running start, as Wednesday saw a flurry of Executive Orders come out, many of which deal with climate change, and the oil & gas industry. There are a lot of items, and they are all pretty detailed with substantial backstory, but we are going to try and briefly touch on the three major items relevant to the industry and quickly go over the main points (or, try to at least!) 

So, here's the recap:

Keystone XL:  The Biden Administration cancelled the permitting for the Keystone XL pipeline, an $8 billion dollar project that would run over 800K barrels per day from Canada through the United States. Specifically, the pipeline runs from Alberta to Nebraska, where it would then hook with existing pipeline infrastructure running to the Gulf Coast refineries. There seems to be no recourse for TC Energy to fight the permit cancellation per se, the only major sway could theoretically be if Canada argues on behalf of the project continuing but according to analysts, that will be a non-starter, Trudeau is extremely unlikely to broach the subject with the Administration amid attempts to smooth a relationship between the two countries that was somewhat fractured during the prior administration's tenure. 

Moratorium on Federal Oil & Gas Leasing:  Another executive order has put a moratorium on the lease of any federal land or offshore waters for oil & gas development. The order also stipulates that current permits in effect be reviewed against the new standard, presumably to see if some additional will be cancelled. The Administration has a stated aim of "protecting at least 30% of federal land and offshore waters" as a general goal, and the moratorium appears to be a part of that aim. Currently, fossil fuel leasing on Federal land accounts for approximately 25% of carbon emission output, which is the impetus for the move. However, as others have pointed out, the leasing also provides around 8.1 billion dollars annually in tax revenue to tribal, state, and federal governments.  22% of oil production, and 12% of natural gas production takes place on federal lands and although this moratorium does not affect current operations (yet) there is some concern that a move toward stopping production on federal land, which is the possible end goal, would push the US back into becoming a net importer of petroleum as the economy continues to recover and demand begins to increase. However, its important to note that states have wildly disparate levels of reliance on federal land for production - New Mexico is largely federally based, whereas even a complete halt would not affect Texas very much, as production land is almost exclusively privately held. This is a watch-and-see item for sure, as no one is really clear on the end goal or next steps on this item yet. 

Paris Accords  The Biden Administration has additionally rejoined the Paris Climate Accord, which the prior Administration withdrew from last year. The US, under President Obama, played a major role in crafting the Paris Accord in 2015. The agreement overall aims to keep global temperatures from rising no more than 2 degrees Celsius (ideally 1.5... we are already up 1 degree) by way of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The agreement is essentially an international treaty with almost 200 member countries who have pledged to take various steps to curb emissions in their respective countries. There are a million details within the Accord, but for the US the actions required include (among others) cutting emissions by 26% below 2005 levels by 2025, tightening fuel economy standards, and would also heavily rely on the "Clean Power Plan" to hit targets. Rejoining the Paris agreement is an important symbolic gesture for the Biden Administration, as one of the major focuses they will have is "putting climate at the center of domestic, national security, and policy" 

So those are the major points relating to the industry from Wednesday, and they are definitely items we will continue to follow and update on. It will certainly be interesting to watch how these unfold and shape the energy industry landscape over the coming four years. Stay tuned!