Latest news with #SB261
Yahoo
14-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
NC utilities legislation threatens regulatory integrity and consumer protections
(IStock photo courtesy of JPM Strategies) Two of the country's largest investor-owned utilities are waging a multi-state strategy to get more generating plants built at great expense to customers in the Carolinas. Duke Energy and Dominion, who operate in North Carolina are pushing utility-friendly legislation in Senate Bill 261 — now pending in the North Carolina General Assembly — which would fundamentally change the regulatory approval process. If it passes, North Carolina ratepayers will be required to pay much higher utility bills for decades to come. If adopted, SB 261 would allow these utility companies to charge their electric customers upfront for the costs of building new plants. You might remember that this practice resulted in dire consequences in South Carolina where ratepayers are still paying for the failed VC Summer nuclear plant. Here's how it worked: To pay for VC Summer, the utility company SCANA was allowed to charge its ratepayers using something known as 'Construction Work in Progress' (CWIP). That's what they call the setup where customers pay all the upfront costs to build a new power plant. The entire financial burden and the risks were placed entirely on customers and none of it on utility shareholders. When the VC Summer plant finally went belly-up, SCANA and Westinghouse both declared bankruptcy, SCANA executives were prosecuted and a few even went to jail. Guess who was left holding the bag for the $9 billion failed power plant that never was completed? If you guessed 'ratepayers' then you'd be right! Is this the path North Carolina wants to take? As a former member of the South Carolina Public Service Commission, I fear that history will repeat itself in North Carolina. These utilities should not be allowed to circumvent the normal regulatory process. My hope is that the North Carolina legislature will keep its longstanding regulatory process in place. It's worked well for years for North Carolina's large manufacturers, small businesses and residential ratepayers. The North Carolina Utilities Commission and the commissioners who serve on it are currently required by law to look out for the best interests of everyone in the state who pays a power bill. Legislative changes that would undermine their ability to do their job should be soundly rejected. Our existing regulatory process was put in place to protect consumers from utility monopolies who are motivated to increase profits for their shareholders. That is why the North Carolina legislature should continue to rely on the state's utility commissioners who possess the integrity and impartiality to be fair to all parties. Don't make the mistakes that the South Carolina legislature made years ago by passing a law known as the Base Load Review Act. Our South Carolina ratepayers are still paying for those mistakes every month when those utility bills arrive in the mail. Sadly, our ratepayers are now stuck with those high rates for decades to come. Neighbors are supposed to look out for each other. Your neighbor to the south is warning you that trouble is on the way in Raleigh unless North Carolina senators and House members say 'no' to the approach spelled out in Senate Bill 261. Fortunately, it's not too late for North Carolina senators and representatives to rethink and reject this approach. You can learn more about the bill and how to communicate with your legislators by clicking here and here.
Yahoo
14-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
NC Senate panel endorses van der Vaart for Utilities Commission slot
Donald van der Vaart addresses Senators during his confirmation hearing on May 14, 2025. (Photo: NCGA screengrab) The North Carolina Senate Agriculture, Energy, and Environment Committee voted Wednesday morning to confirm Donald van der Vaart as a member of the North Carolina Utilities Commission, forwarding the resolution to the Senate Select Committee on Nominations. Appointed by Republican Treasurer Brad Briner, van der Vaart previously served as North Carolina's environment secretary. He's a climate skeptic who was considered for EPA administrator during the first Trump administration. Van der Vaart began his state government career with two decades in the state's Division of Air Quality. Republican Gov. Pat McCrory promoted him to secretary of the Department of Environmental Quality in 2015, NC Newsline previously reported. His term on the Utilities Commission, if confirmed, would start July 1 of this year and expire on June 30, 2031. The Utilities Commission is an agency responsible for regulating the rates and services of all investor-owned public utilities in North Carolina. It's the oldest regulatory body in state government, according to its website. At Wednesday's meeting van der Vaart was asked a handful of mostly friendly questions. 'What specific strategies do you think you'll employ to ensure your decisions remain impartial, evidence-driven, and resistant to any undue influence from any of the stakeholder groups?' Sen. Buck Newton (R-Greene, Wayne, Wilson) asked. Van der Vaart said he would rely on the structure that's currently in place, which includes a 'capable' staff that works independently. 'I'm very much interested in using the transparency to the public to provide a forum where free discussions can be not only had, but also viewed,' he said. He's faced criticism in the past due to a potential conflict of interest with his wife's work. Van der Vaart served as the chief administrative judge on a DEQ dispute over the regulation of a toxic chemical in September. His wife Sandra is chair of the North Carolina Chamber Legal Institute, a prominent lobbying group opposed to PFAS regulation, the Port City Daily reported. Newton also asked Van der Vaart to share his thoughts on Senate Bill 261, which would eliminate the interim goal for Duke Energy to cut its carbon emissions by 2030. 'A lot of times, goals and mandates get conflated. Do you see this as a goal or some sort of a mandate?' asked Newton. Van der Vaart said the interim goal does provide the state with 'offramps' if things don't go as planned. 'I think if you look back a little bit into this, you'll see that some of the load predictions and the requirements that were anticipated in the past turned out to be somewhat inaccurate. Now the 2050 goal appears to be a mandate,' Van der Vaart responded. Critics of SB 261 have argued that not having an intermediate goal could make it harder to reach carbon neutrality by 2050. The bill was fast tracked through the Senate in March, but has yet to see action in the House this session. Sen. Jay Chaudhuri (D-Wake) joked that van der Vaart may hold the most degrees out of all nominees in front of the legislature: a bachelor's in chemistry from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, a Juris Doctor from North Carolina Central University, a master's in chemical engineering from North Carolina State University, and a doctorate in chemical engineering from the University of Cambridge. Chaudhuri also asked what van der Vaart thought was the most important role for the utilities commission. 'The most important role, despite the fact that we regulate a number of utility functions, is to deliver reliable and affordable energy within the confines that are mandated,' van der Vaart said. 'We need to work very hard to maintain the affordability of our electricity… If we didn't have a consumer advocacy function in North Carolina, then we would be ill served.' Asked about the rising demand for natural gas and pipeline capacity to meet industrial growth, Van der Vaart said this was an issue of critical importance in sustaining the electric grid. 'I think that one of my interests will be to determine and to convince myself that we have the kind of physical capacity and redundancy from a national security standpoint to be able to continue to deliver manufacturing support electricity and various other residential uses of natural gas reliably in the future.' Environmental groups and clean energy advocates have raised concerns about the build out of natural gas pipelines, amid worries about the impacts on water, air and habitats, and greenhouse gas emissions. Along with voting to confirm van der Vaart, the committee heard a resolution to approve Reid Wilson as the DEQ secretary, following appointment from Democratic Gov. Josh Stein. This portion was 'discussion only' and the panel did not take a vote. Wilson formerly served as secretary for the Department of Natural and Cultural Resources from 2021 to 2024. Before that, he was DNCR's chief deputy secretary from 2017 to 2020. He's been serving as DEQ secretary on an interim basis while awaiting confirmation. Clayton Henkel contributed to this report.
Yahoo
06-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Neighboring states' nuclear debacles loom over North Carolina bill
Yahoo is using AI to generate takeaways from this article. This means the info may not always match what's in the article. Reporting mistakes helps us improve the experience. Yahoo is using AI to generate takeaways from this article. This means the info may not always match what's in the article. Reporting mistakes helps us improve the experience. Yahoo is using AI to generate takeaways from this article. This means the info may not always match what's in the article. Reporting mistakes helps us improve the experience. Generate Key Takeaways Proposed legislation in North Carolina that would allow utility Duke Energy to charge customers for power plants still under construction is taking heat from opponents across the political spectrum, in part because similar schemes have left residents in neighboring states holding the bag for pricey abandoned nuclear projects. The failed expansion of South Carolina's V.C. Summer nuclear plant is the most notable example. After nearly a decade of ballooning costs and construction delays, utilities gave up on the project in 2017, and consumers are still paying down a $9 billion price tag. 'The pay-up-front provision was a key factor leading to the catastrophe on the customer side,' South Carolina Rep. Nathan Ballentine, a Republican, wrote in a recent opinion piece for The Butner-Creedmoor News, a North Carolina outlet. 'We learned the hard way that this type of provision benefits only the utility, while the cost of its failure is borne by every hardworking family and business that pay their electric bills,' Ballentine says in the April 29 article. 'Let the experience that rocked South Carolina be a cautionary tale for North Carolina's Senate Bill 261.' Ballentine isn't the only conservative sounding the alarm about SB 261. National nonprofit Conservatives for a Clean Energy Future released a poll last week in which 650 likely North Carolina voters were asked if they supported or opposed legislation to allow utilities to charge residents for up-front plant construction costs. More than three-fourths said they opposed, including 75% of Republicans, 79% of Democrats, and 77% of unaffiliated voters. 'North Carolina voters of every kind oppose putting consumers on the hook for risky spending on power plants that might never produce a single watt of energy,' Dee Stewart, whose political consulting firm conducted the poll, said in a news release. 'You don't buy a house until it's built, and you don't pay for a car before it's available. … Lawmakers would be wise to reject this ill-advised proposal.' Meanwhile, clean energy advocates believe the bill would likely sweeten Duke's appetite for large new gas plants more so than nuclear ones. That could make the legislation, which also aims to erase the utility's obligation to cut carbon emissions by 2030, a double whammy for climate progress. SB 261 has passed the Senate and is now in the House committee on rules and operations. The text of the bill was also inserted into the Senate's version of the state budget, which awaits action in the House Appropriations Committee. How North Carolina pays for power plants today A basic tenet of the utility regulatory compact is that shareholders bear the risk and cost of power plant construction. In exchange, these investors are guaranteed a customer base that repays them, plus profit, once facilities are producing electricity. This dynamic has long disfavored nuclear power, with its protracted construction timelines, astronomical costs, and episodic concerns about safety. Especially since the fracking boom began some two decades ago, Wall Street has judged natural gas the better bet. This century, only two new nuclear projects have made it across the finish line in the U.S. The most recent, Southern Co.'s Vogtle plant in Georgia, came fully online last year, with the utility finishing the second of two reactors that were about seven years behind schedule and $16 billion over budget. Vogtle was made possible partly by policymakers who scrambled the regulatory compact, allowing investors to recoup their outlays as the plant was under construction and to shift the burden of cost overruns to consumers. Thanks to similar policies in other states, the Southeast is dotted with examples of customers still paying for nuclear forays that never came to fruition. North Carolina already allows Duke to recoup ongoing construction costs for plants but only after regulators scrutinize those plans via a general rate case — a heavily-litigated and time-consuming process that currently occurs about every three years. By contrast, SB 261 would allow Duke to seek rate increases as often as every 12 months to recoup outlays for building 'baseload' plants, which can provide electricity around the clock. While regulators would still have to ensure the charges were prudent, they would do so without a full picture of the utility's finances. Many experts believe such 'single-issue ratemaking' can be worse for consumers than the holistic approach. Legislation could harm state's nuclear energy aspirations Duke has no plans for a large, Vogtle-style nuclear reactor right now, and the earliest it envisions bringing a small modular reactor online is in 2035, according to its latest long-range plans. That's part of why Justin Somelofske, senior regulatory counsel for the North Carolina Sustainable Energy Association, said the construction-cost provision will likely benefit plans to build gas plants in the near term. As power demand grows nationwide, Duke and other utilities are all trying to build more gas plants, Somelofske said. That 'is going to constrain the supply chain and increase the demand for these turbines and units and run up costs.' Duke could be eager to see those costs recouped annually rather than waiting for a general rate case. The effect, said Somelofske, is that SB 261 'could pave the way for more carbon-based resources powering our grid.' Then there is the other part of the bill, which would erase the 2030 deadline by which Duke must cut its carbon pollution 70% from 2005 levels. Regulators have already allowed the company to plan to miss the date by about five years. It must still reach carbon neutrality by 2050, but without a midway target, advocates believe Duke is likely to build gas plants to meet baseload needs. In modeling the bill's impact, North Carolina's consumer advocacy agency, Public Staff, estimated that Duke would build half as much nuclear energy by 2035 as the utility recently projected in its long-term plan, according to Tyler Norris, a Duke University doctoral fellow who previously worked as a solar developer and as a special advisor at the U.S. Department of Energy. 'Repealing the interim standard significantly weakens the rationale for nuclear deployment in the 2030s,' Norris wrote in March in his Power & Policy newsletter. Advocates say it also decreases the rationale for building solar, wind, and other renewables. 'What the interim target does,' said Somelofske, 'is require the utility to scrutinize all the best available technologies that can be deployed in the near term and interim term and not wait until we're past the point of no return' on climate change and meeting the 2050 deadline. Still, arguments about the climate crisis aren't likely to carry the day in a General Assembly where Republicans are just one vote shy of a supermajority and the ability to override vetoes from Gov. Josh Stein, a Democrat. The fate of SB 261 will likely hinge on the level of support for the cost-recovery provision, and even some of the bill's backers want to see that section amended. Kevin Martin, head of the manufacturing and industry trade group Carolina Utility Customers Association, previously told Canary Media that SB 261 needs 'more guardrails' to protect customers, although he also said his group is 'directionally supportive' of the bill. Testifying on behalf of the conservative John Locke Foundation, lobbyist Drew Heath told the Senate Agriculture, Energy, and Environment Committee that his organization supports the bill, but it wants 'clarification' on the section allowing Duke to charge customers for the up-front cost of power plants. 'We have questions about the cost-recovery system,' Jon Sanders, director of the foundation's Center for Food, Power, and Life, told Canary Media. 'We are curious what may happen to that aspect in House debates.'
Yahoo
30-04-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
North Carolina factories and mills cool on clean energy transition
When utility Duke Energy backed North Carolina legislation four years ago to spur new investments in natural gas and nuclear power, opposition from pulp and paper mills, furniture factories, and other large industrial customers helped tip the political scales and reshape the measure into what ultimately became a landmark bipartisan climate law. Today, some of the same companies are changing their tune: deriding solar and wind investments, embracing coal and gas, and backing a bill that would unravel the 2021 statute. Testifying before the Senate Agriculture, Energy, and Environment Committee in March, three major industrial associations spoke positively about Senate Bill 261, which would eliminate a 2030 deadline for Duke Energy to cut its carbon pollution by 70% compared with 2005 levels, but maintain a requirement that it decarbonize by midcentury. The bill would also allow the utility to recover power plant development costs from ratepayers before the facilities are producing electricity — a break from the status quo that would encourage Duke to build conventional nuclear plants, which have high upfront costs and long construction timelines. Kevin Martin, head of the manufacturing and industry trade group Carolina Utility Customers Association, told Canary Media his organization is 'directionally supportive' of SB 261 but also backs the 2021 law's long-term carbon goals. Martin made similar comments to senators in the Republican-run General Assembly. Other stakeholders who testified displayed less support for the clean energy transition. 'The pause in the interim [2030] goal is wonderful,' Susan Vick, a lobbyist representing the Carolina Industrial Group for Fair Utility Rates, said in her testimony. 'We have some of the cleanest coal plants in the country, and we worry about those being retired.' Vick said her group is 'resource agnostic' but has 'serious concerns' about Duke's latest carbon reduction plan, a requirement of the 2021 law. The plan allows for what Vick called 'prolific' investments in solar and wind, resources she said were neither 'least cost' nor reliable. She also noted that her group's member companies had seen rates increase 24% on average since the law was passed. Although the Trump administration has made a sharp U-turn on Biden-era policies meant to spur clean energy, little about the economics of renewables has changed since the start of the decade. As of 2024, per the U.S. Energy Information Administration, large-scale solar fields, land-based wind turbines, and plants fueled by geothermal energy are the cheapest sources of electricity, even without tax incentives. Such realities, alongside booming power demand, have prompted major industries in North Carolina to welcome renewables alongside more traditional electricity sources. Duke Energy's monopoly has also influenced industries' approach to energy policy. Because they can't purchase power anywhere else, large customers have relied on regulators to control prices. Big power users have also sought green tariffs — allowing them to buy renewable energy at a premium with Duke acting as a go-between — to help them meet their own sustainability goals. Those dynamics led major industry groups to join forces with clean energy advocates in 2021 to fight an early draft of a bill that prescribed massive new investments in gas plants and would have charged customers for the utility's forays into new nuclear power. Dozens of mills and factories pushed back on those measures in a 2021 letter, writing that 'ratepayers are still paying hundreds of millions of dollars for similar investments at the Lee site where no power ever has, or ever will be generated,' referencing a nuclear project Duke had abandoned in South Carolina. 'The risk of new nuclear units should be shared between ratepayers and shareholders,' the companies wrote. 'We support the need to transition to clean energy,' Christina Cress, an attorney for the Carolina Industrial Group for Fair Utility Rates and an author of the letter, told Canary Media at the time. 'We have several member companies who have very ambitious carbon reduction goals.' By the fall, the bipartisan version of the bill that was signed into law allowed Duke to seek multiyear rate increases, prompting some of the industrial groups to oppose it and others to remain neutral. But none voiced opposition to a 2030 requirement that the utility cut its carbon pollution by 70%, nor to an incentive that could speed the retirement of the company's coal plants. Fast forward to 2025, and some of these same mills and factories are lining up behind a measure that would roll back the climate benefits of the 2021 law. David Haines, president of the North Carolina Manufacturers Alliance, suggested in his testimony that the state's climate law is causing recent energy price increases. 'We appreciate your concern over escalating utility costs,' Haines said to lawmakers. 'The Manufacturers Alliance shares that concern. However, [Duke's carbon reduction plan] is still out there.' One of SB 261's primary sponsors, Paul Newton, a Republican from Cabarrus County and former Duke Energy executive, resigned in March from his post as a state senator to become vice chancellor and general counsel for the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. But before leaving, he promoted his measure as an antidote to rising rates, citing a study from the North Carolina Utilities Commission's Public Staff, the state-sanctioned ratepayer advocate. The modeling, obtained by Inside Climate News, shows consumers would save about $13 billion by 2050 if Duke could ignore the 2030 target. But advocates caution that price projections that far into the future are circumspect. They also point to a 2024 analysis by EQ Research showing recent Duke rate increases are tied primarily to the cost of fuel, especially natural gas. In an interview, Martin didn't blame renewable energy for rising rates. Instead, he tied the Carolina Utility Customers Association's 'directional support' for SB 261 to its potential ability to spur a massive buildout of the always-on power sources Duke says it needs. 'We're looking at physical needs and physical limitations,' Martin said. 'If baseload growth is what's occurring, baseload generation is what needs to be put in place to serve that new load.' The provisions in SB 261 that allow Duke to charge ratepayers for plants still under construction lack 'guard rails' to adequately constrain costs, he said. But Martin praised the idea of spurring more nuclear power. 'We need to add more nuclear to the mix,' he said. 'This is a clean technology — carbon-free.' To be sure, not all large electric users align with the industrial groups who've spoken favorably of SB 261. Late last month, eight major employers, including Ikea and brewery Sierra Nevada, wrote to lawmakers opposing the bill in no uncertain terms. 'Companies like ours value a stable environment for energy policy,' the letter says. 'Rolling back the state's interim target would not only jeopardize the long-term transition to carbon neutrality by 2050 but would also disincentivize future investment and expansion by our business and industry colleagues.' Both businesses and investors value policy certainty, said Mel Mackin, director of state policy at Ceres, the nonprofit advocacy organization that helped draft the letter. What's more, she said, 'clean energy supports their bottom line. The economics of clean energy haven't changed. The resources are more cost competitive and continue to provide greater cost reliability.' While President Donald Trump and his backers have made corporate climate targets decidedly less in vogue, Mackin said Ceres' business members largely remain steadfast. 'We have not seen any signals that these companies are wavering on their clean energy goals or broader decarbonization goals,' she said. Though Newton abruptly resigned soon after moving SB 261 through his chamber, the bill still has powerful proponents in the legislature. Another lead sponsor is Sen. Phil Berger, the Senate's top Republican. Before lawmakers took their Easter break, senators inserted the text of the bill into their version of the budget. That means the bill is now in the hands of the Republican-led House twice over. While the economics of clean energy or corporate climate goals could yet influence the bill's outcome, advocates also emphasize that incentivizing expensive nuclear and gas projects could leave Duke customers, large and small, in the lurch. They point to two examples in the region as red flags. 'When South Carolina had a similar policy in place 10 years ago, ratepayers paid billions of dollars to fund the construction of a nuclear power plant that never produced a single unit of power,' said Claire Williamson, energy policy advocate at the North Carolina Justice Center. In Georgia, Southern Co. finally completed its Vogtle nuclear plant last year but only after significant cost overruns. Lawmakers there later sunsetted a state policy that allowed utilities to charge customers for plants still under construction, Mackin said. 'It is perplexing to me why North Carolina would consider this type of policy now,' she said.
Associated Press
02-04-2025
- Business
- Associated Press
New Analysis of California's Top Suppliers Points to Impact of Proposed Climate Reporting Mandates
NEW YORK, April 2, 2025 /3BL/ - As California looks to expand corporate climate disclosure requirements with the newly introduced Senate Bill 755 (SB 755), a groundbreaking analysis from Governance & Accountability Institute (G&A) and supporters Ceres, Carbon Accountable, and Persefoni, reveals that most of California's largest state suppliers do not yet disclose key climate-related information. The findings have implications for the State of California's supply chain as it pursues a goal of carbon neutrality by 2045. The report – 'California Supply Chain: Current Practices & Trends in Climate Disclosure' – is the first industry-wide benchmark assessing how major suppliers to the State —representing billions of dollars in procurement spend—are aligned with its ambitious climate strategy, including regulations such as SB 253 ( Climate Corporate Data Accountability Act), SB 261 ( Climate-Related Financial Risk Act), and the newly introduced, supplier-focused SB 755 ( California Procurement Climate Information Act). SB 755 would require suppliers with over $25 million in state contracts to report their climate-related financial risks and Scope 1-3 GHG emissions, and suppliers with $5 to $25 million in State contracts to report their Scopes 1-2 emissions. While not all the suppliers included in this analysis are in scope for SB 253 and SB 261, most would be required to report under SB 755. The research finds low voluntary reporting rates among current suppliers, indicating a lack of readiness to comply with the proposed regulation and pointing to the potential level of transparency to be gained through mandated reporting. An increase in awareness of its supplier base's climate disclosures would support the ability of California to reduce emissions and address climate risk across its supply chain. 'California is leading the way in climate disclosure policy, but our research shows that its supplier base largely is not yet aligned with climate disclosure expectations' said Louis Coppola, CEO & Co-Founder at G&A Institute. 'With SB 755 on the horizon, we now have a critical baseline to measure progress over time. It's a tool for policymakers, procurement teams, and suppliers themselves as they navigate this rapidly evolving regulatory landscape.' Key FindingsMost of CA's top suppliers don't report climate data. Assurance and target-setting by CA suppliers lags behind expectations. Climate risk assessments remain a blind spot for CA suppliers. These rates suggest state agencies, procurement teams, and policymakers should proactively drive supplier readiness by providing guidance on the specific requirements of each bill and their applicability, education on the complexities of climate reporting, and support for accurately measuring emissions and conducting climate-related risk assessments. Establishing a Baseline for Future ProgressThis new research provides a baseline for measuring progress in the years to come. As California's climate regulations evolve, this analysis can be updated annually to track improvements, identify remaining gaps, and measure the impact of policies like SB 253, SB 261, and SB 755. The report enables: 'This report is an important resource for California policymakers and taxpayers and demonstrates the continued importance of ensuring that companies manage, measure, and disclose their climate-related risks and opportunities.' – Ceres 'Suppliers must do their part to help California achieve its ambitious climate goals. This analysis helps clarify where industry gaps exist and where targeted action is needed.'– Carbon Accountable 'Persefoni is a carbon accounting and management platform that regularly supports customers as they examine their own supply chain risks and supplier specific emissions. Large institutional buyers - governments, universities, healthcare systems, corporations - are increasingly looking to suppliers to help assess and manage climate-related financial risks. This includes whether suppliers measure their own GHGs or consider potential disruptions to their own operations. Everyone is someone's Scope 3, so all companies must be ready to provide emissions data and climate risk analysis. We're only as resilient as our weakest supplier.' – Mike Wallace, Chief Decarbonization Officer, Persefoni What's Next?SB 755 is poised to bring even more suppliers into California's climate disclosure framework. Analysis of the kind presented in this new report will be an essential tool for tracking progress, guiding industry engagement, and ensuring companies are prepared for increasing transparency demands. About the Supporters Ceres Ceres Accelerator for Sustainable Capital Markets is a center within Ceres that aims to improve the practices and policies that govern capital markets by engaging federal and state regulators, financial institutions, investors, and corporate boards to act on climate risk as a systemic financial risk. Carbon Accountable Carbon Accountable advances policies that increase the availability of the robust GHG emission data needed to inform corporate and investor decision making and empower consumers and policymakers. Persefoni Persefoni is a leading climate management and carbon accounting platform that enables businesses to track, manage, and disclose their carbon footprints in alignment with global standards. About G&A Institute, Inc. Founded in 2006, Governance & Accountability Institute, Inc. (G&A) is a sustainability consulting and research firm headquartered in New York City. G&A helps corporate and investor clients recognize, understand, and develop winning strategies for sustainability and ESG issues to address stakeholder and shareholder concerns. G&A's proprietary, comprehensive full-suite process for sustainability reporting is designed to help organizations achieve sustainability leadership in their industry and sector and maximize return on investment for sustainability initiatives. Since 2011, G&A has been building and expanding a comprehensive database of corporate sustainability reporting data based on analysis of thousands of ESG and sustainability reports to help steer strategy for our clients and improve their disclosure and reporting. More information is available on our website at
