Below we look at some of the most interesting recent news stories on the Green supply chain and sustainability.
US Companies Pledge $140 Billion to Fight Climate Change
13 US companies have agreed to be part of the launch of a new federal government program called the American Business Act on Climate Pledge, which asks companies to set goals to fight climate change and reduce their environmental impact.
Secretary of State John Kerry and Obama administration officials are meeting with major companies on Monday to launch the program.
The 13 corporations are taking part in the pledge so far are: Alcoa, Apple, Bank of America, Berkshire Hathaway Energy, Cargill, Coca-Cola, General Motors, Goldman Sachs, Google, Microsoft, PepsiCo, UPS, and Walmart.
The companies are pledging to invest a combined $140 billion to reduce their environmental impact and generate more than 1,600 megawatts of new renewable energy.
Other commitments include reducing water use intensity by 15%, purchasing 100% renewable energy, and targeting zero net deforestation in their supply chains.
Participating companies participating set their own goals personalized to their specific industries. Apple, for example, has pledged to generate an estimated 280 megawatts of clean power by the end of 2016. Bank of America says it will increase its current environmental business initiative from $50 billion to $125 billion by 2025 through investing and other services. Walmart aims to increase the production of renewable energy by 600% and double the number of on-site solar energy projects at their US stores, Sam's Clubs, and distribution centers by 2020.
Other companies are expected to join the pledge.
New Technology Said to Result in Lower CNG Costs
Low-pressure dispensing and storage of compressed natural gas through a technology called carbon adsorption will further cut the CNG fuel and make filling stations affordable for smaller fleets, according to companies now working on the technology.
 Use of adsorption technology causes CNG to cling to activated carbon inside storage tanks on trucks and other vehicles, enhancing their ability to carry the gas instead of pushing it into tanks under high pressure, the approach used today, backers of the technology say.
That will lead to storage pressures that are one-quarter to one-tenth of the usual 3,600 psi , which in turn will cut the cost of compression and simplify the building of CNG fueling stations, in what could be a big boost to CNG fuel adoption.
A new trade association, called Adsorbed Natural Gas Products, has been formed, with four member companies, announced in recent days that the companies will market products by year's end. Each uses a different form of activated carbon that methane gas grabs onto as it's pumped into metal tanks.
The absorption method only requires pressure of 900 to 1,000 psi. That cuts 40 to 60 cents per gasoline gallon equivalent (GGE) out of CNG costs, because compressing the gas requires less energy, and fueling stations using this technology are simpler and less costly than CNG stations designed for high-pressure gas.
Pure CNG would be used for cars and light-duty trucks, while dual-fuel, CNG-diesel systems would be used for heavier trucks. The much lower cost of a lower-pressure fueling station likely makes it affordable for a small fleet or even a private motorist who could have one installed in their homes.
A consumer-type 900-1,000-psi station might cost $1,200 versus. $5,000 for a 3,600-psi station. An "industrial strength" station capable of fueling four to six light-duty trucks would cost about $5,000 instead of tens of thousands of dollars.
Lower costs for compression and for building filling stations would halve the payback period for fleets, from about four years for high-pressure CNG to two years for the absorption technology approach.
It is unclear when the technology will be commercially available.
Complying with Conflict Mineral Rules will be a Real Challenge
The clock for corporations looking to get a handle on supply chain conflict minerals is rapidly approaching midnight.
 With just one year to go before stricter reporting is required by the Securities and Exchange Commission, many companies are still struggling to trace their sources for metals such as gold, tungsten, tantalum and tin, according to an analysis of reports submitted for the most recent reporting period.
The 2010 Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act requires publicly traded companies to account much more closely for these high-value minerals, which have been linked to violence and other human rights violations, mostly in the Democratic Republic of the Congo but some other areas of Africa as well.
Technology and electronics companies are generally the biggest users of these inouts, but conflict minerals often get caught up in the supply chain for makers of everything from jewelry to auto parts.
From the moment the new rules became law, companies have complained over the expense of tracking mineral origin data, especially the independent verification required by the SEC for the next reporting cycle, which ends next June.
They are right to be concerned, new research finds. The roughly 1,260 companies that filed information for the 2014 year spent an estimated $710 million gathering information for this year's reporting cycle, according to the analysis by Tulane University and Assent Compliance, a New York-based firm that automates the compliance process.
The process is made more difficult because of the wide use of middlemen such as smelters, which collect raw materials from vulnerable areas and then resell them to company suppliers, often make the process much more complex and unreliable.
Very few companies were willing to describe themselves as "conflict-free" based on the information gathered over the past year.
Indeed, for the most recent reporting period, just six companies actually submitted to an external audit.
In other words, things look much the same as they did last year, when a similar assessment of the disclosures was performed by Ernst & Young. That assessment also suggested many companies would find it difficult to provide the level of detail required by the SEC - not because they don't want to provide the information, but because there's no straightforward source for finding it.
To us, it seems likely few companies will really be able to comply by next year's deadline. What happens then is anyone's guess - a delay in implementation is certainly possible.
Any reaction to this week's Green supply chain news roundup? Let us know your thoughts at the Feedback button below.
|
