Jill Tauber, Earthjustice
Today's guest is Jill Tauber, Vice President of Litigation for Climate and Energy at Earthjustice.
Earthjustice is the premier nonprofit public interest environmental law organization. They wield the power of law and the strength of partnership to protect people's health, preserve magnificent places and wildlife, advance clean energy, and to combat climate change. The work they do is not only extremely important, but also in the thick of relevant topics we’re seeing at the moment. One that comes to mind is permitting. We need to move quickly on building clean infrastructure, but at the same time we need to be mindful of communities where this infrastructure is being built. Community members should have a voice in these projects and we have to build them in a way that’s not harmful to people living around them. This is just one example.
In this episode, we cover Jill's journey to doing the work that she does, and we also dig into Earthjustice and their criteria for projects they take on. We cover Jill's views on the role of fossil fuels in the clean energy transition, and of course the Inflation Reduction Act bill permitting, barriers holding us back, changes that could unlock faster progress, and where Earthjustice fits into all of this now and in the future. The earth certainly needs a good lawyer and we’re stoked to have Jill share her journey with us.
Get connected:
Jason’s Twitter
Jill’s Twitter
Earthjustice Twitter / TikTok
MCJ Podcast /Collective
*You can also reach us via email at info@mcjcollective.com, where we encourage you to share your feedback on episodes and suggestions for future topics or guests.
Episode recorded on October 27, 2022.
In this episode, we cover:
[3:14] An overview of Earthjustice
[4:18] Jill's background and climate journey
[7:43] How Earthjustice determines which projects to take on
[9:34] Jill’s thoughts on the role of fossil fuels
[12:48] Balancing energy stability and reliability as we usher in the clean transition
[20:01] Unintended consequences of regulation
[25:10] Need for better government and developer planning
[30:26] How Earthjustice works with experts to evaluate various projects
[34:23] Example case on a new gas plant in Indiana
[38:39] Jill's thoughts on the IRA
[43:03] Systems level changes that would be impactful to Earthjustice's work
[47:03] The role of innovation and technology that will help clean energy win
[49:32] Jill's thoughts on activism
-
Jason Jacobs (00:02):
Hello everyone. This is Jason Jacobs.
Cody Simms (00:04):
And I'm Cody Simms.
Jason Jacobs (00:06):
And welcome to My Climate Journey. This show is a growing body of knowledge focused on climate change and potential solutions.
Cody Simms (00:16):
In this podcast, we traverse disciplines, industries, and opinions to better understand and make sense of the formidable problem of climate change and all the ways people like you and I can help.
Jason Jacobs (00:27):
We appreciate you tuning in, sharing this episode, and if you feel like it, leaving us a review to help more people find out about us so they can figure out where they fit in addressing the problem of climate change.
(00:41):
Today's guest is Jill Tauber, Vice President of Litigation for Climate and Energy at Earth Justice. Earth Justice is the premier nonprofit public interest environmental law organization. They wield the power of law and the strength of partnership to protect people's health, to preserve magnificent places and wildlife, to advance clean energy, and to combat climate change. I was excited for this one because Earth Justice does such important work, and also their work is just right in the thick of some really relevant topics at the moment. For example, permitting. We need more clean infrastructure to get built, and we need to move quickly. But at the same time, the communities where that infrastructure is getting built need to be able to weigh in and have a voice on how they get built and how to do so in a way that's not harmful to the communities around them.
(01:39):
That's just one example. This is a fascinating topic. And in this episode, we cover, of course, Jill's journey to doing the work that she does, and we also dig into Earth Justice, what types of work they do, what their criteria are for which projects they take on, what their theory of changes in general. And we also talk about Jill's views on the role of fossil fuels in the clean energy transition, the role of fossil fuel companies in the clean energy transition, and of course the IRA bill permitting, barriers holding us back, changes that could unlock faster progress, and where Earth Justice fits into all of this now and in the future. Really great discussion and I hope you enjoy it. Jill, welcome to the show.
Jill Tauber (02:29):
Thanks for having me, Jason.
Jason Jacobs (02:31):
Thanks for coming. Yeah, I've been such a big fan of your work for a long time and had the privilege to meet you a couple years ago when I was much earlier on my journey. It might have even been longer than two years ago. And it was definitely pre pandemic, and now we've been through a pandemic and the IRA bill and all kinds of things have happened, and it's just such a timely time to hear from you and hear from Earth Justice. So, thank you for making the time. I'm sure you don't have a lot of it.
Jill Tauber (02:58):
Thank you so much, much. Yeah, just a little bit has changed since we last talked and it's great to connect. There's just a ton going on, so I'm excited to be in conversation with you.
Jason Jacobs (03:07):
Fantastic. So, to kick things off, as we typically do, just tell me about Earth Justice. What is it and what work do you do?
Jill Tauber (03:14):
Yeah, so Earth Justice is a non-for-profit environmental law organization, and what we do is use the power of the law to tackle the most pressing environmental issues. That's including the biodiversity crisis, the pollution and public health crisis, and of course, the climate crisis. And we work to advance solutions to get us to that clean energy future that we all want. We have this great tagline, because the earth needs a good lawyer. So, we focus on litigation and legal advocacy, and we also compliment that with terrific policy advocacy, research communications. And so we're sort of a full shop there. We have been around for about 50 years. We represent organizations, some of whom have been represented on your pod, from small community groups to large NGOs, and critically we represent them free of charge. That's our model. Everything we do is on behalf of others with partners.
Jason Jacobs (04:14):
And how did you come to do the work that you do? What's your journey?
Jill Tauber (04:18):
Yeah, I love this question and I love hearing everyone's journey as you were on your own. So, my journey, it's interesting. If you were to ask me going into law school or coming out of law school, would I be in the climate space? I'd say no probably. I didn't have environmental issues or climate on my radar going into law school. I always knew I wanted to pursue public interest, advance social change. I always like to argue. You can ask my folks. Oh, law. I was attracted to that, right? I didn't have it on my radar. For me, I think my climate journey really began when I was doing civil rights work. I was working on public housing and displacement issues in New Orleans right after Hurricane Katrina. And doing that work, I really saw, for me, for the first time, what's obvious to many, it's been long obvious to many, the connections between the housing and displacement justice issues I was working on, the result of poor government planning and government response to disasters, and energy injustice, environmental injustice.
(05:24):
And of course, these storms, extreme weather events only become more frequent and more damaging with climate change. So, I started to see the connections between all of these issues doing that housing work. And like many of us in our journey, life sometimes takes you places. And so I had an opportunity... I was moving for personal reasons to North Carolina after my work focusing on housing in New Orleans, and I had an opportunity to join a environmental nonprofit in North Carolina. So, I worked, focusing on the southeast, on energy issues, on environmental issues for five years. This was the time when we were still facing new coal plants being built. Thankfully, we're not there anymore. I started focusing on energy efficiency, such a key part of a clean energy future, such a key part of climate change.
(06:15):
And I did that work. And then I had an opportunity in 2013 to join Earth Justice to help build out our clean energy practice. I've long been a fan of the organization, so I jumped at the chance. And over the next five years, we built a deep bench of clean energy attorneys who focus on public utility commissions, focus on transitioning generation mixes from dirty to renewables, focus on making sure that everyone can have access to clean energy, including putting rooftop solar on your homes and businesses. And so I did that work for a number of years. And about four years ago, I had an opportunity to take on an even broader portfolio. And I currently run our climate and energy portfolio at Earth Justice, which not only includes clean energy work, it includes work to combat the supply side, fossil fuel investment. So, I work sort of on the demand side, the supply side. We work on local issues, state, national, we work abroad, all with an effort to transition us to a hundred percent clean energy that's accessible to everyone.
Jason Jacobs (07:27):
And given that the earth needs a good attorney and that all the work you take on is pro bono, it sounds like, which is amazing. How do you determine what projects are the right ones for Earth Justice? What are the criteria?
Jill Tauber (07:43):
Yeah, it's a really good question, and it's one we're we're always asking ourselves and shaping and evolving. We think about cases and issues where we can have the most impact, where we're a significant value add to get to our goal of a hundred percent clean energy. So, what are the efforts that we can undertake that are going to lead to a transition off of fossil fuels, investing in renewables, increasing energy access. We think about everything I said, I mentioned is in partnership with others. So, where is the need? Do we have a group of partners who have identified an issue, a barrier that they're facing to scale up on clean energy or a really destructive project that's happening in their backyard that's going to lock in fossil fuel reliance and spew a bunch of pollution? Can we get in there and help out?
(08:31):
So, it's a combination of our partners and clients identifying issues where we think we can help out, where we have our own planning process, as you might imagine all good nonprofits do, thinking about our priorities and where can we have the most impact. Where are we a value add? And we go from there and we represent over 600 clients. We have, at any given time, over around 600 or 700 legal cases. So, there's a lot of work. And thinking about how each of those engagements helps us get closer to the north star of a clean energy future for all is really the goal.
Jason Jacobs (09:12):
Well, I have a lot of questions on a per project basis, but before we even get there, maybe we can zoom way out and just talk about theory of change in general. So, Earth Justice aside, when you think about the clean energy transition, how do you think about the role of fossil fuels and how do you think about the role of fossil fuel companies?
Jill Tauber (09:34):
Yeah, I mean, I think that the role of fossil fuel as being a driver of the crisis we're in. When I think about the clean energy future that we need to get to, I think about ending our reliance on fossil fuels. I think we have so many of the solutions we need at hand today. And I think increasingly, economics are on our side. One of the interesting things about the energy work that I've done and that so many at Earth Justice is we are working. We have a significant practice at the state level, in part because we don't really have comprehensive federal energy policy. So many of the decisions about whether we're going to continue to invest in fossil fuels or whether we're going to transition to clean energy are made at the state level. And we are in proceedings at the state level, including at public utility commissions, which really are key players in determining our energy future.
(10:34):
And we're in these proceedings. And some of these commissions may have a charge to think about climate or clean energy depending upon the state, but primarily these are economic regulators. And what's so interesting is that over the years that I've been doing it, just the economic case, the pocketbook impact, the effect on rate payers from investing in fossil versus clean has just continues to shift tremendously in the direction of clean energy. So, when I think about this future, I think from an economic perspective, from a health perspective, from a perspective of trying to prevent the planet from burning, I think about this shift from fossil fuels to clean energy. So, I think that's where we need to go. I think the science tells us that. I think we are on our way. I think it's a question of pace, the way in which we do it, thinking about making sure it is equitable, that those who are bearing a disproportionate burden of the fossil fuel pollution today are getting access to the benefits of this transition.
(11:44):
So, I'll stop there. I know there's a ton to unpack, but top lines, I think we need to end our reliance on fossil fuels and transition to renewables. Batteries, demand response, energy efficiency to get to the clean energy future.
Jason Jacobs (12:00):
I mean, I totally agree with that. One thing I'm certainly not an expert on, and I'm not in a position to speak on in a wonky way, but that I'm trying to just sort through for my myself, is we want to get there as quickly as possible. At the same time, we want energy for all, we want grid stability and reliability, we want national security and our interest protected and not to be held hostage for rogue nations that hang the resources that we rely on over our heads. How do we balance these things as we make the transition? Obviously climate is an existential threat, and if we don't address it, it makes everything else worse. There's no debate there, but keeping the lights on today matters. So, how do we balance these things?
Jill Tauber (12:48):
I agree with all the goals, right? We want a grid that works. We want security, we want affordability. I think, Jason, the clean energy transition doesn't just answer climate, right? I think it answers all of that. And that's really the key. I think the dialogue has shifted, I think, in a really important way, such that we're not just talking about... There's a little bit of this, but we're breaking out of our silos, right? It is not just about protecting ecosystems, although that's critically important. It is not just about driving down rates, although that's critically important. Thinking about all of these pieces connected, I think is really essential. So, just taking economic security, national security, top of mind in this moment with Russia's invasion of Ukraine, thinking about prices at the pump, what's clear to me when you step back and look at what's happening is that our prices are being driven up by a global market, which is impacted by fossil fuel tyrants holding reserves.
(13:56):
And so how do we combat that? What's the long term play for national security? It's not digging in on investments of fossil fuels that lock us into that dynamic for 20 years into the future. Energy stability is pardon parcel with phasing down our reliance on fossil and scaling up renewables. I think the same thing about energy affordability. It is just more economic in most situations right now to be investing in renewables. The key there, I think, is that we have a grid that was designed around centralized fossil plants. The rules of the road were designed to accommodate and support centralized big fossil fuel burning power plants. And so I think to really get the benefits, the economic advantages of renewables, we have to make sure that we are reforming, updating the rules of the road as to how our grid works to allow ourselves to realize the benefits of clean energy.
(15:02):
And that is such a core part of the work that we do at Earth Justice in our... We have one of the largest public interest energy practices in the world, and part of that work is going into regulatory for the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, FERC, these public utility commissions that I referenced, and make sure that we have the policies in place that don't throw up barriers to allow clean energy to scale. And some of these barriers are just super explicit, like no, demand response, you cannot compete in our wholesale energy markets. Or when I run my analysis, I'm a utility of whether I should invest in solar or gas, I'm going to cap the amount of solar that I can model. All of these obstructions really prevent clean energy from scaling up. And so part of the work is to make sure that we are reforming our systems to allow clean energy to be on a level playing field with [inaudible 00:16:07]. And I think you see clean win, which not only drives down emissions, it results in real pocketbook savings.
(16:15):
So, maybe I'm going on too long, but I'll just come back to where you started. I want to sort, I guess gently and respectfully push back on the notion that these things are working against each other, that we have to think about energy affordability, environmental impact, energy access as being competing. And so we have to pick winners or losers. I think when you really plan out the system, such that we can get our policies in place, get our analyses, I think we're going to see clean win, and it's going to address all of those issues. That's not to say we can flip a switch and do everything tomorrow, right? I mean, this takes planning, this takes investment in the grid, but we can be on our way and be in a situation where investing big in clean energy is addressing a lot of problems, not just environmental pollution, but affordability, security.
Jason Jacobs (17:12):
That all makes sense to me, to be clear. So, I do see how in the long term they both do fall in line and help each other. I think the issue that I worry about is the short term where... I think it sounds like we both agree if we flipped a switch today and ban all fossil fuel production and use that, it would make a big mess. I think we also agree that holding up that fact can then be a crutch or an excuse to slow the transition, which also isn't good for anybody. I think it's how do you sort through what's the stuff that is actually essential that needs to be greenlighted still, and what's the stuff that we need to kill. And who gets it aside?
Jill Tauber (18:01):
I think there's a ton we could do now, right? And I want to be clear, one of the things I think that has been problematic, and part of the way it's resulted in where we are now, which is far away from meeting our missions targets, is this idea of we'll get there in 10 years. And to be clear, I have a goal. I want no coal online in 2030. We all want to have our emissions by 2030. That's critical, but we need to be doing this stuff today. We need to be phasing out uneconomic coal today. We need to be investing in renewables today. So, some of the goals are long term midterm, because this problem is going to take us working each and every day. But to your point, I really worry about a suggestion that we can take our foot off of the pedal right now because we have years to get this done.
(18:53):
We need to make progress every day to invest in clean energy, to think about what that transition looks like. And to your point, how do we know how much we can do now? I mean, I guess I would say I'd love to really be in a situation where I think that's a problem. In other words, I don't think we're doing enough now. I think there are things that the government could be doing now that the developing community could be doing now to scale up clean energy faster and greater scale than we're doing now. I think the federal government, for example, has authority to put in place more stringent regulations that we're seeing now that would internalize the cost of pollution. So. I take your point, and I think we have to plan with care and intention and with a process that is inclusive of all impacted parties in this transition. And I think the real problem now is that we're not doing enough.
Jason Jacobs (19:50):
I also agree we're not doing enough. I think one thing I've heard, and again, I have to caveat everything with I'm just a learner, right?
Jill Tauber (19:59):
We all are. We all are.
Jason Jacobs (20:01):
But one thing I've heard is that some of the regulation that's in place, and process and approvals and things like that, that are meant to keep out or slow down the bad, let's say, also have an unintended consequence, or I assume unintended, of slowing down or holding up the good in terms of the permitting for the clean stuff that's in the same queue, right? Is there any truth to that? How do you think about that? You're way closer to the ground on that stuff than I am, so it'd be great to hear your input.
Jill Tauber (20:35):
Yeah, this is a really important issue you're hitting on in this moment. So, look, there's no doubt we have over a terawatt of renewable energy, for example, waiting to connect, and we have processes in place that are making that difficult and taking too long. There is no doubt that there are good reforms that we need to get clean online. And the good news is some of that is underway. We have the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, for example. Right now, there are two rule makings that are happening at the commission to improve the way transmission is planned to address who pays for it, issues of cost allocation, and interconnection, how we get the clean stuff connected to the grid so that it could move around and power our lives. So, that's underway. The IRA, Inflation Reduction Act, the bipartisan infrastructure bill, included a lot of money to invest in transmission developing, to think about the planning process.
(21:40):
So, there's stuff underway, and there's more we can do there to be sure to think about how we can scale up on transmission, which is a real linchpin to allowing the clean energy to connect and go forward. What I don't agree with, and what has really been nothing short of an attack on bedrock environmental laws is this notion that environmental review is the problem. That just hasn't been our experience. And what we are seeing underway now, including most recently in a failed attempt to get legislation passed, what's been called the side deal from Senator Manchin, is a proposal to gut our bedrock environmental law, the National Environmental Policy Act, NEPA, by cutting communities out of the engagement process, by reducing the comprehensiveness of an analysis of alternatives that have to be studied when you're planning projects, by limiting folks access to the courthouse when projects were being challenged.
(22:48):
That's been sort of the focal point of this effort to say, "We need to build clean stuff." So, the answer is we're going to gut the one law we have that ensures communities have a voice in the process. We know that's not right. So, there's this study that came out by MIT that looked at 53 large scale renewable projects that had some delay or were canceled and what was really causing that. And one of the key takeaways of that was early engagement with communities goes a long way to help deal with potential opposition or potential delay. We saw that in a recent forest service study. And so what we're seeing is rather than thinking about how to cut communities out of the process or how to shorten public engagement, you need to do more of that. You need to plan early, you need to think about alternatives.
(23:40):
That's the way to move projects along from the environmental review perspective. So, no doubt, Jason, we need to build more of the good stuff. We need to do it faster. We need to make sure we have the policies in place to do that. Some reform efforts are underway. There are other interesting ideas out there that we should be exploring. But what absolutely should not be on the table is any effort to weaken this bedrock environmental law that we have in NEPA that gives communities a voice in the process. It's the simple premise of look before you leap, do good planning, do good outreach, and my hope is we all agree that that's something we need to continue to do.
Jason Jacobs (24:23):
And so if you think that weakening community voices the wrong direction to go, then in your mind, what's the fertile ground that will accelerate things in a more productive way? Anything tangible in terms of don't focus there, focus here instead, and here's the kinds of things that you would want to see that you think would be additive?
Jill Tauber (24:45):
I think we need better planning. I think we need better planning across the board, not even... Certainly on a project level, but I think sort of the idea of master planning, broader planning, that can really facilitate project by project review. There's this idea in NEPA of programmatic analysis, and then you can tier individual projects to that. And it's the basic idea. If we do more upfront planning, we're going to be better off.
Jason Jacobs (25:10):
Is this planning by the developers or planning by the government? Planning by who?
Jill Tauber (25:14):
It's an inclusive process, so it should be planning. I think the government plays a really big role in that, and developer planning as well. I think we need to invest in those upfront processes. I mean, one of the things I'll mention in terms of sort of the government role, and this is with respect to environmental review, we've had a history of underfunded agencies, of just agencies that didn't have the staff, didn't have the expertise or sufficient capacity, I should say, to sufficiently do this review. What we now have with the passage of the Inflation Reduction Act is over a billion dollars provided to various agencies to do environmental review. So, I think that's going to help. I think there are really important questions to explore about citing authority. Currently, it's pretty decentralized at the state level with a federal backstop at FERC. There are some proposals out there, pieces of legislation to give more of that role to the federal government. That's worthy of exploration to be cleared. It should be decoupled from any conversation about weakening environmental.
Jason Jacobs (26:21):
We're going to take a short break so our partner, Yin, can talk about the CJ membership option.
Yin Lu (26:27):
Hey folks. Yin here, our partner at MCJ Collective. Want to take a quick minute to tell you about our MCJ membership community, which was born out of a collective thirst for peer-to-peer learning and doing that goes beyond just listening to the podcast. We started in 2019, have since then grown to 2000 members globally. Each week, we're inspired by people who join with differing backgrounds and perspectives. And while those perspectives are different, what we all share in common is a deep curiosity to learn and bias to action around ways to accelerate solutions to climate change. Some awesome initiatives have come out of the community. A number of founding teams have met, nonprofits have been established, a bunch of hiring has been done, many early stage investments have been made, as well as ongoing events and programming like monthly women in climate meetups, idea jam sessions for early stage founders, climate book club, art workshops, and more.
(27:16):
So, whether you've been in climate for a while or just embarking on your journey, having a community to support you is important. If you want to learn more, head over to mcjcollective.com and click on the members tab at the top. Thanks, and enjoy the rest of the show.
Jason Jacobs (27:29):
Back to the show. We talk about transmission. One thing I hear a lot that a concern as we seek to accelerate the transition is grid stability. Are those one in the same? Is it transmission that is the concern here, or are there other factors that we need to think about and plan for as it relates to grid stability overall?
Jill Tauber (27:54):
I mean, certainly we need sufficient transmission. I think when you're thinking about grid stability, we're talking about very basic balancing demand and supply. So, I think we need to think about the resources we have on the grid, the demand side solutions that we have to control, the time of peak, for example. So, thinking about how to balance the demand and supply is a key part of grid stability, in addition to making sure we have the transmission to get the resources online that we need to meet demand. So, I think about do we have... Certainly, you think about the generation resources. I think about do we have the policies in place to shift our time of demand to call on energy providers, to call a demand response event, for example, to shave a peak, those different pieces of grid stability? Think about our ancillary services. There's a lot of work to do, I think, to ensure that we have a modern sustainable grid that can handle our load, that can handle the changing nature of our load.
(29:03):
As we talk about at Earth Justice, one of our core goals is to not only get to a hundred percent clean power, but to electrify our economy with that clean power. So, you think about how that's going to change the nature of the grid. What does it look like when you are plugging in your cars? Are we incentivizing that being done at night when maybe demand is lower? So, all these different kinds of technologies and behaviors, we have to assess to make sure that we are balancing the grid and have the grid that we need that is reliable in addition to clean.
Jason Jacobs (29:35):
I would imagine that as these projects are evaluated, there's certain ones, it's like, oh, they're clean, they're good, and it's easy, and it's like we want these to happen. And then there's others where it's like, oh, they're dirty and there's clean alternatives available, so we don't want that one to happen because as a viable alternative right over there. The tricky ones, I would imagine, would be the gray area ones where it's like, well, it's dirty, but we look around and we really don't see that there's anything else viable, and it could lead to grid instability and like a boat load of herd for the very communities that we're here to protect. How do you evaluate that? Do you rely on external resources? Is that factor into the decision making at all in terms of what projects to target? I guess do you have a team in house that has that capability? I know you're a team of lawyers, but what about the team that can actually evaluate things like grid stability and resilience and stuff like that?
Jill Tauber (30:26):
It's a really great question. So, we work with experts in the energy space all the time. When we engage in a case at an energy commission, for example, where we're maybe we're evaluating a utility proposal to invest in a new gas fired power plant, right? We're going in there with experts to really dig in, to see what were the alternatives being analyzed, what were the cost assumptions of the solar and wind that was evaluated in comparison to this combined cycle gas plant? Post IRA, post the inflation reduction act, were the tax credits accounted for when the cost of renewable and wind were compared to gas? I think the IRA is going to be a game changer in evaluating resources against one another. So, when you're looking at right wind and solar versus gas, I want to know that that utility or that developer has taken a look at the credits that are coming, and that's going to be a big part of our work ahead.
(31:30):
So, yes, it's expert intensive, it's engineers, it's scientists, it's reliability experts, it's utility rate design experts, it's all of that, and it's a case by case basis. But I will tell you in my experience, in the energy practice that we have, time and time again, if we are in a situation where we are looking at a proposal to build new fossil generating capacity, we find insufficient consideration of the clean energy alternatives, just full stop. It happens time and time again. We have focused for many years on transitioning away from coal fire generation, right? We've made amazing progress over the last few years. We're not done. We have a fleet of just uneconomic coal fire power plans. And a lot of what we're seeing in utility planning efforts underway is a recognition that those plants are going to be retired. They are polluting, they are not economic, they are not winning in the market.
(32:31):
And so the question is what do they get replaced with? Right? Are we going to look to renewable energy or are we going to look to fossil fuels? Is it going to be a gas plant in most situations? And so when we're in that, when we run into those cases, Jason, what we find is, when we dig in with our experts, when we look at the cost assumptions, when we look at what's in the marketplace, what bids are clearing, we find that clean wins. And so it's going to be a case by case determination. I'm not going to tell you, I've never seen a situation where there wasn't a plant that was proposed that didn't make any amount of sense, but when we dig in, our experiences with our experts, that clean is winning. And many times it's about whether the analysis was sufficiently robust, whether clean was put on a level playing field with fossil, and we go from there.
(33:21):
And so our model is... The state level proceedings are almost like mini trials. You get to put in your evidence, you get to put up your experts, you get to make the case to the decision makers that the economic thing to do, the thing that is most beneficial for rate payers customers, which is really what it's about, is investing in clean energy. And that's been our model. That's what we've been doing across the country, and we see a big role in continuing to do that after the infusion of resources to boost clean energy through the IRA.
Jason Jacobs (33:52):
And I don't know how public all of this is in terms of the cases that you take on and the work that you do, but to the extent you can talk about it, and we've kind of touched on it here on the periphery from multiple angles, but it'd be great to just talk about an example of an actual case that you've taken on and why you took it on, what you're trying to achieve, what the tactics were, and what the outcome was, if you're okay.
Jill Tauber (34:13):
Yeah, I mean, you could probably Google X utility commission and find a link and see our lawyers in action cross examining-
Jason Jacobs (34:22):
I'd love to do that.
Jill Tauber (34:23):
[inaudible 00:34:24] argument. My mother liked to do that when I was doing that. So, let me give you an example in Indiana. We have a practice in focusing in Indiana and Michigan and West Virginia, states that were pretty heavy on coal. And what we've seen over the years is those plants are uneconomic and we are pushing to invest in clean energy. And so in Indiana, this was a few years ago, there was a proposal to build a $1 billion, I think roughly 700 megawatt new gas plant. I'm sure it was proposed with the idea that some of the coal is retiring, and so we need new capacity. So, we saw the proposal, we represent a wonderful client in Indiana called Citizens Action Coalition, a not-for-profit consumer rights organization. And we do what we do, we dug in. We looked at... It's a publicly filed application. There's a discovery process where you ask the utility questions, What were your assumptions when you decided that the best thing for rate payers was to spend a billion dollars building a new gas plan?
(35:35):
What were the alternatives you considered? What were the assumptions about those alternatives? And so we, working with an experts and our client and our team of lawyers, really discovered that there just wasn't a robust enough analysis of the alternatives. There was not a robust analysis of the wind and the solar and the energy efficiency resources that could meet the power demand that was being identified by this gas plant. So, we put on a case, right? That's what we treat the commission rooms like a trial room, and we put on our case. We argued that the analysis of the alternatives was insufficient to allow the commission to determine that the best thing to do was invest in this gas plant. And they agreed. And so the utility was not able to build the gas plant. But here's the interesting part. What they had to do going forward when evaluating analyses of different resources, what to invest in, they had to open up their procurement process.
(36:36):
They had to actually invite bids from all resources. They couldn't just say, "We're looking at a gas plant, so let's see the best proposal we have to build a gas plant." They had to say, "We're looking to fill this need. Let's see what all resources could do." Wind, solar, gas, they had to evaluate them in the same way. And when they did that, what their analysis found many years later was that the better route was to invest in wind and solar. It just made economic sense. Again, we're not in there making a climate argument necessarily. We care about climate. We're not shying away from the fact that investing in clean is going to drive down emissions. Of course, that's so important. It's also about impact on rate payers. It's about cost. And as the economics of clean continues to improve, right? We have a 70% decline in solar, better in wind... What we see investment today in a gas plant, for example, that's a decades long investment in essentially stranded costs that rate payers customers are going to be on the hook for.
(37:45):
It's just a bad deal. And so we make that case. But I will tell you that... I gave you an example of an instance where a gas plant was being proposed and we were trying to challenge it and invest in clean instead. The best work, I think the most important work that we can do, that advocates can do is get in early, get in the planning process. I always say that the best gas plant win is the plant that's never been proposed, right? So, to make sure that stakeholders are able to engage in planning processes early so that we can influence the evaluation of all energy alternatives and really drive towards a plan that is heavy on renewables, heavy on efficiency. And we've been able to do that in our work as well.
Jason Jacobs (38:32):
We've also touched on this in various points of the discussion on the periphery, but what do you think about the IRA bill?
Jill Tauber (38:39):
Yeah, so I hate the name is the first thing I'll say. The Inflation Reduction Act. So, historic climate investments, 369 billion, as you know, 60 billion in community resilience, air monitoring, pollution mitigation focused on communities that are bearing the disproportionate impact of climate change. So, really important investments that I think about it as giving us a shot at meeting our targets. So, that is... I think has the potential to be transformational. I'm going to really emphasize the word potential. I think the story of the bill is not done with its passage. It is entirely about implementation, making sure it really does provide that boost to clean energy and that we're able to transition.
(39:26):
And I also want to recognize it was a mixed back, Jason. There are some investments there that we find pretty troubling that boost fossil fuels. There were some really painful provisions around federal fossil fuel leasing, one of which was an attempt to undo a victory that we scored in court on behalf of our clients with a golf lease sale. So, I don't want to suggest it's only good. There are some really painful provisions. And the job that we have ahead is to make sure that the benefits promise of that bill are realized, and in particular, that they benefit environmental justice communities, communities of color, low income communities that have for far too long born the disproportionate impact of fossil fuels and have been without the access to clean energy.
Jason Jacobs (40:17):
It sounds like, if I'm hearing right, and obviously correct me if I'm wrong, that when you look out there in your team, of course, you see in the landscape that there's lots of projects where there's fossil projects being proposed where it's shifts. It's almost like an object in motion stays in motion, and that's what we know how to do and that's what we'll do. But actually, if you stop and you evaluate, there's cleaner alternatives. And so you try to take those on to force their hand to evaluate on a level playing field, and then make the decision that pencils out as the best choice, which then oftentimes surprises them. And then we get cleaner projects and everybody wins. Am I right so far?
Jill Tauber (40:55):
That's a general idea of, I would say a piece of this. It's a battle. I don't want to suggest that there's really entrenched interest, both interest in continuing fossil fuel and just we're talking about of a mindset shift in the way we do planning, the way we power our lives. And that... There's real... You don't want to sort of underestimate the power of inertia, and we are really trying to accelerate a significant shift that's not just about what we invest in. It's about the way we think about our economy, the way we think about our grid. And so it's going to take a lot of work.
Jason Jacobs (41:34):
Yeah. What I was coming around to is the bulk of your work and the team of attorneys that work for Earth Justice is on a project by project basis. Is that correct?
Jill Tauber (41:43):
Well, we do. There's a lot of that work, Jason. So, challenging, harmful polluting projects, taking on cases where we see barriers to clean energy. To give you an example, we've litigated a host of cases that are around preventing discriminatory treatment of customers who want to invest in solar. So, there's a lot of that. So, there is project by project or proposal by proposal work. We also work at the federal level on standards, on rules to ensure that polluting industries are internalizing their costs.
Jason Jacobs (42:18):
Do you have a C4 arm?
Jill Tauber (42:20):
We have a C4 arm, Earth Justice action.
Jason Jacobs (42:22):
I just wanted to show off [inaudible 00:42:24]
Jill Tauber (42:23):
We have a C4 arm. I'm not a snapper of the C4, but there is Earth Justice action. Good. You get a point [inaudible 00:42:33]
Jason Jacobs (42:33):
Well, I didn't know that Earth Justice had a C4 arm. I just wanted to show off that I knew that if you were doing that work at the federal level, that it might require one. I didn't know that when I first started working on this stuff. So, I guess my question is... I mean, the fact that there's so much project by project work to do is... I mean, it's job security in a weird way. But at the systems level, what are the things outside of your control that might happen that would be the most impactful to eliminate the need for so much project by project firefighting?
Jill Tauber (43:03):
Well, I want to say this, there is project by project to be sure. But at the state federal level, there are rules. There are policies that we are fighting for to get in place that will take us a heck of a long way to drive down emissions. And give you example, just at the federal level, EPA, it's got a lot of work to do to finalize and strengthen standards, to drive down pollution, greenhouse gases, of course, and also all sorts of other harmful pollutions that happen when we combust fossil fuels. So, that's not at a project by project level. That is a sector or source specific level. Some of the work at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission that I was describing, not really project by project work, thinking about how we make sure that our energy and capacity markets are open to clean energy and that transmission planning is happening, that is more at a systems level, or at least a systems level from a regional perspective.
(44:07):
So, there's a lot of that work going on. Just to give you an example in the electrification space, so one of the things that we've been doing for a number of years in California, which not only is an important state in its own, the fourth largest economy in the world, I believe, just moving up from fifth to fourth recently, but it has an ability to really transform markets nationally by policy set there. And we've been fighting for a number of years to get standards in place that really drive us towards zero emission transportation. Just a couple of years ago, or maybe it was less than that, a year or so ago, California passed the first zero emission truck standards. That's going to have a huge impact. Thinking about beyond specific projects, it's going to transform a sector. And so thinking about what are the opportunities where we can secure the standards that we need to drive towards zero emissions that I think complement this wave of investment that we just secured at the federal level through the IRA is part of the project, and we're really seeing that.
(45:16):
And then I'll go one step further. We're lawyers. We like to enforce things. We believe in the rule of law and enforcing things. Once we get these standards in place, once we get these clean energy policies, making sure that they have teeth, that they mean something. We were really thrilled to see, and worked on the passage of New York's climate Law a couple of years ago, that's a law that will drive towards drastically cutting my home state's greenhouse gas emissions. So, great that it passed. After it passed, we were seeing a wave of proposals to get approval at the state level for more fossil generation. And so we took on project specific fights to be sure, but they were part of a broader effort to make sure that that law means something. If our targets to drive down greenhouse gases are going to mean anything, you can't turn around and then invest in more fossil. And so those kinds of opportunities to make an impact, both at a project level, but beyond are really important, and that's part of the work
Jason Jacobs (46:22):
In looking at some of the other areas that might indirectly enable the work that you do, a couple come to mind. The first is innovation. You talked about how you're climate motivated, but that it's got to make sense on its own two feet. And I would think that with more innovation, it could help make a higher percentage of these clean projects make sense on their own two feet. How big a role do you think innovation has to play? And are there specific areas, for example, or technologies or gaps or breakthroughs that you think would have an outsize impact on making it easier for clean to win?
Jill Tauber (47:03):
I mean, I certainly think technology plays a role, of course, R&D investments. We've seen the benefits of driving down costs and renewables, for example, as the technology has improved, I think, just to name some categories. Let me start by saying I think we've come a long way and we have a lot of the technologies at hand. I'm not saying therefore, let's stop thinking or let's stop innovating. I never want to say that, but I think we can, looking at the transportation sector, the largest driver of greenhouse gas emissions in this country, we have the technology to go to zero emissions across a lot of source categories in the transportation sector, certainly passenger vehicles, medium heavy duty. We're doing some really interesting work in California on off-road, on vessels and ferries and tugboats. So, we have the technology to drive towards zero emissions. Can we continue to innovate for long term storage and battery technology?
(47:56):
Of course. And I think, I'm sure there's a host of other resources. So, I think their innovation plays a role. Of course, technology plays a role. I think there are no silver bullets, right? So, let me say that. I don't think there's the one innovation that's going to solve the crisis we're in because this is a multifaceted crisis, and I think this is a, all tools in the toolkit, all hands on deck from a solutions perspective. So, I think technology plays a role. I don't think it's that alone. And one of the things that I think about in terms of the solution set or some underlying principles of certainly driving down emissions, I think about equity and who's being impacted by the resources that we're investing in, that we're transitioning towards, away from and for our work.
(48:47):
And this is really one of the ways in which it has evolved over the last few years, and maybe mirroring growth and an evolution of the environmental movement more broadly, is a recognition that to solve this crisis, which is interrelated with a public health crisis, with a racial injustice crisis, we need to be thinking about centering equity. We need to be centering, we need to be thinking about the implications of equity and environmental justice in our work as well.
Jason Jacobs (49:18):
Well, that's a good segue. So, same question that I asked about innovation, except with activism. What's the role of activism in accelerating the transition? And what types of activism do you think are the highest leverage activities?
Jill Tauber (49:32):
I think there's a critical role. We work with terrific advocates, activists who are making it clear, the stakes, who are focusing on raising the profile of the issue. I think about the youth movement, for example, how it's just so clear what the stakes are. We're talking about whether our kids, we were just talking about that before we started, our kids have a chance to thrive. I think there's a critical role of holding decision makers accountable to generations whose future is on the line. So, it's a critical role. We're the lawyers for representing numerous groups, advocates, activists, community members across the country who are fighting to live without pollution, to have a shot at a healthy life. And I think it's critical. President Biden, when he was running, it was really the first time, I mean, he ran on a platform that really centered climate, that centered racial injustice. And I don't think that's just because someone wrote that platform without being pressured by a movement. That was demanding climate solutions, that was demanding environmental justice. So, I think there's a huge role for advocacy to continue to hold decision makers accountable.
Jason Jacobs (51:02):
And then when you look at the current polarized climate in our country, and I know that our country is only... As much as we like to think that we're the sun and the world revolves around us, we're just yet one tenant on the planet that we live on. But in our country, I mean, we're a pretty big player on the world stage and we're pretty polarized right now. How do we get big climate stuff done in that environment? Do you think, for example, that unifying the country is important? Is it even realistic to try? How much is it about compromise? How much is it about fight? Yeah, I mean, where do we go from here?
Jill Tauber (51:42):
I mean, it's a great question. And I mean, look, we just did... It's worth observing. In this moment, we just did get historic climate investments through. It's not enough. It was done obviously through budget reconciliation. I think people care about issues that impacts their everyday lives. I think people care about how much their utility bill is, about whether their kids are at risk for asthma. I think these should not be partisan issues. I'm not suggesting we're there, but when I think about our work and what we're trying to deliver for our clients and the communities with whom we work, I think these are issues that everyone cares about to support their family, to make sure we're all living healthy lives, and we need to continue to come back to that, about what's at stake, who's going to be hurt if we don't undertake this transition, who's to benefit. I think that's important to continue to tell that story as we deal with the political realities, the reality of the courts. We just can't lose sight of that as we fight for this transition.
Jason Jacobs (52:53):
When you think about the future, what are some things outside of your control that if they came to be, would most accelerate the progress of you and the work of Earth Justice? For example, if you could change one thing outside of your control, what would it be and how would you change it?
Jill Tauber (53:09):
Yeah, it's hard. We don't like to admit what's out of our control. I mean, look, what we have to do is end our reliance on fossil fuel. So, if I could sort of wave a wand and have us really accelerate that reduction in our reliance on fossil fuels, if I can install a heat pump in everyone's house in the country, I would. If I could, thinking about the work that we do and the obstacles that we're facing in the courts, we're facing a pretty dangerous deregulatory agenda. That's something we are navigating and thinking about, but we really need to move towards a system where we are really protecting our fundamental rights and not seeing our rights on the line. So, there's a host of things in our economy in the courts that I would love to see shift as we continue to accelerate this transition.
Jason Jacobs (54:05):
And speaking to listeners for a moment, who do you want to hear from, and how can we be helpful to you and to earth justice?
Jill Tauber (54:14):
Who I would love to see on your show, Jason, we work with... We spend a lot of time talking about project fights and how that connects to systems level change. I think it will be wonderful to hear from some of the partners and clients with whom we work, who are fighting day in and day out to say no to fossil and to really benefit from this transition on the ground, partners who are fighting that fight day in and day out for their families, for their community. I think it would be wonderful to bring in that perspective. I would say to your listeners, Earth Justice is here because the law is a critical tool in this fight to advance a clean energy transition. And I would say if you want to learn more about that, go to earth justice.org. We are working local, state, federal, international level to use the law in partnership with wonderful clients to advance this transition, making good progress. A lot of more work to do, and I look forward in doing it in partnership with many of your listeners.
Jason Jacobs (55:20):
And is there anything you wish that I asked that I didn't, or any additional parting words?
Jill Tauber (55:25):
I would just say that I think we've got to keep on going. My mantra these days is do more faster in terms of advancing this transition. And there's a critical role for lawyers in that, for Earth Justice in that, and for our partners, your listeners, to check out our website and figure out how they can engage with us as well. We'd love to grow our support to advance our work.
Jason Jacobs (55:48):
Well, thanks, Jill. Thanks so much for coming on the show. And also, I'd love to take you up on that offer to meet some of the people in the trenches that are your clients. I think that I agree with you. That would be a fascinating discussion.
Jill Tauber (55:56):
Absolutely. Thank you.
Jason Jacobs (55:59):
Thanks again for joining us on My Climate Journey podcast.
Cody Simms (56:03):
At MCJ Collective, we're all about powering collective innovation for climate solutions by breaking down silos and unleashing problem solving capacity. To do this, we focus on three main pillars, content like this podcast and our weekly newsletter, capital to fund companies that are working to address climate change, and our member community to bring people together, as Yin described earlier.
Jason Jacobs (56:25):
If you'd like to learn more about MCJ Collective, visit us at www.mcjcollective.com. And if you have guest suggestions, feel free to let us know on Twitter @mcjpod.
Cody Simms (56:40):
Thanks, and see you next episode.
