County refuses to pay light bill

EPA Telework Policy restricts remote work, balancing work-from-home guidance during the COVID-19 pandemic with flexible schedules, union contracts, OMB guidance, and federal workforce rules, impacting managers, SES staff, and non-bargaining employees nationwide.

Key Points

A directive limiting many EPA staff to two telework days weekly, with pandemic exceptions and flexible schedules.

✅ Limits telework to two days per week for many employees

✅ Allows flexible schedules, including maxiflex, during emergencies

✅ Aligns with OMB, OPM, CDC guidance; honors union agreements

EPA has moved forward on a new policy that would restrict telework even as agency leadership has encouraged staff to work from home during the coronavirus outbreak.

The new EPA order obtained by E&E News would require employees to report to the office at least three days every week.

"Full-time employees are expected to report to the official worksite and duty station a minimum of three (3) days per week," says the order, dated as approved on Feb. 27. It went into effect March 15 — that night, EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler authorized telework for the entire agency due to the pandemic.

The order focuses on EPA employees' work schedules and gives them new flexibilities that could come in handy during a public health emergency like the COVID-19 virus, when parts of the power sector consider on-site staffing to ensure continuity.

It also stipulates a deep reduction in EPA employees' capability to work remotely, leaving them with two days of telework per week. An agency order on telework, issued in January 2016, said staff could telework full time.

"The EPA supports the use of telework," said that order. "Regular telework may range from one day per pay period up to full time."

An EPA spokeswoman said the new order doesn't change the agency's guidance to staff to work from home during the pandemic.

"The health and safety of our employees is our top priority, and that is why we have requested that all employees telework, even as residential electricity use increases with more people at home, until at least April 3. There is no provision in the work schedules policy, telework policy or collective bargaining agreement that limits this request," said the spokeswoman.

"While EPA did implement the national work schedule policy effective 3/15/2020, it was implemented in order to provide increased work schedule flexibilities for non-bargaining unit employees who were not previously afforded flexible schedules, including maxiflex," she added.

"The implementation of the policy does not currently impact telework opportunities for EPA employees, and EPA has strongly encouraged all staff to telework," she said.

Still, the new order has caused consternation among EPA employees.

One EPA manager described it as another move by the Trump administration to restrict telework across the government.

"Amidst the COVID-19 crisis, this policy seems particularly ill-timed and unwise. It doesn't even give the administration the chance to evaluate the situation once the COVID-19 pandemic passes," said the manager.

"I think this is a dramatic change in the flexibilities available to the EPA employees without any data to support such a drastic move," the manager said. "It has huge ramifications for employees, many of whom commute over an hour each way to the office, increasing air pollution in the process."

Another EPA staffer said, "I honestly think such an order, given current circumstances, would elicit little more than a scoff and a smirk."

The person added, "How tone-deaf and heavy-handed can one administration be?"

Inside EPA first reported on the new order. E&E News obtained the memo independently.

The recently issued policy applies only to non-bargaining-unit employees, including "full-time and part-time" agency staff as well as "supervisors and managers in the competitive, excepted, Senior Level, Scientific and Professional, and Senior Executive Service positions."

In addition, the order covers "Public Health Service Officers, Schedule C, Administratively Determined employees and non-EPA employees serving on Intergovernmental Personnel Act assignments to EPA."

Nevertheless, EPA employees covered under union contracts must adhere to those contracts if the policy runs counter to them.

"If provisions of this order conflict with the provisions of a collective bargaining agreement, the provisions of the agreement must be applied," the order says.

EPA has taken a more restrictive approach with the agency's largest union, American Federation of Government Employees Council 238, which represents about 7,500 EPA employees. EPA imposed a contract on the council's bargaining unit employees last July that limited them to one day of telework per week, among other changes that triggered union protests.

EPA and AFGE have since relaunched contract negotiations, and how to handle telework is one of the issues under discussion. Both sides committed to complete those bargaining talks by April 15 and work with the Federal Service Impasses Panel if needed (Greenwire, Feb. 27).

Both sides of the telework debate
EPA's new order has been under consideration for some time.

E&E News obtained a draft version last year. The agency had circulated it for comment in July, noting the proposal "limits the number of days an employee may telework per week," among other changes (Greenwire, Sept. 12, 2019).

EPA, like other federal agencies under the Trump administration, has sought to reduce employees' telework. That effort, though, has run into the headwinds of a global pandemic, with a U.S. grid warning highlighting broader risks, leading agency leaders to reverse course and now encourage staff to work remotely in order to stop the spread of the COVID-19 virus.

Wheeler in an email last week told staff that he authorized telework for employees across the country. Federal worker unions had sought the opportunity for remote work on behalf of EPA employees, and the agency had already relaxed telework policies at various offices the prior week where the coronavirus had begun to take hold.

The EPA spokeswoman said the agency moved toward telework after guidance from other agencies.

"Consistent with [Office of Management and Budget], [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention] and [Office of Personnel Management] guidance, along with state and local directives, we have taken swift action in regions and at headquarters to implement telework for all employees. We continue to tell all employees to telework," said the spokeswoman.

Wheeler said in a later video message that his expectation was most EPA employees were working from home.

"I understand that this is a difficult and scary time for all of us," said the EPA administrator.

The coronavirus has become a real challenge for EPA, and utilities like BC Hydro Site C updates illustrate broader operational adjustments.

Agency staff have been exposed to the virus while some have tested positive, and nuclear plant workers have raised similar concerns, according to internal emails. That has led to employees self-quarantining while their colleagues worry they may next fall ill (Greenwire, March 20).

One employee said that since EPA's operations have been maintained with staff working from home, even as household electricity bills rise for many, it's harder for the Trump administration to justify restricting remote work.

"With the current climate, I think employees have shown we can keep the agency going with nearly 95% teleworking full time. It makes their argument hard to justify in light of things," said the EPA employee.

The Trump administration overall has pushed for more remote work by the federal workforce in the battle with the COVID-19 virus. The Office of Management and Budget issued guidance to agencies last week "to minimize face-to-face interactions" and "maximize telework across the nation."

Lawmakers have also pushed to expand telework for federal workers due to the virus.

Democratic senators sent a letter last week urging President Trump to issue an executive order directing agencies to use telework.

In addition, Sens. James Lankford (R-Okla.), Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) and Kyrsten Sinema (D-Ariz.) introduced legislation that would allow federal employees to telework full time during the pandemic.

Some worry EPA's new order could further sour morale at the agency after the pandemic passes, as other utilities consider measures like unpaid days off to trim costs. Employees may leave if they can't work from home more.

"People will quit EPA over something like this. Maybe that's the goal," said the EPA manager.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Workforce Safety News

Inventoried Energy Program pays ISO-NE generators for fuel security to boost winter reliability, with FERC approval, covering fossil, nuclear, hydropower, and batteries, complementing capacity markets to enhance grid resilience during severe cold snaps.

Key Points

ISO-NE program paying generators to hold fuel or energy reserves for emergencies, boosting winter reliability.

✅ FERC-approved stopgap for 2023 and 2024 winter seasons

✅ Pays for on-site fuel or stored energy during cold-trigger events

✅ Open to fossil, nuclear, hydro, batteries; limited gas participation

Electricity ratepayers in New England will pay tens of millions of dollars to fossil fuel and nuclear power plants later this decade under a program that proponents say is needed to keep the lights on during severe winters but which critics call a subsidy with little benefit to consumers or the grid, even as Connecticut is pushing a market overhaul across the region.

Last week the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission said ISO-New England, which runs the six-state power grid, can create what it calls the Inventoried Energy Program or IEP. This basically will pay certain power plants to stockpile of fuel for use in emergencies during two upcoming winters as longer-term solutions are developed.

The federal commission called it a reasonable short-term solution to avoid brownouts which doesn’t favor any given technology.

Not all agree, however, including FERC Commissioner Richard Glick, who wrote a fiery dissent to the other three commissioners.

“The program will hand out tens of millions of dollars to nuclear, coal and hydropower generators without any indication that those payments will cause the slightest change in those generators’ behavior,” Glick wrote. “Handing out money for nothing is a windfall, not a just and reasonable rate.”

The program is the latest reaction by ISO-NE to the winter of 2013-14 when New England almost saw brownouts because of a shortage of natural gas to create electricity during a pair of week-long deep freezes.

ISO-New England says the situation is more critical now because of the possible retirement of the gas-fired Mystic Generating Station in Massachusetts. As with closed nuclear plants such as Vermont Yankee and Pilgrim in Massachusetts, power plant owners say lower electricity prices, partly due to cheap renewables and partly to stagnant demand, means they can’t be profitable just by selling power.

Programs like the IEP are meant to subsidize such plants – “incentivize” is the industry term – even though some argue there is no need to subsidize nuclear in deregulated markets so they’ll stay open if they are needed.

The IEP approved last week will be applied to the winters of 2023 and 2024, after a different subsidy program expires. It sets prices, despite warnings about rushing pricing changes from industry groups, for stocking certain amounts of fuel and payments during any “trigger” event, defined as a day when the average of high and low temperatures at Bradley International Airport in Connecticut is no more than 17 degrees Fahrenheit.

These payments will be made on top of a complex system of grid auctions used to decide how much various plants get paid for generating electricity at which times.

ISO-NE estimates the new program will cost between $102 million and $148 million each winter, depending on weather and market conditions.

It says the payments are open to plants that burn oil, coal, nuclear fuel, wood chips or trash; utility-scale battery storage facilities; and hydropower dams “that store water in a pond or reservoir.” Natural gas plants can participate if they guarantee to have fuel available, but that seems less likely because of winter heating contracts.

A major complaint and groups that filed petitions opposing the project is that ISO-NE presented little supporting evidence of how prices, amount and overall cost were determined. ISO-NE argued that there wasn’t time for such analysis before the Mystic shutdown, and FERC agreed.

“The proposal is a step in the right direction … while ISO-NE finishes developing a long-term market solution,” the commission said in its ruling.

The program is the latest example of complexities facing the nation’s electricity system evolves in the face of solar and wind power, which produce electricity so cheaply that they can render traditional power uneconomic but which can’t always produce power on demand, prompting discussions of Texas grid improvements among policymakers. Another major factor is climate change, which has increased the pressure to support renewable alternatives to plants that burn fossil fuels, as well as stagnant electricity demand caused by increased efficiency.

Opponents, including many environmental groups, say electricity utilities and regulators are too quick to prop up existing systems, as the 145-mile Maine transmission line debate shows, built when electricity was sent one way from a few big plants to many customers. They argue that to combat climate change as well as limit cost, the emphasis must be on developing “non-wire alternatives” such as smart systems for controlling demand, in order to take advantage of the current system in which electricity goes two ways, such as from rooftop solar back into the grid.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Alberta Renewable Energy Procurement is surging as corporate PPAs drive wind and solar growth, with the Pembina Institute and the Business Renewables Centre linking buyers and developers in Alberta's energy-only market near Medicine Hat.

Key Points

A market-led approach where corporations use PPAs to secure wind and solar power from Alberta projects.

✅ Corporate PPAs de-risk projects and lock in clean power.

✅ Alberta's energy-only market enables efficient transactions.

✅ Skilled workforce supports wind, solar, legal, and financing.

Alberta has big potential when it comes to providing renewable energy, advocates say.

The Pembina Institute says the practice of corporations committing to buy renewable energy is just taking off in Canada, and Alberta has both the energy sector and the skilled workforce to provide it.

Earlier this week, a company owned by U.S. billionaire Warren Buffett announced a large new wind farm near Medicine Hat. It has a buyer for the power.

Sara Hastings-Simon, director of the Pembina's Business Renewables Centre, says this is part of a trend.

"We're talking about the practice of corporate institutions purchasing renewables to meet their own electricity demand. And this is a really well-established driver for renewable energy development in the U.S.," she said. "You may be hearing headlines like Google, Apple and others that are buying renewables and we're helping to bring this practice to Canada."

The Business Renewables Centre (BRC) is a not-for-profit working to accelerate corporate and institutional procurement of renewables in Canada. The group held its inaugural all members event in Calgary on Thursday.

Hastings-Simon says shareholders and investors are encouraging more use of solar and wind power in Canada.

"We have over 10 gigawatts of renewable energy projects in the pipeline that are ready for buyers. And so we see multinational companies coming to Canada to start to procure here, as well as Canadian companies understanding that this is an opportunity for them as well," Hastings-Simon said.

"It's really exciting to see business interests driving renewable energy development."

Sara Hastings-Simon is the director of the Pembina Institute's Business Renewables Centre, which seeks to build up Alberta's renewable energy industry. (Mike Symington/CBC)

Hastings-Simon says renewable procurement could help dispel the narrative that it's all about oil and gas in Alberta by highlighting Alberta as a powerhouse for both green energy and fossil fuels in Canada.

She says the practice started with a handful of tech companies in the U.S. and has become more mainstream there, even as Canada remains a solar laggard to some observers, with more and more large companies wanting to reduce their energy footprint.

He says his U.S.-based organization has been working for years to speed up and expand the renewables market for companies that want to address their own sustainability.

"We try and make that a little bit easier by building out a community that can help to really reinforce each other, share lessons learned, best practices and then drive for transactions to have actual material impact worldwide," he said.

"We're really excited to be working with the Pembina group and the BRC Canada team," he said. "We feel our best value for this is just to support them with our experiences and lessons. They've been basically doing the same thing for many years helping to grow and grow and cultivate the market."

Porter says Alberta's market is more than ready.

"There are some precedent transactions already so people know it can work," he said. "The way Alberta is structured, being an energy-only market is useful. And I think that there is a strong ecosystem of both budget developers and service providers … that can really help these transactions get over the line."

As procurement ramps up, Hastings-Simon says Alberta already has the skilled workers needed to fill renewable energy jobs across the province.

"We have a lot of the knowledge that's needed, and that's everybody from the construction down through the legal and financing — all those pieces of building big projects," she said. "We are seeing increasing interest in people that want to become involved in that industry, and so there is increasing demand for training in things like solar power installation and wind technicians."

Hastings-Simon predicts an increase in demand for both the services and the workers.

"As this industry ramps up, we're going to need to have more workers that are active in those areas," she said. "So I think we can see a very nice increase — both the demand and the number of folks that are able to work in this field."

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

BPA Privatization would sell the Bonneville Power Administration's transmission lines, raising FERC-regulated grid rates for ratepayers, impacting hydropower and the California-Oregon Intertie under the Trump 2018 budget proposal in the Pacific Northwest region.

Key Points

Selling Bonneville's transmission grid to private owners, raising rates and returns, shifting costs to ratepayers.

✅ Trump 2018 budget targets BPA transmission assets for sale.

✅ Higher capital costs, taxes, and profit would raise transmission rates.

✅ California-Oregon Intertie and hydropower flows face price impacts.

President Trump's 2018 budget proposal is so chock-full of noxious elements — replacing food stamps with "food boxes," drastically cutting Medicaid and Medicare, for a start — that it's unsurprising that one of its most misguided pieces has slipped under the radar.

That's the proposal to privatize the government-owned Bonneville Power Administration, which owns about three-quarters of the high-voltage electric transmission lines in a region that includes California, Washington state and Oregon, serving more than 13.5 million customers. By one authoritative estimate, any such sale would drive up the cost of transmission by 26%-44%.

The $5.2-billon price cited by the Trump administration, moreover, is nearly 20% below the actual value of the Bonneville grid — meaning that a private buyer would pocket an immediate windfall of $1.2 billion, at the expense of federal taxpayers and Bonneville customers.

Trump's plan for Portland, Ore.-based Bonneville is part of a larger proposal to sell off other government-owned electricity bodies, including the Colorado-based Western Area Power Administration and the Oklahoma-based Southwestern Power Administration. But Bonneville is by far the largest of the three, accounting for nearly 90% of the total $5.8 billion the budget anticipates collecting from the sales. The proposal is also part of the administration's

Both plans are said to be politically dead-on-arrival in Washington. But they offer a window into the thinking in the Trump White House.

"The word 'muddle' comes to mind," says Robert McCullough, a respected Portland energy consultant, referring to the justification for the privatization sale included in the Trump budget.

The White House suggests that selling the Bonneville grid would result in lower costs. But that narrative, McCullough wrote in a blistering assessment of the proposal, "displays a severe lack of understanding about the process of setting transmission rates."

McCullough's assessment is an update of a similar analysis he performed when the privatization scheme was first raised by the Trump administration last year. In that analysis issued in June, McCullough said the proposal "raises the question of why these valuable assets would be sold at a discount — and who would get the benefit of the discounted price."

The implications of a sale could be dire for Californians. Bonneville is the majority owner of the California-Oregon Intertie, an electrical transmission system that carries power, including Columbia River-generated hydropower and other clean-energy generation in British Columbia that supports the regional exchange, south to California in the summer and excess California generation to the Pacific Northwest in the winter.

But the idea has drawn fire throughout the region. When it was first broached last year, the Public Power Council, an association of utilities in the Northwest, assailed it as an apparent "transfer of value from the people of the Northwest to the U.S. Treasury," drawing parallels to Manitoba Hydro governance issues elsewhere.

The region's political leaders had especially harsh words for the idea this time around. "Oregonians raised hell last year when Trump tried to raise power bills for Pacific Northwesterners by selling off Bonneville Power, and yet his administration is back at it again," Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) said after the idea reappeared. "Our investment shouldn't be put up for sale to free up money for runaway military spending or tax cuts for billionaires." Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.) promised in a statement to work to "stop this bad idea in its tracks."

The notion of privatizing Bonneville predates the Trump administration; it was raised by Bill Clinton and again by George W. Bush, who thought the public would gain if the administration could sell its power at market rates. Both initiatives failed.

The same free-enterprise ideology underlies the Trump proposal. Privatizing the transmission lines "encourages a more efficient allocation of economic resources and mitigates unnecessary risk to taxpayers," the budget asserts. "Ownership of transmission assets is best carried out by the private sector where there are appropriate market and regulatory incentives."

But that's based on a misunderstanding of how transmission rates are set, McCullough says. Transmission is essentially a monopoly enterprise, with rates overseen by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission based on the grid's costs, and with federal scrutiny of public utilities such as the TVA underscoring that oversight. There's very little in the way of market "incentives" involved in transmission, since no one has come forward to build a competing grid.

Those include the owners' cost of capital — which would be much higher for a private owner than a government agency, McCullough observes, as Hydro One investor uncertainty demonstrates in practice. A private owner, unlike the government-owned Bonneville, also would owe federal income taxes, which would be passed on to consumers.

Then there's the profit motive. Bonneville "currently sells and delivers its power at cost," McCullough wrote last year. "Under a private regime, an investor-owned utility would likely charge a higher rate of return, a pattern seen when UK network profits drew regulatory rebukes."

None of these considerations appears to have been factored into the White House budget proposal. "Either there's an unsophisticated person at the Office of Management and Budget thinking up these numbers himself," McCullough told me, "or there would seem to be ongoing negotiations with an unidentified third party." No such buyer has emerged in the past, however.

What's left is a blind faith in the magic of the market, compounded by ignorance about how the transmission market operates. Put it together, and there's reason to wonder if Trump is even serious about this plan.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• T&D Business News

Canada Manufacturing Policy prioritizes affordable energy, trims carbon taxes, aligns with Buy America, and supports the resource sector, PPE and plastics supply, nearshoring, and resilient supply chains amid COVID-19, correcting costly green energy policies.

Key Points

A policy to boost industry with affordable energy, lower carbon taxes, resource ties, and aligned U.S. trade.

✅ Cuts energy costs and carbon tax burdens for competitiveness

✅ Rebuilds resource-sector linkages and domestic supply chains

✅ Seeks Buy America relief and clarity on plastics regulation

By Jocelyn Bamford

Since its inception in 2017, the Coalition of Concerned Manufacturers and Businesses has warned all levels of government that there would be catastrophic effects if policies that drove both the manufacturing and natural resources sectors out of the country were adopted.

The very origins of our coalition was in the fight for a competitive landscape in Ontario, a cornerstone of which is affordable energy and sounding the alarm that the Green Energy Policy in Ontario pushed many manufacturers out of the province.

The Green Energy Policy made electricity in Ontario four times the average North American rate. These unjust prices were largely there to subsidize the construction of expensive and inefficient wind and solar energy infrastructure, even as cleaning up Canada's grid is cited as critical to meeting climate pledges.

My company’s November hydro bill was $55,000 and $36,500 of that was the so-called global adjustment charge, the name given to these green energy costs.

Unaffordable electricity, illustrated by higher Alberta power costs in recent years, coupled with ever-more burdensome carbon taxes, have pushed Canadian manufacturing into the open arms of other countries that see the importance of affordable energy to attract business.

One can’t help but ask the question: If Canada had policies that attracted and maintained a robust manufacturing sector, would we be in the same situation with a lack of personal protective equipment and medical supplies for our front-line medical workers and our patients during this pandemic?  If our manufacturing sector wasn’t crippled by taxes and regulation, would it be more nimble and able to respond to a national emergency?

It seems that the federal government’s policies are designed to push manufacturing out, stifle our resource sector, and kill the very plastics industry that is so essential to keeping our front-line medical staff, patients, and citizens safe, even as the net-zero race accelerates federally.

As the federal government chased its obsession with a new green economy – a strange obsession given our country’s small contribution to global GHGs – including proposals for a fully renewable grid by 2030 advocated by some leaders, it has been blinded from the real threats to our country, threats that became very, very real with COVID-19.

After the pandemic has passed, the federal government must work to make Canada manufacturing and resource friendly again, recognizing that the IEA net-zero electricity report projects the need for more power. COVID-19 proves that Canada relies on a robust resource economy and manufacturing sector to survive. We need to ensure that we are prepared for future crises like the one we are facing now.

Here are five things our government can do now to meet that end:

1. End all carbon taxes immediately.

2. Create a mandate to bring manufacturing back to Canada through competitive offerings and favourable tax regimes.

3. Recognize the interconnections between the resource sector and manufacturing, including how fossil-fuel workers support the transition across supply chains. Many manufacturers supply parts and pieces to the resource sector, and they rely on affordable energy to compete globally.

4. Stop the current federal government initiative to label plastic as toxic. At a time when the government is appealing to manufacturers to re-tool and produce needed plastic products for the health care sector, labelling plastics as toxic is counterproductive.

5. Work to secure a Canadian exemption to Buy America. This crisis has clearly shown us that dependency on China is dangerous. We must forge closer ties with America and work as a trading block in order to be more self-sufficient.

These are troubling times. Many businesses will not survive.

We need to take back our manufacturing sector.  We need to take back our resource sector.

We need to understand the interconnected nature of these two important segments of our gross domestic production, and opportunities like an Alberta–B.C. grid link to strengthen reliability.
If we do not, in the next pandemic we may find ourselves not only without ventilators, masks and gowns but also without energy to operate our hospitals.

Jocelyn Bamford is a Toronto business executive and President of the Coalition of Concerned Manufacturers and Businesses of Canada

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Climate Change News

COP24 Climate Talks in Poland gather nearly 200 nations to finalize the Paris Agreement rulebook, advance the Talanoa Dialogue, strengthen emissions reporting and transparency, and align finance, technology transfer, and IPCC science for urgent mitigation.

Key Points

UNFCCC summit in Katowice to finalize Paris rules, enhance transparency, and drive stronger emissions cuts.

✅ Paris rulebook on reporting, transparency, markets, and timelines

✅ Talanoa Dialogue to assess gaps and raise ambition by 2020

✅ Finance and tech transfer for developing countries under UNFCCC

Delegates from nearly 200 countries have assembled this month in Katowice, Poland — the heart of coal country — to try to move the ball forward on battling climate change.

It’s now the 24th annual meeting, or “COP” — conference of the parties — under the landmark U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change, which the United States signed under then-President George H.W. Bush in 1992. More significantly, it’s the third such meeting since nations adopted the Paris climate agreement in 2015, widely seen at the time as a landmark moment in which, at last, developed and developing countries would share a path toward cutting greenhouse gas emissions, as Obama's clean energy push sought to lock in momentum.

But the surge of optimism that came with Paris has faded lately. The United States, the second largest greenhouse gas emitter, said it would withdraw from the agreement, though it has not formally done so yet. Many other countries are off target when it comes to meeting their initial round of Paris promises — promises that are widely acknowledged to be too weak to begin with. And emissions have begun to rise after a brief hiatus that had lent some hope of progress.

The latest science, meanwhile, is pointing toward increasingly dire outcomes. The amount of global warming that the world already has seen — 1 degree Celsius, 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit — has upended the Arctic, is killing coral reefs and may have begun to destabilize a massive part of Antarctica. A new report from the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), requested by the countries that assembled in Paris to be timed for this year’s meeting, finds a variety of increasingly severe effects as soon as a rise of 1.5 degrees Celsius arrives — an outcome that can’t be avoided without emissions cuts so steep that they would require societal transformations without any known historical parallel, the panel found.

It’s in this context that countries are meeting in Poland, with expectations and stakes high.

So what’s on the agenda in Poland?

The answer starts with the Paris agreement, which was negotiated three years ago, has been signed by 197 countries and is a mere 27 pages long. It covers a lot, laying out a huge new regime not only for the world as a whole to cut its greenhouse gas emissions, but for each individual country to regularly make new emissions-cutting pledges, strengthen them over time, report emissions to the rest of the world and much more. It also addresses financial obligations that developed countries have to developing countries, including how to achieve clean and universal electricity at scale, and how technologies will be transferred to help that.

But those 27 pages leave open to interpretation many fine points for how it will all work. So in Poland, countries are performing a detailed annotation of the Paris agreement, drafting a “rule book” that will span hundreds of pages.

That may sound bureaucratic, but it’s key to addressing many of the flash points. For instance, it will be hard for countries to trust that their fellow nations are cutting emissions without clear standards for reporting and vetting. Not everybody is ready to accept a process like the one followed in the United States, which not only publishes its emissions totals but also has an independent review of the findings.

“A number of the developing countries are resisting that kind of model for themselves. They see it as an intrusion on their sovereignty,” said Alden Meyer, director of strategy and policy at the Union of Concerned Scientists and one of the many participants in Poland this week. “That’s going to be a pretty tough issue at the end of the day.”

It’s hardly the only one. Also unclear is what countries will do after the time frames on their current emissions-cutting promises are up, which for many is 2025 or 2030. Will all countries then start reporting newer and more ambitious promises every five years? Every 10 years?

That really matters when five years of greenhouse gas emissions — currently about 40 billion tons of carbon dioxide annually — are capable of directly affecting the planet’s temperature.

What can we expect each day?

The conference is in its second week, when higher-level players — basically, the equivalent of cabinet-level leaders in the United States — are in Katowice to advance the negotiations.

As this happens, several big events are on the agenda. On Tuesday and Wednesday is the “Talanoa Dialogue,” which will bring together world leaders in a series of group meetings to discuss these key questions: “Where are we? Where do we want to go? How do we get there?”

Friday is the last day of the conference, but pros know these events tend to run long. On Friday — or after — we will be waiting for an overall statement or decision from the meeting which may signal how much has been achieved.

What is the “Talanoa Dialogue”?

“Talanoa” is a word used in Fiji and in many other Pacific islands to refer to “the sharing of ideas, skills and experience through storytelling.” This is the process that organizers settled on to fulfill a plan formed in Paris in 2015.

That year, along with signing the Paris agreement, nations released a decision that in 2018 there should be a “facilitative dialogue" among the countries “to take stock” of where their efforts stood to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. This was important because going into that Paris meeting, it was already clear that countries' promises were not strong enough to hold global warming below a rise of 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) above preindustrial temperatures.

This dialogue, in the Talanoa process, was meant to prompt reflection and maybe even soul searching about what more would have to be done. Throughout the year, “inputs” to the Talanoa dialogue — most prominently, the recent report by the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change on the meaning and consequences of 1.5 degrees Celsius of warming —have been compiled and synthesized. Now, over two days in Poland, countries' ministers will assemble to share stories in small groups about what is working and what is not and to assess where the world as a whole is on achieving the required greenhouse gas emissions reductions.

What remains to be seen is whether this process will culminate in any kind of product or statement that calls clearly for immediate, strong ramping up of climate change promises across the world.

With the clock ticking, will countries do anything to increase their ambition at this meeting?

If negotiating the Paris rule book sounds disappointingly technical, well, you’re not the only one feeling that way. Pressure is mounting for countries to accomplish something more than that in Poland — to at minimum give a strong signal that they understand that the science is looking worse and worse, and the world’s progress on the global energy transition isn’t matching that outlook.

“The bigger issue is how we’re going to get to an outcome on greater ambition,” said Lou Leonard, senior vice president for climate and energy at the World Wildlife Fund, who is in Poland observing the talks. “And I think the first week was not kind on moving that part of the agenda forward.”

Most countries are not likely to make new emissions-cutting promises this week. But there are two ways that the meeting could give a strong statement that countries should — or will — come up with new promises at least by 2020. That’s when extremely dramatic emissions cuts would have to start, including progress toward net-zero electricity by mid-century, according to the recent report on 1.5 degrees Celsius of warming.

The first is the aforementioned “Talanoa dialogue” (see above). It’s possible that the outcome of the dialogue could be a statement acknowledging that the world isn’t nearly far enough along and calling for much stronger steps.

There will also be a decision text released for the meeting as a whole, which could potentially send a signal. Leonard said he hopes that would include details for the next steps that will put the world on a better course.

“We have to create milestones, and the politics around it that will pressure countries to do something that quite frankly they don’t want to do,” he said. “It’s not going to be easy. That’s why we need a process that will help make it happen. And make the most of the IPCC report that was designed to come out right now so it could do this for us. That’s why we have it, and it needs to serve that role.”

The United States says it will withdraw from the agreement, so what role is it playing in Poland?

Despite President Trump’s pledge to withdraw, the United States remains in the Paris agreement (for now) and has sent a delegation of 44 people to Poland, largely from the State Department but also from the Environmental Protection Agency, Energy Department and even the White House, while domestically a historic U.S. climate law has recently passed to accelerate clean energy. Many of these career government officials remain deeply engaged in hashing out details of the agreement.

Still, the country as a whole is being cast in an antagonistic role in the talks.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Climate Change News