Cookies help us run our site more efficiently.

By clicking “Accept”, you agree to the storing of cookies on your device to enhance site navigation, analyze site usage, and assist in our marketing efforts. View our Privacy Policy for more information or to customize your cookie preferences.

The U.S. doesn’t have a law mandating EV battery recycling. Should it?

News Feed
Friday, May 26, 2023

The race to electrify the world’s vehicles and store energy will require batteries – so many of them, in fact, that meeting the demand we will see by 2040 will require 30 times the amount of critical minerals like lithium, cobalt and nickel that those industries currently use. That presents an enormous challenge, one exacerbated by the mining industry’s alarming allegations of labor crimes, environmental destruction, and encroachments on Indigenous land. There are ways to mitigate electrification’s extractive impacts, one of which may seem obvious: Recycle every battery we make.  Doing so would reduce the world’s need to mine these minerals by 10 percent within 16 years, because the critical materials in batteries are infinitely reusable. Eventually, a robust circular battery economy could all but eliminate the need to extract them at all. Of course, that would require recovering every EV pack at the end of its life, a sizable undertaking as the United States prepares for hundreds of thousands of electric vehicles to retire by the end of the decade. A nascent ecosystem of startups is working toward that goal, and the Inflation Reduction Act includes tax credits to incentivize the practice. But some electrification advocates say those steps do not go far enough. While the European Union recently passed a regulation mandating EV battery recycling, there is no such law in the United States. Proponents of a federal recycling standard say that without one, batteries that could be recycled might get left behind, increasing the need for mining and undermining electrification’s environmental benefits.  “We need a coordinated federal response to truly have a large-scale impact on meeting our demand,” said Blaine Miller-McFeeley, a policy advocate at Earthjustice, which favors a federal recycling requirement. “If you compare us to the EU, we are woefully behind and need to move much more quickly.” That movement would have to come from Congress, according to Miller-McFeeley. Historically, however, regulating recycling has been left up to the states and local jurisdictions. The Biden administration has instead been supporting the country’s budding EV battery recycling industry, mainly by making it good business to recover critical materials.  The Department of Energy wants to establish a “battery ecosystem” that can recover 90 percent of spent lithium batteries by 2030. It has granted billions in loans to battery recyclers to build new facilities. Automakers are incentivized to buy those recyclers’ products, because part of the federal EV tax credit applies only to cars with batteries that include a minimum amount of critical minerals that were mined, processed or recycled in the U.S. or by a free-trade partner. Manufacturers also get a tax credit for producing critical materials (including recycled ones) in the U.S. The Department of Energy granted Redwood Materials a $2 billion loan to expand its facility in Reno, Nevada. Courtesy of Redwood Materials Daniel Zotos, who handles public advocacy at the battery recycling startup Redwood Materials, said in an email that a healthy market for recycled materials is emerging. “Not only is there tremendous value today in recycling these metals, but the global demand for metals means that automakers need to source both more mined and recycled critical minerals.” Zotos said Redwood Materials agrees with the approach the federal government has taken.  “The US has in fact chosen to help incentivize (rather than mandate) recycling through provisions established in the Inflation Reduction Act, which we’re deeply supportive of.” During a pilot project in California last year, the company recovered 95 percent of the critical materials in 1,300 lithium-ion and nickel metal hydride EV and hybrid batteries. The cost of retrieving packs from throughout the state was the biggest barrier to profitability, but Zotos said that expense will subside as the industry grows. A tiny but growing secondary market for EV batteries is also driving their reuse. Most batteries will be retired once their capacity dwindles to about 70 to 80 percent, due to the impact on the car’s range. But they’re still viable enough at that point to sustain a second life as storage for renewable energy like wind and solar power.  B2U Storage Solutions used 1,300 retired batteries from Nissan and Honda to create 27 megawatts hours of storage at its solar farm just north of Los Angeles in Lancaster, California. Photovoltaic panels charge the packs all day, and B2U sells the stored power to the local utility during peak demand in the evening. “There is more value in reuse,” said company president Freeman Hall, “and we’re not doing anything more than deferring recycling another four or five years.”  Henry Newman does a voltage test on a Tesla Model S battery to make sure it’s safe for shipping. Newman said most dismantlers and customers seem to want to do the right thing with retired batteries. Courtesy of Henry Newman Homeowners and hobbyists are embracing second-life batteries, too. Henry Newman, co-owner of the auto dismantler EV Parts Solutions in Phoenix, Arizona, said customers buy his Tesla and Nissan Leaf batteries to convert classic cars or create DIY power storage at home. Any batteries that Newman can’t sell are picked up by Li-Cycle, a lithium-ion battery recycler with a plant in Gilbert, Arizona.  Newman said dismantlers and customers seem to want to do the right thing. “I know there will be people who don’t follow regulation, but my experience in the last six to seven years is that the industry is pretty conscious of it and tries to mitigate throwing these things in the trash,” he said. A law could help prevent mishandling, but Newman worries about any overreach or added costs that would come with more regulation.  But relying on the market to ensure proper stewardship is risky, said Jessica Dunn, a senior analyst in the clean transportation program at the Union of Concerned Scientists. “The recycling of cars has traditionally been a market-based environment,” she said. “But we’re dealing with a completely different system now. EV batteries are big and have a lot of critical materials in them that we need to get out of them no matter if it’s economical or not.”  Transporting EV batteries, which can weigh more than 1,500 pounds, is expensive (as much as one-third of the cost of recycling them), dangerous and logistically challenging. Packs can catch fire if improperly handled, and are classified as hazardous material, which requires special shipping permits. If the battery is in a remote location or is damaged, a recycler could deem it too much trouble to retrieve without a mandate to do so. Dunn also said that not all batteries contain enough valuable materials for it to make financial sense to go through the trouble of recovering them. While most EV batteries currently contain high-value cobalt and nickel, a new generation of cheaper lithium-ion-phosphate, or LFP, batteries don’t use those metals. Tesla, Ford and Rivian all recently announced they will use LFPs in some models. “Just because there aren’t nickel and cobalt in them doesn’t mean that the lithium isn’t something that we should be recovering,” said Dunn. Redwood Materials said it collects lithium-ion phosphate batteries and uses the lithium within them to assemble new battery components, and that they collect all battery packs no matter their condition. Finally, without guidelines in place, viable batteries may not be repurposed before being recycled, which Dunn said undermines their sustainability. “You’ve already put all that literal energy – and the environmental impacts that go along with that – into manufacturing these batteries,” she said. “So if you can squeak an extra five to 10 years out of them, that’s a really good option.”  With the U.S. poised to see about 165,000 electric vehicle batteries retire in 2030, Dunn said the time to ensure no batteries are stranded is now. “We’re not seeing a big wave now, but that’s coming, and so we need to be prepared for that.” Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm and Arizona Senator Mark Kelly at the Li-Cycle recycling plant in Gilbert, Arizona. Li-Cycle There has been some federal movement toward a recycling requirement. The 2021 Bipartisan Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act directed the Department of Energy to establish a task force to develop an “extended battery producer responsibility framework” to address battery design, transport, and recycling. Extended producer responsibility, or EPR, is the approach that the European Union took in its battery regulation that passed last December. EPR puts the onus on the manufacturer to ensure that what they produce is properly repurposed and then recycled, either by compelling them to pay for the recycling or to handle it themselves.  Thirty-three states have such laws, covering 16 products ranging from mattresses to packaging. “It is a paradigm shift for how waste is managed in the United States,” said Scott Cassel of the Product Stewardship Initiative. But Congress has never passed such a law.  Battery recycling could create thousands of jobs in the U.S., increasing the potential that laws around it could receive bipartisan support. Alyssa Pointer / The Washington Post via Getty Images EV battery recycling might be the issue that could garner bipartisan support for one. Access to critical materials is a foreign policy and national security issue: China processes more than half the world’s lithium and cobalt, which means a steady domestic supply from recycling would help alleviate dependency on a geopolitical rival.  Building out the infrastructure to dismantle, recover and process battery materials could also create thousands of jobs, an accomplishment most lawmakers are happy to align themselves with.   Republican senators alluded to both benefits when supporting the bipartisan Strategic EV Management Act of 2022, which passed as part of the National Defense Authorization Act last year. It requires multiple agencies to work on guidelines for “reusing and recycling” batteries from vehicles retired from the federal fleet.  Republican Senator Bill Hagerty of Tennessee said in a statement that the bill would ensure agencies could “reap the full economic benefits of EV investments … and do so in a manner that lessens our dependence on Communist China.”  These laws set in motion efforts to design recycling frameworks, but the timelines to develop them span years. In the meantime, a few states are weighing their own mandates. “The states don’t want to wait for any of these bills to move,” Cassell said. “They’re ready to act right now.” In California, a Senate bill would require battery suppliers to ensure that all “vehicle traction batteries” be recovered, reused, repurposed or recycled. The bill unanimously passed three committees and is headed to the Senate floor. Senator Ben Allen, who introduced the bill, said there is bipartisan political and industry support for creating a framework. “You need a system in place,” he said. “That’s like saying, ‘Oh, the people will drive just fine to and from work. We don’t need traffic laws.’”  As it has been with other clean-vehicle targets, California could be a bellwether for a standard that would eventually take hold nationally. “We’d love to create a system that could help to inform national policy,” said Allen. “And in this case, with this industry support and bipartisan backing, there actually may be a blueprint here.” This story was originally published by Grist with the headline The U.S. doesn’t have a law mandating EV battery recycling. Should it? on May 26, 2023.

Recycling batteries could reduce the need to mine critical minerals - but only if the packs are properly recovered.

The race to electrify the world’s vehicles and store energy will require batteries – so many of them, in fact, that meeting the demand we will see by 2040 will require 30 times the amount of critical minerals like lithium, cobalt and nickel that those industries currently use.

That presents an enormous challenge, one exacerbated by the mining industry’s alarming allegations of labor crimes, environmental destruction, and encroachments on Indigenous land. There are ways to mitigate electrification’s extractive impacts, one of which may seem obvious: Recycle every battery we make. 

Doing so would reduce the world’s need to mine these minerals by 10 percent within 16 years, because the critical materials in batteries are infinitely reusable. Eventually, a robust circular battery economy could all but eliminate the need to extract them at all.

Of course, that would require recovering every EV pack at the end of its life, a sizable undertaking as the United States prepares for hundreds of thousands of electric vehicles to retire by the end of the decade. A nascent ecosystem of startups is working toward that goal, and the Inflation Reduction Act includes tax credits to incentivize the practice. But some electrification advocates say those steps do not go far enough. While the European Union recently passed a regulation mandating EV battery recycling, there is no such law in the United States. Proponents of a federal recycling standard say that without one, batteries that could be recycled might get left behind, increasing the need for mining and undermining electrification’s environmental benefits. 

“We need a coordinated federal response to truly have a large-scale impact on meeting our demand,” said Blaine Miller-McFeeley, a policy advocate at Earthjustice, which favors a federal recycling requirement. “If you compare us to the EU, we are woefully behind and need to move much more quickly.”

That movement would have to come from Congress, according to Miller-McFeeley. Historically, however, regulating recycling has been left up to the states and local jurisdictions. The Biden administration has instead been supporting the country’s budding EV battery recycling industry, mainly by making it good business to recover critical materials. 

The Department of Energy wants to establish a “battery ecosystem” that can recover 90 percent of spent lithium batteries by 2030. It has granted billions in loans to battery recyclers to build new facilities. Automakers are incentivized to buy those recyclers’ products, because part of the federal EV tax credit applies only to cars with batteries that include a minimum amount of critical minerals that were mined, processed or recycled in the U.S. or by a free-trade partner. Manufacturers also get a tax credit for producing critical materials (including recycled ones) in the U.S.

The Department of Energy granted Redwood Materials a $2 billion loan to expand its facility in Reno, Nevada. Courtesy of Redwood Materials

Daniel Zotos, who handles public advocacy at the battery recycling startup Redwood Materials, said in an email that a healthy market for recycled materials is emerging. “Not only is there tremendous value today in recycling these metals, but the global demand for metals means that automakers need to source both more mined and recycled critical minerals.”

Zotos said Redwood Materials agrees with the approach the federal government has taken.  “The US has in fact chosen to help incentivize (rather than mandate) recycling through provisions established in the Inflation Reduction Act, which we’re deeply supportive of.”

During a pilot project in California last year, the company recovered 95 percent of the critical materials in 1,300 lithium-ion and nickel metal hydride EV and hybrid batteries. The cost of retrieving packs from throughout the state was the biggest barrier to profitability, but Zotos said that expense will subside as the industry grows.

A tiny but growing secondary market for EV batteries is also driving their reuse. Most batteries will be retired once their capacity dwindles to about 70 to 80 percent, due to the impact on the car’s range. But they’re still viable enough at that point to sustain a second life as storage for renewable energy like wind and solar power. 

B2U Storage Solutions used 1,300 retired batteries from Nissan and Honda to create 27 megawatts hours of storage at its solar farm just north of Los Angeles in Lancaster, California. Photovoltaic panels charge the packs all day, and B2U sells the stored power to the local utility during peak demand in the evening. “There is more value in reuse,” said company president Freeman Hall, “and we’re not doing anything more than deferring recycling another four or five years.” 

Henry Newman tests a Tesla Model S battery at EV Parts Solutions in Phoenix, Arizona.
Henry Newman does a voltage test on a Tesla Model S battery to make sure it’s safe for shipping. Newman said most dismantlers and customers seem to want to do the right thing with retired batteries. Courtesy of Henry Newman

Homeowners and hobbyists are embracing second-life batteries, too. Henry Newman, co-owner of the auto dismantler EV Parts Solutions in Phoenix, Arizona, said customers buy his Tesla and Nissan Leaf batteries to convert classic cars or create DIY power storage at home. Any batteries that Newman can’t sell are picked up by Li-Cycle, a lithium-ion battery recycler with a plant in Gilbert, Arizona. 

Newman said dismantlers and customers seem to want to do the right thing. “I know there will be people who don’t follow regulation, but my experience in the last six to seven years is that the industry is pretty conscious of it and tries to mitigate throwing these things in the trash,” he said. A law could help prevent mishandling, but Newman worries about any overreach or added costs that would come with more regulation. 

But relying on the market to ensure proper stewardship is risky, said Jessica Dunn, a senior analyst in the clean transportation program at the Union of Concerned Scientists. “The recycling of cars has traditionally been a market-based environment,” she said. “But we’re dealing with a completely different system now. EV batteries are big and have a lot of critical materials in them that we need to get out of them no matter if it’s economical or not.” 

Transporting EV batteries, which can weigh more than 1,500 pounds, is expensive (as much as one-third of the cost of recycling them), dangerous and logistically challenging. Packs can catch fire if improperly handled, and are classified as hazardous material, which requires special shipping permits. If the battery is in a remote location or is damaged, a recycler could deem it too much trouble to retrieve without a mandate to do so.

Dunn also said that not all batteries contain enough valuable materials for it to make financial sense to go through the trouble of recovering them. While most EV batteries currently contain high-value cobalt and nickel, a new generation of cheaper lithium-ion-phosphate, or LFP, batteries don’t use those metals. Tesla, Ford and Rivian all recently announced they will use LFPs in some models.

“Just because there aren’t nickel and cobalt in them doesn’t mean that the lithium isn’t something that we should be recovering,” said Dunn. Redwood Materials said it collects lithium-ion phosphate batteries and uses the lithium within them to assemble new battery components, and that they collect all battery packs no matter their condition.

Finally, without guidelines in place, viable batteries may not be repurposed before being recycled, which Dunn said undermines their sustainability. “You’ve already put all that literal energy – and the environmental impacts that go along with that – into manufacturing these batteries,” she said. “So if you can squeak an extra five to 10 years out of them, that’s a really good option.” 

With the U.S. poised to see about 165,000 electric vehicle batteries retire in 2030, Dunn said the time to ensure no batteries are stranded is now. “We’re not seeing a big wave now, but that’s coming, and so we need to be prepared for that.”

Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm and Arizona Senator Mark Kelly at the Li-Cycle recycling plant in Gilbert, Arizona.
Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm and Arizona Senator Mark Kelly at the Li-Cycle recycling plant in Gilbert, Arizona. Li-Cycle

There has been some federal movement toward a recycling requirement. The 2021 Bipartisan Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act directed the Department of Energy to establish a task force to develop an “extended battery producer responsibility framework” to address battery design, transport, and recycling.

Extended producer responsibility, or EPR, is the approach that the European Union took in its battery regulation that passed last December. EPR puts the onus on the manufacturer to ensure that what they produce is properly repurposed and then recycled, either by compelling them to pay for the recycling or to handle it themselves. 

Thirty-three states have such laws, covering 16 products ranging from mattresses to packaging. “It is a paradigm shift for how waste is managed in the United States,” said Scott Cassel of the Product Stewardship Initiative. But Congress has never passed such a law. 

A man in a blue helmet and face shield with a neon yellow vest and green globes rolls a large metal box on a conveyor belt.
Battery recycling could create thousands of jobs in the U.S., increasing the potential that laws around it could receive bipartisan support. Alyssa Pointer / The Washington Post via Getty Images

EV battery recycling might be the issue that could garner bipartisan support for one. Access to critical materials is a foreign policy and national security issue: China processes more than half the world’s lithium and cobalt, which means a steady domestic supply from recycling would help alleviate dependency on a geopolitical rival. 

Building out the infrastructure to dismantle, recover and process battery materials could also create thousands of jobs, an accomplishment most lawmakers are happy to align themselves with.  

Republican senators alluded to both benefits when supporting the bipartisan Strategic EV Management Act of 2022, which passed as part of the National Defense Authorization Act last year. It requires multiple agencies to work on guidelines for “reusing and recycling” batteries from vehicles retired from the federal fleet. 

Republican Senator Bill Hagerty of Tennessee said in a statement that the bill would ensure agencies could “reap the full economic benefits of EV investments … and do so in a manner that lessens our dependence on Communist China.” 

These laws set in motion efforts to design recycling frameworks, but the timelines to develop them span years. In the meantime, a few states are weighing their own mandates. “The states don’t want to wait for any of these bills to move,” Cassell said. “They’re ready to act right now.”

In California, a Senate bill would require battery suppliers to ensure that all “vehicle traction batteries” be recovered, reused, repurposed or recycled. The bill unanimously passed three committees and is headed to the Senate floor. Senator Ben Allen, who introduced the bill, said there is bipartisan political and industry support for creating a framework. “You need a system in place,” he said. “That’s like saying, ‘Oh, the people will drive just fine to and from work. We don’t need traffic laws.’” 

As it has been with other clean-vehicle targets, California could be a bellwether for a standard that would eventually take hold nationally.

“We’d love to create a system that could help to inform national policy,” said Allen. “And in this case, with this industry support and bipartisan backing, there actually may be a blueprint here.”

This story was originally published by Grist with the headline The U.S. doesn’t have a law mandating EV battery recycling. Should it? on May 26, 2023.

Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

Scottish firm expands oil and gas business after ‘green transition loan’

Exclusive: Wood Group boosts fossil fuel business and shrinks renewables work after getting £430m government-backed loanThe international engineering company Wood Group has expanded its oil and gas business and dramatically shrunk its renewables business after receiving a £430m government-backed “green transition loan”, prompting calls from environmental groups for a review of the process that authorised the loan.The growth of Wood’s fossil fuels business has shown that the government’s “transition export development guarantee” scheme, which guaranteed the loan, facilitates greenwashing and is open to abuse by polluting companies, according to environmental groups. Continue reading...

Exclusive: Wood Group boosts fossil fuel business and shrinks renewables work after getting £430m government-backed loanThe international engineering company Wood Group has expanded its oil and gas business and dramatically shrunk its renewables business after receiving a £430m government-backed “green transition loan”, prompting calls from environmental groups for a review of the process that authorised the loan.The growth of Wood’s fossil fuels business has shown that the government’s “transition export development guarantee” scheme, which guaranteed the loan, facilitates greenwashing and is open to abuse by polluting companies, according to environmental groups. Continue reading...

‘Godzilla next door’: How California developers gained new leverage to build more homes

A new interpretation of an old law gives homebuilders leverage over California cities and their zoning codes. They’re using it to push through thousands of new apartments around the state.

In summary A new interpretation of an old law gives homebuilders leverage over California cities and their zoning codes. They’re using it to push through thousands of new apartments around the state. Late last fall, a Southern California developer dropped more than a dozen mammoth building proposals on the city of Santa Monica that were all but designed to get attention. The numbers behind WS Communities’s salvo of proposals were dizzying: 14 residential highrises with a combined 4,260 units dotting the beachside city, including three buildings reaching 18 stories. All of the towers were bigger, denser and higher than anything permitted under the city’s zoning code City Councilmember Phil Brock attended a town hall shortly after the announcement and got an earful. A few of the highlights: “Godzilla next door,” “a monster in our midst” and “we’re going to never see the sun again.” “‘Concerned’ would be putting it mildly,” Brock said of the vibe among the attendees. “A lot of them were freaked.” As it turns out, freaking locals out may have been the point. WS Communities put forward its not-so-modest proposal at a moment when it had extreme leverage over the city thanks to a new interpretation of a 33-year-old housing law. Santa Monica’s state-required housing plan had expired and its new plan had yet to be approved. According to the law, in that non-compliance window, developers can exploit the so-called builder’s remedy, in which they can build as much as they want wherever they want so long as at least 20% of the proposed units are set aside for lower income residents. Over the last two years, local governments across California have had to cobble together new housing plans that meet a statewide goal of 2.5 million new units by 2030. At last count, 227 jurisdictions — home to nearly 12 million Californians, or about a third of the state population — still haven’t had their plans certified by state housing regulators, potentially opening them up to builder’s remedy projects.  That gives developers a valuable new bargaining chip.  WS Communities used its advantage in Santa Monica to broker a deal in which it agreed to rescind all but one of its 14 builder’s remedy projects in exchange for fast-tracked approval of 10 scaled-down versions.  “The builder’s remedy — the loss of zoning control, the ability of a developer to propose anything, Houston-style, whatever they want, no zoning regulations — that gets people’s attention,” said Dave Rand, the land-use attorney representing the WS Communities. “The builder’s remedy can be a strategic ploy in order to potentially leverage a third way.” For the developer, the settlement — which still needs a final vote to fully be implemented — is a major win. But this use of a long-dormant law also represents a shift in the politics of housing in California, reflecting a new era of developer empowerment bolstered by the growing caucus of pro-building lawmakers in the Legislature. “The old games of begging municipalities for a project and reducing the density to get there and kissing the ass of every councilmember and planning official and neighbor — that’s the old way of doing things,” said Rand. “Our spines are stiffening.” WS Communities proposed several high-rise apartment towers in Santa Monica in the fall of 2022. It scaled back and rescinded some of the plans in a deal that expedited a set of 10 projects. Image via the Ottinger Architects proposal It’s hard to know just how many builder’s remedy projects have been filed across the state. YIMBY Law, a legal advocacy group that sues municipalities for failing to plan for or build enough housing, has a running count on its website of 46 projects, though its founder, Sonja Trauss, admits that it’s an imperfect tally. Some of the projects, like those in Santa Monica, are towers with hundreds of units. Others are more modest apartment buildings. Whatever the total, Trauss said it represents a significant uptake for a novel legal strategy. “There were a lot of naysayers who were like ‘it’s too risky,’ ‘nobody knows what’s gonna happen,’ ‘nobody’s gonna do it,’ blah, blah, blah,” she said. “I feel vindicated. You know, people are trying it.” But counting just the units proposed under the law misses its broader impact, said UC Davis law professor Chris Elmendorf. Multiple cities rushed forward their housing plans this year, with city attorneys, city planners and councilmembers warning that failure to do so before a state-imposed deadline could invite a building free-for-all. “All the action is in negotiation in the shadow of the law,” said Elmendorf. The law “may result in a lot of other projects getting permitted that never would have been approved because the developer had this negotiating chip.” Rediscovering the California builder’s remedy If it’s possible for someone to unearth a forgotten law, Elmendorf can rightly claim to have excavated the builder’s remedy” The Legislature added the provision to the government code in 1990, but no one used it for decades. In the one case Elmendorf found where someone tried — a homeowner in Albany, just north of Berkeley, who wanted to build a unit in his backyard in 1991 without adding a parking spot — local planners shot down the would-be builder. Elmendorf stumbled upon the long-ignored policy 28 years later while researching East Coast laws that let developers circumvent zoning restrictions in cities short on affordable housing.  He started tweeting about it. He even dubbed the California law the “builder’s remedy,” borrowing the coinage from Massachusetts. “I think it’s fair to say that people in California had forgotten about the builder’s remedy almost completely until I started asking about it on Twitter,” he said. “​​I think those twitter threads led some people to say, ‘huh.’” Among those who noticed: staff at the state Housing and Community Development department who began listing the “remedy” as a possible consequence of failing to plan for enough housing. Why was the builder’s remedy largely forgotten? The text of the law is complicated and it’s only relevant once every eight years, when cities and counties are required to put together their housing plan. Plus, though it allows developers to ignore a city’s zoning code, it’s not clear that it exempts them from extensive environmental review, making the cost savings of using it uncertain. But more importantly, up until recently, invoking the builder’s remedy — the regulatory equivalent of a declaration of war — was bad for business. “The old games of begging municipalities for a project and reducing the density to get there and kissing the ass of every councilmember and planning official and neighbor — that’s the old way of doing things. Our spines are stiffening.”Dave Rand, land-use attorney Historically, local governments have had sweeping discretion over what gets built within their borders, where and under what terms and conditions. Developers and their lawyers hoping to succeed in such a climate had to excel at what one land use attorney dubbed the art of “creative groveling.” But in recent years, as the state’s housing shortage and resulting affordability crisis have grown more acute, lawmakers have passed a series of bills to take away some of that local control. In many cases, cities and counties are now required to approve certain types of housing, like duplexes, subsidized housing apartments and accessory dwelling units, as long as the developer checks the requisite boxes. That’s all led some developers to rethink their approach to dealing with local governments — one that is less concerned with building bridges and isn’t so afraid to burn a few. Santa Monica makes a deal Santa Monica’s city council voted unanimously for the deal with WS Communities early last month — but grudgingly. In exchange for the developer pulling its original proposals, the city agreed to a streamlined approval process for the new plans. The council also agreed to pass an ordinance to give the developer extra goodies on the 10 remaining projects. If the city doesn’t pass the ordinance, according to the settlement, WS Communities has the right to revive the builder’s remedy for all 14 towers. Councilmember Brock, elected in 2020 along with a slate of development-skeptics, was hardly a fan of the deal. But as he saw it, the prospect of a lengthy legal battle that the city’s attorney insisted Santa Monica would lose gave the council little choice. That didn’t make what Brock viewed as a hard-knuckle negotiating tactic any easier to swallow. “I don’t believe for a minute that they ever planned to build all those projects,” he said. A bulldozer on the corner of 7th Street and Colorado Avenue in Santa Monica on May 24, 2023. Photo by Zaydee Sanchez for CalMatters Councilmember Caroline Torosis, who was elected last fall, laid the blame on the prior council for failing to pass a timely housing plan. Even so, she said the city had no choice but to reclaim control over its own land use from the developer. “We were put in a difficult situation,” she said. “I think that this was absolutely the best negotiated settlement that we could have reached, but of course, they had leverage.” Both Scott Walter, the president of WS, and Neil Shekhter, the founder of the parent company, NMS Properties, refused a request to be interviewed through their lawyer, Rand.  But in true property kingpin fashion, WS was able to flip these builder’s remedy proposals into things of even greater value: ironclad plans that it can build out quickly or sell to another developer. “The builder’s remedy projects were anything but fast and certain,” said Rand. “This has been parlayed into something with absolute certainty and front-of-the-line treatment.” Affluent California cities fight back About an hour’s drive northeast of Santa Monica, the foothill suburb of La Cañada Flintridge recently rejected a builder’s remedy application. During a May 1 hearing, Mayor Keith Eich stressed the city was “not denying the project.” Instead, they were denying that the builder’s remedy itself even applied to the city. The argument: The housing plan the council passed last October complies with state law. California’s Housing and Community Development department rejected that version of the plan and has yet to certify a new one. But La Cañada’s city attorney, Adrian Guerra argued at the hearing that the agency’s required changes were minor enough to make the October plan “substantially” compliant. “You can’t just fight a losing battle. I think anybody who decides they’re gonna be an all star NIMBY is up for failure.”Phil Brock, Santa Monica City Councilmember That’s not how state regulators see it. In March, the housing department sent the city a letter of “technical assistance.” “A local jurisdiction does not have the authority to determine that its adopted element is in substantial compliance,” the letter reads. Not so, said Guerra: “The court would make that determination.” A number of cities across the state have made that argument. Among them are Los Altos Hills and Sonoma. Beverly Hills is already fending off a lawsuit contending that the law applies to that city, though it recently rejected a builder’s remedy project on extensive technical grounds. It’s a question that’s almost certain to end up in court. A recent California’s Fifth Circuit Court of Appeal ruling offers legal fodder to both sides. The April opinion ruled against the state housing department’s certification of the City of Clovis’ housing plan. That’s a point for those arguing that the word of state regulators is not inviolate. But the ruling also noted that courts “generally” defer to the state agency unless its decision is “clearly erroneous or unauthorized.” Down the coast, the City of Huntington Beach isn’t relying on such legal niceties. In March, the city council passed an ordinance banning all builder’s remedy projects under the argument that the law itself is invalid. Days later, the Newsom administration sued the city. But in Santa Monica, city council members didn’t see much upside in pushing back. “You can’t just fight a losing battle,” Brock said. “I think anybody who decides they’re gonna be an all star NIMBY is up for failure.”

Exxon CEO Says ESG Is Good, Actually

Has ExxonMobil CEO Darren Woods been infected by the woke mind virus? At a conference hosted by the financial analytics firm Bernstein, Woods—who enjoyed a 52 percent pay bump in 2022 amid soaring profits—spoke fondly about environmental, social and governance principles. “ESG,” as the abbreviation goes, has become a bogeyman for the right in recent years: Conservative state legislatures continue to pass sweeping bans on public employee pension funds’ ability to consider things like climate change in their investment decisions.  But Woods gave a hearty endorsement for why his company employs ESG principles throughout its operations on Thursday. “I don’t think any company’s been around—particularly one that has the exposure that we do with regards to the impact on the environments and communities that we operate in—I don’t think you can survive for 140 years and not have ESG elements, or the focus of ESG, embedded in your organization,” he said, calling it a “really critical component of our success.” This is a funny statement for two reasons. First, the day before the conference, Exxon shareholders—in line with recommendations from corporate management, including Woods—voted down all of the 13 climate resolutions put before them. Eight-nine percent rejected a petition to have them set emissions reduction targets consistent with the goals of the Paris Agreement, to limit warming to well below 2 degrees Celsius. The measure that earned the most support from Exxon shareholders (36 percent) stipulated that the company should report more about its methane emissions.Secondly, when right-wing politicians funded by dark money rant about how bad ESG is, they typically claim they’re defending fossil fuel companies. These politicians say fossil fuel companies are being unfairly maligned by the likes of Blackrock CEO Larry Fink and other globalists looking to undemocratically enforce the whims of investor-led climate efforts like the Glasgow Financial Alliance for Net-Zero (a toothless group of banks, asset managers and insurance companies). Yet as Woods conveyed on Wednesday, ESG is principally a way to ensure that companies can continue to make as much money as possible—whether by examining the risks that climate change might actually pose to their operations, or by burnishing their green credentials with flashy pledges. “Using” ESG in one’s day-to-day operations, ironically, doesn’t actually mean reducing fossil fuel use—the thing the right is most worked up about. For companies like Exxon, the ginned-up culture war over largely cosmetic differences in business strategy is a win-win: while they can talk up their company’s ESG moves to curry favor with liberals, right-wing attacks simultaneously provide cover for them to stop paying as much lip service to climate change and continue on proudly with business as usual. Last year, 28 percent of the company’s shareholders voted for the resolution asking Exxon to align its emissions targets with the goals of the Paris Agreement. This year, with Republicans complaining about ESG to anyone who will listen, the same resolution received less than half that level of support. If you’re an oil and gas executive, ESG raises one key question: What’s not to love? 

Has ExxonMobil CEO Darren Woods been infected by the woke mind virus? At a conference hosted by the financial analytics firm Bernstein, Woods—who enjoyed a 52 percent pay bump in 2022 amid soaring profits—spoke fondly about environmental, social and governance principles. “ESG,” as the abbreviation goes, has become a bogeyman for the right in recent years: Conservative state legislatures continue to pass sweeping bans on public employee pension funds’ ability to consider things like climate change in their investment decisions.  But Woods gave a hearty endorsement for why his company employs ESG principles throughout its operations on Thursday. “I don’t think any company’s been around—particularly one that has the exposure that we do with regards to the impact on the environments and communities that we operate in—I don’t think you can survive for 140 years and not have ESG elements, or the focus of ESG, embedded in your organization,” he said, calling it a “really critical component of our success.” This is a funny statement for two reasons. First, the day before the conference, Exxon shareholders—in line with recommendations from corporate management, including Woods—voted down all of the 13 climate resolutions put before them. Eight-nine percent rejected a petition to have them set emissions reduction targets consistent with the goals of the Paris Agreement, to limit warming to well below 2 degrees Celsius. The measure that earned the most support from Exxon shareholders (36 percent) stipulated that the company should report more about its methane emissions.Secondly, when right-wing politicians funded by dark money rant about how bad ESG is, they typically claim they’re defending fossil fuel companies. These politicians say fossil fuel companies are being unfairly maligned by the likes of Blackrock CEO Larry Fink and other globalists looking to undemocratically enforce the whims of investor-led climate efforts like the Glasgow Financial Alliance for Net-Zero (a toothless group of banks, asset managers and insurance companies). Yet as Woods conveyed on Wednesday, ESG is principally a way to ensure that companies can continue to make as much money as possible—whether by examining the risks that climate change might actually pose to their operations, or by burnishing their green credentials with flashy pledges. “Using” ESG in one’s day-to-day operations, ironically, doesn’t actually mean reducing fossil fuel use—the thing the right is most worked up about. For companies like Exxon, the ginned-up culture war over largely cosmetic differences in business strategy is a win-win: while they can talk up their company’s ESG moves to curry favor with liberals, right-wing attacks simultaneously provide cover for them to stop paying as much lip service to climate change and continue on proudly with business as usual. Last year, 28 percent of the company’s shareholders voted for the resolution asking Exxon to align its emissions targets with the goals of the Paris Agreement. This year, with Republicans complaining about ESG to anyone who will listen, the same resolution received less than half that level of support. If you’re an oil and gas executive, ESG raises one key question: What’s not to love? 

Suggested Viewing

Join us to forge
a sustainable future

Our team is always growing.
Become a partner, volunteer, sponsor, or intern today.
Let us know how you would like to get involved!

CONTACT US

sign up for our mailing list to stay informed on the latest films and environmental headlines.

Subscribers receive a free day pass for streaming Cinema Verde.
Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.