The view from heti

Key takeaways from HETI's Climate Equity Report

The Climate Equity Report was developed to help foster positive, two-way communication and engagement between Houston-area energy companies and the communities they impact. Photo via Getty Images

The mission of the Houston Energy Transition Initiative (HETI) is to drive sustainable and equitable economic growth for an energy-abundant, low-carbon future in the greater Houston region.

Community engagement will play a key role in ensuring the environmental and economic benefits of the energy transition flow to all members of Greater Houston. This requires a shared understanding of concerns, values, and goals.

“As we make this transition to a lower-carbon energy future, we’re doing it in a way that creates economic opportunity for all Houstonians,” said Jane Stricker, Senior Vice President, Energy Transition and Executive Director of HETI. “When we think about what role community plays in that work, HETI is supported by industry leaders and a community advisory board to ensure that as this work moves forward, it moves forward in a way that benefits everyone.”

HETI recently collaborated with the Houston Advanced Research Center (HARC), Sallie Greenberg Consulting (SGC), energy companies with a presence in the region, and impacted community organization stakeholders and leaders to develop a baseline understanding of current corporate climate action, community needs, and preferred methods of engagement.

“We engaged HARC and SGC to help us to explore the intersection of the energy transition and community engagement,” said Stricker. “They helped us create a collaborative framework to support both companies and communities in advancing solutions for an equitable energy transition. The team has done a truly outstanding job to develop this report and framework.”

The Climate Equity Report, which includes the Framework for an Equitable Energy Transition and the Community Engagement Toolkit for an Equitable Energy Transition, was developed to help foster positive, two-way communication and engagement between Houston-area energy companies and the communities they impact. The Framework and Toolkit are based on in-depth research and interviews — with the aim of bridging the gap between corporate climate action, community engagement, and the federal government’s approach to diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility.

“We have the opportunity to reassess how we approach these very important issues,” said John Hall, President and CEO of HARC. “Community members are not just interested in talking and becoming acquainted with the industry — they want to engage in constructive dialogue with the aim of delivering meaningful benefits that will improve the quality of their lives and those of their neighbors.”

“What I see for the first time in the 25 years that I’ve been working in this space is that we have a significant opportunity—right now—to change how we work in communities, how we work with communities, and how we can enter in a partnership to be able to drive equitable energy transition activities forward,” said Dr. Sallie Greenberg, Scientist, Strategic Advisor, and Engagement Specialist at Sallie Greenberg Consulting.

Findings from the Climate Equity Report highlight best practices and strategies to improve relationships, build trust, and address concerns. Ten key findings include:

  • Basic needs
    Helping the community address basic needs and reduce existing risks can reduce barriers to participation and improve community member engagement around the energy transition.
  • Equity considerations
    Equity considerations are growing increasingly important. Communities are looking for authentic processes that include community input on the highest-priority challenges.
  • Two-way engagement
    Successful two-way engagement requires information to flow in both directions. Authentic, targeted community engagement will be a key enabler of climate equity and decarbonization in Houston.
  • Transparency
    As energy companies seek to broaden engagement efforts, transparency is key. Project information must be as transparent and available as possible.
  • Trust flow
    There is a gap between company and community perceptions of engagement largely based on a “trust deficit” that will take time to address.
  • Engagement frequency
    Engagement alone isn’t enough. Consistent, frequent, organic engagement is required to build trust and overcome the “trust deficit” between energy companies and communities.
  • Accountability
    Impacts can be tangible and intangible. Community engagement work must be evaluated using a data-driven approach that measures how engagement activities address inequalities and benefit impacted groups.
  • Shifting priorities
    The type of engagement the community and the federal government wants and expects has changed. Companies must address this change to ensure community needs are acknowledged and met.
  • Stakeholder identification
    Not all stakeholders have the same voice or level of influence. Truly equitable engagement requires the inclusion of marginalized groups, especially those in frontline communities.
  • Program evaluation
    The evaluation process helps companies determine if engagement goals are being met. This includes conducting observations, surveys, and interviews throughout the evaluation process before sharing results with stakeholders and making program improvements based on the collected information.

Read the full report here. Watch the Connect on Climate Equity webinar.

———

This article originally ran on the Greater Houston Partnership's Houston Energy Transition Initiative blog. HETI exists to support Houston's future as an energy leader. For more information about the Houston Energy Transition Initiative, EnergyCapitalHTX's presenting sponsor, visit htxenergytransition.org.

Trending News

A View From HETI

Greenhouse gases continue to rise, and the challenges they pose are not going away. Photo via Getty Images

For the past 40 years, climate policy has often felt like two steps forward, one step back. Regulations shift with politics, incentives get diluted, and long-term aspirations like net-zero by 2050 seem increasingly out of reach. Yet greenhouse gases continue to rise, and the challenges they pose are not going away.

This matters because the costs are real. Extreme weather is already straining U.S. power grids, damaging homes, and disrupting supply chains. Communities are spending more on recovery while businesses face rising risks to operations and assets. So, how can the U.S. prepare and respond?

The Baker Institute Center for Energy Studies (CES) points to two complementary strategies. First, invest in large-scale public adaptation to protect communities and infrastructure. Second, reframe carbon as a resource, not just a waste stream to be reduced.

Why Focusing on Emissions Alone Falls Short

Peter Hartley argues that decades of global efforts to curb emissions have done little to slow the rise of CO₂. International cooperation is difficult, the costs are felt immediately, and the technologies needed are often expensive. Emissions reduction has been the central policy tool for decades, and it has been neither sufficient nor effective.

One practical response is adaptation, which means preparing for climate impacts we can’t avoid. Some of these measures are private, taken by households or businesses to reduce their own risks, such as farmers shifting crop types, property owners installing fire-resistant materials, or families improving insulation. Others are public goods that require policy action. These include building stronger levees and flood defenses, reinforcing power grids, upgrading water systems, revising building codes, and planning for wildfire risks. Such efforts protect people today while reducing long-term costs, and they work regardless of the source of extreme weather. Adaptation also does not depend on global consensus; each country, state, or city can act in its own interest. Many of these measures even deliver benefits beyond weather resilience, such as stronger infrastructure and improved security against broader threats.

McKinsey research reinforces this logic. Without a rapid scale-up of climate adaptation, the U.S. will face serious socioeconomic risks. These include damage to infrastructure and property from storms, floods, and heat waves, as well as greater stress on vulnerable populations and disrupted supply chains.

Making Carbon Work for Us

While adaptation addresses immediate risks, Ken Medlock points to a longer-term opportunity: turning carbon into value.

Carbon can serve as a building block for advanced materials in construction, transportation, power transmission, and agriculture. Biochar to improve soils, carbon composites for stronger and lighter products, and next-generation fuels are all examples. As Ken points out, carbon-to-value strategies can extend into construction and infrastructure. Beyond creating new markets, carbon conversion could deliver lighter and more resilient materials, helping the U.S. build infrastructure that is stronger, longer-lasting, and better able to withstand climate stress.

A carbon-to-value economy can help the U.S. strengthen its manufacturing base and position itself as a global supplier of advanced materials.

These solutions are not yet economic at scale, but smart policies can change that. Expanding the 45Q tax credit to cover carbon use in materials, funding research at DOE labs and universities, and supporting early markets would help create the conditions for growth.

Conclusion

Instead of choosing between “doing nothing” and “net zero at any cost,” we need a third approach that invests in both climate resilience and carbon conversion.

Public adaptation strengthens and improves the infrastructure we rely on every day, including levees, power grids, water systems, and building standards that protect communities from climate shocks. Carbon-to-value strategies can complement these efforts by creating lighter, more resilient carbon-based infrastructure.

CES suggests this combination is a pragmatic way forward. As Peter emphasizes, adaptation works because it is in each nation’s self-interest. And as Ken reminds us, “The U.S. has a comparative advantage in carbon. Leveraging it to its fullest extent puts the U.S. in a position of strength now and well into the future.”

-----------

Scott Nyquist is a senior advisor at McKinsey & Company and vice chairman, Houston Energy Transition Initiative of the Greater Houston Partnership. The views expressed herein are Nyquist's own and not those of McKinsey & Company or of the Greater Houston Partnership. This article originally appeared on LinkedIn.

Trending News