Earlier this week, President Bush met with executives from Ford, GM, and DaimlerChrylser to discuss his goal of reducing gasoline consumption by 20 percent over the next 10 years.

Not surprisingly, the auto manufacturers touted flex-fuel vehicles (vehicles that can run on either gasoline or E85 — a mixture of 85% ethanol and 15% gasoline) as the key to our problems.

According to General Motors Corp. chairman and chief executive Rick Wagoner, “There’s nothing that can be done which can reduce the curve of growth in imported oil and actually turn it down like using E85.”

The execs announces that “as a group, we’ve agreed to double our production by the year 2010, and then have 50 percent of our production E85-capable by the year 2012. ”

President Bush endorsed the move saying, “If you want to reduce gasoline usage, like I believe we need to do so for national security reasons, as well as for environmental concerns, the consumer has got to be in a position to make a rational choice. And so I appreciate very much the fact that American automobile manufacturers recognize the reality of the world in which we live and are using new technologies to give the consumers different options.”

While Bush and the execs had a love-fest talking about flex-fuel vehicles, they did not talk about Bush’s proposal to increase the passenger fleet fuel economy 4% annually to about 34 miles per gallon by 2017. Wagoner said, “We didn’t talk about the 4%.”

All of this was in the same week that U.S. Deputy Energy Secretary Clay Sell said, “I will tell you the future of biofuels is not based on corn.”

It is disappointing, but not surprising, that the meeting with the auto executives was so devoid of substance. As discussed previously on this blog, this discussion of flex fuel vehicles is largely smoke and mirrors to make people feel good but without solving any of the real fundamental problems. The auto execs get to “look good” by claiming to be green when they are doing very little to make any changes and it barely costs them anything; making a car use E85 costs around $100.

Any solution that is based on corn-based ethanol is really just a farse; mass production of corn-based ethanol is going to cause more problems than it is worth and probably doesn’t actually have any environmental merits.

It is possible that ethanol based on other forms of cellulose like grass could be part of the solution, but this isn’t technically possible yet. Investing in technology to create ethanol from these substances could be an important part of the solution.

But, the real solution is improved fuel efficiency. And President Bush and the execs chose to dodge this issue entirely.

All of this while Toyota is working on the next generation of the Prius which could get as much as 100 mpg.

And we wonder why the American auto manufacturers are hurting.

A while back, I wrote a post letting folks know that the release date for the final Harry Potter book had been set. At the time, I thought I was just being cute by having that posting on an environment-related blog. Seriously, what does Harry Potter have to do with the environment?

Well, it turns out more than I realized.

Last week, Scholastic, the publisher of the Harry Potter series, announced that they are working with the Rainforest Alliance to ensure that the paper used in printing the books will be as environmentally friendly as possible.

The most exciting news is that the deluxe edition of the book will be printed on 100% post-consumer waste fiber.

When I initially heard that there would be a deluxe edition, I wasn’t sure if I was going to buy it.

Now, I know that it is the only edition that I am going to buy.

If you already have your pre-order in for the regular edition, consider canceling that order and buying the deluxe edition.

Let’s hope that more publishers will focus on using 30% or higher post-consumer content.

As I mentioned in a previous posting, last week, I attended the “Climate Change: 1,000 Solutions” workshop at the BuildingEnergy 07 Conference.

I have posted all of my raw notes online, but several people have asked for a higher level synthesis of the information coming out of the conference including my thoughts and reactions.  This will be one of several entries presenting highlights from the conference.
The more that I think about the conference, the more I am reminded of the quote from the cartoon Pogo in which he said, “We have met the enemy and he is us.” (Of course a riff on the historical quote, “We have met the enemy, and they are ours.”)

This came out of two of the most positive presentations of the day: the presentation by Katherine McGinty the Secretary of the Department of Environmental Protection in Pennsylvania and the presentation by Mark Buckley, Vice President of Environmental Affairs for Staples.

The positive part of both of these presentation is how far both of these organizations have already gone to make a difference. It was really just awe inspiring sitting back and listening to all of the practices that each of them have already put in place.

They guy from Staples talked about how they have conveyor belts in their distribution centers that are broken into sections with each section controlled by a separate motor. When there is nothing on a particular section of the conveyor belt, the motors on that section automatically shut down.

He talked about how Staples is installing solar panels on many of their stores, building wind turbines in others, and is looking at installing micro-turbines on the awnings of their stores to capture wind energy.

He talked about how Staples is converting their delivery trucks over to hybrid vehicles.

Mrs. McGinty talked about how Pennsylvania has banned SUVs from the state fleet, is replacing 25% of the state’s fleet with hybrid vehicles, and have a renewable portfolio standard calling for 18% of the state’s energy to come from renewable sources by 2020.

While it was amazing to see how far along the curve both of these organizations are,
what was even more stunning about both of these presentations was why they have done what they have done.

Is it because they are green to the core? Is it because of global warming or health issues? Is it because they want to save the planet?

No, no, and no.

It is because of money and jobs.

Both of these speakers talked about how every one of these things helps them cost costs, save money, and protect themselves against the risk of increasing energy prices.

Put another way, both of these folks are making fiscally responsible decisions that happen to be environmentally friendly.

Neither of these presenters really looked at these actions as “green” from the environmentalism perspective; they looked at them as “green” from the economic perspective.

These two presenters also really demonstrated the power of the pocketbook; when they realized how much money could be saved by improving their energy efficiencies, they were able to enact real changes.

So, how did I walk out of sessions like this and come away thinking that “we are the enemy”?

I was just struck by the gap between the practices these organizations have put into place and the practices used by the average citizen. While we are trying to advocate to get individuals to replace a handful of lightbulbs in their house, smart businesses are much further down the path of really understanding the economic benefits of energy efficiency.

It seems to me that individuals get caught up in the politics of left vs. right and liberal vs. conservative and caught up debating whether global warming really exists, and, because of all of this, never really get around to making pragmatic, financially intelligent changes at home.

It really made me think that rather than spending our time trying to lobby businesses to go green, we really need to take a look in the mirror and focus on getting individuals to focus on energy efficiency; in many cases, smart companies are going to follow their noses and take them where the money leads them.

Local Climate Protection Initiatives: Raising Awareness, Accomplishing Reductions, Kim Lundgren (ICLEI)

ICLEI: Local Governments for Sustainability is a worldwide movement of local governments dedicated to achieving tangible changes in climate. (Note: ICLEI is no longer an acronym that stands for anything.)

We were initially very coastal in our representation, but hopefully within a year, we will have a member in each state in the U.S.

Cities for Climate Protection campaign is the most popular of our campaigns.

We work with almost 800 governments worldwide and have about 240 U.S. local governments in the program.

The Northeast Regional Capacity Center is located in Boston and supports 9 states.

Once a municipality makes a commitment to get engaged in the program they go through the following steps.

1. Conduct an emissions inventory.This creates an energy profile as your community as a whole. This is critical first step since it is the only way that you can measure progress moving forward.
2. Set a Target and a Goal for your EmissionsIt is up to the municipality to set this target. Most municipalities are targeting around 20% reductions over their baseline.
3. Establish a Local Action PlanHow are you going to get to this target?
4. Implement a Local Action Plan
5. Monitor and Evaluate Your Progress

The benefits of being a member of ICLEI include:

• Tools and Methodology for doing audits
• Greenhouse gas quantification software
• Technical assistance
• Training sessionsWe have software training, training w/ the EPA tool, green buildings, renewables.
• Access to our network
• Competitive grants
• Publications
• Annual Site Visits

Annual Results from CCP Participants (2005)

• 23 M tons of CO2 reduced
• $535M saved in fuel costs
• 4 MWh of electricity savings

San Francisco

• Established Zero Waste Policy
• 75% landfill diversion by 2010
• Zero waste by 2020
• Expect this to reduce CO2 emissions by 179,000 tons
• Using hybrid trash collection vehicles

Boulder, CO

• Residents voted for a user fee to support climate action plan
• $1.33 / month for residential users
• $3.80 / month for commercial users

California Climate Action Registry

• Towns can use this to help integrate your municipal climate protection activities.
• You do not have to live in California to participate

Northampton, MA (9/30/2006)

• Promoting Green Power purchases through utility bills
• About 5% of households were purchasing green energy.

Huntington, NY

• Free parking passes to all residents driving hybrids or alternative fuel vehicles
• Provide 3 hybrid buses for the town (through grant)

Cambridge, MA

• Climate Leaders Program to get businesses to go through the same five step process as the town to inventory and reduce emissions

Boston, MA

• School buses retrofitted w/ pollution control
• Green building action plan
• Amended zoning code to require LEED certifiable construction for all large buildings.

Setting Goals and Implementing Solutions: What’s Working in New England, Dan Sosland (Environment Northeast).
Implementing the Climate Action Plan in Connecticut

• In 2004, passed legislation adopting targets and a planning process.
• 2005: Adopted CA emissions standard, adopted a renewable portfolio standard requiring purchases of efficienciey and renewable power.
• Green power choice offered to all customers

Driving forces for getting things adopted:

• Rising volatile energy costs
• Health, quality of life impacts

A lot of progress is happening at the state level. There are currently 120 bills pending in MA related to climate.

Priority Solutions for State Policy Makers

1. Energy Efficiency Resources
2. Buildings, Get our building codes up to speed and get advanced codes
3. Appliances, Energy efficiency requirements for things like set-top boxes
4. Large Stationary Emitters (power plants)
5. Clean Energy Supplies
6. Light Vehicles
7. Heavy Vehicles
8. Carbon Sinks on the Land
9. Geological CO2 Storage

Corporate Commitment to Change, Mark Buckley (Staples)

Sustainable practices cover four major areas:

• Environmentally Preferable Products20% of the products that we sell have our own brand. This means we control the supply chain and can have a big impact on how things are built.
• RecyclingWhat can we do to make it easy for our customers to recycle and generate less waste?
• Energy and Climate
• Environmental EducationWe have a good opportunity to become our customers “environmental partner”.

Given that paper is one of our main products, we have a focus on improving the environmental impact here through the following mechanisms:

• Reduce the requirement for virgin wood fiber by increasing the post-consumer recycled content and using alternative fiber.
• Protecting endangered forests
• Protect well-managed forests

We are focusing on “environmentally preferable” products. This means looking for products based on:

• Their energy or carbon intensity
• Sustainably managed raw materials for products and packaging

We have been looking at several options for alternative fibers to help reduce the need for virgin wood in paper:

• Mix denim surplus w/ post-consumer recycled paper to create environmentally friendly paper with higher strength and low cost.
• Sugar cane waste. Previously this was burned off by farmers, but we can incorporat this into paper production.

Education:

• Launched “www.earth911business.com” to provide businesses with nformation about where to get environmentally friendly services.

Energy Reduction

• Set a target of reducing our emissions by 7% over the 2010 baseline.This is an absolute target which means that we need to reduce our emissions while growing our business.
• Purchasing Green-e certified renewable energy.20% of our purchased energy comes from green-e sources.
• Energy efficient lighting, reflective roof membranes, efficient HVAC.
• For our distribution centers, 5% of roof is skylighting. Then the rest of the lighting is controlled through light and motion centers

All of this has resulted in 14% energy savings since 2001.

In addition, we are adding in local renewable sources

• 433kW solar array in CT. This is the largest solar array in New England.

We were able to do this in partnership with Sun Edison; we buy the solar power from them and claim the environmental benefits. This has many benefits, including

• There is no up-front capital expenditure for us
• There are no maintenance costs for us
• This allows us to reduces our peak energy demand
• It provides a hedge value against fuel surcharges

Have 9 solar projects going from 80kw - a 500kw planned

• Have identified 150 possible locations for additional solar installations.
• Also looking at wind. Have a 600kW wind turbine under consideration for Framingham.

We are also working to use hybrid (diesel/electric) vehicles for our delivery trucks.We think this is good, smart business. It increases efficiency, reduces costs, and increases profitabilty.

Investments in Renewables by States and the Private Sector, Lew Milford (Clean Enegy States Alliance)
The gap between where we are at and where we need to get to presents a technological challenge of the sort that we have never faced before.

From 1890-1920, we were dealing with the first social effects of the industrial revolution. And, one-by-one, state-by-state, regulations were put into effect for things like labor laws, wage laws, etc.

It happened at the state level rather than at the national level. It was a classic fedeal, decentralized policy making process. Ultimately, this all became the New Deal.

We are about at the same time when you consider the environmental effects of that same industrial revolution.

We are entering a “new progressive era” among energy.

We now have about 18-20 states that have started to figure out how to address these effects from an environmental perspective. You are starting to see renewable portfolio standards, fuel regulations, etc., all happening at the state level.

We are probably going to be at this point for the next 2-3 decades, working this issue at the state level. The challenges are so great and we don’t know how to achieve the results that we need to achieve. There is going to be a lot of experimentation here to figure out what works and what doesn’t.

One of the implications of this for federal behavior is that we want to encourage this kind of diversity and encourage state level decisions. The federal government should be looking to create block grant programs or matching programs to support this activity at the state level.

I think there is a great danger of early federal action that will result in “dumbing down” of that is happening at the state level. It could be that federal action could actually freeze some of the progress that is happening at the state level.

The conventional wisdom around a cap-and-trade strategy is that the price will induce technological change. We need to be careful about this. Neoclassical economics has its limits. If that price is not consistent and high, you will not necessarily get the incentives that you think you will get.

If you look at Europe, there has been a lot of volatility in the price of carbon (from 1.5 EUR to 32 EUR). This does not create the technological pressure that we want.

Once we pass cap-and-trade in the US, we will likely see a return to technology focused strategies. We will need significant technology breakthroughs to help us.

There are many changes happening that will likely force this technological innovation:

• Australia is looking to ban incandescent light bulbs
• Spain will require solar in new commercial and residential buildings
• The EU is considering a universal mandate of universal carbon sequestration for all new coal powered energy

Every one of these things creates a market opportunity.

“Technology is not chosen, because it is efficient. Technology is efficient, because it is chosen.”

Q&A Session

• How do we get a sea change on energy efficiency if we leave it up to the states and local governments?We are already start to see this action from the states. Energy decisions are ultimately local. States regulate energy generation, and will continue to do so. Because of this, the supply-side questions will largely be dealt with at the state level.
• What do people think of the economic problem being caused by corn-based ethanol?One of the things we need to look at are the impact of moving to corn-derived ethanol are and understand the overall impacts of this are, including the impact on feedstock before we start shifting dollars and technology.For example, IKEA is having a hard time getting wood chips for their products because of the push for biofuels in Europe.
• What about a campaign to cut subsidies on coal, oil, and nuclear and pass that down to the states to help fund the states?I think it is very important to consider this. The nuclear power couldn’t exist w/o the federal exception for insurance. We are cutting money to renewables, but those cuts are dwarfed by the existing subsidies to coal and oil.
• What about the obstacle of permitting?This is one of the best practices we try to enforce through our network. If towns and cities can put in place streamlined permitting processes, it sends the right message to businesses.
• What sorts of tax policies should be put in place to encourage the right behavior?There are some environmental groups working on some tax shifting alternatives, but it is a very tough slog; taxes are toxic.
• How much energy goes into the costs of producing solar or wind technologies?The solar industry has done some of these life-cycle net carbon analysis and has seen that this is a positive thing.

Success of UK Media Campaign on Climate Change, Solitaire Townsend (Futerra)

“First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.”, Mahatma Gandhi

I think we are between fighting and winning.

Just today the British Government has published a bill in which they a proposing to set a mandatory cap on emissions that the government would be legally responsible for.

This is now an electoral issue and people are fighting for the “green vote”.

One of the problems here is that this is such a complex issue to talk about.

In the UK there is a body called the Carbon Trust whose job is to communicate climate change to businesses.

We don’t want to convey the idea that this is a huge issue that is so big that none of us can do anything about. Instead, you want to make sure that people understand that the individual can make a difference.

The Energy Savings Trust is the sister organization to the Carbon Trust with the job of educating consumers.

The British government developed and funded an entire media campaign including educational advertisement broadcast on TV.

A lot of NGOs are torn between political campaigns (to get governments to change) and personal change (to get people to change their actions). Climate change isn’t like some other campaigns — all of us have personal responsibility because it isn’t something where you can just demand that the government make a change.

Who are we talking to with these campaigns:

• Settlers: Very inward looking (my home, my environment, sustanence driven, “Yesterday was better”)
• Pioneers: Also inward directing, but forward looking. Got bored by recycling and have moved on to compacting and burning their waste.
• Prospectors: They get their sense of self from what other people think of them. They are very “in the now” and focused on fashion, status, success. For example, you saw this with “fair trade” coffees when people started buying fair trade products even when they had no idea what it was.

Messages that pioneers will respond to will totally turn off the prospectors. This is very dangerous because you need to make sure you are targeting the right message to the right audience. If you are a pioneer, and you hate a message, it is probably exactly right for the prospector.

In addition, the two groups pay attention to very different media. If you want to reach the prospectors, advertise around “America’s Top Model”.

There was a recent poll in of UK residents that asked, “Do you agree or disagree that the world’s climate is changing?”. 97% said yes and 3% said no. That’s great news! We are winning that battle.

However, the survey then when on to ask how large an influence people thought various groups had on changing this issue. 50% believe that industry and business can have a large influence, but only 7% believe that they can, personally, can have a large influence.

This is a really big challenge.

In order to do this, we need to convince people that they can have an impact. How do we market to these folks and impact change?

• Go beyond the usual suspects.The pioneers already have the right information. We have to start talking to the prospectors.
• Change groups, not people.We learn what is publicly acceptable by what is around us. People like publicly visible activities because other people can see it.We are working on a big blue plaque that you can get outside of your house if your house is “certified” as energy efficient.
• Empathy and imagination are power tools.I am sick of people in this movement using the picture of melting icebergs to make their case. People don’t empathize with ice. We empathize with things with faces. We need to find things with faces that are “victims of climate change”. While it is intellectually shocking to see ice melting, it is emotionally shocking to see the impact on people.
• The language of climate change has become so hyperbolic, it puts people in “audience mentality”. What we have to do is raise the language of the solutions. We often try to make things seem easier simpler and cheaper than they really are. We often say, “We’re all going to die, unless we change a lightbulb.” The two just don’t match. I don’t think we need to change the description of the problem. Instead, we need to change the solution to come in line with the problem.
• We have to be very careful about how you ask for things because for many things, people’s initial reaction is “no”. Don’t push people so far that they say no. Once they say “no”, it is very difficult to get them to come back.
• Climate change is suffering from the biggest “bystander effect” we’ve ever seen.
• Since the 1950’s, people have been trying to reduce the amount of time that they spend doing chores. This means that even if we get some of the activities on the chore list, it won’t get done. On the other hand, if we can get things on the pleasure, leisure and fulfillment list, it is likely to get done.How can we change activities from chores to a pleasure? For example, the Carbon Trust built a game based on Space Invaders and used this with businesses to educate them on energy efficiency. We saw a tangible, measurable energy savings impact based on this. It took a chore and made it fun.

Energy for a Changing World: New Developments in Europe’s Enegry Policy, Helen Donoghue (European Commission)

JUst last week, the EU made a unilateral commitment to reduce the emissions from 1990
levels by 20% by 2020. No contingencies.

We must have a comprehensive global climate agreement post 2012. We are not going to be able to deal with these issues without it including absolute reductions in greenhouse gases.

We regard a global carbon market as an extremely useful tool.

Three objectives for our energy strategy:

• Climate. We have a real target that we have to aim for.
• Security of supply. There is a limit on how much risk can be accepted for our energy.
• Competitiveness. We need to ensure that prices are reasonable for businesses.

The interesting discussion will be as we move to allocate out the targets on a per-country state. Austria, for example, has a high supply of hydroelectricity available.2020 Targets:

• 20% Energy Savings
• 20% renewables in energy consumption
• 10% biofuelds in gas/diesel

We have a directive on energy performance of buildings. It is up to the member states to set the specific thresholds, but we could be looking at minimum performance requirements for the EU as a whole.

How Germany and Denmark became World Leaders, Bill Moomaw (Tufts University)

Germany leads the world in renewable energy in 2006:

• They are first in installed wind capacity (20,000 MW, creating 6% of total electricity — some states have over 20% in wind power
• They are first in installed solar PV (2,000 MW)
• They have about 6,300 MW in solar thermal
• Biogas provides about 1% of electic power.
• Overall Germany about 71.5 Twh (or 11.5%) of its electricity coming from renewable sources.

The growth in wind in Europe is largely driven by German, but Spain is #2. The U.S. is #3 Denmark is #4, even though Denmark has less population than Massachusetts.

In 1989, 90% of the wind capacity in the world was in California. Now, Germany has twice as much as all of the U.S.

What are the policies that have made this possible?

The “feed-in” law that assures anyone who installs a renewable energy source that they will be able to sell their energy at a high price for 20 years.

• For solar, it is $.75/kWh reducing by 5% / year.
• For wind it is $.11/kwh
• Similar prices for biogas and other renewables.

This gives you the assurance that you will get the money out of this if you invest in it.

In contrast, in the U.S., there is no predictability. Our policies change every two years and create a tremendous amount of uncertainty for anyone who is looking to build renewable energy sources.

Denmark is producing about 25% of its electricity from wind power.

They set long term fixed prices and a subsidies for renewables and required utilities to purchase renewable power.

They have a tax on CO2 and SO2 that biases things toward clean energy.

They established ownership rules that allowed farmers to form cooperatives that can band together to purchase a “shared” renewable energy source.

They have a renewable portfolio standard.

Up until a few years ago, over 60% of all of the turbines in the world were produced in Denmark. Remember, Denmark is smaller than Massachusetts. This is a huge economic source for Denmark.

Now wind is starting to move offshore because they are saturating their existing space.
Buuilding Codes:

Germany:

Building codes are set as performance / cubic meter and square meter and have been progressively tightened.

They set standards for energy supply (furnace/heater) that is based on primary fuels (e.g., oil). This means that you can’t practically use electric heating since it is so inefficient.
In Sweden, they went so far as stipulating the percentage of your walls that can be windows.

The last revision in 2001 was a 30% improvement over what they previously had. (This is about the difference between the Massachusetts code and Energy Star code).

The code also applies to renovations, not just new construction.

Moving to the point that every building has an “energy sticker” that rates the efficiency of the house.

Q&A Session

• Do the UK standards include the “total lifecycle costs” of energy?Yes, for any major project, people need to do an impact assessment and that has to take into account all of the effects of an energy system.
• How can you convince people to pay attention to global warming when the effects are so far in the future?Future discounting — the psychological effect where people devalue the effect of issues that are far out in the future — sucks. Because of that, we have stopped talking about the impacts of global warming on your children or the children of your children. We don’t talk about the future anymore. We talk about now. We need to focus on issues that people can understand and touch within the next 10 years. That is about as far as people can imagine.

  At the same time, you can use future discounting to your advantage. Just as people will discount the costs of inaction in the future, they will also discount the costs of action in the future. This means it is easier to get people on board now for something whose real cost doesn’t come into effect for a while.

• How do you get people to pay attention to the issue of “peak oil”?You can only be famous for one thing. Because of that, I don’t tend to use “peak oil” in our messaging. I know that I only have a tiny amount of people’s attention, so I can only focus on a very small set of issues. Otherwise it distracts from the message.

  Therefore, I generally don’t raise the issue of peak oil. It’s a very Machiavellian decision, but you have to do it.

• How do you market to students to take action?Students are one of the most difficult groups to market to. They have a lot of things going on and it is very hard to get their attention.

  We try to focus on finding someone who is a leader or trend setter and working with that person to find things that they can do now. For example, engaging with the local community or businesses.

  You have to use these people to help change the “status” of behaviors. If you find “high status” people and get them to engage in these behaviors, you can help raise the perception of these activities by others.

These are the notes from the keynote speech.

Governors and States Making it Happen, Katherine McGinty (Secretary of the PA Dep. of Environmental Protection)

From PA: The little coal state that could. PA is the 4th largest coal producing state in the country. PA is the home of the 1st commercial oil well in the country.

So what did we do?

• Banned SUVs from the State fleet
• Goal to replace 25% of our fleet from hybrids
• Put in place a RPS with 18% of energy in 2020 coming from clean, renewable sources.We are currently at about 170-180 MW of wind energy. Need to get to 4,000 MW.We are currently are at 1 MW of solar energy. Need to get to 850 MW.
• We became the 10th or 11th state to adopt the California car emissions standards.
• We have become the largest state purchaser of renewable energy; 20% of energy for state comes from renewables.

So, why are we doing this in the Rust Belt?

Why did we do it? Why did we ban the SUVs? We did it because we couldn’t afford them.

Our portfolio standard is a reaction to the unpredictable, unstable energy prices. Positioned this as diversification as a hedge against increasing energy prices.

For the building standards, green buildings provide a competitive advantage on the real estate market.

There is real dollars and cents pragmatism in these decisions.

We did this as part of how we rebuild our economy.

It wasn’t enough to point out the virtues of clean and green energy; we had to show the money. We had to point out how someone who didn’t have a job on Monday would have a job on Tuesday. We had to find the intersection between being green and supporting the economy.

We went to Spain to visit the 2nd largest builder of wind mills in the world. They understood that they were hitting market saturation in Europe and they knew they wanted to start expanding to the U.S., but they needed a manufacturing center here. So, we convinced them to build their plants in PA. They now have 4 factories in PA, employing
1,000 people.

Broght the U.S. headquarters for Conergy (one of leading solar providers) in PA. They have already bought and doubled the size of a local engineering company. This was an immediate $50M investment in our state.

People often say that “It’s nice, but I can’t afford it.” We are starting to get the place where people understand “We can’t afford *not* to do it.”

People understand that at some fundamental level, that the United States, the country of hope, has gone very wrong as it relates to energy. But, at the same time, people recognize that there is tremendous energy here.

So, we are focused on “growing it at home”. We are building out ethanol and biodesiel.

We now have the biggest farmland preservation in the country.

Are there things that we can do to add even more profitability to our farms. We are trying to put them to work, growing our our fuel.

We have legislation pending that would mandate “growing at home” the same amount of fuel as we import from the Persian Gulf. This will be the equivalent of about 1B gallons.

Where are we going from here?

We need to “reduce”.

We have legislation that *all* new load growth (new energy) *must* be met through conservation and efficiency.

In addition, under this law, every consumer will be given a smart meter so they can know what their consumption is and so they will know what the price is. This will help people understand the impact of their conservation actions.

We also have a $850M bond to invest in new, clean energy projects, including any new development on brownfields needs to be LEED certified.

We also are announcing a climate change plan.

We are looking at a plan that effects generation of electricity. You know there is a saying that old wine gets better w/ age? Well, old powerplants don’t! How do we start flipping over to biofuel? How do we ensure that we have the infrastructure in place to get the fuels
to the plants.

We also have a lot of mines. And those mines generate a lot of methane. We are now looking to see if we can capture that methane, we can create a lot of energy while capturing these green house gases. Is it technically possible?

Questions

• Pennsylvania was one of the early participants in the development of the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, but has been conspicuously absent from the implementation. What are Pennsylvania’s plans here?Everything is on the table. It is possible we could join RGGI. It is also possible we could join together with other states like Ohio to create something that doesn’t yet exist.
• Carlisle, PA has some of the worst air quality in the country. I was wondering if you have considered the carbon-load of the trucks going through there?For those who don’t know, Carlisle has a “perfect storm” of major highways that come through there and, some massive percentage of the countries truck-based commerce comes through there.

  So, what have we done?

  We have made a huge investment in truck-stop electrification. We have pushed forward on a no-idling rule for trucks.

  We are focusing on an investment on biodesiel for trucks.

  Do I envision that we would have a state level directive to local governments that they can’t site additional warehouses in their districts? No. I don’t even know if we could do this.

• To achieve your solar goals, do you believe you will need to have a ‘feed in tariff” or will the RPS be sufficient.

  I do not believe the RPS will be sufficient.  Part of this $850M initiative is $200M dedicated to build out of solar PV in the state.  On part is a rebate to the consumer.  The other part would directly go to the manufacturer as a production grant incentive to any manufacturer who comes into the state.

The following are notes from Session I at the Climate Change conference.

Solving Global Warming: It Can Be Done, Daniel Lashof (National Resources Defense Council)

If we act now, we only need to reduce 3.2% / year.

Limit global warming to about 2 degrees above current — the limit of what is sustainable.

A delay of 10-15 years requires emissions to be reduced *much* more rapidly (8.2% year) which would be disruptive, if not even impossible.

Need to cut US Emissions 60% in 50 years.

Six major components to solving the problem.

1. Cornerstone of any solution: energy efficiency. We can reduce energy consumption by 40% which will reduce 540M tons of CO2.It can be done: California has achieved this. Their energy usage / capita is about 40% lower than national average.
2. Cut “stationary fuel demand” (heating fuel) by 40%.
3. Raise passenger vehicle fleet efficiency to 54 mpg by 2056. Cuts 270 M tons.
4. Double heavy truck fleet efficiency to 13 mpg by 2056; improve aircraft efficiency 30%; cut travel 10% by smart growth. Cuts 230M tons.
5. Use clean energy for 30% of electric demand and biofuels for 40% of transport demand. Cuts 390 M tons. Plug-in hybrids allow you to decarbonize fuels.
6. Capture C02 from coal plants. Cuts 320M tons.

Efficiency will provide the majority of the emissions offsets in the short term.

Efficiency will play a cornerstone role.

National bills pending in the Senate: Kerry-Snowe, Sanders-Boxer, McCain-Lieberman all get into reasonable ranges.

Cities are the Answer, Doug Foy (DIF Enterprises)

New York: Reduce carbon footprint by 30% by 2030 while still adding 1M people. They will add parks so that all residents are within 10 minute walk of a park

The Kendall Foundation and Cambridge is launching a $100M investment program on energy efficiency. Focusing on the city as an aggregator. The Cambridge Energy Alliance will be announced soon.

Even if we build every new building LEED platinum certified, we wouldn’t solve the problem we have to address the buildings we have.

Pursuading corporations and financial players to be climate leaders, Mindy Lubber (CERES)

Efficiency is the most cost effective way of solving the climate change problem.

TXU: Proposed to build 11 coal fired power plants. Example of a company that failed to pay attention to the risks of its business. Wall Street caught up to it. Elevated awareness on Wall Street. Major financial firms starting to consider “carbon risk exposure” as part of
their analysis of companies.

Bank of America is going to lend $20B to all sorts of energy efficiency programs. Also set goals of reducing carbon emissions by 9% by 2009. They see opportunity here and it is part of their long term business strategy.

The “clean tech” investment space has been growing rapidly.

Carbon Down, Profits Up: Business Leadership on Climate Change, Allison Hannon (The Climate Group)

DuPont has reduced their CO2 emissions 60% over 1990 levels and saved $4B

97% of companies use energy efficiency as the primary way of addressing this since it goes directly to their bottom line.

Alcoa has saved $20M through energy efficiency

Pfizer saved $30M annually and reduced their emissions by 201,000 tons through energy efficiency.

British Sky Broadcasting provides a carbon calculator to every subscriber built in to their set top boxes. Will eventually also provide energy usage meters in the set top box so consumers can measure energy usage of various appliances.

Starbucks is working with their renewable energy supplier to provide Starbuck’s 800 top suppliers discounts on renewable energy.

Why?

• Energy efficiency allows you to save money.
• Attracting new, climate conscious, consumers.
• Public relations
• Risk management

Q&A Session

• Are there green porfolios that people can invest in?There are not many right now, but in the next year or two more will be emerging. There are some retail products for socially responsible investing. KLV has a Global Climate Index. The WilderHill Clean Energy Index. There will be more and more products available as we move forward.
• What is the future of PV?The market for PVs is continuing to expand, but most of the markets remain in offgrid applications. PVs currently remain quite a but more expensive than other options like wind and biomass. Places like Florida and the Southwest U.S. may also have strong PV. Whereas wind is ready now.
• What about the issue of food?The average peach travels 3,000 miles. We’ve gotten spoiled into thinking that you can eat a strawberry any time of the year. While that is true, you pay a very high carbon price for it. Foods grown and eaten close to home are an important part of the solution.
• What about the issue of land use change (deforestation, etc.)?The best thing we can do for open space protection is to have cities succeed because it pulls the pressure off the landscape. The average home in Massachusetts is built on 1.1 acres. Cities are much more efficient from a land use perspective. The real solution is to grow our communities much more sensibly.
• What can States do?We can make our urban schools better. The failure of our urban schools is the great civil rights challenge of our age. One of the reasons we move to suburbs is because of their schools.

  We completely abandoned the rail system. China is growing 1 “Manhattan” / year, but is building out the rail system to support this.Government investment in capital expenditures is a critical part of the solutions.

  We built a transportation system that causes this problem. Developers think that they can buy cheap land in remote locations and then get the states to build roads there. One of the only solutions is for the states to stop building roads to these places.

  Go back to your towns and get them to change their zoning rules to rebuild town centers again.

• Should we be making energy more expensive to affect peoples behavior?We should all recognize the choices we are making.

  The average car winds up being the equivalent of a $100,000 mortgage (between the car payments, gas, maintenance, etc). We should charge for insurance by the mile.If you factor in transportation costs, it may actually be cheaper to live in Manhattan than Phoenix.

  If we put caps on emissions, then you start to put cost into the equation.

• Why weren’t businesses doing this before if it always cost effective?In some cases (like in Germany), companies have responded to regulations.In terms of the climate change consumer, companies were not aware that there was this market that they could tap.There is a lot of new pressure coming from shareholders, suppliers, and consumers.

  There were certainly companies that recognized a long time ago that
  they could save money through energy efficiency.

  The threat of regulations is a key piece as well. The threat of regulations is a huge motivator. For example if you look at TXU, their business model would have been very profitable if you do not believe that we will regulate emissions. On the other hand, if you think we will be regulating emissions, their strategy was a bad idea.
  For example, Boxer and Bingham came out and told companies that they should not expect to be grandfathered for their existing emissions. This radically effects the planning of things like TXU.

Today, I am at the Northeast Sustainable Energy Association (NESEA)’s Building Energy 2007 conference attending the “Climate Change: 1,000 Solutions” workshop.

I thought I’d share my notes out during the day so they are here for anyone interested.

There are three Sessions of the conference.  I will post the notes for the sessions individually.

A month or so ago, I wrote an article called “Every Home a Power Plant” in which I talked about the prospect of changing the way that residential home owners buy solar energy for their homes.

In particular, I referenced a program called Citizenrē REnU which claims to allow home owners to get the benefits of having solar panels on their roof without the associated up front or maintenance costs.

Since then, I have been personally contacted by a sales rep for the program to sell me on its benefits. (They never wrote me back after initial contact.)

And, you may have noticed that one of the comments on my most recent article is really a pitch for this program.

It turns out that I may have stumbled into a giant pyramid scheme.

Since I wrote that posting, a couple of things have come to my attention that call into question the legitimacy of this program.

The most issue of Wired magazine had an article titled “Selling Homeowners a Solar Dream” that raises some serious concerns about the reality of the program.

I have also talked with some folks who are in the clean energy sector who have described Citizenrē REnU as a scam and who are very dismayed at the potential damage that this program may do to the entire clean energy space.

If it really does turn out that this is nothing more than a gigantic marketing gimmick that cons money out of little old ladies, it will put a black eye on the entire industry, tainting both the reputable and disreputable vendors.

Personally, I’d love nothing more than for this to be completely legitimate and be a new way to push solar to every house in the country. But, I think we should all be wary for the time being and wait until a few more pieces of the puzzle fall into place. If they really do build the manufacturing plant that they talk about and if they really do start installing systems this fall, then, I think it is time to re-evaluate. But, until then, caveat emptor.

Every one of us who is trying to “go green” has at one time or another probably wondered, “How can I ensure that the energy that I am buying comes from clean, renewable sources?”

We all know that we’re going to use electricity at home and we’ve probably all thought, “If I could pay a little extra money to ensure that the energy I use is ‘green’, I would.”

So, how can you buy “green energy”?

It turns out that there are a number of different choices that we have. The choices provide a wide variety of costs and benefits.

Choice #1: Install Renewable Energy Sources Yourself

I am listing this option first, not because it is the easiest or cheapest solution or even necessarily the recommended solution, but because it is probably the easiest to understand.

I think we all can understand that if you install photovoltaic panels (”solar panels”) or a solar hot water heater on your roof, a wind turbine in your backyard, or a ground-source heating system (aka, a “geothermal heat pump”), how these directly benefit you. The energy from the solar panels or the wind turbine go directly to your house to power your electrical needs. The water from the hot water heater supplies your hot water needs. The heat from the geothermal system goes directly to your house to provide heat.

The obvious impediment to any of these solutions is cost; each requires a reasonably large up-front investment to buy and install. Now, there are federal tax credits, state tax credits, and even potentially grants to help offset these costs. But, even putting all of this together, we are talking real money.

In addition, the applicability of each of these may vary based on where you live (how many hours of direct sunlight do you get per day), the orientation of your house, the average wind speeds near your house, etc.

So, even if you had the inclination and the money, it isn’t necessarily true that you could take advantage of these choices.

Choice #2: Buy “Green Energy” from Your Electricity Provider

Every one of us is probably paying some company to provide electricity to our house. Depending on where you live, that could be NSTAR, National Grid (formerly known as Mass Electric), or another regional energy provider.

Each of those companies buys its energy from someone. And that energy can come from a variety of sources.

Some electric companies offer you a choice of how you want your electricity generated.

For example, Mass Electric has a GreenUp program that allows its consumers to choose to have some or all of their energy to come from renewable sources.

For consumers who have this option, this is a simple way to switch to green energy. There is no upfront cost. The ongoing costs are modest — approximately $10 - $20 / month of extra cost to switch to purely green energy sources.

Unfortunately, not all electricity providers offer clean energy options. For example, NSTAR does not offer any green energy choices to its consumers. Booooo NSTAR!

Choice #3: “Green Up” Your Existing Energy

This choice is probably the most complex to understand, but also an inexpensive choice that is available to everyone, independent of who their energy provider is.

There are many organizations out there that sell renewable energy credits (RECs) — these are also known as “green tags” or Tradable Renewable Certificates (TRCs).

I’m not going to get into the full details of how RECs work here — we’ll save that for another blog entry — but the basic idea is that you spend a little extra money to take your existing “dirty” energy supply and spend some extra money to buy the “green qualities” of clean energy.

Organizations that help you “green up” your energy supply include:

• The New England Wind Fund
• Native Energy

You can find a list of companies that sell RECs from the Green-e website. You can even choose what type of energy (wind, solar, biomass, etc.) that you want to support and what geographic region you want to support.

The costs of “greening up” your energy are relatively modest. Through Native Energy a $8 - $16 / month contribution can green up all of the energy for your house.

In a recent article, I asked whether the end was near for incandescent light bulbs.

It turns out that the rumors of their death may have been greatly exaggerated.

Less than two weeks after Australia announced that it would be banning incandescents altogether, GE announced plans to bring “high efficiency” incandescents to market by 2010.

Reading through the lines of the announcement, it sounds like these new lights will be much better than normal incandescents but not as good as compact fluorescents, at least initially.

I think it is a great thing to get the old-school manufacturers on their heels and feeling the heat (or are they really feeling the lack of heat?) from CFLs.

If they can produce bulbs that are as energy efficient as CFLs, but cheaper, great for all of us. The easier it is for people to get their hands on energy-efficient bulbs, the better.

What I really wonder is whether there will come a time when light emitting diodes (LEDs) start to take over the role CFLs have played and become the “more efficient, more expensive” alternative. I know that many municipalities are replacing the lights in their traffic signals with LEDs because they are much more durable and, in the long run, can save a large amount of money.

But, until then, this is a great step in the right direction.