Business Storytelling

Seeing Green in Detroit

The Detroit Auto Show kicked off yesterday and the big buzz was around green technology. Internal-combustion engines seemed like a thing of the past as the world’s largest automakers unveiled models of hybrid gas-electric and battery-powered vehicles. When will they hit the road? Not for awhile because consumers aren’t buying alternatives to gas engines – but they are still considered the future of the automobile industry.  The following advanced technology vehicles were on display at the show:

• Nissan Leaf – the only model Nissan brought to Detroit
• Toyota FT-CH – a concept version on a car small than today’s Prius
• Honda CR-Z Coupe – a hybrid designed to better compete with Toyota hybrids
• Chevy Volt – powered by batteries with a small gas engine to extend the car’s range.

We all know that green is hot, but do you think the automakers jumped the gun? The New York Times reported that last year, about 98 percent of the cars sold in the U.S. were powered by conventional gasoline engines. Rebecca Lindland, an analyst with the research firm HIS Global Insight, told the Times, “Hybrids are less than 3 percent of the market, and they’ve been less than 3 percent for years. The idea that people are going to immediately accept electric vehicles when hybrids are such a small part of the market is sort of dangerous.”

I agree and I think Ford is playing it smart by listening to consumer demand. The company realizes that it doesn’t know what the market is going to be like for electric vehicles.  Therefore, instead of jumping in feet first to keep up with the competition, Ford is going to unveil an electric version of the Focus in 2011 and prepare for the overwhelming green vehicle demand that is expected to take place by 2020.

When do you think green vehicle adoption will increase? In 2010? Not until 2020? We’d love to hear your predictions.

Contributed by Jena Coletti.  Follow her @jmcoletti

What does "Green" really mean for the average consumer?

Last week, Cifford Klaus and Jad Mouawad of the New York Times reported that we have reason to rejoice when it comes to driving during the holidays: "This holiday season, consumers can expect a gift that should ease their burdens a bit: modestly lower gasoline prices."  At the same time that I let out a little smile upon learning that driving my car won't break the bank, I grew a little unsettled as I read on.  Clifford and Jad quote a consumer about why she's grateful for the lower prices: “I can drive from place to place looking for bargains and it costs me less. Before, I was just shopping around my house.” So what she's saying is, now that gas prices are lower, she's going to drive more.  I thought the point of a low-carbon, cost-efficient economy was to drive less. 
 
I nearly choked on my coffee after reading this consumer's words, thinking, "so for all this talk of going green, consumer concerns about going green, and government funds for going green, does this mean that for the average consumer, it's only about money?  Do they even care a little about the environment?"  The quote demonstrates an important point: economics is the single-most important factor in establishing a successful green economy.  If eco-friendly habits don't save money, they won't fly with the average consumer.  Likewise, if entrepreneurs can't make money from their ventures, they won't waste their time. 
 
I started thinking that if gas prices continue to decline, consumers won't have a reason to want to buy fuel-efficient cars.  However, I paused to consider additional factors.  Legislation, for example: In May of 2009 the Obama administration announced the first-ever greenhouse-gas emissions limits for cars. Articles report that "the limits, a joint rule by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Department of Transportation (DOT), will require cars to average 35.5 mpg by 2016, four years earlier than under previous fuel economy requirements."  If gas prices were to decline, but legislation did not step in to establish fuel efficiency standards, it's possible that consumer habits would override concern for the environment.  It's an important lesson in why regulations -- when set appropriately -- are critical to the advancement of the green economy.
 
If it's all about money for most consumers, they need a little incentive, or rule setting in this case.  What do you think? Is it all about money, or are drivers actually more eco-friendly these days?
 
Contributed by Susan Wise.  Follow her @swise

On Our Way to a More See-Through World

In PR we talk a lot about transparency: when pitching reporters make it clear who you represent and why you are writing.  In fact, transparency has become one of my golden rules these days in general, and I think it's something that needs greater priority in the world at large.  For example (in no particular order of importance or relevance to one another): the Bernie Madoff scandal, food fraud, and most recently, the Hadley Climate Center saga.  The Hadley Climate Center saga is really what inspired this post. 

According to the Wall Street Journal and other sources, the Hadley Climate Research Unit in Britain was hacked last week and thousands of sensitive documents, including emails from climate scientists dating back a decade, were posted online.  The aftermath: the emails and documents that were leaked indicate that scientists may be "manipulating computer climate modeling data and research reports to support the theory that man-made greenhouse gases are causing global warming." See full article here from Environmental Leader.

So what does this teach us? Well, some may argue that the most important lesson here is that we need to be more careful with sensitive data and continue to tighten security to prevent cyber crime.  However, another lesson to consider is the transparency challenge.  Whether we're talking about climate change data, food nutrition labels, or information on financial investments, industries across the board lack standard systems and procedures for documenting their calculations and transactions.  Let's zero in on the climate issue.  As carbon counting and energy efficiency tracking continues, businesses need to be accountable for the improvements they claim to make, scientists need to demonstrate the sources of their calculation, and consumers, investors and other stakeholders need to know how to interpret the data and where to find it.
 
Solving the transparency challenge is a tall order, but if more organizations start to talk about it and demonstrate how they support their claims, perhaps industries as a whole can start to make progress.  What practices have you come across for improving transparency and accountability that seem to be working? I'd love to hear your thoughts. 
 
Contributed by Susan Wise.  Follow her @swise

School Spirit? More like Green Pride

How would you feel if your alma mater received an F on its last report card?  You’re probably thinking, what report card?  In this case, I'm talking about the green one.  More specifically, The College Sustainability Report Card. So how does your school stack up?  Read on to find out.

Just a few weeks ago the Sustainable Endowments Institute released its 2010 College Sustainability Report Card. Hundreds of colleges around the US and Canada were evaluated by the organization to determine their level of sustainability. A school’s grade is based on their performance in nine categories including: administration, climate change and energy, food and recycling, green building, student involvement, transportation, endowment transparency, investment policies and shareholder engagement.

I had the chance to talk to Becca Leonard, a senior at Syracuse University who is a student leader for Syracuse’s sustainability project. Leonard became involved in the project last year after a class sparked her interest.  Syracuse received a B for its 2010 sustainability grade; this is a grade up from its B- for 2009. “Although a B isn’t an awful grade, it’s not great either,” said Leonard. “There is so much more to be done, and we can use all the help we can get.” She hopes that within a couple years Syracuse will be able to bump up its grade to an A. Although Becca will be graduating in May, she still plans to be involved in the school’s sustainability efforts.

Cleantech’s Enigmatic Future

I would really like to be in Boston next week. If I was, I’d be hanging out at the Hynes Convention Center. The Conference on Clean Energy is in town and after listening to Xconomy’s podcast previewing the show, I’m even more curious to hear what the insiders will be saying about funding, government and policy, and the hottest cleantech industries.

Cleantech and VCs remain inextricably tied, which consumed much of the recent discussion with Jon Karlen from venture firm Flybridge Capital Partners and Russ Landon with Canaccord Adams, a research and investing firm. However, I found some of their points of view very interesting:

• Government funding is a blessing and a curse. Landon discussed the two sides of the rush win federal money, primarily pointing out that a windfall courtesy of the U.S. Government can be an excellent booster shot for cleantech companies, but they must have the private capital to sustain them over the long term. It’s no mystery that things move slowly in Washington and Landon made another memorable point about the result of slow flowing dollars on cleantech: delayed innovation. He says it’s not a death sentence, but it can slow down progress.
• Solar is rapidly changing. The way I understood it, solar startups are not the most attractive investment these days.  In fact, I think I heard the word “lousy” in there. While New England remains a hub for solar, both guests agreed that the industry will go through a “bloody” process to filter out the small and determine who be (or become part of) the large solar survivors
• Smart grid is hot. This term is constantly evolving to include many types of technologies involved in moving electricity around more efficiently.

Of course, I want to know about my clients industries and issues that affect them. If I were in Boston next week, I might ask:

• What’s next for wind? Will new technologies coming out of startups and smaller companies drive the industry forward?
• Energy efficiency in the industrial space went no where in Washington. Can partnerships with larger companies push this to the surface?
• General consensus is that regional cleantech groups like New England Clean Energy Council are effective and helping keep a strong New England presence in the market.  Is there more they should be doing?
• What are the odd-ball, fringe cleantech companies that caught your eye this year? 

Unfortunately, CCE will go on without me and I’ll read all about it from D.C. Good thing I’ve decided to spend that time realigning my smart grid new business strategy.  To listen to Wade Roush’s podcast please click here or you can follow him on Twitter @wroush.

Contributed by Jennifer Eberline. Follow her @jeberline

Does Green Thievery Mean Cleantech has Finally Arrived?

A slew of recent articles indicates that a new cleantech industry segment has emerged: Green Thievery.  Last week I read an article by Stephanie Simon in the Wall Street Journal's October Energy report that describes solar panel theft as one of the industry's latest phenomena:

"Five times in the past year, Mr. Lagatta, the director of maintenance for a school district in northern California, has rushed to a campus to respond to reports of a brazen theft. Five times, he has looked up to the roof and despaired to see 20, 30 or 50 solar panels missing, ripped off the top of school buildings overnight."

The same day that I read Stephanie's article, I also opened my digital edition of MegaWatt Daily and read about how New York Governor David Patterson proposed raiding Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) funds to balance the state budget.  In short, the governor wants to use $90 million in RGGI allowance revenue to help reduce a $3 billion budget deficit for 2010 and $2 billion for 2011.  As background, RGGI is an initiative in which 10 Northeast states agreed to cap CO2 emissions and hold auctions for electric power generators to bid on emissions allowances.  The proceeds are supposed to "support low-carbon-intensity solutions, including energy efficiency and clean renewable energy, such as solar and wind power."  But, in the name of green thievery (or maybe just green reprioritizing since "thievery" is a harsh word in this particular context), NY state may raid some of those funds.

The DOE talks tough…sort of.

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) has made a myriad of promises and some encouraging steps toward establishing more robust energy efficiency standards, but all this tough talk will be meaningless if they can't legally enforce new regulations in a consistent and fair manner.

Keeping this in mind, you can see why I would be skeptical when I saw the Department's announcement about “strengthening energy efficiency enforcement." Sure, the title sounded promising “Department of Energy Announces Steps to Strengthen Enforcement of Energy Efficiency Standards,” but is announcing steps to make something happen really news? Does it give us any useful news on the DOE's energy efficiency plan or, date I say it, is it just part of the DOE PR machine?

The only way to find out, at least in my opinion, is to get to the core of what the release says and be realistic. Let’s dig in:

1)    “The Obama Administration has released five appliance efficiency standards ahead of deadlines.  These five standards will save over 2 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide once in effect.  Over the next 30 years, they will save Americans an estimated $250 - $300 billion.”

What this means: They’re ahead of schedule on outlining efficiency standards for appliances, including products like freezers and AC units, which could save billions over three decades. The projections are promising, but we still don’t really know what impact these standards will really have, especially over the next thirty years.

2)    “The steps announced today include the formation of an enforcement team within the Office of the General Counsel.”

What this means: They’ve established a fleet of U.S. lawyers with years of litigation and regulation experience, who will be reporting directly to the General Counsel. This is good, but it’s just a bunch of suits in a room if it doesn’t have the capacity to legally review, prosecute and punish violators of DOE regulations.

The Renewable Energy Infrastructure: Eyesore or Elegance?

Last month I made the cross-country trek from California to join my family on our annual Cape Cod vacation, and I noticed a few changes as I stared out the bus windows on the highway between Boston and the Sagamore bridge.  Most notably, a few single wind turbines had sprung up.  My first thought: "wow, they did a great job with those.  They look kind of elegant."  Now I am just one mind, and I know the elegance factor is lost on thousands of environmentalists who fear for the natural beauty of our landscape.  So of course I made a mental note to keep an eye on the topic in the media.  Well, last week Jeff Ball wrote an excellent article for the Wall Street Journal about how the debate is heating up.  He summarizes it quite well with these words: "Renewable-energy projects would reduce pollution and combat climate change. The trade-off is that many more people would have to see wind turbines, solar panels and other energy infrastructure near their homes in order to diminish the need for coal mines and other fossil-fuel facilities."

Near my current Palo Alto, CA home, I've observed more solar panels than wind turbines, but I think they look elegant too.  Now I'm talking rooftop installations vs. vast fields of solar panels, so I can't speak to the issue of filling previously unsettled natural landscapes with imposing technology structures.  But, I don't perceive solar panels and wind turbines in currently-developed areas as eyesores.  Tearing up natural resources to put them in is a different story, but along the highways of New England and California, I'd rather look at sleek renewable technologies than industrial warehouses and coal-firing plants.

The Innovation Tug of War: should we cut our competitors some slack?

Last week I spoke with Reuters reporter Nichola Groom about her recent article on the carbon tracking market and how, as her article states, "more than 50 companies offer software products that measure carbon footprints.  I then remembered a similar article from earlier this summer by Lindsay Riddell of the San Francisco Business Times.  Lindsay's conclusion: "Competition is heating up in the carbon accounting software market...and companies across the globe clamor for a piece of the carbon accounting action."  I am reminded daily of this intense greentech competition, and it's not exclusive to the carbon accounting market.  Solar companies race to see who can reach grid parity the fastest, car makers scramble to create the most fuel-efficient vehicles on the market, and start-ups across industries compete for funding.  So I'm left asking myself this question: amidst all of this competition, where is the collaboration?

 

With this question in mind, I welcomed Carolyn Heinze's recent article for EnergyBiz Insider.  Carolyn writes: "If a smarter grid is to work, then utilities must be open to working more closely with one another."  Carolyn talks about workshops designed to help both utilities and vendors explore potential working relationships.  Carolyn's article is a breath of fresh air.  It's a reminder that, while competition makes innovation more exciting, we need to find a balance between the competitive and the collaborative. 

 

What do you think? Will greater emphasis on collaboration stifle the entrepreneurial spirit that brings new technologies to life (for example, would Apple have grown at the same rate if it didn't have to battle Microsoft for market share)?  How do we find the right balance so we don't lose sight of our broader goals, which in the case of greentech involve a cleaner, healthier planet? 

 

Contributed by Susan Wise.  Follow her @swise

Green Musings From Abroad

A central and very important part of our jobs is to understand our green clients and tell their stories in new and compelling ways.  There’s a lot of clutter to break through – various new outlets and channels, the crowded pipeline of green angles and news, and the ever-constant challenge of enticing a report to listen to you. We often remain so focused on our own problems, personally, as PR people and as Americans, that we rarely step back and consider how our green clients fit into the global picture. I recently spent two weeks on vacation in Europe and was reminded that now, as global economies are so quickly changing and affected by one another... we need to be conscious of what the rest of the world is doing.

My observations are not profound and I’m certain most foreigners take similar notes on how life works differently than in his or her respective home. But I think about my clients in “real life” and couldn’t help but see so many contrasts between the green world I know in America.  Little things, like wind farms visible out the windows of every flight, water-efficient toilets, paying for plastic bags at every grocery store and in general, the more compact size of things. You’re not able to take your preferred quantity of napkins at restaurants or cafes – you are given one or maybe two napkins, and it better be enough.

Then there are the cars. There are good-looking cars, many Americans brands, all over Europe that appear to get 75 miles to the gallon.  That may be exaggerated and I’m no expert on European emission standards and other regulations, but why aren’t we doing this at home? And the packaging.  I wouldn’t take the time to notice if I didn’t have clients tied to flexible and energy-efficient packaging, but as we talk about carbon and water footprints here, it was eye-opening to see how much is being done there.  Less waste, less pollution and smarter ways of packaging foods, beverages and consumer products were everywhere. I could go on.