Back to the States

In the waning days of the Bush-Cheney administration, environmental groups and concerned businesses started a dramatic shift in strategy in the effort to combat radical climate change. They shifted from a state level strategy back to a Capitol Hill strategy. With the election of Barak Obama and a super majority Democratic Congress, this choice made even more sense. For a brief moment, it seemed like the United States would adopt national legislation to promote clean energy and reduce the greenhouse gas emissions that cause climate change. Unfortunately, that moment may have passed. Seems like it's time to go back to the states.

The benefits of doing something at the Federal level vs. the state level are clear. We can cause a much more significant change in our fossil fuel use at the national level. The problem is that we seem to live in an era (and hopefully it's temporary) when our political system is simply broken, and unable to solve the large national questions of the day. Maybe the problem is the Senate, where tiny Wyoming, with about 1.5% of the population of California has the same number of Senators. Maybe the problem is the money in politics, the fundraising and the favors. Who knows? Bottom line - I don't expect any significant bill to come from Capitol Hill.

So, we're back to working the states. The record there is pretty impressive. Thanks to a lot of hard work in Maryland, we've got some pretty progressive environmental/clean energy laws here. Maryland is part of the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI), committing to a ten percent reduction in greenhouse gases from power plants along with nine other states in the northeast. RGGI is on the right track and with some improvement can make some real significant cuts in greenhouse gases. California and other western states are adopting a similar plan.

The way to make these kind of efforts even more impactful is to deal with the issue of "leakage," or out-of-state emissions related to energy use in state. This can be done. California, for example, can require a large portion of power delivered to it to come from clean sources, or have a cap on greenhouse gases associated with it. That way, emissions from power plants in Nevada, Idaho, or other western states would be reduced. If we did this in the Mid Atlantic, we could reduce emissions from plants in states such as Ohio, Kentucky, West Virginia, Pennsylvania and elsewhere. In other words, an action in a few states could have an impact in many. We don't need to pass progressive environmental and clean energy laws in every state, just in the states where most of the people live and most of the jobs are. Luckily, those states are generally the most open to progressive legislation to combat climate change or to promote clean energy.

I hope I'm wrong about Capitol Hill. But if I'm not, let's get back to work in the states.

The Power of (Green) Community

While the snow fell last Saturday and most people were in their warm homes, or out shoveling, something really special and unique was happening in Rockville. Clean Currents, led by our incredible staff (way to go Amanda and Kristi!) was hosting our very first Green Neighborhood Challenge Leadership training. More than 35 people braved the elements to attend. As far as I know, this is the first time a for- profit company hosted and led an environmental activist training event. The fact that this event took place, that people were extremely excited and interested, speaks volumes about the kind of company Clean Currents is. It is hard to imagine any other company, green or otherwise, hosting a meeting like this in our area.

Cultivating relationships with activists is part of our mission, and reflects on the unique position of Clean Currents. As a company, we understand that confronting climate change is going to take an "all of the above" approach. Voluntary actions are important, but only as far as they change people's conscience, only as far as they change the values of our society. That's where activism comes in. Once we change people's conscience we need to change our nation's laws. This will happen by people from all over the political spectrum getting active and getting things done. It's a two step process. Clean Currents offers a great, green product that is available to the general public, unlike say a Prius or other green items that come with a relatively hefty price tag. Our wind power for homes actually may save people money, yet it also opens a window to a new world for them. They get on our eNewsletter list and learn about all the other ways they can positively effect the world through voluntary actions or legislation.

That's what this past week's leadership training was about- giving citizens the tools they need to educate their neighbors about the fight to end climate change. It's not enough to sign up for wind power at home. We need to do more. Hopefully these leaders will go out and spread that message. And hopefully other companies will follow Clean Currents example and recognize that being a good green corporate citizen means much more than putting a green sticker on your window and buying recycled paper for your printers. It means engaging the public, giving the public the tools they need, and giving the public a platform to work from.

keepin' it green

Promoting Clean Energy in Good Times and Bad - Legislative Preview

This will be the year we see which of our elected leaders steps up to the challenge of promoting clean energy even in tough economic times. The Maryland and Virginia General Assembly sessions are just getting started with all the talk about budget deficits, while local counties are also grappling with massive budget holes. This means that some leaders will be tempted to gut, kill or raid funding from programs designed to promote clean energy. It's already starting to happen.

Montgomery County has a unique and extremely successful program designed to promote clean energy and effectively reduce carbon emissions. It's called "Clean Energy Rewards." Clean Currents was a proud certified vendor in the program. I say "was" because County Executive Ike Leggett is considering a budget that would completely cut funding for the program for the next fiscal year (starting July 1, 2010). Yup, not a funding reduction but a complete zeroing out of the budget. This, despite the fact that the County has won national kudos for the program and has rightfully pointed out how effective it is at reducing carbon emissions. Why cut such a successful program? Tight budget, of course. The message this action would send is clear - Montgomery County only fights climate change and promotes clean energy when times are good.

In Annapolis, the picture may be brighter. There, the Governor is crafting an energy package that will continue and build upon the state's support for solar energy. It will also promote off-shore wind, and electric cars. Let's hope our state legislators have the foresight to pass the Governor's energy package, even in these tight budget times. The solar energy industry association is asking for some additional items that may not be included in the Governor's energy package, yet they are vital to the industry's growth. These include up-front payments for Solar Credits (SRECs), which would dramatically reduce the initial payment needed to install a system. Small wind installers are looking for a better framework for their industry. Maybe a legislative champion will step up to fight for this small, but growing clean energy sector. It would really help farmers on the Eastern Shore. Environmental advocates are pushing for a clean energy first bill, which would instruct the Public Service Commission to favor renewable energy for new generation in the state. Sounds like a good idea, but I'll need to see the details. Finally, Delegate Herman Taylor is crafting a bill that would help make electricity choice more widespread in Maryland. Definitely a good idea.

I'll keep tabs on Annapolis and will let you know when something worthwhile needs your attention. In the meantime, we need to start contacting Montgomery County Executive Ike Leggett, to let him know that Clean Energy Rewards should be fully funded. He can bring the program back to life by putting the funding back in the County budget before he presents it March 15. The climate cannot wait. This is the time to act. Contact the County Executive at ocemail@montgomerycountymd.gov. Be sure to CC me at gary@cleancurrents.com when you send an email. Stay tuned for more in the next blog.

To Really Save the Planet, Stop Just Going Green

"To really save the planet, stop going green." Those powerful words headline a recent piece by Mike Tidwell, Executive Director of the Chesapeake Climate Action Network (CCAN) and our nation's leading visionary for a cleaner, greener future. Strong, but true words, spoken at the exact right point. I believe that we've now reached a tipping point in the world of all things "green." Every business with even a hint of a consumer face now has some "green" statement, message, program or item. Businesses across the nation, including Clean Currents, are committed to some sort of voluntary environmental pledge. The greening of America's businesses is done. No, not literally done. There's still a lot to do. But the process has been started and will only continue to grow. Everybody is already, or about to, "go green." That's great, but now it's time to move to the next phase and that's where Mike Tidwell's strong words come in.

The recent news about companies leaving the U.S. Chamber of Commerce is perhaps the first battle in the next phase of our march to a secure climate, free of global warming. Apple led the charge of companies leaving the Chamber, which also included electric utilities such as Exelon. Nike resigned from the Board of the Chamber. All of this was done because of the Chamber's stance on climate change legislation. Apple and these others are showing that just 'going green' is no longer enough. That was Climate 1.0. In Climate 2.0, all of us, consumers, businesses, etc. will be judged on our greeness not just by our voluntary actions, but by our commitment to positive legislation that will dramatically cut the greenhouse gases causing climate change.

I'm proud to work together with my colleagues in the non-profit environmental advocacy world to push for this kind of legislation at both the state and national level. At Clean Currents, we incentivize our employees to get involved by providing a subsidy for membership in environmental organizations and by encouraging them to make their voices heard in the climate debate. We need to change the laws of this nation to better protect our environment. Yet, we should also continue our voluntary efforts. They make a small difference, perhaps, but they also introduce people to important environmental values. They educate the broad swath of the population that helping the environment can sometimes help protect your bottom line as well. I understand that it is a combination of voluntary actions and positive environmental legislation that will save the planet. Thus, I would tweak Mike's words to perhaps say, "to really save the planet, stop just going green."

In 2010, Clean Currents will commit to improving our environmental performance. We will work for positive environmental legislation in the nation's capital, and in our home state of Maryland. We will help our employees and customers understand the nature, and urgency, of the energy choices before us. We aim to be a leader in Climate 2.0 - to advocate for green laws as well as continue to make green choices. Our planet's future is at stake, so we can do no less.

Is a Company Green Because it Sells Green Products?

Solar companies (installers, manufacturers, etc.) are generally thought of as "green" companies by the general public. But I wonder if this is true? Not just for solar - but for any company selling something green. Does selling a green product make for a green company? The answer is important, because many consumers want to "vote with their wallets" by supporting sustainably oriented companies.

Leafing through the goodie bag given out at the recent Solar Energy Focus 2009 conference, for example, I was struck by the fact that not a single piece, except for the Clean Currents piece, appeared to be printed on FSC paper (paper certified as coming from a sustainable source by the Forest Stewardship Council). This is not a knock on other solar companies, but just illustrates the point that companies selling green products are not necessarily green in all of their operations and actions.

At Clean Currents, environmental sustainability is part of our core business ethic. We are far from perfect, but we do our best to not only sell green products, but to adopt green practices and to support positive environmental advocacy. As part of our commitment to running a green business, we have recently gone through the process of getting our HQ operations certified as green by Montgomery County. An official announcement will be coming shortly. The certification process focuses on areas in which a business can effectively reduce its environmental impact. A few highlights of what Clean Currents is doing:

* We have an environmental mission statement. This is a key first step for any business that wants to be green. The statement includes our policies for purchasing green products (ie. using FSC paper for printing).
* We have a green benefits package for employees, which encourages employees to help the environment.
* We actively support positive environmental advocacy. This is crucial. We are not going to solver climate change with voluntary actions alone. We need a combination of voluntary actions and new legislation to require the use of clean energy and to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
* We got our landlord to buy wind power and we offset emissions from employee travel.
* We are members and sponsors of sustainable business groups and environmental non-profit organizations.

Look at other companies in the area. Are they selling green products but not acting in a sustainable way? Are they only pushing legislation that has a direct financial benefit for them? Look around in the solar field. Do the local installers you know walk the environmental walk? Is their care for the environment solely wrapped in the package of solar panels they want to sell you or does it go a little deeper? Look at the ownership and associations of these companies. Do they share your views on the environment and sustainability?

I don't know the answers to these questions, but looking through my solar goody bag, I suspect that the public may be surprised by the variety of approaches (or lack thereof) to sustainability in the clean energy world. There are many great companies out there. But not all are committed to a cleaner environment to the same degree. It's important for environmentally conscious consumers to know who or what is standing behind those nifty green solar panels.

Time to take another look at small wind

I've been in the clean energy field for close to ten years, and I've had a pretty bearish view on small wind's potential in the Maryland area. The problem was that there was a huge gap in the available technology in this area. There were tiny 2.4 kilowatt (KW) turbines, good only really for a home, and then nothing of significance until you hit the big 1.5 megawatt (MW) utility scale turbines. Now, the situation has changed.

I was at a wind energy conference in Baltimore this week, and heard about companies installing all kinds of different sized turbines. There are 10 KW, 20 KW, and even 100 KW machines that are being used commercially. This means that you can now install turbines to power farms, schools, small businesses, and large businesses. That opens up a whole new market for wind in Maryland and elsewhere. If we do things right, we could see these mid sized turbines springing up all over the state, but especially on the Eastern Shore and Southern Maryland. We can see small "Community" scale wind farms made up of these medium turbines feeding clean energy into our grid.

This is a very positive development. Not only does small wind produce clean energy, it is much easier to get built than large utility scale wind. There is much less opposition and the permitting process appears to be easier. Also, small wind provides distributed power, in parts of the region closer to our large population centers. Don't get me wrong. I am all for large wind projects in western Maryland or offshore. But I'm also for speed, for a quick conversion to clean energy. Small, community sized projects may provide us facts on the ground immediately. We don't have to wait.

Small wind needs help, however. The Maryland Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) provides incentives for energy companies to buy wind and other clean, renewable energy sources. But the incentive is not enough to bring on the level of small wind projects we need. The incentive in the RPS needs to be more like the incentive in the Solar "carve out" in the RPS. I don't have space to explain what a Renewable Energy Credit (REC) is, (check out www.cleancurrents.com), but it's the primary tool that acts as the incentive to build clean energy to meet an RPS. The REC price for wind is currently around $1 or $2, while the REC price for solar is $300. If we allowed small wind systems (say, projects under 10 MW) to be part of the solar carve-out, and hence to raise the value of the small wind REC to that of the solar REC, we'd see an explosion of new wind development in Maryland. We'd see community wind energy developers bring new jobs to the state. The current explosion in solar that's bringing new solar jobs and new solar companies to the state would happen in the small wind area. I think our elected leaders should consider adding small wind to the solar carve out. Small wind is ready for the prime time, and Maryland should welcome it with open arms.

How Green Should a Utility Be?

I'm really not sure how I feel about utilities in Maryland trying to appear environmentally conscious. Sounds weird, I know. Don't get me wrong. I'm all for anything that decreases our addiction to fossil fuels and helps fight climate change. But I don't know if it's good that Maryland utilities promote their "green" agenda, when it seems that most of the "green" they are doing is simply complying with state law and is on the ratepayers dime. Let me elaborate.

The utilities in Maryland are a strange beast. They are neither a government entity, nor a truly private company in the standard sense of the word. Unlike other private companies, their maximum profits are determined by a government agency (the Public Service Commission), but in exchange they do not have to worry about losing money. They do not acquire customers like a normal for-profit business. They are assigned a given territory. If you live or your office is in that territory, you automatically become their customer. If they want to make an investment in infrastructure, to improve operations or better serve their "customers," they need to get approval from the PSC, the government board. They have certain programs (ie. efficiency) they must run because of state law, yet they get to recoup every dollar they spend from every ratepayer in their territory. Despite all this, they are considered "for profit," and actually have shareholders/investors.

Thus, the utilities have jumped on the green bandwagon and are extolling their commitment to a greener world. If you don't think their green image is important to them, just check out this report by Pepco Holdings, owner of one of the state's utilities.

Why is it important for them to brag to investors and others about being green? Because it increases the value of the brand, and thus increases the company value for shareholders.

This is where it gets weird. When a utility in Maryland offers energy efficiency incentives, is that something they should get credit for, or get to brag about as a "green measure?" When they simply comply with the law passed by the state of Maryland, is that a "green" initiative? It's not so clear. A normal company would be using its own money to pay for a program it offers, and thus get to take credit for it, but really it should be something that is above and beyond the minimum requirement of the law, no? But if a utility in Maryland is using ratepayer money to fund the program, what exactly is that utility doing to go above and beyond business as usual?

For example, if Pepco spends money to sponsor something like Bethesda Green, does that money come from their profit or does it come from the Pepco ratepayers? It's really hard to tell. Bethesda Green is a worthy group to sponsor, don't get me wrong. Clean Currents is a proud sponsor. But we don't get to automatically recoup the money we spend on the sponsorship from a captured audience. When a utility does sponsor a worthy cause, should it be allowed to put its logo on the promotional material and get the PR benefit? I don't know. If the utility is using ratepayer money to fund the donation, I think the answer should be "no."

Pepco recently put a link to a carbon calculator on its web site. Ok. Not sure what the point is, but I sort of get it. A calculator only makes sense if it leads to direct action to reduce carbon. The question is, however, did the ratepayers pay to put that calculator up or did it come from Pepco's profits? I don't know the answer.

I don't pretend to know all the ins and outs of how the utilities operate. But I think that's sort of the point. There is such a huge gray, undefined area of what a utility can do as this strange beast somewhere between private and public. The best thing to do is to follow the model in DC and Delaware, where the state and district set up a separate Sustainable Energy Utility (SEU). The SEU gets to run all the green programs, using the ratepayers money instead of the utilities doing it. This way, you don't have the ratepayers funding the increased brand value of a private company. You don't have the ratepayers funding the creation of a "green" brand to compete with companies that are in fact truly green.

Public policy, or the public good, is best served by having a neutral party disseminate public funds with an equal playing field for everyone. Putting a semi-for profit company, with an agenda to increase shareholder value in charge of disbursing public funds is not the best way to approach things. If the utilities want to be green, that would be great. But they should do it on their own dime, and they should take actions that go well above and beyond the basic requirements of the law.