Get the best of GreenBiz delivered to you -- GreenBuzz e-news

Blogs

Strategic Steps

Unlocking the value of your company's sustainability strategy
By Ellie Moss

Two common problems hold back sustainability strategies in companies. These tools can help you overcome them.

...Read More


Does sustainability need a new competitive approach?
By Eric Lowitt

To make an impact with the C-suite, think about taking a "Trojan Horse" approach to sustainability. 

...Read More
Sponsored Content

FORTUNE Brainstorm GREEN: Sustainable Solutions May 19-21, 2014


Brainstorm GREEN is a community of leaders in sustainability—CEOs, investors, policy makers, NGOs, thought leaders and VCs—who explore emerging trends, debate, work collaboratively on actionable solutions, and build enduring relationships. Join us and transform your company. Register Here.


Energy Solutions

11 innovative companies giving energy storage a jolt
By Garrett Hering

Tackling problems from every angle, these diverse and forward-thinking companies are planning a future with plentiful energy.

...Read More


EDF sparks Clean Energy Program in 9 states
By Cheryl Roberto

In Minnesota, New Jersey, California and beyond, business leaders are achieving important victories in the fight for a smarter energy system....Read More

Sponsored Content

SQF Certification for Food Packaging


SAI Global, SQF Certification Body of the Year, is hosting a live webinar presented by Senior Food Safety Consultant Dr. Bob Strong. Topics include the requirements of SQF, an including an introduction to SQF Packaging and a roadmap to becoming certified. Do not miss this opportunity to get information direct from one of the Food Safety industries foremost experts on SQF. Click here for more information


Focus on Earth Day

Earth Day and the polling of America 2014
By Joel Makower

The economy is back. Are Americans finally interested in environmental issues? My eighth annual round-up of public opinion....Read More



Between a shale rock and a hard place: How I grew to love Earth Day
By Patrick McVeigh

Go ahead, enjoy a day of feeling green without the guilt. Here's how to put the planet's perils into perspective....Read More

 
Sponsored Content

Help Shape the Future of Sustainable Purchasing


Join leaders from government, corporations, standards organizations, academia and NGOs at the Sustainable Purchasing Leadership Council's 2014 Annual Meeting May 20-21 at the Washington DC Convention Center to help define a program of guidance, measurement, and recognition for organizational leadership in sustainable purchasing. Register Today


White Papers

  • Creating Healthier Furniture and Building Materials by Minimizing Chemical Emissions
  • Driving Performance and Transparency in Green Building Products
  • Transparency and the Role of Environmental Product Declarations
  • 2014 The Product Mindset
  • 2014 Energy and Sustainability Predictions
  • Can You Save Millions with Sustainable Packaging Design?
  • NAEM Trends Report: Planning for a Sustainable Future
  • The Sleeping Giant: When Energy Prices Awake
  • Selecting an EMIS Top 10
  • EHS Management Information Systems (EMIS) - Getting Started
  • EMIS Design
  • Environmental Health & Safety (EHS) Data Management in a Post Merger and Acquisition Environment
  • E2's EMIS Return on Investment (ROI) Approach
  • A Tactical and Practical Approach (TAPA) to Developing a Defensible and Manageable Sustainability Program
  • Why create an EMIS Strategic Plan?
  • Automating Global Regulatory Compliance
  • Build vs. Buy
  • Project Financing Cheat Sheet
  • Guide to Energy, Carbon and Sustainability Software
  • Six growing trends in corporate sustainability

  • April 22, 2014
    GreenBuzz
     
     
     
    Upcoming Events
    2014: The Year of the Battery - Taking Batteries from Bottleneck to Breakthrough
    Wed, Apr 23
    Fremont CA

    Symposium on Cleantech Innovations in the Commercial Building Sector
    Wed, Apr 23
    San Francisco CA

    EcoWomen 10th Anniversary Gala
    Thu, Apr 24
    Washington DC

    "Climate Change Demands We Change. Why Aren't We?"
    Thu, Apr 24 - Fri, Apr 25
    New York

    Sustainable Brands Rio
    Thu, Apr 24 - Fri, Apr 25
    Rio de Janeiro


    » Post An Event
    » More Events
    Green Jobs & Careers
    Enrollment Specialist
    Alameda, CA

    Fund Administrator
    Portsmouth, NH

    Project Lead
    Seattle, WA

    Writer/Researcher Intern
    Scottsdale, AZ

    CEO
    Washington, DC

    » Post A Job
    » Browse All Jobs
    » Green Career Resources
    Talk to GreenBiz: Have a story idea, insider tip, favorite resource to share? Send it to us
    Become a Sponsor
    Reach tens of thousands of businesses every month by placing your ad here. Contact us to receive more information.

    © 2014 GreenBiz Group - GreenBiz.com® is a registered trademark of GreenBiz Group Inc, Oakland, CA USA
    © GreenBiz Group Inc. All rights reserved.

    Made in America: Staggering amounts of toxic chemicals

    Published April 16, 2014
    Made in America: Staggering amounts of toxic chemicals

    Recent spills in West Virginia and North Carolina cast a spotlight on toxic hazards in our midst. But as bad as they are, these acute incidents pale in scope compared to the chronic flow of hazardous chemicals coursing through our lives each day with little notice and minimal regulation. A new report by EDF, "Toxics Across America," tallies billions of pounds of chemicals in the American marketplace that are known or strongly suspected to cause increasingly common disorders, including certain cancers, developmental disabilities and infertility.

    While it's no secret that modern society consumes huge amounts of chemicals, many of them dangerous, it is surprisingly difficult to get a handle on the actual numbers. And under current law, it's harder still to find out where and how these substances are used, although we know enough to establish that a sizeable share of them end up in one form or another in the places where we live and work.

    The new report looks at 120 chemicals identified by multiple federal, state and international officials as known or suspected health hazards. Using the latest, albeit limited, data collected by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EDF identifies which are in commerce in the U.S.; in what amounts they are being made; which companies are producing or importing them; and where they are being produced or imported. An interactive online map accompanying the report lets the user access the report's data and search by chemical, company, state and site location.

    Overwhelming findings

    At least 81 chemicals on the list are produced or imported to the U.S. annually in amounts of 1 million pounds or more. At least 14 exceed 1 billion pounds produced or imported annually, including carcinogens such as formaldehyde and benzene, and the endocrine disruptor bisphenol A (BPA). More than 90 chemicals on the list are found in consumer and commercial products. At least eight are used in children's products.

    Our interactive map shows these chemicals are produced or imported in all parts of the country, in 45 states as well as the Virgin Islands. Companies with sites in New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania and Texas reported producing or importing at least 40 listed chemicals.

    Gas pump image by Chailalla via Shutterstock

    Top 5 states with the most sites:

    1. Texas — 91 sites
    2. Ohio — 40
    3. Pennsylvania — 39
    4. Louisiana — 36
    5. New York — 31

    Top 5 companies with the most chemicals

    1. BASF — 24 chemicals
    2. Dow — 23
    3. DuPont — 12
    4. Lanxess —12
    5. ICC Industries and Solvchem (tie) — 10

    Top 5 chemicals by volume

    1. Ethylene dichloride — 28.1 billion pounds/year
    2. Benzene — 23.7
    3. Vinyl chloride — 16.7
    4. Toluene — 15.1
    5. Styrene — 10.2

    Missing pieces

    While the report shows how deeply toxic chemicals are embedded in U.S. commerce, the chemicals identified represent just part of the story. Companies making or importing up to 12.5 tons of a chemical at a given site do not need to report at all. Others claim their chemical data is confidential business information, masking it from public disclosure. EPA collects the data only every four years, and chemical companies often don't know and aren't required to find out where or how the chemicals they make are being used.

    Water bottles image by Steven Depolo via FlickrMost Americans assume that somebody is regulating these chemicals. In fact, thanks to loopholes in federal law, officials are virtually powerless to limit even chemicals we know or have good reason to suspect are dangerous, such as those featured in our report. Because none of us has the power to avoid them on our own, we need stronger safeguards that protect us from the biggest risks and give companies that use these chemicals a reason to look for better alternatives.

    The good news is that Congress is working on bipartisan legislation that — if done right — would require greater evidence of safety for both chemicals already in use and new chemicals before they enter the market. And by driving development of and access to more chemical safety data, it would give not only government but also product makers and consumers much more of the information they need to identify and avoid dangerous chemicals, and strengthen incentives to develop safer alternatives.

    This article first appeared in EDF Voices: People on the Planet and is reprinted with permission. Environmental Defense Fund chemical policy fellow Alissa Sasso co-authored this article and the report it covers. Chemicals image by KYTan via Shutterstock.



    Studio C: APP's Aida Greenbury on tackling deforestation

    Published April 16, 2014


    When Asia Pulp & Paper (APP) announced a pledge to protect millions of acres of land from deforestation, it caught the attention of corporations and environmentalists the world over. In this Studio C video from GreenBiz Forum 2014, APP's managing director, Aida Greenbury, discusses the importance of partnerships with Greenpeace and other major players to turn this ambitious plan into reality. "We cannot work alone," she said. "To tackle deforestation and protect forests, we need help from a lot of other people."

     

     

    California Energy Commission's Robert Weisenmiller on the future

    Published April 16, 2014
    California Energy Commission's Robert Weisenmiller on the future

    This story first appeared at Energy Efficiency Markets.

    Before its retirement in 2012, the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station (SONGS) represented about 16 percent of the local electricity generation supply covering an average of 1.4 million homes serviced by Southern California Edison, San Diego Gas & Electric and the city of Riverside in southern California. The plant was especially important because of its location on a critical transmission path between Orange County and San Diego. As a result, its closure created a shortage of electricity and a shortage of voltage support that is necessary to move power between Los Angeles and southern Orange County/San Diego.

    Reid Smith of Energy Efficiency Markets interviewed Robert Weisenmiller, chairman of the California Energy Commission, about what the retirement means to energy efficiency markets in California.

    Reid Smith: Earlier this month, the CPUC decided to replace much of the energy from the retired SONGS with new energy efficiency capacity. Can you give me some background about how and why this decision came about?

    CPUC chairman Robert WeisenmillerRobert Weisenmiller: Following SCE's announcement of its intentions to retire San Onofre, the California energy agencies examined Southern California reliability issues exacerbated by the short-term closure and permanent retirement of San Onofre. A preliminary plan was prepared by the staff of the member organizations and discussed at a public workshop conducted by the energy commission in September. The plan relies upon a mix of resource additions and transmission system upgrades in the appropriate Southern California regions.

    Resource additions can help mitigate against reliability threats as a result of growing loads. These include pursuit of additional capacity with a goal of 50 percent preferred resources and 50 percent conventional generation with triggers and contingency plans if any of these resources do not come to fruition. The 50 percent level was an increase over what was approved for SCE in December 2012.

    The recommended reliance upon 50 percent preferred resources is acknowledged to require changes from business as usual, and current EE and DR programs will need to be reformed and expanded to meet the targets. The CPUC decision is the next step forward toward the 50 percent preferred resources as outlined in the Joint Southern California Reliability Plan.

    Smith: What does this decision mean for the energy efficiency market in California?

    Weisenmiller: This decision reinforces California's historic and ongoing commitment to invest in energy efficiency. It will enhance that market by increasing opportunities for energy efficiency providers and ratepayers when it comes to energy efficiency upgrades that save energy and money. This is especially critical in the Southern California area that was served by SONGS. For the first time, California is trying to pursue these preferred resources in very specific geographical areas.

    Smith: Specifically, the CPUC decision requires SCE and SDG&E to procure capacity from preferred resources or energy storage. What are these preferred resources and why are they preferred over other resources?

    Weisenmiller: The collaborating agencies worked with SCE and SDG&E to develop a comprehensive blueprint to ensure reliability while balancing carbon-reduction strategies to help fight climate change. One of the recommendations included targeting 3,250 MW of preferred resources — including local energy efficiency, demand response, renewable generation and storage —- to meet approximately 50 percent of needs. The only way to meet energy needs of a growing population and recovering economy in the face of climate change and loss of power plants is to create a balanced portfolio of preferred and conventional resources. These recommendations were then refined in the CPUC proceeding.

    Smith: Does this decision differ from decisions in the past about how to replace retired generation capacity? How so?

    Weisenmiller: California's energy resource loading order policy that provides a higher priority to investment in energy efficiency, demand response, renewable energy and distributed generation (preferred resources — localized solar PV, fuel cells, energy storage, combined heat and power systems, etc.) than investing in natural gas power plants (conventional resources) and electricity system upgrades to meet California's growing electricity demand. The state is committed to investing in cost-effective low-environmental impact preferred energy resources. Electricity reliability is of the utmost importance and with the closure of SONGS, a combination of preferred and conventional energy resources is necessary. This is a unique opportunity to fundamentally transform the electricity system in southern California as we work to meet our energy and environmental goals.

    SONGS image by Jason Hickey via FlickrSmith: Will energy efficiency capacity procurement be more common in California and across the country as a way to meet energy demand in the future?

    Weisenmiller: Yes. Preferred resources will play an increasing role in California's energy future.

    Smith: The energy commission released a report in January that looked at how to replace energy from SONGS with energy efficiency resources. Did this report influence the CPUC decision in March? How closely did the Energy Commission and CPUC work together?

    Weisenmiller: The energy commission and CPUC worked closely over the last year. The partnership encompassed several agencies and solicited public input. However, the CPUC decision was based upon the evidentiary record in its proceeding.

    Smith: Who came together, in addition to the energy commission and CPUC, in order to make this decision? Utility partners, policy-makers, business owners, etc.?

    Weisenmiller: The energy commission, the CPUC, Air Resources Board, the California Independent System Operator, State Water Resources Control Board and Southern California Air Quality Management District collaborated as a cross-agency working group. Public input was also important and the group spent months gathering and analyzing information. As discussed above, the CPUC commissioners unanimously adopted their decision based upon their evidentiary record.

    Smith: Is there anything you would have liked to have seen in the CPUC decision? Any improvements in future years?

    Weisenmiller: The agencies will track progress in acquiring the portfolio of preferred and conventional resources, and may further refine these programs in future years.

    Smith: In the next year, what are you most excited about for the energy efficiency industry in California?

    Weisenmiller: In early 2014, the energy commission released its Integrated Energy Policy Report that focused on strategies and actions to increase the energy efficiency of new and existing buildings. We are excited about:

    1. The rollout of the Prop. 39 programs to retrofit California schools so dollars can be shifted from paying energy bills to funding education.
    2. Implementing new building efficiency standards (Title 24) in July.
    3. Continuing the public dialogue under AB 758 on the best ways to achieve deep retrofits to existing buildings.
    4. Developing and approving new appliance standards to conserve both energy and water.

    The original version of this story mistakenly referred to the subject as the chairman of the California Public Utilities Commission. That error has been corrected. Sunrise image by Chuck Abbe via Flickr.



    Meet the world's first chief resilience officer: Patrick Otellini

    Published April 16, 2014
    Meet the world's first chief resilience officer: Patrick Otellini

    This month, San Francisco’s first earthquake czar broke ground by stepping into the role of the world’s first Chief Resilience Officer.

    Patrick Otellini brings a background in public policy and extensive knowledge of the city’s inner workings. After spending a decade in the private sector managing complex planning, building and fire code issues, he moved to City Hall. Otellini was first appointed to the city’s forward-thinking Soft Story Task Force, convened by then-Mayor Gavin Newsom. In 2012, he was named by Mayor Ed Lee as the Director of Earthquake Safety, which he will continue to oversee in his newly expanded role.

    Otellini’s position is the first of 99 others to be filled in cities around the world, part of the Rockefeller Foundation’s 100 Resilient Cities Centennial Challenge. Their $100 million investment will fund 100 chief resilience officers in selected cities, along with a suite of other services in an effort to build future-proof cities.

    Regardless whether you live in one of Rockefeller's selected 100, Otellini's insights are bound to shed light into what the burgeoning movement means for resilience in your city.

    Shana Rappaport: You’ve been hired to make San Francisco the most resilient city. What statement does it make that the role of chief resilience officer is coming to cities around the world?

    Patrick Otellini: I think it’s starting to bring to a global platform what we’ve known locally for a long time. We saw it after [Hurricane] Katrina in New Orleans, and after several other disasters, that it isn’t about surviving anymore, about just making it through the disaster. It’s about recovery, it’s about thriving after the disaster.

    Rappaport: How does the role of a chief resilience officer for a city differ from that of a chief sustainability officer — or, in San Francisco’s case, the head of the Department of Environment?

    Otellini: It’s different because resiliency is an all-encompassing term. At some point, it actually becomes such an encompassing term that it’s very hard to define. It’s not just sustainability. It’s not just seismic safety. It’s not just energy assurance. It’s all of these things together. I think we’ll see CROs serving as point people for other departments doing the work. The nice thing is that it’s not my job to be the expert on sea level rise. It’s my job to know what our city experts are saying, and to help them coordinate not just regionally but nationally, even internationally.

    Rappaport: How is your definition of long-term resilience expanding to encompass both one-time disasters — like the earthquakes [for] which we’re especially at risk here in the Bay Area — as well as the longer-term things like sea-level rise and other climate-related disruptions for which we need to be planning?

    Otellini: I think my personal definition of resilience is actually less important than what the community’s definition of resilience is. That’s something, in fact, San Francisco has done very well: looking to the community to define what it means to make our city more resilient. We’ve heard loud and clear that it’s not only seismic safety, about making sure we’re prepared for the big one, but also things like energy assurance, like protecting our infrastructure, like rebuilding our city’s seawall to be able to adapt to climate change — all these things are major concerns.

    Rappaport: What are some examples of places that exemplify resilience? Are there other cities or models you’ll be looking to in crafting the resilience plan for San Francisco?

    Otellini: If you take a national lens, I think it’s really interesting to look at places like New Orleans that have, after being so devastated, really banded together as a community to create a resilience strategy. There’s no easy solution to handle the kind of challenges they face. What’s coming out of New Orleans is really exciting and cutting edge, as far as resiliency goes.

    Internationally, the city of Rotterdam has done a lot to address resilience. Their whole city is below sea level, so they’ve had to deal with climate change faster than anybody else. In the not-so-distant future, we may very well be implementing in the Bay Area some of the same technologies they’re using.

    It’s things like this that get me really excited. The answers are out there; it’s just a matter of talking to the right folks and learning the lessons they have already. And then, of course, trying to implement them as efficiently as possible.

    Rappaport: What’s the big picture opportunity you see for the private sector in creating a resilient city and how you plan to engage them?

    Otellini: There are huge opportunities for the private sector. Think back to 10 years ago, before people were really considering LEED-rated buildings [Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design]. It was kind of obscure, until the community started saying to developers and owners, “If I’m going to rent this building, and you want to have me as a corporate tenant, it better be LEED-rated.” That started to drive change within the community.

    I’d like to see the private sector respond that same way on the bigger picture of resilience: Not just demanding a LEED-rated building, but one that’s seismically safe, energy efficient outside of the LEED requirements and more.

    It also comes down to the basic issue of continuity — about whether businesses are going to be able to maintain their operations in a post-disaster environment, about how quickly they can get up and running after one. Ensuring systems have emergency power to operate, these are resilience challenges and opportunities where I think it makes sense financially for the private sector to be involved. There’s a huge advantage for business to embrace this — as well as government.

    These efforts have to take place in our communities: we’re bolstering up our own city infrastructure, we’re retrofitting our own buildings, and we’re asking the private sector to respond the same way. As long as we’re walking in lockstep with one another, it’s a very consistent message. These issues are really critical, especially with the tech boom happening here in San Francisco. Most of these tech businesses cannot afford to be offline for 24 hours.

    One of the things that we like to advertise to our private-sector partners is a program called BORP. It’s a program run out of the Department of Building Inspection, and it stands for Building Occupancy Resumption Program (PDF). In a major earthquake, this program allows businesses, before the earthquake happens, to have a structural engineer of their choosing do an evaluation of the building. After the event, they can self-deploy a green, yellow or red tag to jump the queue of inspections and get back into business as quickly as possible.

    Rappaport: What are some of the models you’re seeing of cities and companies working together strategically to bolster resilience? What do you think it will take to effectively share, replicate and scale those models across cities?

    Otellini: Well, more broadly, one of the things that really excites me about the Resilient Cities Challenge is that Rockefeller has established a couple of key, private-sector platform providers to provide services to all these cities, essentially for free. In a municipality, we get inundated with people coming through the door saying, “I have the best new product for you. I have this great thing that can help make your life easier.” You hear it so often that you begin to become desensitized to what their actual goal is.

    Having identified partners provide some normalcy to the process — beginning to use a common language, in a common platform — is going to be very valuable to achieve our goals. I think this is hugely important and a really exciting part of the resilience effort.

    Rappaport: What are some of the most significant barriers you envision having to overcome?

    Otellini: Building capacity in the community is a difficult thing; it’s very hard to initiate substantial behavior change. Take the simple example of recycling: just getting people to separate trash takes years, plus a culture of everybody being focused on that behavior change. That’s a small example of what we need to do on a much bigger scale, which is challenging because people don’t like to think about long-term or abstract problems. Especially when considering our hard-to-reach, vulnerable populations in the community — these are folks that are focused on making sure there’s a meal on the table, not, “What am I going to do in the 72 hours after an earthquake?” That’s too big of an issue for them to tackle.

    Taking resilience out of the academic world and making it tangible for people in their day-to-day life, that’s probably the biggest challenge we face. To create an effective paradigm shift is no easy task.

    Rappaport: What are your thoughts on the role of fear in engaging citizens and bolstering resilience? How can we better engage city stakeholders — whether it’s businesses, citizens, city folks — in resilience efforts?

    Otellini: I definitely try not to use fear tactics; I think it is dangerous and can backfire. For example, earthquake messaging for the last several decades has been really doom and gloom — "The big one’s coming. Everyone’s gonna die." But we’ve backed off that. Now we talk about being prepared, about knowing and building a network with your neighbors.

    That said, I think fear has its place. If you see a map where half of the city you know and love is underwater because of sea-level rise, or is in ruins from an earthquake, that’s certainly going to make you start thinking. But in the long term, I think the most effective strategy for behavior change is to approach it in a much more accessible way, one that people can respond to positively, as opposed to out of fear.

    Rappaport: Let’s imagine you and I talk again five years from now. What do you hope to have accomplished?

    Otellini: That’s a great question, especially because we really want — and need — to be thinking about big picture items. If I’m shooting for the stars here, I would love to see us have a comprehensive strategy for rebuilding our sea wall.

    That is not an easy fix, but in San Francisco that’s one of our key vulnerabilities. It is seismically unsafe and not ready to handle what we plan to be ready for, including adapting to climate change, as far as sea-level rise goes. It has all of our major lifeline utilities passing through it. It has the Trans-Bay Tube passing through it. Talk about an Achilles’ heel of our city; in my personal opinion, it’s the sea wall. Five years from now, if we can say we have a plan and action items to address it, I think that will be huge for San Francisco.



    Inside Panasonic's B2B energy play

    Published April 16, 2014
    Inside Panasonic's B2B energy play

    Panasonic wields enormous influence globally when it comes to technologies for energy-efficient lighting, refrigeration, heating, air-conditioning and renewable energy production.

    One not-so-subtle reminder: The first thing you may notice at Panasonic's new North America headquarters is the logo-splashed Tesla electric vehicle parked strategically near the front door. That's because Panasonic's Japanese parent company supplies lithium-ion batteries for the Tesla Roadster, Model S and soon the Model X, with a 2-billion-unit commitment over the next four years.

    Many of those forward-moving technologies are alive in that 340,000-square-foot building. Leading architecture firm Gensler designed the Newark, N.J. structure, which Panasonic's U.S. operating unit hopes will reduce its carbon footprint by at least 50 percent compared with its previous facility 10 minutes away. Panasonic has applied for a Platinum LEED certification covering the interior and a Gold certification for the exterior.

    "The move was engineered specifically to live the commitment to the principles of the company, which are around innovation and collaboration and sustainability," said Betty Noonan, chief marketing officer for Panasonic North America.  

    That mantra is being sounded more loudly across the company as Panasonic's 100-year anniversary approaches in 2018 — and as it seeks to diversify away from the increasingly cutthroat (and low-margin) consumer electronics business. Each operating company around the world is encouraged to interpret the eco-mandate in ways most relevant for their unique geographies, Noonan said.

    Exhibit A: Panasonic recently adopted a hazard pay policy for workers stationed in polluted Chinese cities.

    In the United States, the combined sustainability, innovation and collaboration mandate has lead the company's Eco Solutions group to assume a relatively unique role: one focused on end-to-end management of renewable energy projects for commercial, government and industrial customers.

    "My mandate is solution-oriented in that we are focused not on products per se, but in development, engineering, project integration and financing, backend asset management and service," said Jamie Evans, managing director of Panasonic Eco Solutions North America, which reports both to the U.S. operating unit and a global division run out of Osaka, Japan. "That enables us to offer a more customized and innovative message."

    A business-to-business powerhouse

    Even though the Panasonic brand is well established with consumers, it actually carries even more weight in business-to-business (B2B) channels. According to Noonan, almost 85 percent of the company's annual revenue comes from B2B contracts related to digital signage, avionics, automotive and other industrial applications, not to mention its substantial footprints in lighting controls, energy-efficient appliances and refrigeration equipment, HVAC equipment and solar modules.

    Against that backdrop, Panasonic's quest in North America to woo small developers, building management companies and commercial customers makes sense. In early April, the unit created a new organization called Panasonic Enterprise Solutions Company that will oversee both Eco Solutions as well as Audio/Visual projects, as well as combinations of technologies from both.

    "More than ever, our customers are relying on our ability to deliver integrated solutions that are both creative and made-to-order," said Jim Doyle, named to head the company after serving in the same role for Eco Solutions. "Ultimately, our goal is to engineer custom solutions, by partnering with customers to achieve results that leverage our experience, high-end products, onsite services and engineering know-how."

    To date, Eco Solutions — in collaboration with strategic partner Coronal Group — has been involved with roughly 50 solar energy projects that are in varying states of completion, Evans said.

    Examples range from the 498-kilowatt ground-mounted display for the University of Colorado at Boulder to a multi-phased arrangement with retail real estate investment trust Macerich that could yield more than 10 megawatts of clean energy capacity across shopping centers in Arizona, California, New York and Connecticut. A new joint venture with Global Investment Renewable will accelerate development of municipal projects. "We're now looking to bring an efficiency and velocity to building and financing these deals," Evans said.

    The recent reorganization also will sharpen Panasonic's focus on installations using high-definition LED technologies. The company actually is behind the world's biggest outdoor video display project to date, at the Texas Motor Speedway: the board has an active display area of 20,633 square feet. Panasonic is also behind a similar display at Churchill Downs, home to the famous Kentucky Derby, Noonan said.

    Given Panasonic's extensive battery business and its planned experiments with solar and energy storage in Japan, in places such as the Fujisawa Smart Town, which is now under construction, I asked Evans if the U.S. Eco Solutions team will focus on energy storage or energy efficiency initiatives. For now, that's not a priority. "Energy efficiency and batteries and some other capabilities are ones that we are having discussions about at a strategic level and thinking about," he said.

    Walking the talk

    You can see myriad demonstrations of Eco Solutions technologies and sustainable design principles in action at the 12-story new building in Newark, corporate base for about 800 employees.

    Daylight harvesting sensors and controls are used throughout the workspace, while up to 90 percent of the offices and cubicles on any given floor have access to natural lighting. Panasonic solar panels are used on the roof, and low-flow water fixtures and rainwater capture systems have reduced water usage by at least 37 percent vis a vis comparable buildings. Most of the on-site cafeteria is used for customer tours, because Panasonic refrigerators and appliances figure prominently in its green products portfolio. "We're trying to live the creed, live the things that we sell," Noonan said.

    Although the building has been occupied only since late summer 2013, Panasonic already has collected two sets of quarterly data measuring the new facility's energy consumption using ISO 14000 systems transferred from Secaucus, N.J. "As of December, we were about 52 percent under what we would have been," said David Thompson, Director of Corporate Environmental Department, Panasonic North America.

    Top image of the Panasonic booth at the 2014 Consumer Electronics Show by Kobby Dagan via Shutterstock



    Alissa Sasso

    Environmental Defense Fund
    Alissa Sasso is a chemical policy fellow at EDF. Alissa earned a BA in Ecology and Evolutionary Biology with a certificate in Environmental Studies from Princeton University.

    Reid Smith

    Reid Smith is a writer and editor based near Portland, Oregon.

    RMI: How applying Deep Retrofit Value makes for Better Buildings

    By Michael Bendewald
    Published April 15, 2014
    Email | Print | Single Page View
    Tags: Energy Efficiency, Retrofits
    RMI: How applying Deep Retrofit Value makes for Better Buildings

    Buildings consume more energy than any other sector — 42 percent of the nation's primary energy and 72 percent of its electricity. And at current trend and performance levels, fossil fuel use in commercial buildings will increase, not decrease, by 2050, when 65 percent of today's commercial square footage is predicted to be still standing.

    This is why in 2011 President Obama announced the Better Buildings Initiative and launched the Better Buildings Challenge to push CEOs, university presidents, state and local government leaders, building owners and others to commit their organizations to reduce their annual energy use by 20 percent over 10 years while showcasing the best energy-saving strategies and their results.

    Better Buildings has scored major wins in its first two years: More than 170 organizations are in the Better Buildings Challenge, committing more than 3 billion square feet of building floor space. With clear success garnering broad support for energy savings in the near term, the Better Buildings Initiative has driven the commercial and industrial sectors onto the path of mitigating climate change and reducing fossil fuel dependence.

    But to reach the finish line, commercial buildings must become closer to being 40 percent more energy efficient by 2050. Achieving these deeper levels of savings more broadly will require a scaling up of investment in energy efficiency. RMI's new practice guide on how to calculate and present value from deep energy retrofits can help drive that investment.

    The importance of value

    A 2012 Urban Land Institute survey underscored the importance of calculating and presenting value. It found that lack of demonstrated value was the leading impediment to greater adoption of building sustainability and proving that value at the property level the most important intervention.

    Thermostat image by Robert S. DonovanIn addition, a June 2013 survey of U.S. buildings sector executives by The Economist indicated that better valuing the "co-benefits" of energy efficiency — such as improved thermal comfort and tenant retention — would increase investment. While the most advanced building-owner decision makers already reference these values on an ad hoc basis, they typically are not taking them into account on a systematic, portfolio level. Attributing the value of the energy efficiency investments to the value of the portfolio can be difficult due to numerous factors that influence value. For example, the local economy can increase tenant demand for an office space just as well as greater comfort and efficiency.

    Scaling investment

    As a pre-condition to wide-scale capital investment by the private (and public) sectors, a complete set of value and risk considerations must be better integrated into retrofit decision-making practices. New decision-making practices in the real estate investment and lending mainstream are a powerful way to bring more capital to bear on a climate-change imperative.

    Better Buildings partners and other leaders are demonstrating energy efficiency investment methodologies that others can use, including appropriately acknowledging the value proposition. "Through the Better Buildings Challenge, our partners are leading by example and sharing their strategies with other organizations," said Maria T. Vargas, senior advisor and Better Buildings Challenge director at the Department of Energy. "By focusing on portfolio-wide improvements and showcasing real solutions, these organizations are helping to accelerate energy efficiency across the marketplace."

    To help the industry begin sorting through the value and risk considerations, Rocky Mountain Institute released a practice guide, "How to Calculate and Present Deep Retrofit Value for Owner-Occupants." You can use this report to rethink and even refine real estate energy strategies and retrofit decision making, to test enhanced retrofit strategies and to drive energy efficiency even deeper on new projects.

    Early wins

    The Better Buildings Initiative has made great progress in getting the U.S. commercial building sector on track for substantial energy savings through implementation of industry-tested strategies. For example, Better Buildings Challenge partners are saving on average 2.5 percent annually over the previous year's energy use, and have delivered more than 100 solutions that other organizations can adopt to achieve significant energy savings in their buildings.

    Thermostat image by Jiri Hera by ShutterstockIn some cases Better Buildings Challenge partners are achieving deeper levels of savings in already-efficient buildings. TIAA-CREF, a leading financial advisor that reduced energy intensity in its real estate investment portfolio by 15 percent by 2011, spent just over $6 per square foot ($1.01 million) on one 158,000-square-foot office building that was already in the top 10 percent in the U.S. for efficiency performance. The investment increased the building's Energy Star rating from 92 to 98, where a rating of 100 indicates the office building is the most energy efficient in the U.S. The retrofit will result in energy savings of 27 percent, or $89,000 annually.

    What's required to reach climate and energy goals

    The above examples show that energy efficiency pays off, and not only in energy cost savings. Leaders such as TIAA-CREF are investing in efficiency because it provides numerous benefits, including making the building more attractive to tenants and enhancing company reputation and leadership.

    The new RMI Deep Retrofit Value practice guide is intended to help others properly calculate and present the value of these benefits in order to rapidly accelerate energy efficiency investment. The first guide focuses on owner-occupants, and ensuing guides over the next two years will be tailored for investor-owners and lenders. These guides can help drive investment in efficiency helping the Better Buildings Initiative reach its important goal of reducing building energy use.

    This story first appeared at Rocky Mountain Institute's RMI Outlet.

    Building image by aini via Flickr.

    Tweet


    Tweet

    How Yerdle and Patagonia are boosting the sharing economy

    By Nikki Gloudeman
    Published April 15, 2014
    Email | Print | Single Page View
    Tags: Business Models, Consumer Products, More... Business Models, Consumer Products, Consumer Trends, Partnerships
    How Yerdle and Patagonia are boosting the sharing economy

    As the collaborative economy gains traction, partnerships have formed to bolster this waste-reducing trend that keeps products and services flowing through a shared loop. One collaboration gaining fresh notice involves Yerdle, an online marketplace for exchanged goods, and Patagonia, the mega-retailer of outdoor clothing and gear.

    The two first paired up in November for an anti-Black Friday event in San Francisco, during which items brought for sharing on Yerdle could be exchanged for a free item from Patagonia's pre-used Worn Wear collection. The same day, Worn Wear products also were put up for grabs on the Yerdle app.

    Since then, the two have continued to support one other's mutual interest in the burgeoning sharing economy. In addition to customers exchanging Patagonia goods on Yerdle, Patagonia contributes excess Worn Wear products from its warehouses. Meanwhile, Yerdle promotes these products to its customers. Currently, Yerdle hosts nearly 1,000 Patagonia products, which are among the 10 most popularly exchanged goods on the site. 

    Nellie Cohen, corporate environmental associate at Patagonia, says the collaboration provides natural synchronicity with the brand's aims. "What we're trying to do with Worn Wear is help our customers get the most out of stuff they already own," she said. "With Yerdle, we can further engage with customers in the sharing space."

    Here's why this partnership works — and how other companies can follow suit to participate in the growing collaborative economy.

    A mutually beneficial partnership

    Through their collaboration, both Yerdle and Patagonia have gained significant market advantages. Patagonia products, generally regarded to be of high quality, add cache to Yerdle's product stream. They also create what Andy Ruben, co-founder of Yerdle, calls a "flywheel effect"; when people see Patagonia products on the site, they're more inclined to add their own Patagonia items to the stream. 

    At the same time, Patagonia is able to showcase its commitment to durable, high-caliber products, reaching both new and existing customers who see that its products boast a long life cycle. In addition to exposure on the Yerdle site, customers frequently talk about Yerdle products on Pinterest, Facebook and other social media channels, further extending reach and brand loyalty.

    Jeremiah Owyang, chief catalyst at Crowd Companies, a council dedicated to helping companies tap into the collaborative economy, says the Yerdle partnership allows Patagonia to showcase a "commitment to sustainability by encouraging the sharing of used goods over buying anew, proof of durable goods, and proof of a thriving community around its brand."

    Both Yerdle and Patagonia are engaging with the collaborative economy movement in other ways as well. Each, for instance, works with ifixit — a global community of people helping each other fix things — to repair used items.

    Yerdle also works closely with other brands known for durable items, including the San Francisco-based bag company Timbuk2. "Similar to Patagonia, this company will stand behind its products, regardless of time since the initial purchase," Ruben said.

    The collaborative economy takes off

    The Yerdle-Patagonia partnership is one of many at the heart of a sharing economy movement that's reshaping how people interact with their stuff. The market has proliferated to include everything from pre-used products (led by sites such as Yerdle, Threadflip and, of course, ebay) to transportation services (Uber, Lyft, Sidecar) to places to stay (airbnb, HomeAway). A recent Crowd Companies survey revealed anticipated growth throughout the sharing economy between the end of 2013 and the end of 2014, including an anticipated 46 percent boost in the sharing of pre-owned goods. 

    There are multiple reasons this trend is taking off. Not having to purchase new products or services, of course, saves money. Environmental benefits include a reduction in waste and supply-chain impacts. And through sharing with others, customers gain a sense of community often lost in the traditional marketplace experience. 

    Beyond these advantages, the trend is also asking companies to rethink how they design products in the first place. "From a product lifestyle perspective, it comes down to how we are designing for reusability, and how we can ensure that the things we make as a brand live a really long life," Cohen said of Patagonia. 

    As the sharing economy grows, Ruben envisions other companies adopting a similar mentality. In the future, he says, we "will see brands spending more energy designing for hand-offs." 

    This kind of thinking will help not only brand loyalty and sustainability, but also customers engaging in the sharing process. The question, Ruben says, is this: "How many people can one Patagonia jacket keep warm?"

    Photo of second-hand fleece pants from Patagonia's Worn Wear collection via Instagram

    Tweet


    Syndicate content