How To Embed Sustainability Into Corporate Culture: A Cheat Sheet

August 16, 2011
Reprinted with permission
Copyright, all rights reserved

Derek Wong is a Toronto based sustainability consultant. He holds an Engineering degree from University of Melbourne and is a CSA America certified greenhouse gas professional. See contact info and more posts like this at Carbon49.com.

93% of CEOs see sustainability as important to their company’s future success, as found by a UN-Accenture study. But how does one embed sustainability into a company’s core culture? Dr. Stephanie Bertels of Simon Fraser University conducted one of the most extensive researches in this subject. Her findings in the 74-page reportare distilled into a core framework diagram. This cheat sheet will guide you through the key points.

How to use the framework diagram? The framework has 4 quadrants. To effectively embed sustainability into your corporate culture, you should have initiatives in all 4 quadrants. See below for an explanation for each quadrant along with example initiatives. If you are starting from zero, plan for small initiatives in all 4 quadrants. If you are already executing your initiatives, check to see if they cover all 4 quadrants and analyze for any gap.

Enlarge This Image

1. Fostering Commitment (Informal-Fulfillment)—Deliver existing sustainability commitments by motivating employees to get involved.

  • Host internal workshops and competitions
  • Include sustainability messages and success stories in communications
  • Include sustainability messages in hiring and reward staff for sustainability contribution
  • Share progress widely across the organization

2. Clarifying Expectations (Formal-Fulfillment)—Develop structures and procedures to implement current sustainability commitments.

  • Set measurable sustainability goals at organization level, department levels, and personal levels
  • Incorporate sustainability into organization’s vision and strategy
  • Expand existing roles or create new roles for sustainability responsibilities
  • Train staff on sustainable business practices
  • Link compensation to sustainability performance

3. Building Momentum For Change (Informal-Innovation)—Develop new ideas and new practices for the road ahead.

  • Form cross-functional champions team to seek innovative ideas from all levels
  • Crowd-source from suppliers or customers for ideas and collaborations
  • Share best practices across internal groups and at external industry events and publications

4. Instilling Capacity For Change (Formal-Innovation)—Formalize learning and process development

  • Play an official role in industry conferences and policy development
  • Benchmark progress with industry peers
  • Incorporate sustainability deeply into business processes and systems, e.g. implement environmental management systems (EMS)
  • Design new products and services that achieve industry leading levels of sustainability performance

How do your sustainability initiatives fit in to the framework? Share with us by leaving a comment below. More details of the framework are available at this website.

Clever Accounting Lets Utilities Cash In When You Go Solar

August 13, 2011
Re-printed with permission
Copyright, all rights reserved

I recently got a copy of a utility bill for a Minnesota business that has a 40-kilowatt (kW) solar PV array.  I wanted to learn how quickly he’d pay off his array with the electricity savings.

I was shocked.

Payback time was 30 years.  Even if the business owner had received a generous $2.00 per Watt rebate on top of federal tax incentives, it would still take 22 years for her to recoup her investment.  It all came down to the way utilities account for solar power under “net metering” rules.

A quick tutorial.  Net metering essentially lets a utility customer run their meter backward if they have an on-site electricity generator (like rooftop solar).  So, if I’m a commercial customer who uses 10,000 kilowatt-hours (kWh) a month but my solar panel generates 4,000 kWh, I only pay for the difference: 6,000 kWh.  This is supposedly a great deal, because rolling back the meter at the retail rate typically beats getting paid the utility’s “avoided cost” wholesale power rate — the rate the utility pays for more power from nearby power plants.

But the trick is how the meter rolls back.  You might think that your electricity bill has simple math: total electricity consumed times the rate per kWh used.  In the case of this business owner, that would have been a rate of 21 cents per kWh and a payback period for their solar array of just 9 years.

If you thought it was simple, you’d be wrong.

In this case, 12 percent of the electricity bill is taxes and fees.  And of the remaining 88 percent of the bill, 60 percent isn’t an energy charge per kWh, but a “demand charge,” which the solar PV array doesn’t affect.  So, the customer can “net meter” with their solar power array, but it only affects 35 percent of their total electric bill.

So, instead of rolling back their meter and saving 21 cents per kWh of electricity, this commercial customer actually receives about 5.4 cents per kWh, reflecting the energy charge portion of their bill (divided between an energy charge (41%), fuel cost charge (57%), and (tiny) environment improvement rider (2%)).  And net metering at that rate means a payback period of 30 years.

Net metering doesn’t do a whole lot for the customer’s bill, but it sure makes the utility happy.

With net metering, the utility treats solar PV electricity generation exactly the same as it would conservation or energy efficiency (with the exception that solar usually gets a more generous rebate).  And since both of these strategies are significantly less expensive than PV for reducing electricity demand, the customer loses out.

The customer loses, but the utility wins.

That’s because the energy charge doesn’t necessarily take into account the additional value that solar provides to the utility.  When working with the Palo Alto, CA, municipal utility, the CLEAN Coalition — a California renewable energy organization — found that solar PV was worth nearly 75 percent more than typical “brown power” because of its time of delivery (peak), avoided transmission access charges, renewable energy credits, and additional local value.  Similar calculations were also made in Ft. Collins, CO.  That means that instead of the 3-4 cents that utilities claim they pay for an additional kWh from a cheap coal or natural gas plant, solar is actually worth far more.

Accumulating solar PV and other distributed generation sources can also allow the utility to defer infrastructure upgrades and reduce stress on the distributed grid, especially when spread over a wide geographic area.

There are a few caveats.  The energy charge that individuals and businesses pay on the utility bill (5.4 cents in the case of the Minnesota business owner) may exceed what the utility pays for the power (there’s a markup in every business); even so, the structure of net metering means that the utility isn’t paying for the advantages of additional electricity generation, but only for delivering a bit less electricity.  The particularly poor economics for folks who go solar in Minnesota are also a factor of the state’s rate structure.  Minnesota has relatively low electricity prices with no time-of-use rates or consumption tiers that would allow solar PV to offset marginally higher rates.  Other states, like California, have rate structures such that net metering values are 15 to 20 cents per kWh, rather than 5 cents.

There’s much more to net metering rules than the price, but in Minnesota, and likely other states, it’s a rule that offers a lot to utilities and very little to ratepayers.  We can do better.

This post originally appeared on Energy Self-Reliant States, a resource of the Institute for Local Self-Reliance’s New Rules ProjectAuthor is responsible for all facts and data in this article.

The Next Logical Step in Solar PV Adoption

I recently ran a small, informal poll on a couple of solar (and related) online discussion groups, asking if respondents had installed solar on their own property, and if not, why not.

Results showed, without a doubt, the two most frequent reasons people had not already implemented solar were:  (1) the cost; and (2) they needed to learn more before investing.

Since solar on a national basis is still slow to catch on in the United States, let’s assume for a moment that the aforementioned two reasons are valid.  Now let’s see if we can find a solution that solves both problems.

Leasing:

Have you considered ‘leasing’ a Solar System for your home or office?

It’s a possibility.

Leasing a solar system is much like leasing a car or truck.  Someone else owns it.  Since you don’t own it, you don’t have to learn how to maintain it, install it, service it, or even understand it (though the last part is a good idea).  That off-loads much of the learning curve of solar system ownership.

As for the cost problem, the current trend in lease offering is that, if you qualify (i.e. your home has enough sun exposure, your community allows solar, your utility offers acceptable purchase rates, and a few other criteria which the leasing company will normally look into for you before spending much time on your account), the leasing company will usually charge you nothing to enter into the lease.  In other words, no up-front costs to you, ‘zero’.

For many lease programs the leasing company owns the equipment.  They pay a local installation company to install the system.  The system has a monitoring system built into it (which is inherently in most solar electric systems).  If something goes wrong, the system should notify them immediately so they can have a service provider stop by and fix the issue.  The leasing company sells 100% of the electricity produced by the solar system on your roof at a fixed rate, which they contract for in advance with the power utility.  The rate is set in that agreement.  The leasing company pays you for a portion of those dollars the solar system produces, using your portion as an offset of the utility bill you would have paid had you not leased the system.  This nets the lessee a reduced electric bill, not a check in the mail.  The leasing company keeps its share of the funds the utility pays for the electricity the solar system creates, which is needed to pay for the solar system, the installation, ongoing monitoring, and any servicing.

So, which is better — to own or lease?

As you can guess, “That depends.”

Leasing versus Owning:

If you like this simplified system (leasing), compared to having to expend effort to learn, understand, and take on the responsibilities of ownership, then leasing can probably get it done for you.

Obviously, you are not going to earn as much in income or savings on your electric bill compared to owning; but then again, you don’t have to worry about a major component failing, such as an inverter, which can run $250 or $6,000, or more, not including the costs to troubleshoot the problem, re-install the new unit, get a permit, and hire a certified electrician to do the work.  Personally, if I were to lease, I would want to know what those figures were before making a decision whether to buy or lease; and then put pencil-to-paper and see how it works out.

Not so obvious, a benefit of leasing is not having to be involved in choosing an installation company, which can be a nightmare all onto itself.  How do you tell which one is better?  Do you pick by who’s been around the longest or done the most installs?  Personally, I wouldn’t.  Do you go by who has the most certifications?  (Not me!)  Do you use separate contractors; one for the roofing integration part, another for the electrical wiring, and another for integrating the components?  (Not all solar installers are registered electricians…..).  With leasing, those decisions are left to the leasing company.  (If your roof leaks afterwards, or the lights go out, you have one organization to deal with.  Just make sure those terms are in your lease agreement documents.  If they aren’t, my recommendation is to add an addendum.)  It happens, whether you have solar or not.  Any of those things can happen whether you purchase or lease.  The question becomes, “Who’s liable?”  And that brings up the consideration of liability, which means insurance.  I suggest you have a conversation with your insurance agent.  Odds are, your agent will not have a lot of experience in solar coverage, so I would suggest getting the telephone number for the underwriting department at the insurance company and give them a call.  I would ask them, not just what it would cost to own or lease; but also, what’s the extent of the coverage they offer and the terms.  Ask to see the policy they would issue.

Considerations:

What if you want or need to sell your home before the end of a solar lease?  Is that potential issue covered in the lease documents?  Does the lease allow the new home owner to continue the existing lease; or, do they have to initiate a new lease?  Or, at the option of the new owner, can the lease be terminated, and the equipment removed at the leasing company’s expense?  How will the roof look if the system is removed?  Let’s admit it, if you need to relocate, and you need to get your house sold, the one thing you don’t want is a ‘deal breaker’ that a potential buyer doesn’t understand.  They might love the idea that solar is already installed or, they might not.

Considering the above information, you can probably see how leasing can eliminate a lot of expense and detail work, not to mention headaches.  For me, that’s where the value comes in.  I also believe that for many, not all, but many home or property owners, leasing is a viable option.  What would really make it nice in my opinion, is a lease with an option to purchase the system (a buy-out) in the future; say ten years as an example.  Or, perhaps limiting the term of the lease.  That way, the property owner would have the option to become acquainted with the system, become comfortable with it, and better understand further options.

A solar system is much like a furnace or water heater once it’s installed and working, you don’t much pay attention to it each day.  How many people do you know who visit their water heater or furnace every morning or night to ‘check on it’ or brag to the neighbors about how great it is?  Look at how much progress we have made in solar PV technology in the last ten years.  Micro Inverters are now the rage, and cost effective.  Monitoring companies and systems have evolved and are now very inexpensive.  Solar modules (the panels) have made huge strides in efficiency and price reductions.  You can only guess at how it will all change in the next ten years.  When it does, do you think you will want to continue to use the system you leased or purchased today; or, do you think you will want to up-grade sooner than twenty, thirty or forty years from now?  Remember how explosive the personal computer technology became in the 1990’s.  There was something new every six months, and a lot of new computers were sold, making the existing ones obsolete, very fast.

Conclusion:

So, do we have an answer to the question of whether to purchase or lease?  “Well, that depends…”  It’s a personal choice,  The best advice I can offer is to be aware of all your options, as many of the alternatives as possible, and walk through as many scenarios looking forward, as possible.

What I’ve covered in this brief article is not a complete list of considerations, by any means.  (However, I do believe it has covered a few you might be unaware of.)

Consider your options.  If the rates were ‘right’, the terms included my wants, and I could rest assured that any problems would be remedied to my satisfaction (as compared to the satisfaction of the other parties), I would strongly consider leasing.  It would keep local installers employed.  It would get me to my goals of a cleaner climate and reduced fossil fuel dependence quicker; and it would give me bragging rights in the neighborhood.  (That last one is a ‘guy thing’.)

 

Solar Hot Water Resources at Your Fingertips

URL:  http://shw.northernstatessolar.com/

Solar Hot Water Resources at Your Fingertips

Northern States Solar Services LLC (NSSS) has added a comprehensive national solar hot water resource directory at: http://shw.northernstatessolar.com. The directory is designed to make it fast and easy to find the resources needed for any solar hot water project.

Currently, more than 500 solar hot water resources are listed in 150+ categories.

This is the first online national directory for a rapidly growing sector of the renewable energy industry. “We spend our time and energy developing methods to bring together those who want to make informed decisions about solar and other renewable energies with those who have real, demonstrable, and dependable information,” said Richard Carter, founder of NSSSLLC. “Adding a directory is a natural extension of that mission.”

The NSSS Solar Hot Water Business Directory is inclusive, not exclusive. Basic listings in the directory are free of charge, so every solar hot water professional has the opportunity to increase visibility to its market.

Northern States Solar Services, founded in 2006, provides knowledge, information, and understanding of the technologies of Solar Energy Systems. This is accomplished through research, communication, consulting and presentations to various communities. NSSS is an independent research and reporting firm and does not offer products, installation, or maintenance services of solar systems.

Wisconsin’s Widening War on Renewable Energy

 

 

Dramatic slowdown in Wisconsin’s renewable energy market activity anticipated

 

 

What started out as an opening salvo from the Walker Administration to shackle large-scale wind projects has in six months turned into a systematic campaign to dismantle the state policies that support renewable energy development. Joining the executive and legislative branches in pursuing policy rollbacks and/or funding cutbacks against renewables are various utilities and, surprisingly, Focus on Energy, Wisconsin’s ratepayer-funded energy efficiency and renewable programs.

Since January 1st, Wisconsin has seen a series of assaults against utility-scale projects and smaller renewable systems serving both residences and businesses. These include the following actions:

  • The Legislature suspended PSC 128, the statewide rule developed by the Public Service Commission last year in response to a law passed by the Legislature in 2009 ordering the agency to establish uniform standards for permitting wind energy systems. Since the March 1 suspension vote, wind development in Wisconsin has slowed to a standstill.
  • The Legislature adopted SB 81, a bill that RENEW Wisconsin describes as the “Outsource Renewable Energy to Canada Act.” SB 81 allows Wisconsin utilities to meet their renewable energy requirements beginning in 2015 with electricity generated from large hydro power plants in other states and Canada. By allowing Wisconsin utilities to become even more dependent on energy imports than they are today, SB 81 turns Wisconsin’s Renewable Energy Standard on its head. Importing large-scale hydro power exports the very dollars that could have been used to harness Wisconsin’s renewable energy resources.
  • We Energies, the state’s largest electric utility, abruptly decided in May to walk away from an agreement with RENEW to dedicate $60 million over a 10-year period in support of renewable energy development in its territory. The decision came in the sixth year of this program. We Energies plans to reallocate the unspent dollars (totaling about $27 million) to general operations.
  • Green Bay-based Wisconsin Public Service (WPS) instituted in April a new net energy policy designed to discourage new customer-sited renewable energy systems. Until recently WPS had been paying its customers the full retail rate for electricity that flows back on the wires, which is now about 12 cents/kWh. But under the new rate, WPS only pays three cents/kWh for electricity exported to the grid. Moreover, the utility calculates the net each month, which penalizes customers whose loads vary significantly depending on seasonal factors. Right now, the new policy only covers systems installed after March 2011, but WPS has said that it plans to apply that rate to older systems effective January 2013.
  • In its deliberations on the biennial state budget passed in June, the Legislature appended a rider to tie Focus on Energy’s annual budget to a percentage (1.2% of gross utility revenues). This action will mean a cut of $20 million in the program’s 2012 budget relative to this year’s allocation of $120 million. The Focus on Energy program provides grants and cash-back awards supporting customer investments in solar electric, solar thermal systems, small wind, biogas and biomass energy systems.
  • Last, but certainly not least, as of July 1, Focus on Energy stopped accepting applications for business program incentives to help customers install renewable energy systems. These incentives, which average about $7 million per year, had been available since 2002 to businesses, farms, schools, local governments and other nonprofit customers. It is not clear when these incentives will be resumed and in what quantity.

This one-two punch of policy rollbacks and funding cutbacks has cast a pall over the state’s renewable energy marketplace. At this year’s Energy Fair in Custer, Wisconsin, the prevailing mood of contractors and exhibitors was one of bewilderment tinged with anger. It is dawning on these companies that their state, which once took pride in its efforts to nurture a thriving renewable energy market, is becoming an inhospitable place to do business. The transformation is occurring with stunning speed; no business is likely to be spared from this abrupt reversal of fortune, which will hit home soon and continue for several months, if not years.

At this moment, however, the Wisconsin renewable energy landscape is humming with installation activity. New wind turbines are soaring above cornfields in Columbia County, where construction crews and operating engineers from Appleton-based Boldt Construction and Brownsville-based Michels Wind Energy assemble what will become Wisconsin’s largest wind generation facility. The towers for the Glacier Hills wind energy project are being fabricated at Tower Tech in Manitowoc. Solar hot water systems now crown the rooftops of new apartment and university buildings, while solar PV panels mounted on 14-foot-tall poles rise above a farm field in Dane County to power Epic Systems’ ground source heat pump system. A cranberry company in Monroe County is about to become the second of its kind to rely on a pair of small wind turbines for its electrical needs. Meanwhile, all across Wisconsin one can find contractors building this year’s crop of bioenergy systems that convert the effluent from dairy farms, cheese producers and wastewater treatment plants into a baseload source of electricity.

Indeed, this wave of projects, fueled principally by funding commitments made in previous years and the early part of this year, should keep contractors and installers busy through the end of 2011. Though an observer unfamiliar with this year’s travails might be deceived by this show of vitality, both installers and advocates know that this activity can’t be sustained for long without a fresh supply of oxygen in the form of policy and funding initiatives. But until state government recognizes the folly of its war against renewable energy and changes course on energy policy, the rollbacks of 2011 will suck much of the oxygen out of next year’s renewable energy marketplace, setting it up for significant contraction in the years that follow.

How Wisconsin benefits from shrinking its renewable energy business community and becoming even more dependent on finite supplies of fossil energy imported from afar is a question worth posing to our political leaders. In our view, that approach is guaranteed to turn Wisconsin into an economic backwater. Is this what they hope to achieve? Probably not. But the toll on the state goes beyond the jobs that weren’t created, the investments from overseas that went to other states, and the tax revenues that failed to materialize as projected…..An even bigger casualty of these rollbacks is Wisconsin’s ability to project itself as a center of consistency and stability, a place where policy changes affecting businesses occur gradually and over time. Not long ago, Wisconsin political leaders were capable of working on complex legislative matters in a low-key and bipartisan manner. An example of that is the Energy Efficiency and Renewables Law (2005 Act 141) signed into law in March 2006, which increased Wisconsin’s Renewable Energy Standard to 10% by 2015 and protected Focus on Energy from future budget raids. That law created what seemed at the time to be a durable framework for enabling renewable energy resources to play an expanded role in the state’s energy future.

However, it is now painfully evident that the political consensus that created the five-year-old law has evaporated. The resulting vacuum has emboldened incoming legislators to fix their crosshairs on the policy mechanisms supporting investment in renewable energy. With the active assistance of politically powerful interests like the Wisconsin Industrial Energy Group, these legislators are now attacking Wisconsin’s pro-renewable energy policies in a manner resembling a wave of Formosan termites going through a house. What has happened to Wisconsin’s energy policy here is a microcosm of the radically polarized political dynamic that has, unfortunately, become “the new normal” in this state. In this environment, confrontation is celebrated and compromise is shunned. Politics in Wisconsin has become a roller-coaster ride that is heavy on the sharp turns and violent dives, and light on the straightaways and gentle grades. And, with the Senate recall elections this summer and the virtual certainty of a gubernatorial recall election in the offing, this dynamic is not going away any time soon…

Needless to say, this volatility makes long-range financial commitments to upgrading the state’s energy infrastructure a challenge if not an impossibility. The suspension of the state’s wind siting rule, for example, upended a deliberate and multiyear effort to build predictability and certainty into the permitting process. With the rule in abeyance, what wind developers now face amounts to a random walk through a minefield. Small wonder that many of the developers who were active here three years ago have migrated to less explosive pastures. Indeed, high-profile rollbacks like these give the state an unwelcome reputation as being famously difficult to do business in…

Amazingly enough, despite the onslaught from political leaders and certain utilities, public support for renewable energy has held strong, according to a St. Norbert College poll conducted between April 11 and April 18 for Wisconsin Public Radio. More than three-quarters of the respondents favored additional investments in windpower, even if such expenditures would increase monthly electric bills. The rankings for each resource surveyed were: wind (77%), hydropower (60%), biomass (54%), natural gas (39%), nuclear (27%), and coal (19%). The results suggest that the hostility that the Walker Administration and the Legislature have shown to the renewable energy business community is completely out of step with the public.

Along with many other organizations and individuals, RENEW Wisconsin helped build public awareness on the value of renewable energy for jobs and energy self-sufficiency. Now in its 20th year, RENEW Wisconsin finds itself vigorously defending the many policies and practices that made Wisconsin a regional leader in the use of its native renewable energy resources. Though the future is fraught with challenges and uncertainties, about one thing we can be certain: the assaults and policy swings that come our way will not change either the citizen consensus or RENEW Wisconsin’s commitment to a future based on clean, local and sustainable energy.

– Vickerman is the executive director of RENEW Wisconsin, a sustainable energy advocacy organization headquartered in Madison. For more information on what Wisconsin is doing to advance sustainable energy, visit RENEW’s web site at: http://www.renewwisconsin.org and RENEW’s blog at: http://renewwisconsinblog.org.

Germany Passes New Renewable Energy Law for 2012

Ups Renewable Energy Target: Between 35% and 40% by 2020

Raises Payments for Biomass, Geothermal, & Offshore Wind

Applies Standard Degression to Wind on Land and Solar PV

 

Despite widespread rumors in North America that Germany was abandoning its system of Advanced Renewable Tariffs, the country’s upper chamber of parliament, the Bundesrat, approved the latest revision of its pioneering Renewable Energy Sources Act on July 8, 2011.

The action follows approval by Germany’s House of Commons, the Bundestag, on June 30, 2011.

The new version of the law first introduced in Germany in 2000 will go into effect January 1, 2012.

Approval of the latest revisions of the Renewable Energy Sources Act, the Erneuerbare-Energien-Gesetz (EEG) in German, is significant because it follows the nuclear accident at Fukishima, Japan and the debate in Germany about the future of nuclear power.

The 30-year long debate on nuclear in Germany was settled earlier this summer when parliament decisively voted to quit nuclear power by 2022.

Germany is currently ruled by a coalition of the Conservative (CDU/CSU), and the neoliberal (FDP) parties.

Read More ….