Search

What do you get when you cross a fuel cell with a cell tower? Would that be a fuel tower? Or perhaps a fuel cell cell tower? Probably the best people to ask would be the folks at Sprint since they just received a grant from the U.S. Department of Energy to install hydrogen fuel cell (HFC) technology as backup power to a number of their network sites.

The technology, still in development, would actually provide innovative approaches for rooftop fuel cell deployments. One approach being explored is a modular and lightweight fuel cell solution that can be installed without cranes and can be refueled from the ground – eliminating the need to transport fuel to rooftops.

The company proposed the use of fuel cells as a cleaner alternative to the more common diesel-powered backup generators, citing them as a way to avoid greenhouse gas emissions (GHG), the risk of ground contaminants and higher maintenance costs. Unlike fossil fuel-based generators, HFCs generate electricity with no environmentally undesirable greenhouse gas emissions. As a company, Sprint strives to limit the deployment of new fossil fuel generators. Sprint is working to reduce its GHG emissions by an absolute 20 percent by 2017.

The full scope and financial structure of the project is yet to be determined, but details are expected in the next 60 days. Sprint hopes to begin installing the fuel cells by the end of 2014. The primary desired outcome of the program is to develop economically and operationally viable methodologies that can be scaled up for a widespread deployment of rooftop fuel cell backup systems. Both Sprint and the DOE hope this can also promote further hydrogen fuel cell advancement across a multitude of industries.

Besides lower emissions, the fuel cell approach should allow for lower network site maintenance, which should increase network survivability during power outages -- a critical performance indicator in this industry. The fuel cell-based systems also have a life expectancy of 20 years, considerably longer than diesel systems, and they require less battery reserve power (only 8 minutes, instead of 2 hours).

It wasn't clear from the announcement where the hydrogen would come from or how the total cost of operation is expected to compare with the more conventional backup systems.

"We are excited to once again partner with the DOE to bring a new fuel cell technology solution to the market," said Bob Azzi, chief network officer at Sprint. "To date, we’ve deployed approximately 500 hydrogen fuel cells in our network. This technology will provide backup power for our network and could extend to other industries as well."

Sprint and the DOE have worked together previously to deploy hydrogen fuel cells as an energy source for their network. Sprint pioneered the introduction of fuel cell technology to ground-based networks in 2005. In 2009 the DOE provided a $7.3 million grant for Sprint to support fuel cell technology advances including the development and testing of a 72-hour emergency backup system. Rooftop cell sites comprise almost 25 percent of Sprint’s total network locations for which fuel cells have not been an option for deployment until now. As much as 30 percent of total network cell sites are located on rooftops in some major metropolitan areas.

Compass Intelligence recently named Sprint as the most "eco focused" wireless carrier. The company has been widely recognized for its environmental commitments to decrease energy use, enable more eco-friendly mobile solutions and offer industry-leading wireless recycling programs.

Last year, Sprint was the only telecommunications company named to CDP’s S&P 500 Climate Performance Leadership Index (CPLI), which highlights companies that demonstrate strategies committed to improving their impact on the environment. Sprint was also named for the third consecutive year to the Dow Jones Sustainability Index (DJSI) North America, which tracks the corporate sustainability performance of the top 20 percent of the 600 largest companies by industry in the United States and Canada.

Cell tower image: EMFNews.com/Flickr Creative Commons

Fuel cell image: Sprint

RP Siegel, PE, is an inventor, consultant and author. He co-wrote the eco-thriller Vapor Trails, the first in a series covering the human side of various sustainability issues including energy, food, and water in an exciting and entertaining format. Now available on Kindle.

Follow RP Siegel on Twitter.

The sharing economy may have been a raving success with consumers last year, but not necessarily with big city governments. First there was Airbnb’s dustup with the city of New York. Now there is FlightCar and its legal challenges with San Francisco and Millbrae, Calif.

Probably one of the most innovative sharing economy models to come along, FlightCar was started by three college dropouts: Kevin Petrovic, Shri Ganeshram and Rujul Zaparde (actually Petrovic and Zaparde didn't even make it to orientation). It’s the quintessential proof that sometimes ingenuity, drive and moxie can carry you almost as far as a degree.  Their idea was to offer the harried airline passenger a way to avoid parking their car at the airport, where fees mount up and become an added overhead to vacations and business trips.

"FlightCar lets people parking at the airport rent their vehicles out to other travelers," says the company website. To ensure that there are no liability hassles, every car is insured with a $1 million policy. The renter pays a nominal cost for the use, and the owner gets a free car-cleaning and 20 cents per mile. In a metropolis like San Francisco, that change can add up.

Their idea was so popular that it garnered $5.5 million in venture capital and a roll-out at SFO, which is owned by the city. As the trio quickly found out, not everyone is fond of the sharing economy concept.

Parking fees are a big issue to airports, particularly those the size of SFO, which has steep overhead to contend with and relies on those fees for revenue. From the city’s point of view, FlightCar wasn’t paying for taxes and other fees that are normally paid by car rental agencies. From FlightCar’s vantage point, they don’t maintain a location at the airport; in fact, since the business operates out of Millbrae (just outside the airport boundary), the owners argue, they aren’t even based in the city of San Francisco. Therefore, they shouldn’t have to pay fees and taxes that regular car-rental agencies pay the city.

But that’s not the only problem that the company has faced with its neighbors lately. On Nov. 4, the Millbrae Planning Commission voted to pull  FlightCar’s conditional use permit. The city listed a number of non-compliance issues, all of which FlightCar insists have already been addressed or had nothing to do with its conditional use permit. Two weeks later, the company launched a lawsuit, stating that Millbrae "thoroughly and capriciously prejudice[d] the rights of the plaintiff by denying it the ability to operate its business."

Local San Mateo County resident Doug Radtke noted in his blog post on the day the lawsuit was launched that there may have been other options available to the city council before trying to "kick out a business because folks on the planning commission think it's a 'failed experiment'; there are rules, laws and procedures."  He questioned "why there was no formal abatement process" such as disciplinary or corrective action taken if the city felt the business wasn’t complying with regulations that would have lessened the chance of being slapped with a lawsuit.

Meanwhile, the showdown between FlightCar and San Francisco has only just begun. The city and FlightCar went to court last week, but there’s been no official word of the outcome. While San Francisco has some hefty arguments on its side, it may be hard to shake the public image of robbing hard-working, well-intentioned teens that were sharp enough to see a better way of doing things.

"We’re not asking for the keys to the kingdom without doing the hard work to get there," said co-founder Rujul Zaparde in a Nov. 23 blog post. "We are asking for a clearly defined set of rules that that aren’t designed to favor incumbents — and allow us to rise to the occasion to satisfy a new customer base with rising expectations."

Image of San Francisco from SFO courtesy of Manuel Calavera

This piece has been updated since it was published to correct the following errors: only Ganeshram attended MIT, FlightCar raised $5.5 million not 3.5 million, and the company has never operated at Oakland International Airport. 

The following is an excerpt from Ice Cream Social - The Struggle for the Soul of Ben & Jerry's, reprinted with permission. Author Brad Edmondson is also making daily posts of material related to the book, including more excerpts at www.icecreamsocialbook.com. He welcomes your comments and stories here and at that website.

By Brad Edmondson

Social Stirrings - Ben & Jerry’s got serious about its "ice cream for the people" philosophy on April 26, 1984, the day the company made its first stock offering. That is when they really started sharing the company’s wealth with the communities that supported it. That was the day the company went public—but only Vermont residents could buy the stock. Co-founder Ben Cohen said the sale allowed Ben & Jerry’s to give its best customers a piece of the action.

The company needed to raise $750,000 in equity to finance a $3.25 million ice cream plant in Waterbury, about 10 miles east of Burlington, Vt. Business was booming, and the prospects for expansion were bright. Or so the founders thought. Then Ben and Jeff Furman, a long-time board member whose co-workers often describe as "the ampersand in Ben & Jerry's," tried to get a loan. Jeff remembers applying to dozens of banks before they found one that would even consider lending money to anyone who looked and acted like they did. And the bank officer added that he needed to see some equity first.

Ben came up with the idea to restrict the stock offer to people who lived in Vermont, with a minimum purchase of 12 shares at $10.50 apiece. Nearly everyone who heard the idea said that it was naïve and impractical. They told Ben that the stock offer could not reach its goal under those restrictions. But Jeff and Chico Lager - general manager, president and CEO from 1981 through 1990 - finally agreed to the plan because Ben would not back down. The fundraising deadline was upon them. They needed to stop arguing and do something. Ben set the course, and they followed it.

The in-state stock offering was a classic Ben move, an idea that seemed crazy and exasperated his colleagues but then succeeded brilliantly. Chico and Ben made their pitches in rented conference rooms around the state. They sealed the deal by handing out free samples of ice cream after they finished talking. They easily raised the money, and that was just the beginning. The offer also generated a tremendous amount of publicity and good will. By the time it was done, nearly 1 percent of the households in the state owned shares of Ben & Jerry's.

Restricting the offer to one state also made it unnecessary to register it with the Securities and Exchange Commission, which reduced banking costs. Giving ownership to a large number of people, each of whom held a small number of shares, meant that Ben could get the money he needed while retaining firm control of the company. And the sale went far beyond the standard business practice of making small donations to community organizations. It was more like a merger with thousands of patriotic Vermonters who would hassle the corner grocer if he ever ran out of Heath Bar Crunch. It was the first time the company found a big way to make its financial, social and quality objectives move forward together.

Creative thinking and flexibility saved Ben & Jerry’s more than once in those days. It came in especially handy when the company faced strong-arm tactics from Pillsbury, its chief competitor. Pillsbury, which spends millions on ads featuring a character called the Doughboy, owned Häagen-Dazs, the first super-premium ice cream in the United States. When Ben & Jerry’s started selling in Boston, Pillsbury told its distributors there that they wouldn’t get any Häagen-Dazs unless they agreed not to deliver Ben & Jerry’s.

Pillsbury’s move was blatantly illegal, but Ben and Chico didn’t have enough time or money to rely on the courts. So they came up with a dual strategy. First, they sent Jeff out to interview lawyers. Jeff found one he liked at Ropes & Gray, an elite corporate firm based in Boston. "As I was talking to Howie, he leaned back and put his feet up on his desk," Jeff said, "He had a hole in the sole of his shoe. That sold me."

Howard Fuguet specialized in antitrust law because he liked working with entrepreneurs. "I had done quite a bit of work representing underdogs," he said. "I was intrigued by Ben & Jerry’s, and I thought that we could win this." Howie became the company’s lawyer, an important advisor to the board of directors, and, as the years went by, a storehouse of institutional memory.

Ben and Chico also crafted a non-legal strategy, in line with their philosophy of cultivating direct, personal relationships with customers. They put notices on their pints inviting customers to join a campaign called “What’s the Doughboy Afraid Of?” They mailed out packets with bumper stickers and form letters customers could send to Pillsbury’s CEO. They also flew Jerry to Minneapolis to stand in front of Pillsbury’s headquarters with a picket sign. "I was very much in favor of this," Howie said. "I could see the marketing value of the lawsuit. I might have asked them to tone down a couple of their slogans, but it was a very interesting project."

Jerry always gets a laugh when he tells the Doughboy story in speeches now, mostly because he portrays himself as hapless and nutty. "Nobody had any idea of why I was there," he said at a talk at Cornell University in 2013. But that isn’t quite true. Ben and Chico made sure that a photographer for the Minneapolis Star Tribune was there. The Associated Press picked up the story, and it ran all over the country.

The Doughboy campaign generated an avalanche of positive publicity for Ben & Jerry’s, and it put so much pressure on Pillsbury that the big company was forced to back off. It also set a pattern the company would use, with spectacular results, for decades. Instead of doing traditional advertising or marketing campaigns, Ben & Jerry’s would take their product directly to people. It would market to taste buds through sampling, and also to an ordinary person’s sense of fairness and justice by taking on social issues.

Ben & Jerry’s commitment to linked prosperity deepened a year later when Jeff and Howie led the company through a national stock offering. Again, the company went directly to its customers first. It put a notice on each pint that encouraged customers to "Scoop Up Our Stock," with a toll-free number to call for a prospectus. "It was an unusual move," said Howie, "but once the Securities and Exchange Commission people understood it, they just laughed and said, 'Why not?' We kept trying to come up with things for Ben & Jerry’s that were a little novel. I regarded it as a challenge, and they encouraged me."

As Ben, Chico and Jeff worked on the prospectus for the national stock offering, they realized that they needed to tell potential investors exactly how much of their money the company planned to give away. Ben had been giving larger and larger cash contributions to local groups, while Chico had been trying to keep the giving at around 5 percent of pretax profits. So they created the Ben & Jerry’s Foundation, an independent nonprofit organization funded by the company. Its goal was to support projects that were unlikely to be funded through traditional sources. The projects they were looking for would be models for social change, ideas that enhanced people’s quality of life and community celebrations. Jerry agreed to be the foundation’s president. Jeff was the second board member, and Naomi Tannen, who had owned Highland Community, the school where Ben had met Jeff, was the third.

Ben endowed the foundation with 50,000 shares of his stock, which was a little less than one-tenth of his equity in the company. He wanted to set the company’s annual contribution to the foundation at 10 percent of pretax profits, or double the percentage that Chico had tried to maintain. Chico replied that giving this much away would make it impossible to fund future expansions without more stock offerings, which would further dilute Ben’s ownership. The underwriters added that investors wouldn’t buy into a company if it gave away so much cash, because that would reduce dividends. After a lengthy argument, Ben compromised on 7.5 percent of pretax profits, or nearly four times the national average.

Jerry Greenfield image: David Brewster

Book cover: Ice Cream Social - The Struggle for the Soul of Ben & Jerry's by Brad Edmonson

Brad Edmondson is an award-winning journalist and business consultant who helps his clients understand and benefit from social change. His writing appears regularly in national magazines, including AARP and The American Scholar. To learn more visit http://www.icecreamsocialbook.com

Seattle is abuzz with excitement this week after the Seattle Seahawks beat the San Francisco 49ers to win the NFC Championship and advance to play the Denver Broncos in Super Bowl XLVIII on Feb. 2.

We at BGI congratulate the Seahawks on their exhilarating victory over a major rival. As we await the next big game, we want to also express our admiration for the Seahawks and what their sustainability efforts provide to the Seattle community even when the game is over.

For the past decade, the Seahawks and CenturyLink Field have been dedicated to improving their environmental impact through the Defend Your Turf program. Defend Your Turf is focused on initiatives in four main areas: waste reduction, water conservation, energy efficiency and community engagement. Among the highlights of their main accomplishments:

Waste Reduction

• 94 percent of waste from CenturyLink Field is diverted from landfills, up from 47 percent four years ago


• Five million gallons of biodiesel were produced in 2012 from recycling cooking oil


• 100 percent of food containers are compostable

Water Conservation

• CenturyLink Field reduced its water use by 15 percent in 2012


• Low-flow water fixtures save 1.3 million gallons annually


• Cleaning processes are low-chemical and all cleaners and soaps are certified by Green Seal

Energy Efficiency

• Energy consumption was reduced by 12 percent in 2012


• CenturyLink Event Center is topped with solar panels that meet 30 percent of the facility’s energy needs


• Arch lighting has been converted to programmable, efficient LEDs

Community Engagement

• CenturyLink Field encourages visitors to arrive using public transit


• 4,600 meals are donated annually to Food Lifeline and Operation Sack Lunch


• The field’s concessions partner provides sustainable, local and organic food

These achievements are remarkable in their own right and especially so considering their ripple effect. In 2010, the Seahawks joined forces with the Sounders FC, other sports teams in the Pacific Northwest, Paul G. Allen’s Vulcan Inc. and the Natural Resources Defense Council to form the Green Sports Alliance. The Alliance is a nonprofit aimed at helping sports teams, venues and leagues enhance their environmental performance and represents more than 200 teams and venues from 16 leagues since launching nationally in 2011.

"With the support of the Alliance and its partners, members are reducing waste, conserving energy and water and eliminating toxic chemicals, among many other ongoing initiatives and accomplishments. They are integrating sustainability into their core operations, engaging fans and saving substantial sums of money in the process," said Green Sports Alliance Membership Director and BGI alumnus David Muller.

The task at hand for any sports team is clearly to work hard and win games. The Seahawks are leading the way to an even higher purpose. With nearly 2 million fans visiting CenturyLink Field every year, the impact of their sustainability efforts is significant. The nation’s eyes will be on the Seahawks on Feb. 2; we’re proud to call them our neighbors on game day – and every day.

Laura Ippen is currently enrolled in BGI’s MBA in Sustainable Business program and also works as the Website Coordination intern for BGI in Seattle. She previously worked as a Sustainability Coordinator for UnityPoint Health in Des Moines, IA and is passionate about the connection between environmental and public health.

Connect to Learn More

Bainbridge Graduate Institute prepares students from diverse backgrounds to design, lead, and evolve enterprises in pursuit of the common good. Degrees include MBAs in Sustainable Business and Sustainable Systems, an MA in Organizational Leadership, and Certificates in Sustainable Energy Solutions, Sustainable Food and Agricultural Systems, and Sustainable Built Environment. Learn more at bgi.edu or by contacting [email protected].

By Julie Fox Gorte, Ph.D., Senior Vice President, Sustainable Investing, Pax World Investments

I recently attended the 2014 Investor Summit on Climate Risk at the United Nations, along with more than 500 other financial leaders, most of them members of the Investor Network on Climate Risk. At that meeting, Ceres, the Summit’s organizer, released the Clean Trillion report calling on investors to scale up clean energy investment to at least $1 trillion by 2030. This is the level of investment that the International Energy Agency estimates will be needed to keep additional global warming below the 2 degrees Celsius threshold, beyond which the impact of climate change is judged catastrophic. While the goal is achievable, it will be challenging.

One of the things that makes the Clean Trillion more challenging is the amount of money that goes from corporate coffers into politics, aimed at blocking any constructive action on climate and energy policy. Much of this is so-called dark money, spending that is difficult or impossible to trace to an ultimate corporate sponsor. Last week the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) released a new report, Tricks of the Trade:  How companies anonymously influence climate policy through their business and trade associations. The UCS report examined company responses to the CDP (formerly the Carbon Disclosure Project) to see whether companies were replying accurately to the question on whether they were members of groups that might "directly or indirectly influence climate policy."

UCS looked for disclosure of memberships in four groups that actively oppose limits on greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and other constructive action on climate policy: the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Manufacturers, the American Petroleum Institute and the Edison Electric Institute. Less than half of the companies that were members of the boards of these four organizations disclosed those memberships.

UCS reports that, even though CDP sent its annual questionnaire to 44 of the companies that are board members of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, only one company (UPS) disclosed that board membership. It is no excuse that the person who filled out the CDP questionnaire didn’t know whether any of their company’s memberships were in groups that opposed policy action on climate change. The CDP questionnaire specifically linked to a previous UCS report giving straightforward guidance on how to ascertain this information.

Interestingly, several of the companies that did disclose their board memberships in the four organizations opposing constructive climate policy noted that they disagreed with the groups’ positions on climate change. UCS frames this disconnect brilliantly, stating, "If companies claim they don’t agree with their trade groups' climate position, who are these trade groups representing when they fight against policy action to address climate change?"

Yet fight they do. In 2010, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce even went to the courts to challenge the Environmental Protection Agency’s finding that GHG emissions endanger human health and welfare.

The Clean Trillion will have a much better chance of succeeding if it isn’t swimming upstream against the flow of public policy on climate change. Congratulations to UCS on this timely and compelling report.

Image Credit: Doug88888/Flickr

Julie Fox Gorte, Ph.D. is the Senior Vice President for Sustainable Investing at Pax World Management LLC. She oversees environmental, social, and governance-related research on prospective and current investments as well as Pax’s shareholder advocacy and work on public policy advocacy. Dr. Gorte serves on the boards of Ceres, the Endangered Species Coalition, the Sustainable Investments Institute and the American Sustainable Business Council. She serves as the co-chair of the Asset Management Working Group of the United Nations Environment Programme Finance Initiatives and is on the steering committee for UNEP’s workstream on biodiversity.

Qatar, the 2022 World Cup host, is among 11 countries to be downgraded to ‘extreme risk’ for working conditions, due to the multiple deaths of migrant workers on construction sites for the sporting competition, according to a new global index by risk analysis company Maplecroft.

Brazil, host of this year’s World Cup, meanwhile, has made significant improvements to its working conditions over the last year and climbs 19 places in the ranking.

The number of countries rated as ‘extreme risk’ in Maplecroft’s 7th annual Working Conditions Index (WCI), which evaluates 197 countries on their minimum wage levels, working hours, and health and safety in the workplace, rose over 20%, from 49 to 60, between 2013 and 2014. This signifies a worsening global landscape for workers, especially migrants, relating to wider labour related issues, including trafficking and forced and bonded labour.

Of the 11 countries that fell from ‘high’ to ‘extreme risk’ in the Index, Nigeria saw the biggest increase in risk. Widespread health and safety violations and a minimum wage two-thirds below subsistence levels resulted in a fall from 77th to 44th in the ranking (where 1st is most at risk). Egypt dropped 29 places to 26th, Qatar went from 60th to 32rd and Yemen 72nd to 42nd. Comoros (39th), Madagascar (50th), Peru (54th), Kenya (55th), Tanzania (56th), Georgia (59th) and Bolivia (60th) fell between 17 and 8 places in the Index.
 

Unilever, its ingredient supplier Symrise and GIZ, a German federal enterprise in the field of international cooperation for sustainable development have partnered to improve the livelihoods of 4,000 vanilla farmers in the Sava region of Madagascar.

The three-year programme – partly financed by the German Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ) - will impact 32 communities and involve 44 schools and colleges, giving it the potential to improve 24,000 lives in one of the world’s poorest nations, the partners say.

Madagascar produces 79% of the world’s natural vanilla supply. Unilever uses vanilla as an ingredient in its leading ice cream brands, such as Magnum, Breyers and Carte D’Or. The partnership aims to secure this vanilla supply for Unilever in the future and to support the farming communities with improved access to secondary education and training in agricultural best practices.

The programme will operate through farmer field schools to increase vanilla productivity and also encourage crop diversification (farmers can earn more money from vanilla).

The integrated education programme will also support environmental education in primary schools through training teachers and providing teaching kits; and aims to establish a learning platform of rural agricultural colleges for vocational training of adolescents.

Throughout the project equal opportunities will be provided to women and girl students since they represent about 50% of the communities and are actively involved in farm management: between 20 and 30% of the farmer households are headed up by women.

 

Picture credit:  © Hlphoto | Dreamstime.com 

 

British luxury brand Burberry has made a commitment to eliminate the use of hazardous chemicals from its supply chain by 2020.

Burberry’s move comes after two weeks of people-powered campaigning on the brand’s social media channels, reaching an audience of millions.

As part of its commitment to eliminate all hazardous chemicals from all the products the brand produces or sells, they will first prioritise apparel. In addition, by no later than end of June 2014, Burberry will start disclosing the chemical discharges of its suppliers in “the global South”. And, by no later than 1 July 2016, Burberry has committed to eliminate all per- and poly- fluorinated chemicals from its supply-chain.

Ilze Smit, Detox campaigner at Greenpeace International commented:“Burberry's commitment to rid us of these hazardous little monsters opens a new chapter in the story of toxic-free fashion. In taking this landmark step, Burberry has listened to the demand of its customers, joining the ranks of brands acting on behalf of parents everywhere to give this toxic nightmare the happy ending it deserves.”
 

Our latest “Stories & Beer Fireside Chat” took place on Tuesday, Jan. 28th at 6:30pm Pacific (9:30pm Eastern) when TriplePundit's Founder, Nick Aster, chatted with Cari Hanson & Cheryl Dahle of Future of Fish and Kristofor Lofgren of Bamboo Sushi.

As always, this chat was an hour long and began with a brief interview.  We then opened it up to audience members who wanted to talk about the meaning of "sustainable fish."

The video below is a recap of the event, as it happened. The insights shared by Cari, Cheryl, and Kristofor might make you reconsider some of your daily actions, and help you think about the future of sustainable fishing.

 

Schedule:
6:30 – 7:00 – beers, apps, and networking
7:00 – 8:00 – fireside chat and Q&A
8:00 – 8:30 – networking

About Cheryl Dahle

About Cari Hanson:  About Kristofor Lofgren: 

Kristofor is the founder and CEO of Bamboo Sushi. Kristofor is a consummate creator and likes thinking of new ways to disrupt what he views as old and outdated business models. His goal with Bamboo Sushi is to create the most innovative and creative restaurant group in America. Bamboo Sushi is the living embodiment of this mission, whereby the environment, people, community, and profits are all accounted for to the highest level, in unison, in a way not seen before in this industry.  When Kristofor is not working to foster and grow the culture and people of Team Bamboo, you can probably find him traveling to meet with suppliers, environmental scientists, and policy makers. Kristofor enjoys spending his time outside of work with his wife, family, friends and participating in adventure and adrenaline sports.

Itron Incorporated, a global company that provides metering equipment, software and solutions to the electric power, natural gas and water utility industries, just released the results of a customer survey in a report that they call The Resourceful Index.

Why resourcefulness? Sharelynn Moore, Itron's vice president of corporate marketing and public affairs, speaks of resourcefulness in terms of "the ability to run more efficiently with solutions that empower both utilities and consumers."

In other words, it's about the utilization of technological resources in the pursuit of more efficient utilization of natural resources in the face of increasing demand. Why does this matter? According to Moore, "We believe that the way that the world manages energy and water is going to define the next century."

That being said, they went out and surveyed some 600 utility executives around the world, along with 800 "knowledgeable customers." According to Itron CEO Phillip Mezey, who I spoke with last week, "The survey was a chance for us to find out what our customers unmet needs and concerns are, as well as their priorities."

Disconnect and consensus

The report shows not only the perceptions and concerns among the two groups, but also some of the disconnects between the two. For example, while the customers put a high emphasis on their desire to receive more information from the utilities (eight out of 10 said they wanted more), many utility executives expressed a willingness to cut back on educational programs, above any other category, in light of budgetary challenges.

Also surprising was the degree of accord in some areas. For example, 94 percent of all utility executives agreed that transformation is required in the industry if they are going to be able to substantially improve efficiency.

This, according to Mezey was "surprising to see in what is generally considered a conservative industry... that message is coming through more strongly than it has in the past."

As the report says, "In a resource hungry world, it is imperative that utilities, cities and consumers get timely information about how electricity, water and gas are used, when and where leaks or power outrages occur, and how distribution systems are functioning in a detailed and consistent way." The absence of that data can lead to "an information disconnect between consumers and their service providers, exacerbated by uncertainty about how government policy mandates for cleaner, greener energy or requirements for water metering and rate recovery will develop at a time of resource constraints."

Says Mezey, "Our premise is simple: You can't manage what you don't measure. It's remarkable what is not measured out there; it's remarkable that consumers (industrial, commercial, residential) don't know when and how they are using their electricity, gas and water. There are tremendous efficiency opportunities out there."

There is a significant perception gap relative to the actual efficiency of utilities. Consumers are demanding improvements. A full 70 percent of them feel that utilities are inefficient, while only 60 percent of utility executives think so. One thing that is clear is the need for stakeholder dialogue to be able to move forward most effectively with all major concerns being addressed.

This reinforces the messages that Lena Hansen of RMI's eLab shared with me last year.

Another big area of concern, particularly among executives was the uncertainty of the regulatory environment, which most agree has delayed investment.

Public utilities and Big Data

The other key area explored by the survey was that of Big Data and analytics. In an area where we often find ourselves talking about scarcity, there is suddenly this vast abundance of data. Most utilities are not yet taking advantage of it. While a full 60 percent of consumers feel that Big Data will improve efficiency, only 20 percent of executives feel prepared to use it today.

There is, however, according to Mezey, "a growing appetite to increase that insight."

Of course as Marshall McLuhan pointed out years ago, much of the data we are analyzing is looking backwards, in the rear view mirror, so to speak, but advanced analytical tools are increasingly being used to help predict where we are going.

Perhaps the biggest finding of the survey, amidst broadening awareness of resource issues, is the need for collaboration and engagement by all stakeholders -- through groups like the Smart Cities Council, eLab or the Gridwise Alliance, which recently issued a report ranking the various states relative to their progress in grid modernization. These discussions will facilitate actions like moving to open standards and increased collaboration. The various constituencies need to work together to answer questions like: How are we going to use technology to increase the level of connectedness, and what we are going to do with that level of connection? We know it can improve efficiency and provide better information to regulators.

Asked how the survey has influenced Itron's direction, Mezey said, "It energizes our efforts to show the benefits of investments that have been made, and to guide future investment, both in the industry as a whole and within our own company. It has underscored the need for better communication among stakeholders, which has motivated our participation in activities like Envision Charlotte, and we will bring these findings to those types of discussions aimed at moving forward with Smart Cities initiatives.

"Our response will include some new tools and technologies, but also it will be the facilitation of more conversations. The fact is, this is far bigger than just us. We have a very active partner network we participate in and it's going to take all of that. So not only do we have investments to make internally, but we need to redouble our efforts to work with the constituency, to solve this much larger problem. We hope to use this report as a tool to step up the dialog about this imperative for transformation."

Image credit: Itron report

RP Siegel, PE, is an inventor, consultant and author. He co-wrote the eco-thriller Vapor Trails, the first in a series covering the human side of various sustainability issues including energy, food, and water in an exciting and entertaining format. Now available on Kindle.

Follow RP Siegel on Twitter.