Search

Energy efficiency projects and financing are moving down-market – in the sense that they're increasingly attractive to and viable for medium- and even small-scale commercial and industrial companies, as well as government departments and agencies.

Taking advantage of ongoing advances in clean technology and applying some creative financing, innovative companies such as Noesis Energy are creating new markets and growth opportunities for energy efficiency project developers and energy service companies, as well as offering small- and medium-sized businesses (SMBs) the opportunity to boost their bottom lines while also reducing their environmental impact and carbon footprint.

Performance-based energy efficiency financing

On March 26, Austin, Texas-based Noesis announced the launch of a $30 million fund to finance Noesis Shared Service Agreements (SSA).

Akin to the solar power purchase agreements that have driven explosive growth in third-party-provided residential, commercial and industrial solar photovoltaic (PV) systems, the Noesis SSA is a “performance-based investment vehicle to finance mid-market energy efficiency upgrades and retrofits in the commercial and industrial sector.”

As Noesis explains in its press release, energy efficiency projects (until recently) have largely been the domain of large energy service companies specializing in delivering multimillion dollar “turnkey” energy savings projects to government customers.

Back in October 2009, President Barack Obama made reducing greenhouse gas emissions and boosting energy efficiency throughout the federal government – by far the largest consumer of energy in the nation – a priority with the issuance of Executive Order 13514.

Noting advances in a range energy efficiency and renewable energy technology for building and larger facilities – LED lighting, heating and cooling systems, distributed and co-generation, net metering and intelligent energy management controls among them – and the success of solar PPAs, Noesis Energy saw an opportunity to expand and move energy efficiency into the mainstream by creating a middle-market tier.

Its first step came last year with the launch of a financial services unit to help its commercial and industrial business customers obtain third-party financing for small to mid-sized energy efficiency projects and retrofits. Noesis Financial Services has since signed up over 30 energy efficiency product and service providers, and quoted more than $37 million in projects, according to the company.

The Noesis Shared Service Agreement

With $30 million worth of initial capital underwritten by an unnamed “leading provider of energy efficiency financing,” Noesis aims to take its energy efficiency financing capabilities to a higher level by offering a performance-based, and hence off-balance sheet, means of financing that matches the actual energy savings customers realize to their SSA payments.

"Aligning the financing with the actual energy savings realized has been a model that has been hugely successful in residential solar. With Noesis Shared Savings Agreement, we're applying that same model to the commercial and industrial energy efficiency market, only at a much larger scale," Noesis Energy CEO Scott Harmon was quoted as saying.

Payments for "negawatts"

Noesis SSAs can range from $500,000 to $3 million, with project payback periods of less than 7 years. Noesis stands between the energy efficiency project developer, equipment or service provider and their commercial or industrial company customers. Project developers are paid 90 percent of contract value upon successful installation and the remainder over the term of the SSA based on the actual energy savings realized by the customer – known as "negawatt" pricing.

Noesis vets the energy efficiency project developers' credit before they can sign on to offer Noesis SSAs, sets industry-standard specifications for installations and their performance, and then assesses them over time in the context of the SSA contracts.

Noesis Energy is one of the first, but not the only company, looking to capitalize and grow the energy efficiency market. As Matt Golden, senior energy finance consultant for the Environmental Defense Fund's (EDF) Investor Confidence Project (ICP), highlighted:

"This new shared savings vehicle from Noesis is the latest example of technology-based underwriting closing the gap between energy efficiency projects and innovative financing. This new financing option is a great example of how standardizing and streamlining the technical underwriting process can connect capital sources with a stream of consistent and reliable energy-efficiency project deal-flow."

Joule Assets in late January launched a planned $300 million to $400 million ERA (Energy Reduction Assets) Fund that's helping SMBs realize energy savings and boost energy efficiency by investing in the same sorts of projects as Noesis will finance with its SSAs.

Similar to the Noesis SSA, Green Charge Networks is offering a growing range and roster of clients performance-based Power Efficiency Agreements (PEAs) that are based on the energy bill savings realized by customers who install its GreenStation intelligent demand management-battery storaage system.

Commented Infinilume Corp. CEO John Byers:

"No budget and lack of trust in savings forecasts are two of the most common reasons why CFOs don't approve energy efficiency projects. The Noesis SSA allows you to overcome both objections by providing third-party financing where the building owner only pays if the project delivers the promised savings. We believe the Noesis SSA is the financing vehicle that can significantly unlock the commercial mid-market energy efficiency retrofit market."

New technology-driven energy efficiency market financiers such as Noesis Energy, Joule Assets and Green Charge Networks are intent on seeing that happen. U.S. society, communities, towns, cities on up, as well as job seekers, energy efficiency project developers, commercial and industrial businesses and of course the financiers themselves, stand to benefit if it does.

Image credit: Flickr/NNSANews 

By Dayna Reggero

Years of Living Dangerously, a documentary series premiering next month on Showtime, provides a compelling introduction to the people and places affected by climate change.

Sharing these stories is a roster of major film, television and news figures, including Jessica Alba, Mark Bittman, Don Cheadle, Matt Damon and many more. Actor Ian Somerhalder (Lost, Vampire Diaries) visits Asheville, N.C. and interviews Mary Anne Hitt, Beyond Coal campaign director, and Anna Jane Joyner, Western North Carolina Alliance activist, during the episode, “Preacher’s Daughter.”

Filming locations include Duke Energy’s Asheville coal plant, the Asheville Beyond Coal rally, and Charlotte, NC.

“Duke Energy’s Asheville coal plant is the largest source of climate-disrupting pollution in western North Carolina,” says Hitt. “Duke Energy must commit to phase out the Asheville coal plant and replace it with home-grown clean energy solutions.”

North Carolina power producers spent $1.8 billion out of state to import coal in 2012 alone, based on a 2014 report by the Union of Concerned Scientists. North Carolina is second in the country in terms of dependence on imported coal.

“All over the country, and now world, communities are successfully stopping and retiring coal plants, moving to clean, renewable energy sources, and decreasing water, air and carbon pollution at record rates,” says Joyner.

Kelly Martin, Sierra Club’s North Carolina senior campaign representative, recently stated: “On behalf of thousands of Asheville and Buncombe County residents, I applaud Duke Energy for publicly considering a plan to phase out the coal-burning units at its Asheville plant. If Duke Energy meets the demands of the community and phases out its coal plant, the Asheville plant will be the 163rd plant in the nation to be retired since 2010.”

North Carolina is taking strides toward a clean energy future, boasting the second largest solar growth in the nation. In 2013, the city of Asheville responded to community concerns by unanimously passing a clean energy resolution. Additionally, clean energy job opportunities are growing. According to the 2013 North Carolina Clean Energy Industries Census, 18,404 full-time equivalent employees were employed by the clean energy industry in North Carolina in 2013, up more than 20 percent from 2012.

Years of Living Dangerously premieres April 13th on Showtime

Image credit: The Years Project / John W. Adkisson

The Environmental Protection Agency and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers released a proposed rule this week to clarify which waterways are protected under the Clean Water Act.

Two Supreme Court decisions, one in 2001 and the other in 2006, made determining which waterways are protected under the CWA confusing and complex. The proposed rule doesn’t expand waterways protected under the CWA, but only clarifies which ones are protected. Or as EPA head Gina McCarthy stated in an op-ed piece for the Huffington Post, “Our proposed rule will not add to or expand the scope of waters historically protected under the Clean Water Act.”

About 60 percent of the stream miles in the U.S. only flow seasonally or after rain, and about 117 million people, one in three Americans, get drinking water from public systems that rely in part on those streams. The proposed rule would clarify that under the CWA most seasonal and rain-dependent streams are protected. It would also clarify that wetlands near rivers and streams are protected. Other waterways whose connections with downstream water are uncertain will be evaluated to determine whether the connection is significant. In addition, the proposed rule preserves the CWA exemptions and exclusions for agriculture.

To explain the proposed rule to the American people, the EPA released several videos. One of them is by McCarthy, who gave an overview on the rule. “The EPA is taking action to keep America’s waterways clean and healthy,” she said. The rule is “about protecting our natural resources” because “every sector of our economy depends on water.” The other video is by EPA’s Deputy Chief of Staff Arvin Ganesan who included an overview of the CWA. “The Clean Water Act worked. Our waterways were getting cleaner, but over the last 15 years a few complex court cases have tangled up these essential protections, making it unclear what waters are covered by the Clean Water Act,” Ganesan said.

Supporters praise the proposed rule

The American Sustainable Business Council (ASBC) has already come out in support of the proposed rule. “Today, we applaud the Agency for taking steps to clarify that small streams, wetlands and other tributaries are protected by the Act,” the group said in a statement. “Today's action by the EPA is good for the environment and good for business."

Environmental groups also support the proposed rule. “We applaud the EPA for proposing a rule that would reinstate clean water protections for streams and wetlands that supply the drinking water of 117 million Americans,” said Earthjustice President Trip Van Noppen. He added that “ polluters will rail and lobby against this rule and any other clean water safeguards that keep them from dumping their toxic waste in our communities and waters, or that hold them accountable for their pollution.”

Healing Our Waters-Great Lakes Coalition and the Sierra Club also support the proposed rule. The Healing Our Waters-Great Lakes Coalition’s campaign director, Todd Ambs said, “This rule can help ensure that as we take one step forward we aren’t also taking two steps back.” Sierra Club Executive Director Michael Brune said that the group “applauds the Obama administration for this effort to restore a common-sense approach to protecting our nation's lakes, rivers and streams."

Image credit: amy halverson

Over 3km of overhead power lines, pylons and wooden electricity poles will be removed from Thursley Common as part of a major £400,000 project by Southern Electric Power Distribution (SEPD) to restore views over the Surrey nature reserve. 

Under the watching brief of Natural England, engineers have started work to bury replacement power cables carefully under the reserve. The site, which also includes part of Ockley Common, was identified by the Surrey Hills Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) team as a priority for power line removal to restore the traditional heathland landscape. Eleven pylons dating back to the 1960s, which carry a 33,000 volt overhead power line will be dismantled, along with 22 wooden poles carrying a 11,000 volt line. Both lines will be replaced by new underground circuits.

Engineers have started work on the first phase of the project to prepare trenches for the new underground cables. To minimise impact on the landscape, this is taking place alongside existing footpaths on the southern side of the common. In other parts of the reserve, a 'mole plough' will also be used to lay cable. This specialised piece of equipment causes minimal environmental disruption, but can bury cable at nine times the speed of conventional trenching.

Once this initial work is finished, the new underground cables will be powered up and the old overhead lines, pylons and wooden poles can then be taken down in the reserve. This second part of the project is due to be completed during the autumn, weather and ground conditions allowing.

Project manager Greg Moore from SEPD said: "This is a beautiful part of Surrey, enjoyed by lots of locals and visitors, and so we will be making sure access across the common is maintained throughout the project. We've carried out a detailed planning exercise prior to the work starting, as we'll be working in a sensitive landscape that has a whole range of dry and boggy terrains, and we'll be doing everything we can to return the area back to its original, natural glory as quickly as possible."

Thursley National Nature Reserve boasts extensive areas of open dry heathland, peat bogs, ponds, pine and deciduous woodlands and is home to a thriving and varied amount of wildlife and flora. Dartford warblers, stonechats, silver studded blue butterflies and marsh orchids are common sights in the area, which is popular with walkers, cyclists and horse riders.

Landowners Natural England and the Defence Infrastructure Organisation (DIO) - the Ministry of Defence's property and services provider - have been working closely with SEPD on the project. The work is being funded by a special allowance, granted to SEPD by industry regulator Ofgem, to invest in projects to underground power lines in AONBs and National Parks in central southern England.

James Giles, Natural England's Reserve Manager, said: "This important partnership project is a great opportunity to enhance the natural beauty of Thursley National Nature Reserve. We've worked closely with the contractors to ensure that the operations avoid areas used by rare nesting birds, such as woodlark and Dartford warblers, and every step is being taken to protect the Reserve's varied habitats. The pylons will be removed during the autumn when the terrain is drier and the nesting season is over. The end result will be a much improved and revitalised landscape, adding to the wilderness feel of this already incredible and special site."

 

Imagine a world where every glass surface produces solar power. You'd wake up to the alarm on your fully-charged smartphone, pluck it off the windowsill and hop into a hot shower -- courtesy of a solar water heating system powered by your enclosed patio. You stroll out to your electric vehicle and flip on the radio, powered by your sun roof, and head off to your net-zero office building -- which skirts the grid thanks to its majestic floor-to-ceiling windows.

This scenario may sound like science fiction, but recent developments in solar technology suggest that it barely scratches the surface of where the industry may be headed in the coming decade. Earlier this week, German solar company Heliatek unveiled a 40 percent transparent organic solar cell that's ideal for generating energy from windows, façades and glass car roofs.

The development holds potentially groundbreaking implications for the new generation of net-zero smart buildings, as well as the alleviation of electric vehicle range anxiety. The possibilities are diverse, but it may be a while before we see transparent cells in use on a large scale. Heliatek has achieved 7 percent efficiency on its latest cell. This is respectable compared to its world-leading 12 percent efficiency for opaque organic cells but still a far cry from the 44.7 percent efficiency achieved by the top-performing standard photovoltaic (PV) cell -- made by fellow German manufacturer Fraunhofer.

Unlike standard solar cells, which are typically made from silicon, the production of Heliatek's organic film is based on small molecules (oligomers) developed and synthesized at its lab in Ulm, Germany. Oligomers are deposited at low temperatures in a roll-to-roll vacuum process, and their selective absorption of the solar spectrum targets different colors and transparency to convert sunlight into electricity. This may prove to be a breadwinning technology in the long-run, but for now higher costs keep it in the "niche" category.

While producing more efficient transparent cells, especially organic ones, may prove challenging, Dresden-based Heliatek sees promise in its latest development. The company has been open about its strategy to supply its transparent solar film to glass manufacturers for both building integration (BIPV) and car roofs. In a media release about this latest lab development, CEO Thibaud Le Séguillon went as far as to say that, "The transparency of our products is at the core of our market approach."

Le Séguillon isn't the only one who has this idea. Earlier this week, researchers from Singapore’s Nanyang Technological University debuted a new solar cell material that doubles as a touch screen for electronic devices, information kiosks and other displays. The integrated solar cell/touch screen concept parallels the emergence of building-integrated solar cells, as well as cells that can be incorporated into fabrics and other wearable or portable items.

In another attempt to bring a silicon-killer on the scene, the NTU cell is made from perovskite -- a relatively inexpensive mineral composed of calcium titanate (titanate is a salt composed of titanium and oxygen). But a group of MIT researchers took things one step further, devising a way to manipulate E. coli bacteria to create self-repairing solar cells. Inspired by natural materials such as bone, the researchers coaxed bacterial cells to produce biofilms that can incorporate nonliving materials, such as gold nanoparticles and quantum dots. The addition of inorganic nanoparticles, particularly gold, made the bacteria conductive to electricity. This potentially paves the way for self-repairing, and even self-assembling, solar cells and batteries.

"It shows that indeed you can make cells that talk to each other and they can change the composition of the material over time,” says Timothy Lu, an assistant professor of electrical engineering and biological engineering at MIT and the senior author of a paper describing the discovery in the March 23 issue of Nature Materials. “Ultimately, we hope to emulate how natural systems, like bone, form. No one tells bone what to do, but it generates a material in response to environmental signals.”

While none of these developments are likely to revolutionize the solar industry in the short-term, they pull back the veil and give us a peek at what is sure to be a promising future; a future that's likely inconceivable to us now. One thing is certain: The industry is already on the rise, with a 15 percent growth rate in the global solar PV market last year, and other savvy (though decidedly less sexy) developments in areas like smart energy storage are paving the way for what could be a whole new power source. There's no telling what the future holds, but we'll be watching.

Images courtesy of Heliatek GmbH

Based in Philadelphia, Mary Mazzoni is an editor at TriplePundit. She is also a freelance journalist who frequently writes about sustainability, corporate social responsibility and clean tech. Her work has appeared on the Huffington Post, Sustainable Brands, Earth911 and The Daily Meal. You can follow her on Twitter @mary_mazzoni.

As North Carolina regulators press to have Duke Energy stripped of protections that would have limited the company’s liability for cleanup of coal ash spills in two regional rivers, communities downstream are struggling to come to terms with the continuing impact of the cleanup and stigma from the pollution.

Danville, Va. is just miles downstream from where a pipe connected to a coal ash pond owned by Duke Energy failed and spewed toxic sludge into the Dan River in February. The city of 43,000 has been working hard in recent years to revitalize its image and its future. A former tobacco and textiles town, its growth has depended on this waterway, which served at times not only as a resource for drinking water, but as a disposal site for nearby industrial waste and rinse water. It’s a history that Danville has gradually been moving away from.

These days, the Dan River fulfills another, more elegant purpose as one of Virginia’s state-designated Scenic Rivers. Approved last October, the designation encompasses a 15-mile stretch in the vicinity of Danville. The scenic recognition is expected to draw in much-needed tourism dollars from travelers interested in seeing Virginia’s rural beauty. Danville’s economic development, and its transition away from an industry that once painted the river currents in color, is now dependent upon that designation -- and the tourism that is meant to follow.

In February, staff from Virginia’s Department of Conservation and Recreation told GoDanRiver.com that the river wasn’t currently in danger of losing its Scenic River status just because a spill had occurred. Turbidity was to be expected. But long-term pollution or the prevalence of factors that indicated pollution was another thing. A review has been put off until later this spring in order to gauge whether there has actually been damage to this coveted 15-mile stretch of river.

But local concern over the river’s status is only a reflection of a more insidious impact of this spill: Danville’s reputation as a place for new businesses to invest and thrive.

These days, business development is a make-or-break factor for small cities, especially cities that have an eye on tourism development as a way to transition away from industries that are no longer financially viable, or that pose environmental challenges. Danville’s historic legacy, its parks and scenic beauty rely not just on the vibrancy of the river, but also the investment of businesses that see its promotion and use as a sort of economic and sustainable partnership: The ecology of the river flourishes from protective, concerted investments of time and resources, and so do the businesses, the city and the residents that rely upon its health.

City officials have gone on record to assure residents that its water treatment plant, located in Danville, is able to filter out all of the toxins and sediment from the spill. City Manager Joe King appeared in a YouTube video designed to bolster confidence in the city’s water treatment. Gov. Terry McAuliffe even paid a visit to inspect the treatment plant and assured the 18,000 residents who depend on the plant for their drinking water that it was safe. Up until now, the reputation of Danville’s plant is as one of the top water treatment facilities in the state and one of the oldest in the country.

Still, the question on the minds of many right now doesn’t have to do with the efficient operation of the plant, or even the technology it employs, but the impact that pollution, which may take years to clean up, will have on the city’s ability to woo businesses from both within, and outside the area. And as other environmental spills have demonstrated in the past, that’s an answer that only the river knows.

 

Images courtesy of Aaron Headly

A new analysis from Charlotte, N.C. once again shows what we've learned from many other case studies: It costs taxpayers less money to house the homeless than it does to leave them to the elements.

Researchers at the University of North Carolina examined Moore Place, a housing complex with 85 units, constructed in 2012 specifically to meet the needs of homeless individuals in the Charlotte area. Moore Place requires residents to pay 30 percent of their income (which includes things like veterans and disability benefits) toward the cost of rent. The remaining housing cost per person, per year is about $14,000 -- which Moore Place pays for through Federal and local grants.

If that $14,000 seems like somebody is soaking the system, keep in mind it costs about $30,000 per year or more to imprison somebody. Sometimes a lot more. Which is one important reason that giving the homeless a place to live can save taxpayers money. The population at Moore Place saw a 78 percent drop in arrests and 84 percent fewer days in jail compared to living on the streets. That's fewer people in expensive prisons, less police work, a reduction of caseload for the courts, and the aversion of a whole range of taxpayer costs that occur when people run afoul of the law. More savings come from fewer emergency room visits. Residents of Moore Place also collectively made 447 fewer emergency room visits and spent 372 fewer nights in the hospital than they would have otherwise. The emergency room tends to be the go-to source for medical attention for homeless populations -- a very pricey medical option.

Turns out that having a place to stay reduces the likelihood that a person will find themselves sustaining injury or illness and getting into trouble with the law.

All told the researchers at the University of North Carolina found a $1.8 million taxpayer savings. That almost 2 million bucks taxpayers don't need to shell out, potentially safer streets, maybe less waiting at the emergency room, and more human dignity -- for a single 85-unit building. The initiative was such a success that the city council of Charlotte approved $1 million in funding to increase Moore Place to 120 units.

Similar initiatives around the country are following the same principle. Colorado turned the Fort Lyon Correctional Facility into housing for the homeless. It's estimated that each homeless person on the street costs taxpayers $43,240. By contrast it costs just $16,813, on average, to house that same person.

I had the honor of visiting Braddock, Penn. and meeting Mayor John Fetterman and other community leaders of the beleaguered city. Braddock lost 90 percent of its population and 90 percent of its businesses over the course of 20 years, leaving the town destitute and empty. It had a high homeless population and a high crime rate, including homicide. One of the solutions was to renovate some of the numerous empty homes and use them for low-cost housing for the homeless.

Unfortunately, while practical solutions like this save communities and taxpayers tons of money while creating safer streets, there are those who find these common-sense solutions distasteful simply on principle. But leaving the homeless on the streets, in addition to being a failure of compassion, is demonstrably penny wise and pound foolish.

Image Source: Waferboard - Link

"It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness, it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity, it was the season of Light, it was the season of Darkness, it was the spring of hope, it was the winter of despair, we had everything before us, we had nothing before us, we were all going direct to Heaven, we were all going direct the other way."

Wow... And I thought this was the opening paragraph of "A Tale Of Two Cities." Maybe it was, but it best describes how I feel about rankings, ratings, awards and everything else the experts do when they try to tell us which company just passed sliced bread as the best sustainable thing ever. Better than the real thing. Better than all the rest. Simply the best.

This time it wasn't the usual daily-inbox-flooding set of Top 100 or Best Of or Greenest or Most Loved lists that got me going. This time it was one of my favorite morning reads, the Consumerist -- usually the place I go for a quick chuckle about who got into what trouble while I was sleeping. But this time it got me a bit worked up because it is the start of their 2014 Worst Company In America competition.

There were a few names on there that I don't like and would put on my personal list, too. But the thought that hit me first when I read the list was the Twitter joke #firstworldproblems. Do they really think Yahoo or eBay or Microsoft or CVS should be on that list compared to cigarette-makers or companies that spill chemicals into waterways or oil into neighborhoods or employ illegal workers on farms and factories and pay them next to nothing in slave labor conditions? Really? You think the things you identified make a company the worst company in the USA? Really?

Of course they don't. They are just making a list of companies who annoyed them and their readers in the last year or so. No real substance behind the list -- just a "I had a bad experience and will now take it out on you for revenge." No substance, no science and no credibility. And it wasted a precious 3 minutes of my commuting and reading time.

Make no mistake, those many awards and rankings and ratings and numerous lists that sustainability experts push out every day aren't much better. It is all in the eye of the beholder. How else can you have such huge differences between CR's 100 Best Corporate Citizens compared to Corporate Knights Global 100? Throw in Best Global Green Brands, and you are ranked No. 1 on the Most Confused Sustainability Expert With A South African Accent list.

How do you get a cigarette company to be listed as a better corporate citizen than Nike or Starbucks? You know the end product kills, right? You can make a Fair Trade certified cigarette, but it will still have the same outcome. How do four car companies make it into the top five of greenest companies? You know that no matter how fuel efficient their cars are, they are still made with metal and (mostly) burn fossil fuels, right? So how did they get there ahead of a Johnson & Johnson or IBM? How do two oil companies get listed in the top 10 global companies above a Unilever and Natura? You know they are oil companies, right?

I'm not climbing into any of the companies listed higher than others. That's not their fault. Heck, I drive a SUV. A small one but not a hybrid. My problem lies with the people making up the list. They are just making it up as they go along this merry sustainability road.

Each one will decide their own criteria according to what they believe should be the right way to make a judgment on who their research shows is the best. Some of them are pretty honest and list who are clients or who are members. But most of them just develop criteria, and we are told that these are the right criteria to assess whether this company is sustainable or not.

Lies, damn lies and statistics.

The criteria used is just an opinion. Sustainability is more complex than a simple ticking of boxes. A Timberland cannot be judged in the same way a BP is judged. They are only similar in that they are both called and defined as "a business." But they are apples and oranges. Yes, apples and oranges are both fruits, but we won't mix them up when making a list of what is best. That will come down to the criteria we create and our personal choice.

But don't blame companies. They all want their products to be seen as sustainable. They all want to win the race. The reality is that this is simply not possible. Not all products are equal when it comes to sustainability. Not all products are sustainable. They simply cannot all be sustainable. We wouldn't be in this amount of trouble if they all were as good as the lists told us they were. Remember, how a product is made is only half of the story -- the other half is the impact of the product itself. A Fair Trade cigarette? A responsibly mined piece of coal? A humanely slaughtered whale? Remember the end product. It's too complex to simply make up a bunch of criteria based on GRI or whatever gets you going in the morning.

So stop making up lists of the good or the bad as it all just turns into the ugly. None of these lists or awards are sustainable. Or be honest about the severe limitations of facts, figures, criteria and those damn statistics. Nothing wrong with an opinion (I just gave you one), but don't mask it with faux science and a list or ranking that give it some flavor of science. An apple a day keeps the doctor away and an orange is more than just a pretty color. But they aren't the same -- no matter what your opinion might be.

Remember that opening paragraph of "A Tale Of Two Cities." Right now we are starting to look like we are living in the age of foolishness and not wisdom. These lists are more the epoch of incredulity than belief. It creates more Darkness than Light. It brings me despair not hope...

I leave you with my favorite lines from "A Tale Of Two Cities" that reminds me of these lists and rankings and awards:

"What did you make of it, Tom?" "Nothing at all, Joe." "That's a coincidence, too, for I made the same of it myself."

Image credit: A portion of the Consumerist's 2014 Worst Company in America bracket

-

A series of quick & dirty opinion pieces by Henk Campher. Senior Vice President, Business + Social Purpose and Managing Director of Sustainability at Edelman out in the Wild West of San Francisco.  Disrupter of purpose. Engineer of big ideas. Slayer of myths. Social media junkie - @angryafrican. He never wears ties. Ever. But always wears an accent with a strategy and opinion in his back pocket. Please note this series will not focus on individual companies and any reference is purely to provide color commentary.

Follow Henk Campher on Twitter.

Last month, Google paid $3.2 billion to acquire Nest Labs, Inc., the maker of upscale home gadgets with high-tech interfaces, most notably the Nest Learning Thermostat (NLT). Most observers feel the acquisition was to help Google participate in the home energy management market, which is becoming increasingly connected to the “Internet of things, which Cisco estimates to be worth some $14.4 trillion over the next decade.”

Nest had only recently announced it’s take on the smoke alarm, the Nest Protect, which is a combination smoke and carbon monoxide (CO) detector, done-up with the same kind of panache that made their thermostat stand out from the crowd.

The Nest Protect has a variety of features, providing the kind of performance that you might expect from a “smarter” smoke alarm.

Starting with the same kind of elegant styling as its thermostatic cousin, as well a similarly premium price ($129), it’s clearly aimed at a discriminating market. Here’s what your investment will get you.

The smoke alarms are all connected to the Internet via Wi-Fi, which not only allows you to check them with a smartphone app, as you could with the NLT (using the same app), but it also allows them to talk with each other. That means that when there is smoke or carbon monoxide being detected, the alarm will sound not only in the room where the smoke is, but in all the other rooms, too. That improves the chance that you will hear it, which is, after all, the point.

Human factors were clearly given a good deal of consideration. There are two levels of hazard detection with corresponding levels of response. The first is called a “heads up,” which means a small amount of smoke or CO has been noticed. This results in a yellow light and a mild chirp, notifying you not to get too excited, but perhaps you might want to take a look. If the smoke or CO continues, you get the full-blown loud alarm and a red light. The talking detectors will tell you which room the smoke is coming from.

Another great feature is the Nest Wave. Once the alarm comes on, and you’ve gotten the message, whether it’s a false alarm or not, you can easily silence it with a wave of your hand. It might take a couple of waves (the algorithm needs to be sure you really mean it), but as long as you are within 2 to 8 feet of the device, it will shut off. This is important, because annoying false alarms that are difficult to shut off often lead to people disabling their smoke alarms -- which, in turn, sometimes leads to very unfortunate outcomes.

The device comes in either a hard-wired or battery-operated version. The battery version requires six lithium-ion batteries, which Nest claims will last several years. Speaking of batteries, another nice feature is the Nightly Promise. What is being promised here is that the device will not awaken you in the middle of the night asking for new batteries. Once the lights go out, the device gives you a reassuring green wink if everything is a-okay, or a yellow frown if it's not. So you might need to change the battery at that point, but it’s better than waking up several hours later to do it.

The Protect contains an impressive variety of sensors including:

• Photoelectric smoke sensor


• Carbon monoxide sensor


• Heat sensor


• Three activity sensors


• Ambient light sensor


• Humidity sensor

All of this means that the device really wants you to calibrate it once a week, though I doubt that’s going to happen in most homes.

Reviews for the most part have been favorable. Some have balked at the price and wondered if it was really worth the money. Consumer Reports said it performed well, though it was not the safest product of its kind on the market. It gave that honor to a $30 Kidde device. Why? The Kidde uses both photo-electric and ionizing smoke sensors. This allows it to sense a wider range of fire types. The photo-electric sensor used by Nest does respond to smoky-type fires, meaning that it is what it says it is: a smoke detector.

Still, CR felt that for that price, and its claim to be the Cadillac of smoke alarms, the company should have included both types of smoke sensors. The CR reviewer also complained loudly about the difficulty of setting up the Wi-Fi, suggesting that it was not for the uninitiated.

I reviewed the Nest Learning Thermostat back in 2011. At the time I connected with Ted Kidd, a home energy expert, who felt that the premise on which programmable thermostats like the Nest were based on -- that setting back the temperature for a few hours each day would save energy -- was not necessarily true. “Big savings are not achieved by temporary temperature reductions of the home,” he said. “In fact, reducing air temperature in the home means high mass items like couches and beds get cold and stay cold.”

That means more energy will be required at the other end, to heat all that mass up again. So the question of savings is a little more complicated than one might expect.

In the case of the smoke alarm, Nest engineers have certainly pushed the envelope and advanced the state-of-the-art with a very thoughtful design. A number of these features are truly valuable.

As to whether they have truly designed the ultimate smoke alarm, I think maybe not.

As we look into the future, home automation will continue to progress, and I think we will begin to see smoke detectors coupled with ventilation systems -- combined under the heading of indoor air quality and smart ventilation. That way the smoke is not only detected, but it can be actively removed as well. Given that most fire-related deaths are due to smoke inhalation, this could be a very important development.

Still, in the near-term, the Nest Protect is an option well worth checking out, especially for gadget lovers.

Image courtesy of Nest

RP Siegel, PE, is an inventor, consultant and author. He writes for numerous publications including Justmeans, ThomasNet, Huffington Post, and Energy Viewpoints. 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 romp that is currently being adapted for the big screen. Now available on Kindle.

Follow RP Siegel on Twitter.

Welcome to our series of interviews with leading female CSR practitioners where we are learning about what inspires these women and how they found their way to careers in sustainability. Read the rest of the series here.

TriplePundit: Briefly describe your role and responsibilities, and how many years you have been in the business.

Suzanne Apple: I am Senior Vice President of Private Sector Engagement at World Wildlife Fund (WWF), the world’s leading conservation organization. I lead our corporate engagement with major U.S.-based companies and their supply chains to ensure that the natural resources and ecosystems which are essential to their operations are managed sustainably.

I joined WWF almost 11 years ago following more than 10 years at The Home Depot as Vice President of Community Affairs and Environmental Programs where I oversaw the company’s CSR and sustainability initiatives.

3p: How has the sustainability program evolved at your organization?

SA: I think what has been most satisfying in my career is to have seen the conversation about sustainability evolve from the right thing to do, to a business imperative. Sustainability is now front and center on many boardroom agendas, becoming integrated into companies’ core business strategies. Previously, many companies saw the environment as something separate from their business, but they are beginning to see the bigger picture and now understand that responsible environmental practices are essential to the long-term viability of business and the license to operate.

I saw this firsthand at The Home Depot. In the early 90s, we began to take a close look at our sustainability strategy and one of the first steps we took was to better understand the company’s impact on the environment, looking across all categories of our business. I was proud to be part of the company’s announcement in 1999 of the first comprehensive wood purchasing policy in the North American home improvement sector, which was a huge first step towards supporting responsible forestry throughout the world. We were really ahead of the game, because even in the early 2000s, sustainability was in its infancy in most companies and sectors.

When I first came to WWF in 2003, I had an opportunity to continue that work as more and more companies were embarking on their own sustainability journeys to better understand their environmental impact. Since 2003, the value that our partner companies place on sustainability has grown exponentially. In 2005, Walmart announced its sustainability goals which had a catalytic effect in advancing sustainability across the corporate sector and raised awareness of the role of the supply chain.

Working together with companies to jointly develop solutions to minimize their environmental impact while also improving their business practices—and hopefully strengthening their business’ profitability — and achieving WWF’s goals through this work has been one of the most rewarding elements of my work at WWF.

In fact, one of the proudest moments of my career was to see WWF recently named as the most influential NGO partner by the Green Biz Intelligence Panel. This recognition from more than 3,200 executives and thought leaders in the area of corporate environmental strategy and performance demonstrates that WWF’s approach to corporate engagement drives results for people, nature and business.

3p: Tell us about someone (mentor, sponsor, friend, hero) who affected your sustainability journey, and how.

SA: Arthur Blank, co-founder and former CEO of The Home Depot, had a significant impact on my career and personal view of sustainability as he pushed us, as a company, to assess our environmental impact and look at innovative ways for us to be more sustainable. I had the privilege of reporting to Arthur when I worked at The Home Depot and found him very inspiring, both personally and professionally.

Another source of inspiration is Ray Anderson, CEO of Interface, one of the largest carpeting manufacturers and noted author on sustainable enterprises. Ray was a true sustainability pioneer and was a leader with a courageous and ambitious environmental vision.

Both Ray Anderson and Arthur Blank have shown me the powerful role that CEOs can have in defining their company’s sustainability legacy.

3p: What is the best advice you have ever received?

SA: The best pieces of advice I have received have been about risk taking and thinking outside the box.

First, if you aren’t making mistakes, then you aren’t taking enough risks. I’ve found that the most innovative solutions often come from outside your own comfort zone.

Second, to move to the next level, think and act like you’re already there. Think ahead, think broadly and don’t be limited by your position or title.

3p: Can you share a recent accomplishment you are especially proud of?

SA: One of my most important accomplishments was launching WWF’s transformational partnership with The Coca-Cola Company to help conserve the world’s freshwater resources. Expanding this focus and building on our progress, we recently renewed our collaboration through 2020 to achieve even greater impact by helping address the natural resource challenges that impact fresh water. This partnership has had significant impact around the world and is unique in its focus on building a sustainable value chain for the 21st century and beyond. It has been an exceptional experience to see our two organizations (WWF and The Coca-Cola Company) work so closely together – it’s a true partnership and definitely not your typical NGO-corporate collaboration.

3p: If you had the power to make one major change at your organization or in your industry, what would it be?

SA: I think that at every organization there is an ongoing opportunity to empower people to be innovative risk takers. In the realm of corporate sustainability, I think there is momentum at some companies to approach sustainability from an entrepreneurial perspective; to look at it through the innovation lens. I’d like to see this continue as it not only makes for a more stimulating work environment, but it also can inspire terrific results and outcomes.

3p: Describe your perfect day.

SA: My perfect day begins sitting on a screened-in porch in Louisiana with a steaming cup of café au lait and ends with a sunset cruise on the Bayou.