Athena in the News

I spoke recently in British Columbia at a dialogue focused on energy, efficiency and sustainability. One of my fellow panelists, John Robinson from the University of British Columbia, commented that not much had changed since 1974. The sentiment was echoed by despondent frowns and head nodding around the room. Is he right? We pride ourselves in the Northwest for our movement toward energy conservation and support for renewables. For instance, Snohomish County Public Utility District has identified potential tidal power sites and is researching the feasibility of developing them. Washington, Oregon and British Columbia have each made progress in creating policies that support the cleantech industry. Green building technologies have exploded in popularity. And programs that fund energy efficiency and renewable energy have increased significantly in our region. Many more examples abound. But is the current effort around efficiency doomed to fizzle out like the environmental movement of the 70s? More importantly, what can we do this time around to extend its effectiveness? The following suggestions are places to start. Put value first To maintain much of the progress we’ve made, we have to speak in economic terms. For instance, energy-efficiency efforts applied in buildings often focus on creating buildings that consume the least amount of energy, or those with the least impact on the environment. But how clear and universal are the benefits of energy-efficient, green building design to a building user, owner and developer, each of whom have very different incentives? A much more interesting (and useful) dilemma is how to make buildings more functional and valuable to owners, developers and users while also increasing the efficiency of the building. Let’s not marginalize our efforts solely to the natural environment this time around; let's instead focus on getting more value from our communities, transportation, buildings, utilities and businesses with less negative impact. It’s a subtle change, but it will have a big impact on whether efficiency measures reach the mainstream. Increase profit motives I have my own philosophy about change — first comes the "enlightened" move, then the "greedy," and lastly the "fearful."
Talk to the average business person about global warming and the peak oil crisis and their eyes eventually glaze over. Climate change is a problem many perceive as too big for one person or one business to impact. Instead, let’s also talk about how much opportunity awaits us as the world looks for less polluting and more efficient ways of doing things. Profit motives and commercial benefit are powerful incentives, and we should leverage them for all they are worth.
The enlightened are already heading in this direction. Let’s bring the greedy on board and acknowledge that some people will generate wealth from these activities. Focus on impact Technology demonstrations aren’t the finish line. For us to gain the value of advanced technologies, policies and methods, we have to be able to deploy demonstrations in the real world. Only then will those advancements really have an impact.
Throughout the Northwest, at any given time, dozens of ideas are being tested out in the field. How many of those ideas actually evolve into commercially viable products or approaches that become more widely deployed and leveraged? Are we keeping track? Do we care? We should on both counts. Address behavior In the end, much of energy-efficiency progress is about behavioral changes in how we select and manage our equipment, tools, buildings and processes. One of the things they did get right in the 70s was to focus on these underlying behaviors and campaign for greater awareness of the benefits of making other choices. Today, following a decade of technology hype, we often fixate on the “stuff” and spend less time on the underlying behaviors that drive the efficiency performance of these technologies. Just as important as the profile of the building, for instance, is the personality of the building — what is the logic (or lack thereof) behind how it is used and managed?
Controls that allow users and facility managers to modify building operations only work if there are clear ways for managers to understand in real time how to support users' needs in an efficient way. Systems that can manage to a particular set of rules won’t get anywhere if the organization can’t agree on the rules in the first place. Anyone in the business of energy efficiency has to own the behavioral aspects inherent in their customer’s situations, and address those issues head-on with products and programs. Perhaps on some level we still resemble the 70s. What is more relevant is how far we get this time around. How much value are we ultimately able to wring from our buildings, businesses, communities, utilities and transportation, and at what cost to society? That worthwhile quest should keep us busy for a while, and perhaps it will receive a more positive review when we look back in 2030.