This post comes from Matt Marino, founder of Clean Pursuits a GLD Boston insider. Find him @cleanpursuits

BOSTON – I once heard that the blades of modern wind turbines are modeled after the fins of humpback whales.  I’m not sure its true, but there is a striking resemblance, and such a practice has a name in design and engineering: biomimicry.

There is a less specific, more systemic feature of natural systems that I am interested in: the role of diversity.  It seems that diversity has a protective effect on some of the most critical natural systems, which directly or indirectly impact social well-being and human health; for example, its role in natural carbon sequestration, water purification, curing disease, and – oh yeah – evolution.

So diversity is a good thing for nature, design, finance and energy – so what? Well, as a self-proclaimed innovation economist, I’m always looking for the traits and characteristics of nurturing innovative projects, teams, solutions, ventures and geographic “clusters” (See Chris’ new survey to elect your city), and research I conducted while in b-school led me to believe that diversity is a key component for driving innovation.  The hypothesis that I  didn’t, but would like to, research further: the passive investments in nurturing diversity to drive innovation are just as important as hard spending on R&D.

Of course, diversity isn’t just cultural – it can derive from the cross-pollination of and collaboration between public-private partnerships, intra-industry ventures, and institutional “mash-ups.”  The latter is the focus of projects like Upstate Venture Connect, a project seeking to accelerate the linkage between academia, private and institutional capital, and workforce and industrial capacity in upstate New York.

It’s my belief that the diversity in the U.S. is a prime factor for our nation’s innovation leadership.  Arizona S.B. 1070 notwithstanding, a long tradition of favorable immigration policies have led to what Tom Friedman calls “the world’s biggest and most diverse pool of high-I.Q. risk-takers.”  In my view, the U.S. is still uniquely positioned for “innovation incubation,” an important consideration for those who believe we can innovate our way out of global meltdown (pun not intended, but appropriate I suppose).

Humpback photo credit: Nancy Black.

This post comes from on our our new Boston industry insiders, Aaron Lindenbaum. Aaron’s first post is really awesome and can’t wait to see more from him. Stay tuned!

Project finance is the key to clean energy growth and many in the industry are worried about the ramifications on financing if the Recovery Act section 1603 cash grants AKA the “cash-in-lieu of tax credit” grants expire at the end of 2010, as they are set to do.  The success of 1603 has been undeniable as it allowed a streamlined way for these capital-intensive projects to get financed during the global recession, accounting for up to 30% of the capital expenditure of a project.

Different iterations have been introduced on Capital Hill to extend the grants.  Most recently, seven US Senators teamed up to propose an extension through 2012.  And most controversially, US Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) proposed to alter 1603 as the centerpiece of his proposed “Buy American” bill.

The financiers themselves are voicing how critical an extension of 1603 really is, simply because investors need to know that they’ll get a return on their investment in reasonably short order. Whether it’s continued as an extension of stimulus or part of a new energy and climate bill, cash grants must be addressed in the short term.  And the dealmakers, the ones who inevitably sign off to make these projects happen, are practically begging for the government to restore financial certainty for their investments.  The fear is that while Congress focuses on climate legislation in the long term, project finance will suffer, stifling the unprecedented industry growth we saw in 2009.

In fact, we’ve already seen a severe drop in the wind sector in 2010.  Experts are reeling that only 539 MW went online in Q1, down from the 2,800 MW put on in Q1 2009.  That said, there are certainly other factors in play besides uncertainty about cash grants, but the fact remains that credit markets are still frozen and the federal business energy investment tax credit (ITC) just won’t cut it for the bulk of new projects that are starved for capital.

The leading project financiers and clean energy executives in the US are convening this week in Manhattan at the 2010 Renewable Energy Finance Forum (or REFF-Wall Street) to discuss the financial state of the industry.  My colleagues and I at Rasky Baerlein are running the media component of the event and will be onsite at the Waldorf Astoria.  I’ve got my ear to the ground and will have some people sit in on the “View From the Major Investment Banks” session for me.  I’m interested in that one most because it includes heavy hitters in renewable energy finance from all the major investment banks, and I’m guessing that 1603 will be a much discussed topic.  Stay tuned…

Many of the issues we face with renewable energy and clean tech in general are technological problems, but I would argue many more of them have to do with framing the issues and convincing people to change. Technology won’t do it by itself, the adoption and change of behavior will be the hard part.

We can learn a lot of lessons about framing from our reaction to the crisis in Haiti, and the change in terminology from global warming to climate change, both worthless terms. These may seem like tiny, trivial issues but they’re not. Something I always hear from engineer types is ‘sales is easy’. Bull, if you put them out in the wild they wouldn’t be able to give solar away. I believe that convincing people to do something is very, very hard.

We can see this with how environmental, political, and business groups have tried to sell clean energy to the American public. It’s like a huge experimental with each group trying to figure out what will work. To the environmentalists its saving the world, to republicans it can be energy independence, to business owners it’s innovation and growth, to VCs is the trillion dollar opportunity that dwarfs the internet boom.

Our real challenge seems to be figuring out how to frame the issue that unites everyone.

If we’re certain about one things its this, the US is rapidly falling behind other regions in the development of clean tech, that includes, water, waste, energy, you name it.  A few weeks ago Stephen Lacey from Renewable Energy World published a podcast called “The Next Great Global Industry” (ps- if you don’t already listen to the Inside Renewable Energy podcast by Stephen Lacey, you should, it’s awesome) where the guests near the end of the podcast described the phenomenon.

Here’s my question to you: what’s the best way to sell this to the American public?

In my perspective, we could use many frames, but the question is which one or ones will be most effective. If we just split the world in two, the ‘save the word’ part would convince the hippies and environmentalists, while the ‘beat china’ would cater to the replication crowd. Shhhhh, here’s the secret, whatever you choose leads to the same answers, MORE CLEAN TECH INVESTMENT!

I’m curious, what do you think is the best way to sell this?

-Chris

This post comes from one of our 11 industry insiders, that will all start writing in May, stay tuned! Jesse Gossett is a partner at Emergent Energy Group.

So there’s this lawsuit that just popped up where a Canadian energy company is suing the Massachusetts governments over a law that requires utilities to purchase their renewable energy from Massachusetts based firms.

Basically, I’m curious to see what holds water. I talked to some energy lawyers recently who think the interstate-commerce part of the suit may hold water, but the SREC (that a Solar Renewable Energy Credit) related charges are mostly hot air.

The inter-state issue is very… interesting. I personally find the interstate clause kind of murky, as it’s nice to give states the ability to bolster their own economies, though I suppose there’s a reason for the interstate commerce laws that goes deeper than just this one issue.  And if Cape Wind (the main reason behind the suit, I think) looses out on the added benefit of this particular law, it could put a dent in the ‘financability’ of the project. Then again, this is the first offshore project in the states, I have a feeling the investors know they’re taking a risk to begin with.

As for the SREC issue, many states are currently acting out the same system without problems. There is no exclusion happening, it’s more a ‘if you want to operate in our state, you have to follow our rules.’ You could almost view it as a tax. Trans-Canada might get away with a lower SREC supply component than their competitors as a settlement out of the suit, but I doubt it’ll go too far beyond that.

The final thing here is, the SREC market, while lucrative for solar developers, is a small potato for Trans-Canada compared to the 2.4 billion dollar field of sticks in the ocean that Jim Gordon has planned. The Cape Wind project itself is larger than the entire solar market is expected to be in MA in 6 years.

Anyways, let’s see where this lawsuit goes. Strangely, you don’t see too many in our field. Must be because it’s always been small potatoes. I guess that means we’re growing!

This post comes from one of our 11 industry insiders, that will all start writing in May. Brian Hayden is the founder of HeatSpring Learning Institute.

Most of my friends have never heard of Mass SAVE, but my good friend Tom signed up for a Mass SAVE energy audit.  The auditor spent half an hour in his place, promised big rebates, and Tom agreed to have weatherization and insulation work done.  Four weeks later (two days before the scheduled work), Tom got a call from a customer service representative informing him that he no longer qualified for the rebate and would have to spend an extra $1700 out-of-pocket.  “Never mind.”  Said Tom.

Let’s assume the end goal is an enormous wave of energy efficiency retrofits.  Looking at that end goal from an entrepreneur’s perspective, regardless of your political views, isn’t the current setup in Massachusetts almost comically bad?  And MA has one of the best programs in the country.

I think there’s a fear of spending the money too fast and administering a huge program like that is clumsy.  There’s always a balance between wanting to spend the money and fear of spending it badly.  I think fear is winning.  We need to find alternate routes around these programs and not rely on them to fix everything.

Here’s a thought exercise: How might Walmart make energy efficiency easy and affordable for homeowners?  I know Walmart is evil, but what might they get right that we’re currently getting wrong?

First, don’t get all upset! I admit, I just wrote this title to rope you in and peak your interest because I’m assuming you think that renewable energy is awesome and needs some incentives to get the industry kick started and to decrease the learning curve, test out new technologies yadda yadda yadda. I agree with you.

Here’s the thing, I really don’t think we need more incentives for renewables, I think we need to start removing subsidies for traditional fuel sources. The reality is that with full cost accounting and taking into account the price of carbon, renewable sources at the current level of technology instantly become competitive with fossil fuels. Renewable Energy World recently wrote that from 2002 – 2008 there were more then 500% more subsidies for fossil fuels than for traditional renewables. Granted, these numbers have changed for the better with the passing of the stimulus bill in 2009. However, although this has been good news for the industry is also symbolizes a very inefficient approach to creating the renewable industry.

We all should be concerned about government waste, regardless of your political affiliation. If people are concerned about government waste, subsidizing an industry to compete with an already heavily subsidies industry is very, very, very, I’ll say it again, very wasteful.

Now, I completely agree with Ice T when he said “don’t hate the playa’, hate the game”. Its true that the renewable industry was probably too small to go up against the large and full pocketed lobbyists from the fossil fuel industry and that the only thing they could do is get some incentives for themselves.

However, the next step for the industry must to be reduce and then remove subsidies for the traditional fossil fuels.

What do you think will be the most effective way to do this? I know that most fossil fuel subsidizes are national while a lot of renewable policies are driven at a state level, which makes it a more interesting problem.

Recently, an ice shelf on the cold side of Antarctica melted and fell into the ocean. This is not a new occurrence, a couple years ago a smaller, but still large piece of ice fell into ocean. Also, communities in Alaska are also being challenged and destroyed due to permafrost melting. So, its not like serious consequence are already not happening from climate disruption (note: notice I use the climate disruption and not change) it just seems like they’re not big enough yet.

So, here’s the question: What would it take for governments to Ban CO2?

Here’s a more interesting question, if it is banned what will the ban look like? Everything can’t be banned at once due to our strong reliance on gasoline. Maybe just coal power plants, and any automobiles with one person driving in them.

What do you think?

With more ice expected to melt, will sea levels need to rise 5 foot causing hundreds of millions of people be a large enough of a demonstration?

Knowledge Doesn’t Always Change Action

What troubles me is that knowledge doesn’t always mean that action will be changed. Here the example that always sticks in my head. Everyone knows that McDonalds is the most disgusting, unhealthy, nasty, greasy food in the world. But people still eat it!

I was at a training last week at the Connecticut Light & Power headquarters in Berlin, CT.  CL&P is a division of Northeast Utilities.  The most interesting thing I learned there is that CL&P is working on a residential demand response program.

What is demand response?  In this case, CL&P will begin offering rebates for customers to install special meters and switches in their homes that allows the utility to shut off certain appliances when the grid is being pushed, by pushed I mean the demand for electricity is almost more than supply.  The obvious example of this is on a hot summer day when everyone is running their air conditioner.  In exchange for a lower electricity rate, customers that opt in will allow the utility to shut off their equipment during these peak times.  Companies like EnerNoc do this on a commercial and industrial scale.

How much of a discount will customers get?  How often will appliances be shut down?  When will the program roll out?  None of those answers were available to me, but I was encouraged to see this kind of program happening on a residential level.  It’s bound to open up new business opportunities and I’m happy to see some tangible evidence of the much-hyped smart grid.  Way to go Northeast Utilities!

One of my favorite tweeples @solarfred has recently started a campaign to get Solar Power on the @whitehouse called Hey, Whitehouse! Where’s the solar PV?

Why hasn’t this happened sooner? We, at The Green Light Distrikt believe this is an amazing idea. Obama, and for that matter ALL public officials who are supporting solar power and renewable energy need to lead by example and put their money where their mouth is. Massachusetts, Colorado, and California come to mind as well. But that will wait for later. For now, let’s focus on the @whitehouse

SolarFred is the type of person we need to driving the movement forward, being proactive and keeping out elected officials in check.

If you believe that we need renewable energy, I urge you to help. Send a couple (by a couple I mean hundreds!) and an email or two.

Here’s how you can help according to Solar Fred:

Plus, there’s nothing like a role model like the President of the United States (or Oprah) to help people to see that solar technology is ready for prime time and makes financial sense.That’s why we’re making this grass roots appeal to President Obama to get some solar panels on the White House again. I hope you’ll join me in sending the President the message below.

Simply copy and paste the text and insert into the president’s email form here. If you’re afraid of email forms, you can directly email our Nobel Prize winning Energy Secretary Stephen Chu at The.Secretary@hq.doe.gov. If you’re on Twitter, why, you can tweet this post to the @whitehouse and to the president’s official spokes-dude, Press Secretary Robert Gibbs.  Alternatively, you can tweet this post to Oprah, because she’s a super power too.

Remember, that these people are usually ignoring you, so the more you spread the word, the more it feels like November gets their attention.

As for the letter, I’m purposely going to make this appeal a little quirky and funny, because doing the same old yada, yada, yada bull earnest appeal usually goes into a yada, yada, yada same old bull concerned advocate pile.  Okay? Okay! Here goes. (Oh, and don’t forget to share this post with your friends, family, and pets on Facebook, etc. too.)

Email this part:

RE: Solar, White House, and Bo

Dear Mr. President and Energy Secretary Chu,

Dudes! What’s with the delay of getting solar panels back on the White House?

As you know, your predecessor, President Jimmy Carter, put solar hot water on the Presidential homestead in the 1970’s, but then President Ronald Reagan thought they were unsightly and distasteful to the oil, gas, and coal lobbyists and ripped them off. Bummer, because those panels would still be working and saving tax dollars today.

Now, I know, ironically, that oil man President Bush (Yes, “W.”) allowed the National Park Service to put a solar PV system on a White House maintenance shed, but that’s not, you know, The White House. Frankly, I’m not sure what color that maintenance shed is, LOL! But I digress. A-hem.

The point is, Mr. President, that America needs you to lead by solar example. Could you please at least offset the residential portion of the White House with a solar electric and solar hot water system? There would be so many benefits to this.

As Energy Secretary Chu will tell you, putting up solar panels with today’s “smart” monitoring technology will allow you to show the public a real-time website with the residential White House energy savings and reduced CO2 emissions. You might also inspire more people to take advantage of the 30% solar Federal tax credit and new Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) financing programs. This, in turn, will inspire me, a lowly registered voter in a battleground state. Not that you should pander to us voters, but isn’t going solar the right thing to do anyway?

So, please go solar, Mr. President; and as a side note, don’t forget to walk Bo.

Respectfully wanting you to lead,

Your name,
City and State.

This post comes from our newest industry insider, Jessica Manganello, who will be giving us a great legal perspective of the clean tech and green industry. You can find here at New Leaf Legal, or on twitter @mangojess

For those of you who are unfamiliar with B Corporations (B Corp), B Corp is a certification designed by B Lab, a non-profit third party auditor.

According to B Corporation:

“B Corporations are a new type of corporation which uses the power of business to solve social and environmental problems. B Corporations are unlike traditional responsible businesses because they:
· Meet comprehensive and transparent social and environmental performance standards.
· Institutionalize stakeholder interests.
· Build collective voice through the power of a unifying brand.”

In order to be a B Corporation, a business must take social and environmental issues into consideration when making business decisions. This includes changing corporate governance language to require that these bottom lines are implemented.

What are the pros of B Corp?

1. If the mission and values of your business include an environmental and social bottom line, this certification allows you to cement those values into the culture of your business by changing your corporate governance documents in accordance with the legal language B corp has developed. Which means if there is a change of the guard at your business, the new soldiers will be required to keep towing that party line. This also may prevent shareholder lawsuits in the event that a business decision is made that is better for the environment or society than shareholder bank accounts. Shareholders will know what the company stands for before they buy.

2. Great marketing tool. The B Corp logo has caught on with consumers in the LOHAS industry and is continuing to expand its reach and influence. The organization provides you with digital logos, flyers, and poster boards with which to advertise your B Corp status. Your company will also be listed on their website as a member. This gives your business credibility, which let’s face it, in green, is sorely needed. With all the bogus certifications out there, consumers know that B corp can be trusted and that a B corp certified business has been thoroughly vetted.

3. Access to B-corp member resources and a growing community of business owners with the same priorities as yourself.

4. Charitable giving opportunities. You can either pay the B Corp yearly fee, or join 1% for the Planet. Tax deductions and more great marketing points. Why wouldn’t you?

5. Accountability. This is probably the largest benefit. Entrepreneurs and business owners know that as much as we love our companies, hard decisions must be made and stress wears us down. B Corp gives us build in requirements and standards, along with random audits lighting a fire under our bums, in order to keep us on the straight and narrow.

What are the cons of B Corp?

1. Application process is a bit daunting. Even the application for a small 0 to 10 person shop asks many questions surrounding policies, benefits, and pay that aren’t necessarily feasible for a small/growing company. Now there are many small businesses that are certified B Corps, so there must be discretion built into the application process that allows for start-ups. You may, however, be forced to develop policies that you aren’t “big” enough for, in order to meet their minimum requirements.

2. There is a fee.

3. Potential Marketing Disaster. As mentioned before, there are random audits of all member companies to ensure that they are staying true to the certification. This means, if you are not, you will lose your B Corp standing. If customers and affiliates have come to associate your company with the certification through the genius of your marketing efforts, its loss will be noticed and questioned.

4. Accountability. Both a pro and a con in my book. This is allowing an unvested third party organization to play some role in the operations of your business. What happens when your choice is between health benefits for your employees or more product development? How do you weigh these factors and how do you know if you are jeopardizing your B Corp status. In the end, you have to make the best decision for the longevity of the company and will you be too afraid of losing your status to make the right one? Could you also be setting yourself up for shareholder lawsuits, if your shareholders don’t think you gave enough consideration to environmental and social factors?

Of course to everything there is a laundry list of questions and concerns. In the end, you have to make the decision that benefits you and your business most. I am psyched about the B Corp certification (I am sure you couldn’t tell I have a bias). This certification provides manageable guidelines and requirements with teeth that give them credibility. Yes there is more administration and more to think about, but if you are running a company that is sustainable on all three bottom lines, it shouldn’t be a hindrance, more a stepping stool.

So go forth and B Corp.